I was shaking after 4 hours without an answer to my text
A personal exploration of insecure attachment reactions when a partner doesn’t respond, and an invitation to Radical Honesty practice.
2025-08-07A personal reflection on facing the two-choice dilemma at the brink of divorce and choosing growth over escape.
I was standing at the edge of the crater, staring into the abyss of divorce.
Would I call a divorce lawyer tomorrow - or take a step back from the edge?
Was this a triggered reaction from old trauma… or something I truly couldn’t live with?
I looked into the abyss all night.
I slept on it.
And in the
morning, I was ready - not to change my relationship status, but to
change myself.
I chose the painful growth path.
To reclaim my life from my
triggers.
To not let my discomfort win.
There were things I thought I’d never have to give up - expectations I
held for my wife that felt foundational.
But here I was.
Grow
or give up.
I had faced what David Schnarch calls the two-choice dilemma.
It
shows up when I stop avoiding the inevitable - when I finally have to
choose:
Change my own mindset… or leave the relationship.
All along, I’d been trying to change the other person.
That
avenue was exhausted.
Now I stood at the fork in the road.
I
could keep circling the same arguments, saying:
“If only you
would…”
Then I wouldn’t have to change.
Then I wouldn’t have
to choose.
But the two-choice dilemma isn’t a weapon. It’s a scalpel.
It
peels away everything - justifications, self-deceptions, fantasy -
until two options remain:
Undeniably clear. Uncomfortably
true.
“Can I change me… or must I leave the relationship?”
Where most people get tripped up is stopping too soon.
They
settle on a dramatic pair of options that feel true.
That’s where
false dichotomy sneaks in.
As one client told me:
“Either I stay married and lose myself, or
I leave and finally get to be me.”
It sounds crisp. But it’s
probably not true.
What if the real work is to be himself inside
the marriage?
To stop leaking autonomy.
To stop outsourcing
self-worth.
To actually claim his identity.
And then - from
that solid ground - revisit the question of staying or leaving.
Maybe it’s still a “no” to the marriage.
Or maybe he sees:
It
wasn’t the marriage that had to change.
It was his stance inside
it.
Here’s the punchline:
Answers are easy. Asking the right
questions is hard.
For me, the two-choice dilemma shows up at critical mass.
When
the rupture is real.
When “divorce” gets said out loud.
It
becomes an inflection point.
Like Mike Oldfield sings in
Nuclear:
“Standing on the edge of the crater, staring into the
abyss.”
That’s what it feels like.
On one side:
Eat my pride. Change my mind. Let go of my ego.
On
the other:
Blow it all up. Watch my son grow up from a distance.
When the options are that stark, I often realize:
I can change my
mind.
And once I see the whole picture, it’s not that hard.
Each
time I face one of these dilemmas - truly face it - I grow more
flexible.
I add plasticity to my thinking.
My ego gets less
brittle.
And I update my self-myth.
That’s the real work.
Not
choosing the “right” path - but seeing, with full honesty, which two
paths actually exist.
Here’s the deeper twist:
When I hold my ground - when I refuse to
betray myself just to preserve the relationship -
Then my partner
can no longer avoid her own two-choice dilemma.
As long as I’m
the one bending, she doesn’t have to choose.
But when I stop
bending, her reckoning arrives.
That’s the beauty - and the
danger - of the two-choice moment.
At the peak of the rollercoaster, some people jump off the ride.
Not
because they have to - but because they don’t know how to stay.
A good divorce is possible.
But it’s not born from panic.
It
is not a decision made in anger and frustration
A good divorce is
between two people who have done the work - who’ve let their emotions
flow through them - and who have come out on the other side.
A
good divorce comes from two regulated adults, who’ve exhausted their
creative options,
and who can look each other in the eye and
say:
“We really tried.”
We’re talking about this in the Radical Sincerity Fellowship this
week.
Two-choice dilemmas vs False dichotomies.
How to tell
the difference - and how to stop making fear-based decisions that keep
you stuck.
Bring your story. Or just learn to recognize the
signs.
Either way - you’ll leave clearer than you came.
By Jesper Jurcenoks
A personal exploration of insecure attachment reactions when a partner doesn’t respond, and an invitation to Radical Honesty practice.
2025-08-07A personal account of how using a quick mobile game for anxiety relief spiraled into addictive behavior and the strategies used to reclaim balance.
2025-07-16Exploring Orestes’ myth as a metaphor for moral injury and the internal torment of impossible decisions.
2025-07-15The myth of Orpheus and Eurydice highlights the pivotal moment when trust falters and love is lost forever.
2025-07-12The myth of Echo shows how mirroring others and losing your own voice can leave you faded - and how codependency can turn you into an echo in your own life.
2025-07-09Jesper Jurcenoks guides you through self-inquiry and compassionate consent before offering sensitive feedback with Radical Honesty.
2025-07-06Exploring why we hesitate to speak our truth and how practicing honesty in safe spaces can rebuild connection.
2025-07-01A modern retelling of Narcissus’s myth shows how waiting for validation in digital mirrors leaves us empty and disconnected.
2025-06-29Albert Camus reframes the myth of Sisyphus to illustrate how modern distractions deplete our emotional energy, turning everyday struggles into endless cycles.
2025-06-26Jesper Jurcenoks reflects on 1.5 years of transformation inside the Radical Honesty Institute - and shares the personal dream he's building through Radical Sincerity.
2025-05-01A personal narrative about embracing radical honesty, reconnecting with family, and finding truth amidst loss and regret.
2025-02-25