Elena's acknowledgement and The self and the mind in dialogue

29. Elena - May 1, 2010 

Hi again Ton,


I like your image of the sandbox. It is always wonderful when an individual finds a medium through which to express their soul. 

Didn’t move an inch with that post, you’re simply repeating yourself:
1. Elena: Don’t use we
2. This is Elena’s sandbox with nothing of value in it
3. Elena is in denial
4. I won’t prove my points with actual citations, Elena do your homework
5. Elena got banned because she can’t take responsibility for herself?
6. Elena does not have the level of development to understand me
7. Elena is stuck
8. Elena is deranged
9. Elena is a legend in her deranged imagination.

I think I’ve acknowledge all your points. They are very clear. Of course there is very little dialogue or dignity here but as long as you keep the smoosh your ass tone under control you can state your opinions even if I don't agree.

I was working on the subject in the meantime, here it is for your or my own pleasure and the benefit of understanding vices in dialogue in the future.

I would like to reconstruct our relationship Ton to see if we can find where the conflict began.

As I recall it was going pretty well at the beginning. You had a mouthful of praise for my posts and then the interaction began to get sour. How exactly did that happen?

One aspect I recall is that you kept offering posts from other authors and I kept questioning them. Them, not you, but of course, there is always a questioning of our selves when what we offer is questioned. We are not totally separate. We can keep these two instances in mind: Our self and our ideas. One belongs to the realm of the I and the second to the realm of the mind.

The other moment I recall and I think that is when the connection really broke off was when you wrote to me a fairly loving post but somewhat dismissive and I answered saying that you were behaving like my husbands and that you were perhaps in love with me. My memory is not all that great but those are my perceptions today and I think it was in that moment when I totally lost you. After that your posts have been openly aggressive. After that a lot of aggression started coming my way from many corners of the blog and I did not delay my own aggressions: that is what I apologized for when I returned to the blog.

What I would like to take a look at here is something beyond that and it is the invasion of our personal spheres and I am interested in doing this because I am convinced that people are not dialoguing today because we don’t know how to reunite all these spheres with dignity.

When I pointed out that you were behaving like my husbands I think I definitely invaded your personal sphere and that you unconsciously invaded mine when you talked to me like my husbands. I also think that there was a great deal of love and that is why our connection has turned so bitter for you. There is nothing as bitter as love turned on itself. I probably didn’t have enough tact or diplomacy in dealing with your approach but frankly I don’t think you were having much either.

For me this is the real problem behind our interchanges. I think it is a legitimate problem and one worth addressing and overcoming.

What I am attempting is not easy. There are many blind areas. Exactly how things interface is not clear so if you could help rather than deny, it would perhaps lead us out into clearer avenues.

I believe in every interaction we are actually bringing the whole of our conscious and unconscious selves into the arena and we reflect and project not only what is in the moment but everything before it. When I speak to you in the arena of ideas the “sphere of the mind” expresses itself and at the same time the “sphere of the self” actualizes itself.

They are so mutually connected that at this point I am pretty convinced that the ideas we share are only a reflection of our consciousness, understanding consciousness as the level of development of our being.

This is a wonderful and new understanding for me because it explains things. In other words, consciousness as a quality of the self is one arena and consciousness as what the mind can deal with, shed light on is another arena. No, that’s not quite right, let me try again: consciousness as a quality of the self, an inherent characteristic of being is one reality and what the mind can grasp and shed light on is directly connected to that state of consciousness. They are strongly connected but different and what would be worth developing is the understanding of how those instances express themselves in our actual lives and conversations.

Since human beings are all in different states of consciousness it is not surprising that we disagree so often. Since most of us are hurt in so many areas, it is not surprising that we defend and attack each other.

Our minds cannot understand what our I is unable to actualize and even if the reasoning makes sense, we’ll reject the person stating it because we are unwilling and unable to address the reasoning rationally or acknowledge that we are simply unable to understand each other.

