Why do I often dream about my ex at night? I want to get back together with him, but I don't think it's worth it.

Dear question asker,

I extend a gesture of affectionate embrace.

You have stated that you have been experiencing frequent dreams about your former romantic partner and believe that this is indicative of an increasing affection for him. However, psychoanalytic psychotherapy does not subscribe to this perspective. Dreams are understood to possess profoundly concealed meanings.

It is important to note that dream images are not a reflection of reality; rather, they are a product of the subconscious mind. These images, which can be interpreted, are not based on actual experiences but rather on reasoning and assumptions. Their purpose is to provide mental stimulation relief.

The modification of actual material includes all memory material, which is the sum of the dreamer's experiences, sights, sounds, and emotions prior to the dream. In the dream, it is not simply a matter of recalling facts; rather, it is a process of interweaving one's desires, concerns, guilt, and self-expression. Therefore, it can be argued that a dream is a creative process of consciousness that is guided by the dreamer's intentions and serves to alleviate the mind of its distress.

The creation of imagination and fantasy also directly confronts the dreamer's own ideological distress.

It is therefore recommended that the questioner seeks professional psychological counseling in order to analyze their dreams and gain insight into the messages being conveyed by their subconscious mind.

[How to End a Relationship with Dignity]

In the event of being hurt, the question that occupies the mind is that of identifying the party at fault.

The most straightforward conclusion is that the other person is at fault. The other person's actions have caused the hurt experienced today.

Such thoughts facilitate the healing process.

For example, some individuals may assert that their divorce is a direct consequence of their spouse's irritable disposition. This perspective offers a sense of consolation to the individual in question.

It is, however, acceptable to engage in such introspection, although it is likely that his wife will inquire as to whether he has ever considered the source of her discontent and whether he is aware of the role he has played in it.

"

If both individuals assign blame to the other for the mistake, they may become entrenched in the matter. Due to their inability to agree, many individuals are unable to obtain a divorce, or, after separating, they continue to engage in conflict, resurrecting old grievances, which exacerbates the damage.

The process of moving on from a relationship involves five distinct stages, which can be conceptualised as follows: denial, anger, bargaining, disappointment and finally acceptance.

The most challenging aspect is navigating the three stages that lie between the initial recognition of the situation and the eventual acceptance of its conclusion.

The anger stage is characterized by a lack of clarity regarding the specific events that transpired, accompanied by a strong sense of hurt and anger.

The bargaining stage is characterised by the gradual realisation of the underlying problem, accompanied by a simultaneous sense of ambivalence regarding the potential for reconciliation.

Subsequently, one encounters the disappointment stage, during which the futility of attempting to salvage the situation becomes apparent.

The central question that pervades these stages is consistently "Whose fault is it?" As an individual shifts their perspective on this question, they gradually make progress.

There are multiple stages, some of which are lengthy and others relatively brief. The latter can persist for a year or two, or even longer. During this period, an individual may experience a prolonged emotional state.

The objective is to mitigate distress during the intermediate stages and to foster acceptance and reconciliation as expeditiously as feasible.

We will now examine the anger stage.

In the event of a significant setback, the individual will initially deny the occurrence and subsequently exhibit anger. During this phase, they will display heightened aggression.

If one expresses one's anger verbally, the question that is likely to be posed is, "Why me?"

"

People have a psychological need, known as the "assumption of fairness," which prompts them to seek a rationale when they experience distress.

There must be a rationale behind this occurrence; it is either the result of an action or inaction on the part of the individual in question, or it is the result of an action or inaction on the part of the individual in question.

This is an internal psychological need for a sense of fairness.

The question of why is likely to arise regardless of whether one was the initiator of the separation or the recipient of the dissolution of the relationship. The pain experienced will inevitably prompt the question: Why did this have to happen to me?

A fundamental grasp of reason is essential for maintaining one's belief in the world.

The most straightforward explanation is that the other party is incorrect.

The objective at this stage is to transition from a focus on one's own circumstances to a recognition that external factors may also have contributed to the situation. This involves acknowledging that the individual may have been misguided and that the responsibility for the outcome may lie with another party. It is also important to recognize that the individual's circumstances may have coincided with the influence of this other party. This realization often coincides with the onset of anger.

In one case, the wife complained on stage about her husband, stating that he had become worse over the years after they were married. The counselor inquired about her role in this deterioration.

My wife then paused for a moment and stated, "I didn't do anything." It is noteworthy that she employed the same linguistic construction as previously described.

This is representative of the language typically employed during the anger stage.

The objective is to remove oneself from the equation. It is not necessary to recount the facts; rather, it is sufficient to highlight one's positive contributions and identify areas of concern. In essence, one should not assume responsibility for the breakdown of the relationship.

This is my primary psychological need at this time. The specific role of the other person's actions in the situation is inconsequential.

