Jay Blanco #3 .. Logic & imagination

by Milla — she=he

“What you feed will grow”: Narcissists, Trolls, Females, Therapists .. Labeling, Stereotype stories, Role-play and .. Imagination

"Imagination is more important than knowledge", said Albert Einstein, who also said: "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."

I took Jay’s response and chose this space to express what i got out of it. In green what I understand of the actual words. And in brown the questions, thoughts, and feelings that arise in me, when reading:

jay: “Done research and clearly this is the pattern for you. And I played it out with you. Several people also contacted me and confirmed this–from their own personal experience and/or that of friends of theirs. It still did not help the way I felt.”

jay has asked some persons of their opinion? googled my name? and noticed some behavior/action that i’ve repeated? jay considers to have participated in the behavior repeated? a number of persons that jay would define as ‘several’ (which i estimate to be more than 2 less than 10?) have contacted jay and said that i have repeated a behavior/action either with them or with their friends? this interaction and exchange with other people, does not affect what jay felt?

i’m wondering if my opinion would be valid in the research conducted by jay? or if any opinions from sources recommended by me would be welcome? i’m also wondering what “this” is a reference to, as well as what this “it” is that jay considers to have “played out” with me? i am wondering how many people are ‘several’ and what it is they have confirmed? i am wondering what feelings jay are talking about, in relation to what?

jay: “What you’ve done is unconscionable. Worst part is you don’t/can’t care. (My guess is you’ll privately and publicly register this as projection, perhaps some sort of power play.)”

i’ve done something that jay experiences some strong negative feelings in relation to? and the thought of me not caring increases the intensity of these feelings? jay guesses that i will say that this is projection, and maybe some power play on jay’s part to express this?

i’m wondering what behavior/action jay is referring to? and i’m wondering what behavior/action that jay interprets as not caring, and i also wonder what action/behavior would be received as caring by jay?

to respond to the guess: i don’t know what would be projection and what would be power play — if i understood what jay was talking about then i would be able to say if i agreed with this guess or not. now i’m just confused, and wondering if jay really thinks i should/would/could understand what it is that jay is talking about, when this “this” and “it” and “pattern” is not described any further? i’m wondering if jay thinks this is efficient and clear communication?

jay: “In our exchanges, I experienced from you traits of narcissism, sociopathy, BPD, and various psychotic disorders. Female friends, as well as my own female therapist, have read all the correspondence and other blog entries of yours and used the same words and more. (My guess is you’ll register this as my having brainwashed them and/or that they are all feminist patriarchs.) Regardless, I don’t–I can’t take–such things lightly.”

when jay has been interacting with me online, there has been text and actions, received in a negative way by jay, and jay has interpreted the text and actions as a display of various psychotic disorders? jay has shared the correspondence between jay and i with jay’s therapist who is female – and with some of jay’s friends who are female – and they have also read some blog posts that i’ve written and have described my writing with words categorizing various psychotic disorders? jay is guessing that i think that jay has brainwashed/influenced them and/or that they interpret my self-expression and concerns in favor of a patriarchal order? no matter what i might think, jay can not take behavior that can be interpreted by jay and other (only female?) persons as various psychotic disorders with ease?

what is the thing/action/behavior that jay is reacting on? what is the thing/action/behavior causing discomfort in jay? how come jay describes/interprets the behavior/action with words categorizing mental ‘disorders’? why is jay pointing out that the therapist is female? and that the friends are female? what does jay mean by “such things” in the sentence that reads: “Regardless, I don’t–I can’t take–such things lightly.”?

to respond to jay’s guess of my thinking about jay and jay’s friends and therapist: i do not know what jay’s friends or therapist are like, or what it is they interpret as psychotic disorders in my writing. i do not believe that jay has brainwashed them. i do believe that the action of labeling the actions of someone trying to address sexism, as them having ‘psychotic disorders’ is a fairly common and very effective way of deflecting attention from — and often in effect silence — the concerns of this person and that this serves the patriarchal order. i don’t know if this is done intentionally or not by jay and jay’s friends so i wouldn’t say that i can say anything about ‘brainwash’ or ‘feminist patriarchs’.

jay: “For my own safety (and that of some friends of mine), I will be blocking you from my page.”

jay fears for the safety of jay and some of jay’s friends, and has decided to block me from jay’s facebook page as a means to protect jay and some of jay’s friends?

what is it that jay imagines could happen? what is the worst case scenario? what is jay and jay’s friends safe from by blocking me from jay’s facebook page? could jay imagine other ways of creating safety?

jay: “I am indeed sorry for your sadness and for my initially defensive response. Whatever I believe you did or didn’t to to me doesn’t take away whatever my part was–for that, I apologize. (My guess is this will mean nothing to you, as all you will register is rejection, condescension and contempt.)”