This is were power comes in. If we were able to simply agree to disagree and left the conversation with dignity on both parts, that would be a huge step in overcoming the misunderstanding but instead of doing that the lack of agreement tends to fall in the sphere of the self and people are “offended” by not finding agreement. People who are in a condition of vulnerability as I was during the first period of the blog will take the disagreement and all its expressions such as ridiculing, ignoring and insulting as much as misinterpreting as attacks on their self and won’t be able to take their truth with themselves without attacking back which is what I did and what I apologized for.
The second time I participated in the fofblog, I was not as vulnerable, I retrieved from the conversation with you, Ton, thanking you and then I pointed out that there was an emotional manipulation on your part. There was no insult or aggression but a deep questioning. Saying that it was similar to Robert’s emotional manipulation was not an insult but a reality. In Robert the mechanism is that people must work and work and work many lifetimes to be admitted in his realm and in Ton’s behavior it was the same mechanism: you’re not good enough, you need to do your homework, I am not here to help you, you have to work on yourself to deserve being accepted all this with a very aggressive intonation and direct insult stating that I was not being honest.

Where have I had expressions of power in my communications on the fofblog? There are so many of them that it would be impossible to enumerate them but there was particularly such expression when I gave up trying to reach an understanding or a harmony. I just blurted it all out and reaffirmed our separation calling everyone fascists that were simply avoiding the need to act legally against the Fellowship. There were also aspects of it whenever I tried to affirm and reaffirm what I was saying not only in the hope that the ideas would be assessed and valued but with the desperate need to be personally valued. Had I been able to understand that not everyone in the fofblog agreed or was able to act against the Fellowship and left it there without becoming “identified” with their position as a rejection of my self, I would not have acted aggressively in return but I was myself so vulnerable that any disagreement was taken personally and perceived as offensive. THAT is what happens to people when they are in very vulnerable conditions. If we take to the extreme, we can understand somewhat the process that can eventually lead them to suicide or homicide. The disconnectedness is such that they end up hopelessly isolated and suicide becomes the act of renunciation or homicide the final protest or both when the individuals kill then commit suicide.

This is happening in all spheres of society: schools, offices, corporations and even restaurants. That is why I am so eager in studying these processes Ton. Not to point you out but to point to us how we reach such misunderstanding.

I am far from finished. I acknowledge that my behavior before I was banned the first time in the fofblog was obnoxious to say the least but I also affirm that there was obnoxious behavior from most people and that I was banned not because of the obnoxious behaviors that we all shared but because the reasoning that I presented wasn’t acceptable to the participants. What they were unable to deconstruct was the ideological presentation that I offered and they banned me because they used power to discard me personally proving incapable of deconstructing ideologically what I was presenting. This was also the reason for my second banning that can be seen clearly: I was never aggressive in my second participation and yet I was banned and not those who were openly aggressive. What was simply reaffirmed was the different ideological positions and the use of power to ban a participant.

All those facts matter to me personally because it is a present reality that I am being banned but beyond those facts what matters is that we understand these mechanisms of power and lovelessness in our interactions. They happen all the time wherever we are.

These analysis is crucial because today it is important for me to be clear about the spheres in which our misunderstanding lives itself out. When I realize that you and those in the fofblog cannot embrace me emotionally and respect me beyond my ideology and give me a platform to speak I can free my self from the realm of our selves and accept that you cannot love me because we do not agree ideologically. In BANNING me, what you people are doing is attacking my self, proving unwilling to address the ideology which is what you Ton have consistently done both here and there. I on the contrary state here that I will ban you if you keep attacking me personally and not addressing the ideology or ideas presented, which you consistently avoid and again and again resort to a personal attack on my inner condition. They are completely opposite approaches and THAT is why you have some guarantees in the public square. You will not get banned if you don't act against mine or other people's dignity.


You're repeating the same ideas in your last post: 

to continually return to this picture you are painting of yourself as “victim” — what is this “feeding” within you elena ?

this ‘victim’ mentality that you return to over and over again has to do with an inflated ego… it’s a variation on a theme of the ‘martyr’ complex which (inversely) feeds an overly-inflated self-perception… this defensive/aggressive behavior loop that is so intimately connected to your self-perceived ‘victimhood,’ is simply another form of self-aggrandizing in this sense: if you feel you’re not getting the positive recognition, the praise and the adulation you believe you ‘deserve’ for being so brilliant, for being so ‘special’ — then you’ll get the ‘specialized’ attention you crave through a negative role as the self-perceived victim… this mentality serves as a ‘compensatory mechanism.’ you see elena, i don’t perceive you as a victim at all, quite the contrary… but i do think you portray yourself in such a manner in order to draw attention to yourself.”————

What is clear here is that you again resort to the personal arena, the “victim” characterization but look at this statement:

“you see elena, i don’t perceive you as a victim at all, quite the contrary…”

This very significant statement is the most crucial statement in every single one of your posts. In it what you are stating is that you cannot perceive or are willing to address the fact that it was I who was banned after your and Nigel’s aggressive attacks. This is what exposes the state of denial that you are in.

