VergilHS

Okay, to me, that just means the reverse is also true. Something could have happened 5 years ago and still hurt like it happened 5 days ago. With such scenario, isn't it rather demeaning to the perception of one's experiences to just say "it's still in the past - right?".

Aight, makes sense. It's just curiosity speaking since I don't think such an extreme example as I have given would even really happen. It's a huge "what if" scenario really. To me, if someone's 5 year old feelings of hurt still feel like they happened 5 days ago, it's potentially an extremely difficult perception to change, even with the help of a professional.

It's just the "it's in the past" that irks me. I find the very phrase weird, it's meant to reduce what we perceive, to lessen what we feel, to show the bigger picture. It works well as far as painting the future is concerned IMO. Works well in terms of putting something into a timeline. As far as the past goes, it really gives me a less positive vibe. It says to me "The hurt you felt will be of lesser importance if you decide to make it of lesser importance. Your perception can be changed." But should it? Why sweep it all under the rug "the past"? Wouldn't it be of bigger importance to first ask why someone perceived their hurt a certain way before going the "it's still in the past" road? Sorry if this not easy to read, English is not my first language and this is something I'm quite curious about since I never thought the phrase "it's in the past" could be of much help in understanding, well, the past.