jay empathizes with the sadness i’ve experienced in relation to jay’s behavior, and says that jay started off by responding to my writing in a defensive manner? jay is not sure of what has happened in our interaction, but recognizes that jay participated in the interaction, and would like to take responsibility for some of the communication not working well? jay is guessing that jay saying this, will have no meaning to me, and that i will read jay’s statement as rejection, condescension and contempt?

my response to jay’s guess: it is a challenge reading this whole statement by jay. i usually feel really uncomfortable when people speak of negative feelings but are not specifying behavior (with specifying i mean saying what specific action triggered the feeling/need) and as a feminist (and woman) i fairly often get to hear “crazy” in a silencing manner, by people who are not interested in discussing the sexism (or any other -‘isms’) i’m trying to address — so i do feel disheartened, as well as a bit amused when i in jay’s response read a variety of “psychiatric disorders” and as well the confirmation given by therapist and friends (!) and when i read this i somehow doubt that there will ever be a willingness on jay’s behalf (or jay’s therapist’s and friends’ behalf) to discuss the sexist implications these statements have, and i have strong doubts of receiving any further specification of what behavior of mine fits into these various categories and why it’s important to label the behavior in this way. i hear the “crazy card” being pulled and laid on the table as a big “NO” to the sexism discussion – according to my understanding of how this game is played, the voices and ‘crazy-making’ by many ‘females’ can block out the concerns of ‘only’ one ‘female’. If I say ‘sexism’ and the others say ‘mentally ill’ (or ‘incomprehensible/difficult/erratic/non-normative behavior’) then it’s decided by a majority that it just ain’t the ‘proper’ or ‘right’ time — ‘right’ place — ‘right’ people for having that discussion on sexism. That’s usually how it goes in the stereotype stories we’re assigned role-playing parts in.

in a sense i agree with jay’s guess of my experiencing the response as ‘rejection’. jay saying that there’s recognition for the sadness i experience in relation to defensive response is not enough for me to think that “wow, now i really feel we are connecting here, i know jay can, or wants to ‘get’ what i’m going through”. i don’t know if i would agree with hearing the statements as ‘condescending’ and ‘contempt’ because i’m convinced that jay really speaks out of something that is very real to jay. [the idea that someone would express fear and say that they experience someone else’s behaviors as psychotic disorders for any other reason than that this is ‘real’ to them, is as strange to me as if i would say that i experience sexism in the conversation for any other reason than that this is ‘real’ to me] so i believe that jay really experiences reading my writing as the thoughts and feelings of a person with mental disorders, and that the fear and anxiety that jay experiences in relation to that is real and visceral and that jay really feels a strong need to protect jay and jay’s friends from my presence.

what i can agree to, is that i’m reading these words from jay as a ‘rejection’ of my perspective and actions as valid and ‘sane’ from jay’s point of view. condescension and contempt i would only experience from the text if i believed jay would see my view as valid/sane, but in spite of this, choose to ignore dialogue.

something (unspecified) was said, something (unspecified) was done — jay reacts with strong feelings on this something — and all of a sudden i’m said to have ‘disorders’ and any discussion on what happened is out the window and out from the social networking site called facebook.

i believe that jay is living with some strong images having a powerful impact on how jay experiences our interaction. i believe that jay is doing what jay at this moment sees as the reasonable thing to do, according to jay’s understanding of reality, and in relation to what jay imagines would happen if we talked this through.

jay: “You did indeed remind me that ‘what you feed will grow’. Again, thanks for that.
I genuinely wish you only the best–safety, stability, enlightenment, peace, love, all that good stuff–but I wish it away from me.
Please send me no more correspondence.”

jay genuinely wishes me the best — safety, stability, enlightenment, peace, love and more — and can not at the moment see any common strategies for us to coexist in way that would make this real for both of us? jay doesn’t want to talk about this any further?

this is where i am a naive believer: i think if someone believes these things are possible (safety, enlightenment, peace, love and more) then it should be very possible to sit back, and relax, and think how this would be possible to make happen in a talk with one another. what concrete actions would create this kind of atmosphere?

saying: “i and a lot of others experience you and your behavior/thoughts/feelings as ‘disordered’ so i won’t talk of the concerns you have in relation to my behavior towards you, with you — i wish you the best, away from any space i inhabit” is not enough. saying no to a talk based on what i’ve heard so far, (“protecting oneself from insanity”) i take as an expression of lack of imagination.

Labeling a person as 'troll' and 'flaming' is an effective way of silencing discussion and preventing growth in our online communities. I therefor have an "all opinions allowed" policy on this blog. Anybody can post a comment.

Advertisements

6 Responses

  1. Hi Milla, hi Jay if you’re reading,

    Are you disappointed Milla, or irked, or something else, that you never managed to convey to Jay that your concern all along is to promote anti-racism? Or something else?

