I cannot speak to others’ ability to remember their D-day and the frightful days, months, and years following as to how every disclosed event truly occurred or words spoken as they actually were said.
However, with the help of others on this site, a new perspective for me to examine has started to emerge. I’m beginning to understand, much, much too late, that my recollections about my wife’s affair is a combination of what she voluntarily disclosed and what I pressed her to involuntary disclose. As I staggered my way through the stages of trickled truths, shock, disbelief and grief, I persuasively blended all information into a bitter tasting, fetid puree, with the added acidic spice of my own torrid imagination which I invented in a desperate attempt to fill in the blanks. As the years slid into decades, I really cannot fully separate the synthesis of these three – voluntarily disclosures, involuntarily disclosures, and imagined disclosures.
If it is true that I am acting based on ruminations that are a combination of facts given, facts forgotten, facts withheld, facts denied, facts remembered, facts misinterpreted, facts imagined, then where does truth exist? Is it fair to my wife to stubbornly cling too and rely on these Nija blended, incongruent ingredients that are now blended facts? Seriously, can one ever un-blend time lapsed truths once they are merged with partial truths and invented lies?
Do not get me wrong, I am a true believer in review for without it, how can we improve? However, as in my case, when my reexamining became chronic and my habitual recall that has for decades resisted proper resolve, what is the possibility of full closure and final reconciliation?
I am not offering answers, just fussing over this one question: Have I been stuck for decades because I chose to rely on the deceit of emulsified facts?
Asterisk
