When I tell people that I have been living for 3 years without a loved one and already felt that the loss had happened long ago within the first year, they ask me whether I did not have a good relationship with my loved one: "Do you not miss them?"
I wondered where that assumption, or rather projection, comes from. I find it interesting to explore the difference between my inner life (the intensity of the love says nothing about the intensity of grief) and the projection of others.
I acknowledge that I am different from many people and stereotypes; I have never gone through how others picture grief. I have never isolated myself, I have not been crying in a dark corner after the loss. I am not, nor have been trapped in bereavement. I do not view loss as an isolated phenomenon; not as something that occurs with death and slowly fades within a sense of time.
The multifaceted face and ambiguous facets of grief may be uncomfortable. The simplistic yet popular view may be that the bereaved one should visibly suffer, more so within the first months and if not, the depth of love and attachment are questioned.
I have been the same before and after loss, nothing changed who I am. In my view of the universe, loss is not something that needs to be parted with and grief not to be buried. I reject the idea of seeing loss as a problematic concept from which one should recover to reach a state of closure. I reject the concept of "Growth through suffering".
Before their death, I had arrived at continuing bonds. I had already integrated the loss of life into my life before death. There is no detachment; the life of my loved one is integrated into my life.
To be clear, death is not loss in itself. The circumstances surrounding death give loss a highly contextual meaning. Seeing a loved one suffer or losing their independence is a loss that is (sadly) hardly viewed as bereavement while it is the main event of mourning.
To me, life is not inherently of value after loss. I hold this view that people do not actually move on, but act subconsciously or even unconsciously and reason toward the act of deliberate progress. I feel that the progression people talk about ("You have to move on") is a void truism and not more than what they like to believe.
Overall, I view humans as individuals who like to believe that living is a conscious act of progress, when random phenomena are underestimated.
To me, the "Moving on" perspective is a performative act that individuals use to make their reality a predictable concept. People do not move on; they keep an internal relationship with their loved ones (or even non-loved ones, as complicated relationships are highly disruptive and may lead to fragmented grief). Moving on is a social construct, a script, rather than a psychological reality. People integrate losses (not solely death-related, but also the loss of friendships, a love life and occupations) into life over reaching full closure.
In the days after loss, I scared a few people off by redirecting the statement that "One should move on". They were uncomfortable with my questioning. I believe that I confronted their sense of (scripted) security, their shielding against the inconvenient reality.
It all made sense when I realized that I was born an existentialist.
Even from a young age, I was always confused about why people tend to find a career, an estate and the obligatory holidays the factors of their success in life.I believed everyone played a role and have at times even felt isolated/lonely because of that- I could not envision how that was the epitome of living.
I found out that I am different in that I reject the idea, the framework of control and life as a predictable act of progression in a reality of randomness. I have always had this detachment of performative, normative expectations that people entertain to have a sense of control on existence, as opposed to freedom.
