posted September 10, 2014 05:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:

For all my Scorpio MOON, it's still conjunct URANUS 1º, and 3H. It's always hard to tell if my running is to avoid vulnerability or 'because it's the right thing'.

---

That ^ would be an example of a thing that you will have to figure out for yourself. The sooner the better...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aubyanne:

Do I honestly feel as if there's someone out there with whom he's supposed to spend the rest of his life in a traditional sense?

---

And this ^ would be an example of something you do NOT concern yourself with, as it clearly falls within his realm of responsibility. Leave it to him, do not take it out of his hands. It's his lesson, he's a grown-up, he can handle it.

As to other people's stories or other timelines reflecting on your current situation - remember that the power to create your future is to a large extent within your hands. Do not hand this precious, creative source of power over to some vague notion of "fatedness", whatever that may mean. If you do not grasp the steering wheel of your car, you will be at the mercy of circumstances.

posted September 10, 2014 06:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by libran_dream:
Maybe this constant overthinking of what *he* wants/needs is just a distraction you make for yourself to not face the reality of your own wants and needs.

---

That was part of the point although don't think I went into that. If YOU want or need something, then that's always what YOU want and/or need. However other people react to that is their thing and end. It may topple you and make you feel bad if they don't react as hoped, but knowing that is always better than not living according to your own needs. Different things matter to different people and sometimes timings don't coincide the best in having needs meet.

In this case though, it also seems to be a fact of "We last actually talked about things nearly a year ago, despite things having developed vastly since then". Re-evaluations happen, things change or don't stay the same, so how can anyone make any assumptions or decisions based on something that once was, if they don't know what currently is? Or even on their own assumptions and interpretations for "this is how things are until the other person gets married", reading their own interpretation of that instead of knowing if that means something a bit different for the other person. Fear, analyzing based on too little current information, changing needs or situations, and not trusting things to work out for the best one way or another.

posted September 10, 2014 06:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keela:
Not every story always ends in disaster, death, catastrophy and woes. Write a better ending if you need one. Trust has been mentioned several times in the thread already. Consider it floating.

---

I wrote the better ending. I believe in it. Hell, I honestly thought that would be the end of it -- until this. This, this, this.

Trust.

Trust is what got me killed. Trust and vulnerability. That was my end.

posted September 10, 2014 06:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vajra:
Are you familiar with the philosophy of the Stoics, Aubyanne? They have a rather elegant recipe for facing things.

---

:laugh: Stoic? I'm ex-Borg, sweetheart.

Sphere of influence is my bag. Most isn't within my control, so it really need not be my concern. Then, one day, someone informs you that so much more you ever thought was actually within your influence. And, yeah, you get a little control-happy on it. 'But, they don't see what I'm seeing!' and all that.

I used to be so zen. WTF happened. Being emotional has NEVER been my problem. Rather, NOT being emotional has been the issue.

posted September 10, 2014 06:35 PM            

It's not that I'm afraid that I couldn't walk away -- as usual. It's that I could. Killing my emotions has never been an issue for me. KEEPING them has been.

The decision I'm attempting to make -- because the longing is gone, along with that powerful feeling of belonging and 'love' -- is do I allow myself to become vulnerable again. And in order to do that, I'd have to acknowledge that the free-and-easy no-labels no-expectations whatever-is-fine approach isn't really conducive to my evolution in that area. I shut down. It starts feeling too intimate, and too close, and the vulnerability gets twinged, and I shut it off.

I can keep doing this -- for the rest of my days.

Or I can stop.

I'm evaluating the wisdom of both. If I continue to avoid, am I breaking the cycle of what wounded me -- or am I never facing it at all? If I don't, do I live through it all over again? In which case, how would that feel like progress at all?

posted September 10, 2014 06:37 PM            

The non-emotionality of the Borg (*edit: and Vulcans*) is very different from a stoic way of facing life. Moreover, Borg are drones driven by a hive mind, the very opposite of a responsible individual. Stoic means not fretting in the face of trouble, even though you feel everything to the fullest extent. It means a higher form of voluntary, deliberate control and has nothing to do with numbness or emotional debilitation...

posted September 10, 2014 06:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vajra:
Life is eternal, Aubyanne, which means that the killer and the killed, they all will live again. Reflecting on such things can help put temporary problems in perspective.