This process results in the formation of a multitude of incomprehensible, irrational, unscrupulous, and audacious individuals. Our comprehension of these individuals ceases at this point, recognizing their profound culpability and implausibility.

One is disinclined to pursue further understanding. One has already identified a rationale: the other person is at fault, and one can simply disengage from the relationship.

The act of breaking up with this attitude is not without its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

From the perspective of decision-making, it has its advantages. It provides a compelling rationale for the dissolution of the relationship and instills a sense of resolve in the decision to end it.

However, there is a cost associated with anger as well.

The greatest consequence of this approach is that it removes us from the obligations inherent to a relationship. Absent responsibility, there is no basis for rights. This suggests that the ability to achieve happiness in the next relationship depends entirely on whether we are fortunate enough to meet the next person who can provide it.

In my own case, I am unable to grasp the situation.

Furthermore, initiating a breakup in this manner is likely to evoke a negative emotional response from the other person. The act of breaking up with someone while simultaneously forcing them to admit that the dissolution of the relationship is their fault is likely to be perceived as hostile and disrespectful.

However, it is unclear why the other person should be expected to admit fault. It is equally plausible that they may hold the same negative opinion of you, leading to further conflict.

In such a situation, each party offers a multitude of reasons for the dissolution of the relationship, and neither is willing to concede fault. This kind of breakup often evokes laughter, as it is unclear whether it is a genuine separation or a debate in the name of breaking up.

It is therefore inadvisable to pursue a breakup at this juncture.

The optimal course of action is as follows:

First, one can disassociate oneself from the situation and acknowledge the other party's perspective. If the individual in question exhibits violent or unfaithful behavior, it is evident that they are the primary contributor to the issue at hand.

Nevertheless, even if there is a discrepancy between the personalities involved, it is acceptable to initially attribute responsibility to the other party.

Secondly, while maintaining this attribution, it is necessary to conduct a review of the relationship. This entails examining one's position within the relationship and posing the following question: "I am not at fault," while simultaneously inquiring, "What did I do?"

Inquiry into one's own actions is not a form of self-criticism; rather, it is a method of self-reflection that can enhance one's subjective initiative.

The individual in question may exhibit undesirable characteristics, yet it is imperative to ascertain how one might have been deceived prior to the nuptials. How might one identify such a person with greater alacrity in the future?

Furthermore, it is not possible to prevent the other party from making mistakes. However, it is possible to take action to avoid further injury when a mistake is made. Thinking about these things will make you more confident in yourself.

In the aforementioned example, the counselor initiated a review by inquiring about the wife's experiences. He asked her, "Your husband has been treating you worse and worse over the years," which resonated with her anger. He then stated, "And you do nothing about it." He focused on the wife's actions, first acknowledging her lack of fault and then examining her conduct.

Once the process of reflection has commenced, it progresses to the subsequent stage, bargaining.

Once bargaining commences, the urge to terminate the relationship is less pronounced. Bargaining, which literally signifies the act of attempting to negotiate a more favourable outcome, is concerned with the possibility of achieving a superior result.

This is due to the fact that you are attempting to assume a greater degree of responsibility within the relationship.

When one perceives the entirety of a situation as the result of the other person's actions, one is unable to take responsibility for one's own role in the matter and thus incapable of addressing the underlying issues. As previously stated, the other person's behavior may be perceived as unreasonable, irrational, unintelligent, or unscrupulous.

It is not your fault; you simply encountered this erratic individual.

Upon entering the bargaining stage, however, one begins to consider the possibilities for alternative courses of action.

For example, one might communicate with the other party, "Could we perhaps try a different approach?"

This sentence should not be underestimated. It demonstrates that the individual in question has progressed beyond a state of anger, wherein they are reluctant to engage in communication but instead choose to release their frustrations.

At this juncture, the objective is to substantiate one's own rectitude. It is sufficient for the individual to perceive the other person as malevolent.

However, upon further reflection, one might inquire as to the underlying causes of this person's problematic behavior.

One might inquire whether there is something inherently problematic about the individual in question, or whether their actions are the result of a specific set of circumstances or motivations. In light of this, it might be worthwhile to consider whether further communication could prove beneficial.

Has the individual now progressed to the bargaining stage?

Although it may appear to be a burdensome process, it is, in fact, an essential step in defining one's own capabilities.

There are two distinct forms of bargaining. The first is when one learns something new from the exchange of ideas and is motivated to try it out. After implementing the new approach, one discovers that it is effective, leading to a mutually satisfactory resolution.

Naturally, all parties involved are satisfied with the outcome.

In another situation, despite having attempted all the recommended courses of action, the desired outcome remains unattainable. However, the individual in question remains reluctant to concede defeat. Instead, they cling to a residual hope that they have not yet tried everything possible, or perhaps that they have not tried hard enough.

