Elena- ascending dialogue

64. Elena - April 20, 2010 [Edit]
Hi Ton,

The more I look at the trap we’re in, the clearer it becomes that a descending discussion is marked by trespassing people’s boundaries on the personal sphere. That when we become defensive-aggressive, we tread on each other’s being, like cattle run lose. What rules could keep a conversation, a dialogue ascending even if the participants don’t agree?

If we look at the fofblog, people don’t tread on each other’s personal sphere but it is a conversation going nowhere, it is a descending, dying dialogue, not because they don’t agree but because they can’t dialogue. They all agreed to agree. Like in cults.
While here you and I are also in a descending octave because we are going into the personal sphere without each being able to “hold the dream above”, or the principle of respect and love. I’m hurt, you’re hurt and we keep hurting each other.

Beyond us what I find vicious about the conversation is that your position is that you don’t have to supply it with anything else and can stand on the personal attack per se leaving no room for your self or mine. Where is the beauty inside if you’re not willing to let it out? So even when I try to bring other beauties to the conversation and point out that you simply haven’t understood me, you call me names like petty and fail to add anything because you think it’s not worth it.

Like that it becomes a clear descending octave because for a dialogue the supply of life needs to come from both parties and your position is that I have to supply what I have, that you aren’t here to give me anything, inform me of anything and express these things with derogatory remarks such as spoon feeding me, or smooching my ass, etc. Which is what you did all along in the fofblog that led to my being banned no matter how unbelievable that is.

The “supply of life” in a dialogue has various ingredients which I am just beginning to explore and I think again we meet with a threefold nature of the activity. One is one’s self or ego in the conversation, the other is what one is willing to bring to it and the third how one adds and adds and adds without letting it fall because both partners feed each other like birds flying in groups in which the bird ahead “sustains” the bird behind with the beating of his wings. It’s actually the same as in a successful or unsuccessful marriage.

When both of our beings are low, we both pull the conversation down and each other as much and that’s one vicious scenario. The other one is when one of the participants provides life repeatedly and the other one just eats it up, not acknowledging there is anything of value, destroying all she or he can and not recognizing anything positive or adding something positive. Then the egos eat at each other and hurt each other endlessly with two unhappy enemies as a result and an insured divorce.

The only way I think it is possible to avoid that is by understanding what is happening, clearing each other out and our selves within, remembering that we actually care for each other and would like to dialogue and avoiding to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

If we manage to separate our selves from the painfully personal sphere somewhat and keep adding our point of view with “life” then something from the outside might be able to sculpt the inside without it being a direct blow from one to the other. I don’t know that that is possible, maybe Socrates’ dialogues are pointing at that beautifully, but I am certainly no expert at it and would love to try it. Would you?

I am hurt by you. I am angry. I wish you to feel my pain for having been banned unjustly and acknowledge it. I wish you to take responsibility for what you did and act on it and clear me where I am clear in the fofblog and you are not willing to do that so our conversation here is tainted with that antecedent. Is it worth continuing to talk and try to overcome that, which is difficult because I have a strong desire to not let go unless you protest the banning or at least recognize your mistreatment or shall we just leave it so that we don’t continue to hurt each other since what you are doing is justifying your action trying to get me to act abusive so that you can say that I am just a crazy lunatic that deserved it.

I feel I’ve been trying to overcome the difficulty for some time now but when I get a response that thinks saying you don’t understand what I am trying to say is a personal attack and then call me petty, or that I want you to smooosch my ass or don’t do my homework and such language or that you won’t acknowledge the text itself and the life in it because I’ll attack you, I am loosing the interest, for it does hurt every time and that is not what I am here for. It not only doesn’t add anything to the conversation, it kills the effort made. I am a great deal more serious here than you are really willing to grant me and that dignity that you felt in my last post is what I am after. The willingness to sit with each other in the Public Square, sharing our lives while the Sun sets bright is what I would like, not the two alcoholics screaming at each other around the fountain while the others smile. I’ve done that all too much Ton, perhaps it is good for you in this time of your life, you’re very good at it, but I didn’t do it enough in the Fellowship cult, overdid it in the fofblog the first time and was already done with it when I joined the second time so it is not what I am going to indulge in here.

Please allow us to be our selves and grow or let’s move out of each other’s way as you said, wishing each other well. If we learn to dialogue we might actually learn to keep the beauty of a marriage alive each in our own lives.