---

That. That ... with that, I become a deer in headlights. I freeze. I have SUCH a sudden torrent of emotion well up within me, I can't even handle it.

I don't know why. I've NEVER known why. I've never known why THAT was so different. Why THAT had SUCH an impact. I used to snicker in regards to how many times I've died, and or the fact that yep, that person killed me. It sucks, and you move on.

I've never been able to move on from this. I have tried. It is a broken damned record with a stuck needle. Over and over and over, the same groove.

Like I'm missing something.

WHAT AM I MISSING?

posted September 10, 2014 06:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vajra:
Stoicism means not fretting in the face of trouble, even though you feel everything to the fullest extent. It means a higher form of voluntary, deliberate control and has nothing to do with numbness or emotional debilitation.

---

INTERESTING. I never got that from Stoicism. Wow, I've learnt a very crucial distinction today. Thank you, Vajra.

We've exchanged the words 'stoic' and 'ascetic' many times, but I don't think either of us truly grasped its inherent inclusion of emotion. Rather, it's a deadening of the emotion, and logic as the final arbiter; in every case. It isn't a true peace or tranquility. It's just a ... an absence.

However, I wouldn't call the Vulcan way of life to be Stoicism. Oh, sure, you acknowledge that they're there -- somewhere -- but you don't feel them. You're just aware they're there somewhere underneath the surface.

That's actually very much how we operate.

Stoicism, from the definition you've given, seems more of a true serenity, due to the -- not awareness, but actual presence of emotion. But rather than be alarmed, frightened, or otherwise negatively impacted by the emotion, it's taken in stride.

posted September 10, 2014 06:56 PM            

You got it absolutely right otherwise:

quote:

---

Stoicism, from the definition you've given, seems more of a true serenity, due to the -- not awareness, but actual presence of emotion. But rather than be alarmed, frightened, or otherwise negatively impacted by the emotion, it's taken in stride.

---

posted September 10, 2014 08:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vajra:
Oh no, sorry for the confusion! Didn't mean to imply Vulcans are like stoics. They suppress emotions! It was just an attempt to make a little fun of myself in line with your calling yourself an ex-Borg... You know, people have accused me of being unfeeling (Capricorn-like) on another thread and I thought the pointy ears would fit with that image...

You got it absolutely right otherwise:

Exactly, that's what I meant. It's an incredibly empowering, liberating way of dealing with life that slowly eliminates fear. Because you learn with time that you can really deal with anything that comes your way.

---

Oh! I get it completely now. No worries. It's more that's the 'typology' we both adopted independently. Or, as my husband says, it's 'entertaining to watch the Vulcans do their Vulcan thing'. Not that he's got it all figured out, either, bless his id-driven heart.

I wonder why I can't deal with that. Transdimensional PTSD. Is that a thing? God, this week. It's as if what happened 'then' (or there) that's cast a shadow over my life for 15 years is culminating in some strange fashion. tPLUTO maybe.

When it was in fiction, and a concept, a mere story, I had control. When he was an archetype in my subconscious, like a strange internal spirit guide that acted upon the page, it didn't frighten me. It was distant enough for me to evaluate it rationally. Sure, I knew there might be something odd going on, but it was still a safe vantage.

Over the years, he grew less mysterious as his story literally was literally translated from my brain to a computer screen. What unfolded from my fingers was no longer quite this looming and terrifying legend of a man, but the clear path back to the boy he had been. It humanised him. I developed a sympathy for him. I could understand why he did what he had to, and I forgavehim.

Fast forward a decade, and the one thing I STILL don't understand, the thing that could never be turned out to be true. It's not unforgivable, but it cuts me to the quick. It not only changed the story, it introduced me, front and centre to my own CHIRON wound.