At this juncture, the act of bargaining becomes a source of distress and a new point of contention.

One might inquire as to the reason for this phenomenon.

During the bargaining stage, the individual reaffirms their ability to act autonomously, asking themselves, "What else can I do?" This process makes the matter personally relevant to the individual.

The dissolution of the relationship is no longer the result of unilateral decision-making by a partner exhibiting problematic behavior. Instead, the individual assumes responsibility for the outcome.

At this juncture, one must concede defeat and assume responsibility for the outcome. Despite one's best efforts, the result remains unchanged.

The shock experienced includes a sense of powerlessness.

One may experience disappointment and question one's actions, wondering if there is something one could have done differently or if one is simply unsuited to intimate relationships.

"What if one were to alter one's perspective and find that the outcome remains unchanged?"

One may experience feelings of disappointment in oneself, but this is an essential aspect of personal growth. Having the courage to acknowledge one's limitations and accept defeat is a crucial step in this process. While this stage may induce feelings of depression, it also represents a crucial turning point in one's journey towards self-discovery and resilience.

This marks the transition to the subsequent phase, characterized by feelings of disappointment.

Disappointment represents the final stage in the process of accepting a situation. It is experienced when one realizes that despite having exerted considerable effort, the desired outcome remains unattainable.

One realizes that this is the extent of one's power. One must relinquish the assumption of omnipotence in a relationship.

One must acknowledge that this is beyond one's capabilities.

Although it may initially seem discouraging, this realization can be a positive step forward. Why?

Given that you have observed your capabilities and exercised them, and given that the outcome was unsuccessful, it is evident that this was not a suitable outcome. It would be beneficial to recognize this fact at an earlier stage.

Upon achieving clarity, one realizes that there is no need to accept anything. One's ability to influence outcomes is limited, and one's role is that of an ordinary individual.

Following the experience of profound disappointment, one reaches the stage of acceptance. The emotion that is typically experienced at this juncture is grief.

This is not a typical form of grief. It is an emotional state that arises when an individual has experienced a loss and has come to accept that it cannot be undone.

A grieving person will shed many tears, but there is no hatred, only a sense of helplessness. The experience can be described as a nostalgic look back at the past and a lament for the impermanence of things.

The emotional experience of grief and subsequent dissolution of a relationship differs from the emotional experience of anger and subsequent dissolution of a relationship. Individuals experiencing grief often cease to blame the other person and instead offer an apology, such as, "I'm sorry, it's my fault. I tried my best, but there really was nothing I could do."

Such statements typically indicate that the individual in question is genuinely motivated to move forward.

This is indicative of a positive development. A relationship that is nearing its conclusion will no longer be mired in a stalemate of contention over the relative merits of each party.

The conclusion of the relationship renders the question of who is right and who is wrong moot. What matters now is moving on.

Furthermore, the process of moving on necessitates a certain degree of fortitude. It requires the complete dissolution of the relationship.

Some individuals assert that there is nothing to be gained from continuing a relationship that is already so unsatisfactory.

It is important to note that painful relationships can also have intrinsic value. In some cases, individuals may prefer to remain in a painful relationship due to the sense of security it provides, despite the presence of negative factors.

I can justify my circumstances by stating, "This is the result of my interactions with this individual, and he has hindered my ability to improve." This provides a degree of self-preservation.

It is only through the process of grief that we gain the courage to relinquish the protective measures we have employed. Henceforth, I will no longer ascribe responsibility for my happiness to a failed relationship. If a relationship cannot provide happiness, I will seek it elsewhere.

There is no guarantee that the desired outcome will be achieved, but it is nevertheless worth attempting. Should the desired outcome not be attained, it is possible to draw upon sufficient inner strength to cope with the resulting disappointment.

It is my hope that all individuals will be able to develop this capacity.

In conclusion, the dissolution of a relationship is an emotionally turbulent process.

Initially, it is common to be reluctant to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Once the realization of the relationship's conclusion is reached, feelings of anger may emerge. This is often accompanied by the assertion that the responsibility lies with the other party, rather than oneself.

Subsequently, the individual may engage in bargaining, attempting to rehash the situation and contemplating alternative courses of action.

Upon reaffirming that there is no feasible way to alter the reality of the situation, one may experience a profound sense of grief. This often manifests as a period of intense emotional distress, accompanied by the acknowledgment that despite one's best efforts, the outcome remains unchangeable.

Upon reaching this state, one will no longer blame others. It is important to accept the situation, let go of any obsessive thoughts, and continue to explore ways to enhance one's happiness in the future.

I am a psychological counselor, Zhang Huili. It is my hope that my response will prove beneficial to you. Should you find it useful, I would be grateful if you would indicate your appreciation by clicking the "like" button.