On the same Tuesday, a woman drafts a message asking whether they moved too fast, and forwards a document to her lawyer with a note that says do not concede this one.
She tells her sister she is losing her mind.
She is not. She is holding two positions at once, which is an ordinary property of people and only feels like madness because of an assumption she is carrying — that a person is supposed to be one thing with one view.
An argument, not a symptom
It is more accurate, and considerably more useful, to hear the contradiction as several positions being held by different parts of one person, each with a job.
The part drafting the message is not stupid and has not forgotten what happened. It is doing something specific: protecting an attachment, and with it fifteen years of shared history that will be diminished if the whole thing gets written off as a mistake. That is worth protecting. Somebody has to hold it.
The part instructing the lawyer is not cold. It is protecting a future, a bank balance and a person who has already been hurt once. That is worth protecting too.
Read that way, Tuesday is not a breakdown. It is two protectors doing their jobs on the same day, neither able to hear the other.
Why the loudest position is not the truest
Most people resolve this by picking a side, usually whichever is louder that week, and then treating the other as weakness or as evidence they have not accepted reality.
That is where it goes wrong. Volume in an internal argument is not a measure of accuracy. It is a measure of alarm. A position that shouts is usually the one that is most frightened, which makes it the one most in need of hearing and the one least suited to setting policy.
The woman who decides "the real me wants him back, the rest is just anger" has made a decision on the basis of loudness. So has the woman who decides "the real me is done, the softness is pathetic". Both have thrown away information.
A third position
The useful move is neither picking a side nor splitting the difference. It is finding the vantage point from which both can be heard without either taking the wheel.
From there the sentence changes shape. Not I want him back and not I am completely done, but something closer to: a part of me is grieving what we had and does not want it to have meant nothing, and a part of me is protecting what is left, and both of those are mine.
That sentence is longer and less satisfying and considerably more accurate. It also has a practical advantage: it does not commit you to anything at eleven at night.
Curiosity does the work that argument cannot
Parts that are being fought tend to escalate. Parts that are being listened to tend to settle — not because they get their way, but because the thing they were straining to communicate has landed.
So the question is not how do I get rid of this feeling. It is what is this part afraid will happen if it stops. The part that wants to reach out is often afraid that the years will be erased. The part that wants to win is often afraid that softness will be punished again.
Neither fear is unreasonable. Both can be acknowledged without either being obeyed.
One thing you can do this week
Next time the two positions collide, take a sheet of paper and give each one a column. Let each state its case in the first person, in its own words, without the other interrupting.
Ten minutes. Then read both columns and ask one question of each: what are you protecting?
You are not deciding anything. Deciding is what happens after both have been heard, and much of the exhaustion in divorce comes from trying to decide while an unheard part keeps reopening the file.
The short version
- Contradictory feelings about a divorce are ordinary, not evidence of confusion.
- Each position is protecting something real — usually the past on one side, the future on the other.
- The loudest position is the most alarmed, not the most accurate.
- Fighting a part escalates it; hearing what it protects tends to settle it.
- Decisions made while a part is unheard get reopened, which is where much of the exhaustion comes from.
Educational content, not therapy. Parts work is done properly with a trained clinician, particularly where trauma is involved; what is described here is a way of understanding your own reactions, not a treatment.
Frequently asked questions
Why do I miss my ex and resent him at the same time?
Because different parts of you are protecting different things. One is protecting an attachment and the meaning of the years invested; another is protecting your future and your safety. Both can be active in the same day without either being false.
Does wanting my ex back mean I should reconcile?
It is not sufficient evidence on its own. The wish usually belongs to a part protecting the history and the attachment, which is real but is not the same as an assessment of whether the relationship was workable. Decisions made on the loudest feeling tend to get reopened.
What is parts work?
It is a way of understanding internal conflict as several positions within one person, each carrying a protective job, rather than as inconsistency. In clinical settings it is a structured therapeutic approach; used informally it is mainly a more accurate way of hearing yourself.
How do I stop feeling so conflicted about my divorce?
Usually not by picking a side. Conflict tends to persist while a position is unheard, because that position keeps reasserting itself. Letting each state what it is protecting reduces the internal argument more reliably than overruling it does.
Take the next step
Explore the course that goes deeper on this — or unlock the full library with membership.
Beyond the Break — divorce recovery course See membership