    Could it be that your conflict with Jay is only an unfortunate side-effect of your pursuing these issues which you maybe feel impelled to take on? (Because of your yearning for ‘equality’, and ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ in the world?

    Jay, are you wanting understanding from Milla, that you never meant her any harm, all along? That you would have liked to reach understanding with her?

    I write this, Milla, in the spirit not so much of predicting the feelings and needs that motivate you, but instead to offer you a blank canvas or platform to explore your feelings and needs. With my empathic guesses as a _possible_ starting point _only_.

    If you answer can I suggest you try to focus on your feelings and needs, and _not_ your ‘venting’ process?

    I believe you’d make better progress that way to restoring/maintaining your mental health, which you’ve alluded to already in your thread wrt to Jay, if memory serves.

    Amicalement,

    Jonathan

    I recommend http.//www.cnvc.org (Center for Nonviolent Communication) to all readers.

  2. I’ve been wondering for a while what your issue is and I think Jay hit the nail on the head with BPD. Read this description, Milla it sounds just like you. Just read with an open mind and you will learn something about yourself. This is from the National Institute for Mental Health…

    …People with BPD often have highly unstable patterns of social relationships. While they can develop intense but stormy attachments, their attitudes towards family, friends, and loved ones may suddenly shift from idealization (great admiration and love) to devaluation (intense anger and dislike). Thus, they may form an immediate attachment and idealize the other person, but when a slight separation or conflict occurs, they switch unexpectedly to the other extreme and angrily accuse the other person of not caring for them at all. Even with family members, individuals with BPD are highly sensitive to rejection, reacting with anger and distress to such mild separations as a vacation, a business trip, or a sudden change in plans. These fears of abandonment seem to be related to difficulties feeling emotionally connected…

    Instead of insisting that everyone else is wrong and that there is nothing mentally ill about you, investigate it and maybe you can find a cure for what you have. I especially noticed that you mention that you felt rejected. If people don’t treat you the way you want them too, you get in their face and try to force them to explain themselves to you, then you punish them by publishing their words on your blog. You have to find a healthier way to deal with rejection, and finding a good psychiatrist might help.

  3. Hi Milla,

    I’d like, and commend this article to you, by Dr Wayland Myers. I believe he is an NVC (Nonviolent Communication) trainer. Hoping that it is useful to you, and you can benefit from the NVC learning.

    The article is about conflict between couples, but the principles remain the same IMO, whether the person we are in conflict with is an intimate partner or not.

    http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/freeresources/article_archive/fighting_wmyers.htm

    When I read your thread with Jay, and having heard you before express dissatisfaction about ‘having’ to explain yourself to others, or oftener than you’d like, I find myself wondering if you are not trying to take all the weight of the world upon your shoulders, for all the ills of the world. If I’m right, I further speculate and am concerned by doing so, your efforts become counter-productive, since the impact upon your mental health and general wellbeing leaves you less effective to function in a way to promote the causes that inspire you than before.

    Wu Wei

    Wu wei (simplified Chinese: 无为; traditional Chinese: 無爲; pinyin: wúwéi) is an important concept of Taoism (Daoism), that involves knowing when to act and when not to act. Another perspective to this is that “Wu Wei” means natural action – as planets revolve around the sun, they “do” this revolving, but without “doing” it; or as trees grow, they “do”, but without “doing”. Thus knowing when (and how) to act is not knowledge in the sense that one would think “now” is the right time to do “this”, but rather just doing it, doing the natural thing.

    Wu may be translated as not have or without; Wei may be translated as do, act, serve as, govern or effort. The literal meaning of Wu Wei is “without action” and is often included in the paradox wei wu wei: “action without action” or “effortless doing”. The practice of wu wei and the efficacy of wei wu wei are fundamental tenets in Chinese thought and have been mostly emphasized by the Taoist school. The aim of wu wei is to achieve a state of perfect equilibrium, or alignment with the Tao, and, as a result, obtain an irresistible form of “soft and invisible” power.

    There is another less commonly referenced sense of wu wei; “action that does not involve struggle or excessive effort”. In this instance, Wu means “without” and Wei means “effort”. The concept of “effortless action” is a part of Taoist Internal martial arts such as Tai chi, Baguazhang and Xing Yi. It follows that Wu wei complies with the main feature and distinguishing characteristic of Taoism, that of being natural. To apply wu wei to any situation is to take natural action.

    (I can’t remember where that’s from, maybe Wikipedia.)

    Sun Tzu Wu (The Art of War)

    “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

    Martin Luther King junior

    “You can have no influence over those for whom you have underlying contempt”

    Please read these quotes – oh, you maybe just did!