All throughout the conversation there you were unable to address the specific ideological affirmations that I offered and limited yourself to personal attacks on my needing to research more and even be HONEST to deserve a treatment of equality, respect and dignity and not a questioning technique proper of the inquisition!

So what we’ll do here is that as a moderator I will acknowledge what you have said, I will point out that you have repeatedly and clearly stated that Elena’s personal sphere is that of a victim and I will ask you to address the following facts if we are to move forward in the conversation:

1. Do you accept that your tone has repeatedly been ridiculing, patronizing and as such offensive?
2. Are you aware that you are unable to address the ideology and intention behind the statements?
3. Do you realize that you are denying the fact that Elena was banned and is therefore according to her the victim of an abuse?
4. What arguments and facts do you have to prove that the banning was not abusive of Elena’s right to participate in a public blog?
5. What statements by Elena personally offended you besides her affirming that you were being manipulative like Robert?
6. In relation to the manipulation have you understood the process that Elena has presented? How can you or have you precisely addressed it if you think you have and if not, could you address it specifically so that instead of turning around the same circle we could move forward in the discussion?
7. I think I understand what you are saying: Everything I am working on is of no value and product of my imagination.
8. Would the following analysis of what is going on here satisfy you and if not what would you add to it?

The issues here are, according to Elena:

1. Elena apologized and returned to the fofdiscussion and offered some subjects for discussion
2. Ton dismissed the subjects and began attacking Elena for not being qualified to speak about those subjects without ever addressing the subjects themselves.
3. Ton used an aggressive questioning technique
4. Nothing of what Elena offered was acknowledged or accepted by Ton
5. Elena thanked Ton for the interaction

6. Ton stated he was being dismissed and Elena stated that she was dismissing the subject but not the person because no matter what she offered was dismissed us unworthy by Ton.
7. Nigel supported Ton
8. Elena questioned Nigel and stated that if he thought being manipulated by anyone promising that one could be accepted if one did a whole lot of work to please him just like Robert did with the fellowship members, he did not know where he was standing.
9. Nigel viciously insulted Elena
10. Elena thanked Nigel
11. The fofblog moderator banned Elena.
12. No one protested her banning.
13. Elena thinks that this whole procedure that everyone is accepting unquestioningly is just like if we were saying four plus five equals forty five and states that everyone in the fofblog is in denial about what actually happened just like they are in denial about their position in relation to what needs to be done in relation to the Fellowship of Friends Cult.
14. Ton's aim is not to reach an understanding or strengthen a friendship or find an arena of understanding but reaffirm Elena's complete disqualification. 

The issues here are, according to Ton:
1. Elena needs therapy
2. Elena is playing the victim
3. Elena wants to have her ass smoosched
4. Elena wants attention
5. I am not willing to address the ideological issues Elena raises because she has to do her homework and research more before I am willing to dialogue with her about them.
6. Elena should not use the word “we”
7. I am not willing to acknowledge that I played the role that led to Elena’s banning knowing that the situation was very delicate for Elena.
8. I am not willing to protest Elena’s banning although I don’t agree with it.
9. Elena is not qualified to have a dialogue with so I am leaving  
10. Maybe a few years from now Elena will come to reason.

As moderator I’ve tried to acknowledge the different positions. I would appreciate that you Ton, address the points specifically and move outside of what has already being repeated endlessly or leave the subject as it is. This moderator acknowledges and accepts your mutual positions and you’re welcome to clarify yours if you feel anything has been neglected.

I, Elena, will review and correct the present post some time later for the purpose of studying vices in dialogue.

One day moderators will be able to take all these aspects into account so that they can help people understand each other.
The practice of a dialogue is not only an exchange of ideas it is, above all, an exchange of being. It is not only an exchange of knowledge but an act of love or lovelessness when there is no love in one or both participants.
Ideally every dialogue like every marriage or contract should lead to a strengthening of the love bond between the participants and when the participants fail to accomplish that there are obvious vices in the exchange.

So going back to the present reflection, it is becoming clearer to me that when I talk to you I not only talk to you but to all men before you and when you talk to me you talk to all women in your life before me; that we are each actualizing our reality in the presence of each other. That is why it is of utmost importance that we treat each other with real dignity because it’ll open the road for future understanding.