That was last summer. Then circumstances emerged to where having a sexual relationship was not only logical but oddly compelling. We felt we had to do this. It was so very strangely compulsive.

I put aside all of the bizarre noise in my head and allowed myself to focus upon the present, and the incredible work we were doing; the progress being made. It quieted the din in my head -- mostly.

I was able to forget he's ... who he is.

I'd lose myself in the technicalities and the routine and rote elements of the act itself. And I never truly thought, in a million years, that HE would be the one to change the course. That the shifting of one single variable would incite something within him that would change me. I didn't. And I was deeply alarmed -- for days -- after it happened. Processing. Grokking. Asking myself ...

'Can I do this?' Moreover, can I do this -- with him? I've never had an answer to that question, and my gut reaction was always, 'NO. Are you INSANE?' But it's incredible what we find ourselves capable of at times, in just the 'right' circumstances.

But then the fear creeps in. Sometimes flashbacks from God only knows where. Never enough to where I'm afraid OF him. Completely illogically, I'd just find myself holding onto him until they passed. As if clinging to the present to be reassured in spite of the past. Fighting one dimension of time with another; wielding it like a weird weapon.

The abandonment memories likely came through now as a 'literal metaphor' of a previous failure. Well, obviously, I never have to fear for my actual life. So my unconscious brings to bear the other means by which I've suffered by him. I'm not even sure why.

If I hold to him during the difficult times, if I trust, then I'm repeating the pattern from before -- even if it's buffering me now. Then, if he leaves, I've chosen to allow him to help me heal what was wrong between us across many incarnations / temporal dimensions / so on.

Rather than fear him, I will have chosen to take what is NOW as a means of shielding me from what was THEN.

I don't think I ever thought, in a million years, I'd be so vulnerable to him -- or have to be. That's a LOT to invest in someone. Even if it makes logical sense to.

I can't decide what I should do. Nobody else -- but me -- can heal that. And I can't even FACE it, no less heal it.

Sex became the pharmakon. What may heal or destroy. It depends upon its usage, purpose, and method. While frightening and the root of so much pain -- then and now -- a shame, a fear, an undoing -- it was also strangely inevitable. For an entirely separate purpose. It's just had this bizarre byproduct -- for me -- of inviting so many monsters. Rather than have to cut and run from him, due to his being the source -- I didn't. I refused to let the 'past' interfere with the present.

Intimacy invariably resulted, even if it was independently achieved. Or, for all I know, it wasn't. Who knows WHAT brought it about in him? It was just as sudden and rather inexplicable.

And ... here we are.

Running to him isn't something I think I've ever done before. I'd hedge my bets and play the game, but I was never there. I wonder why I'd get so burnt.

I can't see that part. It's a myriad of different versions and possibilities. After awhile, it becomes a big jumble and worthless in terms of insight. Instead, I know WHAT happened -- and I even know WHY.

It's the nuances. My role. His. Those are the mysteries. Those are the ones that drive me crazy, as well as sometimes just flat DRIVE me.

I'm blathering. In some sense, it feels as if there's an answer there. Somewhere within the noise.

posted September 10, 2014 10:45 PM            

Here's a spontaneous update.

I decided to unplug and meditate, as I'm wont to do in these situations. And, as is an almost standard operating procedure, also in these circumstances, my mind had been trying to play a new tape since this morning; echoing the first line. A single, self-contained scene which -- undoubtedly -- if left to unfold, would yield much insight.

This is also how many pivotal elements of the story were written.

It's a tense thing. Dark, and at night. Some location presently unknown. Neutral ground. It's been a torrential storm that's dwindled to a light dusting of rain. Slightly cold -- a chill in the air rather than true cold. Enough to require heavier 'armour': coats, jackets, hats, and umbrellas.

And also weapons.

He's mostly in shadow, in all dark clothing. Hardly out of the ordinary, but more pragmatic than thematic. I get a sense she's brought him out. Brought him here. He doesn't like being out here, and it's a combined curiosity and respect that's brought him to acquiesce to this demand. He's notably in an assortment of jackets and coats. Her attire is meaningless. She's less defending herself from the chill than she is against him. The fact she's training her loaded pistol on him is all that's of any importance -- or immediate concern.

And, as usual, he isn't. They haven't been in this position in awhile, but he knew there was always the chance of it returning to this. She speaks in clipped, panic-laced tones. His voice is its usual smooth timbre with unruffled cadence. If he feels threatened, he's certainly not showing it.

Over the course of selected dialogue in several bursts, we learn she can't do this anymore. She can't live in the state of uncertainty; she won't. As a means of handling the situation, she returns to her 'way of steel', so to speak. It gets the point across.

Suddenly, he opts for honesty over artifice. Granted, the circumstances of the arrangement are less than ideal, but he thought it was ... good. Had it not been? Her anger, frustration and even sadness belie that it's been very much otherwise -- even traumatic.

She can sense his candor in lieu of a manipulation, though he's wielded the truth with the same agility he has his blade. No, this isn't that. As a result, whether due to some tacit vestigial intimacy or a clearly defined decision is unclear, she responds with the same. No, it is good. It's very good.

Therein lies the problem. They have no control. Over anything. He reminds her that control is merely an illusion and, much like time, possessed by no one. Still, she's dealing with the real world -- one that's a constant reminder of the tenuousness of their arrangement.

And that's excluding the possibility that he should, for reasons unknown, change the deal without warning or explanation. Namely, if he perceived a threat. But her trust is shaky -- if present at all.

Her confession incites an unusual, deeply uncharacteristic response. The acknowledgment of the fear, the uncertainty, but admission of the vulnerability, and, further still, confirmation of its impact.

He removes his coat and hat. Even gloves. (He never does this -- THAT's a statement of great magnitude.) He stands there, in the light rain, in his suit and nice shoes for several seconds.

She doesn't move. As usual, she's completely thrown by whatever the hell it is he's suddenly decided to do, and is calculating all possible motivations for it -- everything that might reveal its true character.

He knows; it's exactly what's expected of her. So, he just watches in his usual inscrutable silence.

This is too crazy. He's too calm -- even for him. Something is up. She's not going to be stupid.

She readies it for firing.

He throws down his weapon; it lands with a loud clatter upon the asphalt -- even seeing inevitable scratches and scuffs. (Trust me, that matters.)

She glances to it for only a second, stunned, but quickly returns her eyes to him and strengthens her stance. Maybe he'll charge -- who knows? It's a completely insane action, and she keeps struggling to unearth its motivation.

He extends his hand. The rain continues softly on and around them. Suddenly the loudest thing present.

She stares in disbelief. She's not giving him her gun -- hell no. She WANTS to -- she WANTS it to be legitimate and true. But she can't remove the image from her mind begging to be realised: she hands him her gun, and within moments -- she's dead. It's over. Done.

He knows what she fears; she can't act on the faith she wants to have because of a nagging terror of being betrayed. And not without reason, either. He's betrayed her trust before. He's manipulated, deceived, and evaded many times for reasons not in her best interest, but his.

Is it logical that he should take the gun and kill her?

They both agree that it's ostensibly so. After all, she's all that stands in the way of his freedom. Were she out of the picture entirely, he could disappear -- go completely off the radar -- and never have need to return. It's a practical solution, of which, she knows he's quite fond.

Now he realises there's one question that will free her from this long ugly spiral: the fear, the panic, the sadness, and the uncertainty.

'You must ask yourself: of the two, which do I value most? My freedom -- or you?'

In that moment, she realises that it is the fundamental conflict. She knows the value of his freedom to him, and how desperately he'll act in order to maintain it. She's never once considered she could ever be as valuable as that. At most, and for as long as she guaranteed his freedom, he would let her live. Those are the terms. While things were never intended to get so messy, that's the fundamental rule. THAT's the core of the arrangement.

And now he's thrown down his weapon; perhaps he is planning some elaborate retaliation -- perhaps just as a means to best her; to prove he can. He's done that before. It could be happening now.

Because she doesn't know the answer to THAT riddle, and her life is riding on it -- that it abiding by the original terms of the agreement. But to hazard a guess and assume they've changed is too dangerous.

The wrong answer costs her her life.

It's still asphalt, even though the sky isn't blue and it's raining. She could die here tonight. As usual, on her back nursing a bullet wound, wondering how the hell it got there -- even though the end is the same.

Death.

She could run. Would she always wonder if he was being sincere? If she misread something? If she made the right choice. Absolutely.

But, as a bonus, she would be alive. To run another day.

But not from him. Not ever again.

Running, while it doesn't concretely change the terms, it presumes an antagonism. They'll just meet again elsewhere in similar but different circumstances. They'll just have to work through those. Sort them out.

The riddle will have to be solved eventually. It's inevitable. If not now, next time. Or the one after that. Or after that one.

If she runs now, she'll never see him again here, on these terms. Too much has transpired now; been done, said, and confronted.

If she runs, she can never look back. Ever. But the thought of him and that pivotal moment will plague her for the rest of her days. She won't presume he's out there, lurking, waiting. The terms were only such that she protects his freedom during the course of their acquaintance. If they're no longer acquainted -- he's gone.

I don't know the answer to the riddle. But I know now WHY it impacts me so greatly.

Outstanding karma, debts, and things done and said -- or left undone or unsaid in other timelines have ways of reasserting themselves into our observed and primary one. In whatever means they can.

Few just have the 'privilege' of having authored it themselves. Literally.

We established, at the start of this, that I would never impose upon his freedom. It didn't look that way, because it was in other terms. Never as literal as that while still VERY much being obviously that.

And I'm realising, after all of this, that I have to break the terms of the agreement. The very thing which might be keeping me alive elsewhere. Alive, or safe from ever resolving the riddle. One or the other.

It seems noteworthy that 'alive' is being continuously autocorrected to 'Alice'.

When one hurdle is cleared, another presents itself.

If he can decide that she means enough to him to act against his principles, then the next inevitable challenge pits him against the value of his personal freedom.

I should've seen this coming.

posted September 11, 2014 04:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vajra:
CStoic means not fretting in the face of trouble, even though you feel everything to the fullest extent. It means a higher form of voluntary, deliberate control and has nothing to do with numbness or emotional debilitation...

M

---

thank you. Finally someone who gets what Stoa is about!

posted September 11, 2014 06:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceridwen:

thank you. Finally someone who gets what Stoa is about!

you know how difficult it is to make pupils see the distinction?
But it is one of the basic things I feel I HAVE to bring across as a latin teacher.

---

Wow, you are a Latin teacher? That's great! One cannot try to expose the youngsters of this age to such a line of thinking early enough. However, from what I've seen (my mom used to be a high school teacher too), I can only imagine it must be VERY difficult to get through to them, especially in the realm of practical philosophy! Kudos to you for even trying.

posted September 11, 2014 07:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vajra:
Wow, you are a Latin teacher? That's great! One cannot try to expose the youngsters of this age to such a line of thinking early enough. However, from what I've seen (my mom used to be a high school teacher too), I can only imagine it must be VERY difficult to get through to them, especially in the realm of practical philosophy! Kudos to you for even trying.

BTW, since you are able to read the texts in their original, may I ask you for a reading recommendation? (sorry Aubyanne, I realize this is a little OT) I would really like to get hold of a few good bilingual editions of the most important Stoa texts, with the original next to a good translation into either English, German, or French. Are there any that you particularly like? I would love to have your recommendation, but only if it's not too much trouble!

---

In school we usually are reading the "epistulae morales" by Seneca, not sure what the English title is (moral epistle?).
But I like them, cause he applies the Stoic philosophy to Everyday life (in Rome of course); however there is so much in there that is amazingly "up-to-date". It is actually a little worrisome, how little really has changed int he last centuries.