    Amicalement,

    Jonathan

  4. Jonathan,

    Good hearted altruistic people who state right up front that they’re into nonviolent communication need to be aware that some folks (a few, but important nonetheless) may see ‘nonviolent’ as a signal meaning ‘soft target’. Ruthless people know that know that most persons cannot put up with thier stuff. Unconsciously, they are LOOKING for someone who is willing to put up with hardship.
    Do the nonviolent (compassionate) communication folks not know about the kinds of people with whom this method will not work? I learned too late.

    it is my opinion, grounded in 10 years spent in gandhian based peace groups, that nonviolent empathy based communication methods work only when all parties are mature and honest. And only work when, above all, no one has a hidden, manipulative agenda.

    If you try to use nonviolent communication (whether its Rosenberg’s method or someone elses) to deal with someone who lacks empathy, is manipulative, or has a hidden agenda, nonviolent ideology, that assumes all cards are on the table, and that all intentions are ‘good’ will put you at a grievous disadvantage.

    I would refuse to take any nonviolent communication course unless the instructor can tell you how to discern whether you are dealing with a person who is in good faith,
    versus someone who sees you as an entity to hack into.

    In the latter case, a commitment to nonviolent education will set you up to be screwed, blued and tattooed.

    If someone is playing a game using a marked deck, run the other way. Dont stay in the game–or the conversational equivalent therof.there are situations where nonviolent communication can be used against you by persons in bad faith–which means knowing when you are in a situation where you must stop using that method.

  5. ***Jonathan,

    Good hearted altruistic people who state right up front that they’re into nonviolent communication need to be aware that some folks (a few, but important nonetheless) may see ‘nonviolent’ as a signal meaning ‘soft target’. Ruthless people know that know that most persons cannot put up with thier stuff. Unconsciously, they are LOOKING for someone who is willing to put up with hardship.
    Do the nonviolent (compassionate) communication folks not know about the kinds of people with whom this method will not work? I learned too late.

    it is my opinion, grounded in 10 years spent in gandhian based peace groups, that nonviolent empathy based communication methods work only when all parties are mature and honest. And only work when, above all, no one has a hidden, manipulative agenda.

    If you try to use nonviolent communication (whether its Rosenberg’s method or someone elses) to deal with someone who lacks empathy, is manipulative, or has a hidden agenda, nonviolent ideology, that assumes all cards are on the table, and that all intentions are ‘good’ will put you at a grievous disadvantage.***

    Hi Milla,

    Please remember that those icons and exemplars of Nonviolence, Ghandi and MLK jun. were both assassinated, seemingly, by a person or persons who disagreed with their objectives.

    Nonviolence presumably should not be seen as conferring magical effects, which enable us to become immune to or deflect bullets. If we adopt Nonviolence, we still live in the same reality/milieu that we did before adopting Nonviolence. We still need to keep our wits about ourselves.

    ***I would refuse to take any nonviolent communication course unless the instructor can tell you how to discern whether you are dealing with a person who is in good faith, versus someone who sees you as an entity to hack into.***

    In ‘Nonviolent Communication – a Language of Life’ it is spelled out how to discern the difference between a request and a demand. (For anybody reading who don’t know anything about ‘Nonviolent Communication’, ‘request’ and ‘demand’ mean more or less exactly as they do in normal usage – but are defined a bit more technically, compared to dictionary definitions.)

    This simple technique of knowing how to tell the difference between a request and a demand Milla, should IMO go a long way if not all the way towards discerning ‘whether you are dealing with a person who is in good faith, versus someone who sees you as an entity to hack into’. Or, to put another way having confidence or trust that the other party will reciprocate with the kind of goodwill we are hoping for.

    ***In the latter case, a commitment to nonviolent education will set you up to be screwed, blued and tattooed.***

    I read NVC (Nonviolent Communication) differently. I read that NVC tells me ‘Don’t do anything that isn’t play’ – which I take to mean, don’t do anything I can’t do willingly. NVC supports me to opt out, if there’s something happening that I don’t like, that I can no longer take part in of my own volition, i.e. if I can’t get my needs met. Or at the very least, to express any discomfort or dissatisfaction I feel, and what I would like to help me with my discomfort; generally, to speak up for myself.

    ***If someone is playing a game using a marked deck, run the other way. Dont stay in the game–or the conversational equivalent therof.there are situations where nonviolent communication can be used against you by persons in bad faith–which means knowing when you are in a situation where you must stop using that method.***

    No need to stop using the ‘method’. NVC doesn’t say we have to be a doormat (in case that is UK-only slang, it means ‘a state of being walked all over’.) No need to endure what is uncomfortable for us.

    I have no accreditation as a teacher of NVC – this is purely my own take.

    See ‘Center for Nonviolent Communication’ for more – http://www.cnvc.org

    Jonathan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: