1994.11/08 DTB Explanation
EXCERPTED FROM MESSAGE TO SONNY ARCILLA
>>>
$ <<<
$ Hmmm.... more and more intriguing. Let me now as soon as someone is dumped
$ (or not, as the case may be).
For the second time (the first being when we had a major disagreement a
couple weeks ago, I'm too tired to think of why we had it) she has given me
a clear window to jump through. She gave me the opportunity to leave the
relationship citing dependence and insecurity leading to mistrust, all due
to the negative influence of my mother. I didn't jump, though. I pussied
out and explained to her the many pressures that were bearing down on me this
past weekend. She began to understand, but she decided to take a day's
break from one another. I was not to call her today. I am clear on calling
her tomorrow and we still have plans for this weekend if they come through
(I've e-mailed Keith McCormick in Santa Barbara and asked if I could use
his place for the weekend).
<<<
No comment #1. (Look below) <- (I'm beginning to like this dereferencing
stuff!)
>>>
Joe and I had a pretty good talk last night. It helped me see the situation
in a believably rational light. First, I think that she is unfair in trying
to read me all of the time. She openly admits to not being able to, yet she
does so constantly. Earlier this week, the day she told me that she was
going to be spending this coming Friday evening with Chris, her male friend,
and four others, she expected me to be pissed about the situation when I got
to her place. I think I mentioned this before, but as I was walking up the
way I smiled. She took it as a smirk and thought I was angry when in all
honestly I was not. (Side note: I'm going to start writing some of this
shit down in Word so that I can shoot her down when we next speak).
I just got done writing lots of shit. I think it would be easier to simply
cut and paste at this point:::
<<<
Still no comment #2. (Look further below)
>>>
She assumed that I was angry about her going to dinner
this coming Friday, when I honestly was just going to
ask her about it. She expected me to be angry, but I
wasn't.
She did not communicate to me her feelings of
unfairness on Sunday. She could have told me she
didn't want to cook when I told her how many people
were going to be eating with us.
She assumed I was angry on Sunday about something,
when in fact I was merely somber and had a lot on my
mind -- considering I have much to take care of. She
took it as me being angry about the time confusion.
I think she is insecure about my wanting to stay in
the relationship. I think because I value my
relationship with Kim and Ken and trust their opinions
very much, she fears that my actions are preparations
for breaking up with her. It's nice of her to give me
the freedom to break up with her, but it doesn't help
the situation. She takes harmless, ambiguous emotions
in me as signs of impending doom. She, too, is thus
insecure and does not take my word for what it is...
<<<
(Stop looking below, you're about to see it now) I got a call from Christine
last night. She was offended by the DTB festival I had a couple letters ago,
and wanted to clear the air between the two of us. A paraphrased transcript
follows:
K: "Greetings!"
C: pauses a moment, unsure whether it's an answering machine. "Hello?"
K: "Yes?"
C: "Hello Kim. This is Christine Cartwright."
K: "Hello Christine. What could I do for you?"
C: "Well, Kim, I was wondering if you could stop your Dump The Bitch comments
to Sonny. I dislike animosity, and I don't like the fact that I'm beginning
to hate Sonny's best friend. Could we come to some type of agreement?"
K: "Certainly. Is it the sentiment or the crudity which you disagree with?"
C: "Both. I dislike being called a bitch; after all, we hardly even know each
other. I also don't think that you should be forcing your opinion of our
relationship on Sonny."
K: "Well, how about this. I will certainly stop calling you a bitch.
However, I have to check with Sonny first to see whether he indeed doesn't
want my opinion on the subject before I stop offering my insight to him. How
does that sound?"
C: "Very well."
(By the way, I *didn't* tape the conversation. The previous is just my
recollection of the conversation.)
ANYWAY, what are your thoughts on the matter? If you think my comments (both
exaggerated and reasonable) are interfering with your relationship, then I
would be more than happy to keep my nose out of it. [I feel this is a
fundamentally different situation than your chronic fiscal irresponsibility,
say. In that case, I happen to *know* you want to improve your finances, and
I see advice / ridicule in that realm to be something you desire / which is
necessary.]
I didn't think an involved explanation to Christine would be appropriate at
that point, so I let the whole matter ride unexplained. (She actually never
asked for an explanation, only for an agreement.) If I were going to explain
(but *not* defend) myself, I suppose it would go something like this:
1) By previous convention the two of us use 'bitch' to refer to females (the
bitch, woman, lady conversation). Usage of 'bitch' has no real connotation of
judgment of character; it's just a nice sound bite. In fact, the formation of
my opinion to end the relationship with Christine relies in no part on any
villainy in her character.
2) I do not in fact think Christine is a 'bitch', nor have I proposed so. We
have discussed the possibility that she might be 'molding you', but that
hypothesis was introduced by you (from the lady who said 'she's going to wrap
you around her finger, etc.'). I think that strongest proof of my lack of
judgment of her character is that *if* I did think she were using you, I would
say so in no uncertain terms. [I think the fiasco with Alix / Adrian sets the
appropriate precedent; here there isn't even a strong friendship with
Christine = Adrian to make me hesitate.]
3) She expressed her dissatisfaction with the DTBs which I had interspersed in
a previous letter. I intended that to be a bit of bald-faced humor; it wasn't
supposed to be a subliminal attack on her. I am also inclined to believe
that's the way you took it (namely, your "Laughs galore." comment).
[Actually, I have a question at this point. I assume you've been paraphrasing
the letters to her, because if she were reading the letters she'd see the
whole marriage bit. Is that true, or does she have access to your e-mails?]
As you are well aware, I always custom craft my speech toward my audience for
maximal information throughput.
4) I have been assuming all this time that because of the depth with which you
describe your relationship with Christine, you were actively soliciting
feedback. There are multiple strong precedents for this, since I have never
known you to refuse insight from someone you decided to unburden yourself to.
(Of course, I am making an implicit distinction between listening to and
following advice. E.g. you have listened to my advice to end the relationship
with Christine, but have decided not to follow it.)
5) Christine is probably unaware that my 'optimal scenario algorithms' work on
a group principle, i.e. that I give suggestions on what I feel is best for all
parties involved. For example, I have strongly and repeatedly advised to tell
Christine of your lack of matrimonial intent. I do so because I feel in the
best case it would benefit both of you, but in the worst case it helps her (so
she is free to find someone who is more compatible & interested in marriage)
and harms you (as you lose the security of the relationship and its other
tangible benefits). She may be operating under the assumption I am trying to
"influence you" in a "misguided attempt" to "protect you" from "the bitch".
6) In the past, I have expressed my philosophy that "Girlfriends shouldn't
come between male friends." I do not think that either of us having female
companions should impact negatively on our friendship. However, the flip side
to this philosophy is "Friends shouldn't come between couples." I do not
think that our friendship should impact negatively on your relationship with
Christine, either. Thus, if you feel my comments are in fact harming your
relationship, I will certainly cease and desist.
[ASIDE: Both of these come from a more fundamental philosophy, which is that
"Friends shouldn't stand against friendship." I feel that a true friend
doesn't stand athwart of their friends making more friends (or keeping their
old ones), but instead should foster such activity. I further disagree with
the common practice of holding on to friends so tightly that it inhibits them
from forming new relationships (or maintaining their old ones). If I found my
presence to be detrimental to a friend's happiness, I would move aside. (i.e.
Jon Pelletier)]
Lastly, I would just make the comment that I try to avoid scenarios just like
this one like the plague. The last thing in the universe that I want to do is
be forced to justify / defend my actions to others; I am more than happy to
explain, if people will give me the chance. Further, I *despise* politicking.
I don't want this scenario to degenerate into a "he said, she said" between
Christine and myself, and I certainly don't want to force you to choose
between the two of us.
I hope this can be resolved with a minimum of fuss.
Anyway, my basic course for the rest of this letter is to continue my
comments, but in a more sober light. In fact, I believe I am going to play a
serious Devil's Advocate role for this letter. (I'll decide what to do in the
future after I touch base with you.) Thus, comment #1 becomes, "This is just
a reference to the two comments I made before, namely a) if she's offering you
the opportunity to bail out it's because she's thinking of it also and b)
perhaps your continual infighting might be an indication of your
incompatibility." Comment #2 would be more involved, namely:
Question: How has the ratio of activity to discussion been lately? How often
to the two of you do things and enjoy yourselves... compared to how often you
discuss what you've done in a type of post-mortem autopsy? You just mentioned
that you are "writing some of this shit down in Word so that I can shoot her
down when we next speak". Is that the type of relationship you want? One
where you are constantly having to explain yourself to your partner, convince
her of your intent, gathering ammunition for the next impending verbal battle?
By the way, my brother and Rhonda have finally broken up. As I have
mentioned, the two are both very aggressive people. Thus, they constantly
fought over the most trivial of things. (My father, who was living there at
the time, said that they bickered constantly.) Things ended when both agreed
Rhonda should move out. Powell is very lonely right now and basically in the
dumps, but he admits that it was the best thing. Both he and Rhonda see that
they are incompatible with one another (something which their constant
arguments showed everyone else ages ago).
Just thought I'd mention that; no real connection to the previous topic. :-)
>>>
She should also realize that when I say something I mean it, and that
when I look angry she should ask me what is wrong and verify that I am
angry. I extremely honest and open, all of which can be verified from
what I have disclosed in the past.
[end notes]
I should back-track and mention that her major complaints were that I
am extremely insecure and trusting. I agree and would throw in dependence,
too. I think too many things went awry in the beginning of the relationship
that make me less secure. For instance, I consider our first date to be the
Friday evening we went to the movies at Universal Citywalk. She never wants
to look at it that way. It's probably because of the fact that she was
dating someone else, didn't tell me, AND made all of the first moves
including that wonderful line: "You're getting me horny." I think it's
quite obvious that she realizes that she was CHEATING on her boyfriend
(if she called him as such). At very least she was showing affection to
two men at the same time. So this is one source of insecurity on my part.
Add to this: (1) she thinks I'm attractive but overweight "You just need to
trim down"; (2) when I flexed and she felt my muscles she told me "You have
a ways to go"; (3) her many relationships after her marriage; (4) the
hokiness surrounding her claim that I am the first person she has ever
fallen in love with; and (5) the little affection I receive from her
relative to what I give to her. For dessert add on the fact that she
told me that her religion allows for mistakes, that we are all only human
suggesting that if a person were to cheat on his/her mate and it was not
very planned, then it's ok. Insecurity city, dude.
But then I realize that it's a Marthism (Martha = mother). She never trusted
anyone and always questioned the motives of those around her. I find myself
doing that as well, and it hurts those around me. Only Linda could
effectively deal with it, probably because she was so dependent on me.
I think I need to rid myself of this insecurity, but I don't know how.
Since it's been something I've had some time to think about, I've thought
of some key points: (1) Get enough sleep. (2) Up my self-esteem. (3) Lose
weight. (4) DTB. I'm not so sure about the last one, though. Impulse.
Ken mentioned I was dependent on Caltech, that I was afraid of leaving the
relationship with Linda. I am starting to agree with him. You mentioned
several times that dependence was not necessarily a bad thing.
<<<
Whoah! Slow down! Geez man, those were some pith-packed paragraphs there!
Hmmm... well, I think I've already beaten the security topic to death before:
1) We have just as much confidence as we think we have.
2) If you want security, just be more ignorant of Christine's actions; if you
want truth, you must accept insecurity as a matter of course (because the
universe is a very uncertain place).
3) Insecurity is a milestone on both the roads to growth and despair.
4) Lack of insecurity is not equal to security.
(Damn! I could write fortune cookies for a living...)
As for the whole dependence thing, the most recent time I recall that is in my
conversation with Alix. Remember, I always custom craft my speech to the
individual involved; further recall I work on the "opposite exaggeration
principle". I was trying to convince Alix that her dependence wasn't an
inherently bad thing, because:
1) It's not.
2) If she believes that her dependence is bad, and that she is dependent, it
is a very easy leap to believe that she herself is bad. However, if she
believe dependence isn't inherently bad, but how she reacts to it is, she can
see herself as basically good but with a dependency problem. She will
*always* be dependent, no matter what she does; it is stamped on her
character. She needed to see that it doesn't make her a bad person to be that
way.
3) People in her situation generally spiral one direction off the other, and I
was trying to caution her that perhaps being a fully independent person might
now be what she wanted. It means she is protected from a lot of bad
occurrences... but she is also shielded from a lot of good ones. (That was the
whole, "People can't be dependable unless you depend on them" argument.)
I would also say my conversation with Alix doesn't easily generalize in a
straightforward fashion. I wasn't arguing that dependence is an inherently
good thing, either. It is very much a person to person scenario. Alix is
dependent (so dependent it causes her problems she can't tolerate) and I would
agree with her initial impulse to become more independent. However, I am
independent (so independent it causes me problems I can't tolerate) and I have
started on the path of becoming more dependent on others. In both cases, the
crux is a behavior which results in intolerable difficulties. I don't think
it is possible to advice people absolutely that one or the other is best.
As for the other times I've mentioned it, I would just reiterate that
dependence isn't necessarily a good thing, either.
>>>
[Side note: I plan to try to rescue the relationship, then put in a phone
tap that records all of her telephone messages. I saw it at a telecomm
store a few days ago. Very cool.]
<<<
*Ahem* In this case, I *really* have no comment.
>>>
Dependence: It is going to be an uphill battle, this fight against
dependence. But it might be a good thing. I haven't decided. But I
have decided I'd like to give it a shot. I have a shitload to do in the
next few months, and having a part-time woman is downright ideal. Sex
twice per week or more. Companionship on the phone and occasionally more.
A date on national holidays. And I can dump her when I leave Tech. It
sounds very much like she would be more than happy being dumped, even after
a long few months of relationship bliss (?).
<<<
Why don't you ask her? That way you could remove all the x-factors from the
equation... Who knows, Sonny, she might want the same exact thing (i.e. a
fling with inherent limits to it).
>>>
So I'm going to challenge her on some of the points outlined above, but I
simply plan on working more, working out more, and getting a LOT of shit
done in the coming weeks. This relationship is officially part-time, if
it survives our next few(?) conversations/encounters.
$ Bah! What for? Meiron will be teaching this year...
I do not have a grade posted for AMa95b, and if I can clear it by add day
I don't have to take AMa95b this year. I'll at least see what Dr. List
will expect of me. It couldn't hurt. If I do get a grade for it, I
will save myself the $1,800 it will cost to take it second term, as well
as the time investment needed then in addition to my other classes. Doom
and gloom.
<<<
I would once again remind you that it will probably require that you do *some*
work for the class...
>>>
$ Hinting = ? There's a difference between "So, I was thinking about
starlight$ the other day" and "I'm not marrying you ever, bitch". Where did
these hints$ fall?
While watching Forrest Gump, she heard a lot of music from her era. I had
heard most of it before, but it was before my time. Same goes for some of
the world events outlined in the movie. Personalitities, too. So I told
her how uncomfortable I felt knowing that we did not share that era
together. I sent a few other complaints her way, too. My big brick I was
going to hit her with is the fact that I considered myself a big part of
her life, and more importantly that her biggest problems were concerns of
mine as well.
<<<
You're losing me big-time, Sonny. How does one make the leap between "Your
life is my life, darling" to "By the way, I'm not going to marry you."???
>>>
When she told me in San Diego of her time problems, I
helped her out my picking up Anthony from school, taking him to soccer,
and other time-saving tidbits. She became much happier with all of the
time she was saving, but last night she attributed much of her happiness
to riding the bus. She said she needs space (hence the day apart) and
taking the bus gave her that space, that time to roam free and read once
again. Needless to say I was shocked. I was pulling back from the
relationship hoping she would see how much I was helping her in her quest
for more time. I was planning on not going to anything over the weekend
not to retaliate for her going out with Chris next weekend (what she
confirmed as her thoughts), but rather to see how much she was going to
help me in my problems. I figure it was a question of economics. I have
some extra time, she badly needs time. I have a lack of fundage, she has
money to blow (contrary to what she says). So I thought she might either
give direct donations or at very least pay my way.
<<<
??? You're losing me even more. I thought that she *was* paying you for your
time (i.e. stuff around the house, picking up Anthony, etc.) Isn't that a
direct exchange?
>>>
I was pleasantly surprised when she came over Friday night, realizing that
I was in emotional breakdown. I liked the fact that she offered to pay
my way to Saturday night's dance (though she once again flipped and we
instead went to the movie I paid for). The whole thing flip-flopped on
me as she was taking my irritation due to financial woes compounded with
insufficient sleep and a conscious effort to reduce my time with her as
initializations to a break-up. After all, she WAS more affectionate this
weekend.
<<<
On a totally different note, what's the sleep deal? I've been mentally
scanning back, and this seems to be a big topic. The last time I was down
there you said you were going to religiously get more sleep, but it seems as
if things as status quo (i.e. not getting enough sleep). Are you all right?
The whole Christine spiel aside, the interruption of an established sleep
pattern spells almost certain disaster for most people. As you may recall,
the one thing I tried never to muss while at Tech was my sleep; I feel that it
is an important factor in people's well-being. Have you been having insomnia?
Tell all, tell all...
>>>
... [Gratuitous stuff deleted]
$ serious butt. I have already informed both of them of my intent about
$ finishing this by Christmas (two months ahead of schedule). Both think it's
$ pretty much impossible... I'm betting it's just damn improbable at this
point.
$ We'll see.
Once you get the computer, prob(RT is finished < X-mas) decreases, noticeably.
<<<
No way, man! I am already cranking on this project... (discounting the
half-day I spent writing this letter, off course. Gotta keep you're
priorities in order... )
>>>
$ three people per year.) Finally, if after two years I am outstanding in my
$ performance, they will offer me a tenured-like position.
$
$ So, as you can see, my chances are quite good for getting a job there...
:-)
My best advice for the DMV in terms of time reduction is: make an appoint-
ment. It will save you HOURS of time, dude.
<<<
Hah, ha haaaah, bwah ha, hah ha. I DID MAKE APPOINTMENTS, BOTH TIMES!
>>>
... [preaching and sex deleted; funny how those go together...]
I was/am certainly broken-hearted, but I am trying to muster the belief
that whatever happens is for the best. If I say it often enough, I might
even start to believe it.
<<<
There are no deceivers like self-deceivers...
>>>
$ difficult to breath.
Correction: breathe
<<<
... except for those who violate the sanctity of e-mail replies. :-)
>>>
... [Disclosure]
You're right. But I'm too chicken-shit. I think after Thanksgiving would
be a good time. Or better yet, as we start to talk about post-Caltech
plans would be an excellent time to do some soul querying.
<<<
There's no time like the present, Sonny! Carpae Dium! Strike now whilst the
iron is hot! Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die!
>>>
$ In another perspective, do you think Alix should break up with Chris? You
do?
$ Why is that? Because they are no longer enjoying each other's company all
$ the time? Because it is causing her more pain / irritation than joy to be
$ with him? Because she's crying over the relationship late at night... over
$ the phone... breaking down because of the strain of maintaining a
$ best-for-all-parties ended relationship?
Because I honestly think she's just staying in a hurtful relationship because
she would feel extremely lonely, especially considering Cathy and I have
significant others.
$ Does this sound familiar, Sonny?
Suck carpet.
Besides, I am not hurting (except when I decide to or am tired or...)
<<<
"We despise others because in them, we see ourselves." If you are going to
follow up on the dependency argument, then there are an *alarming* number of
parallels between the S-C and A-C couplets. Try this little thought
experiment. Could you honestly suggest to Alix the course you are taking now
with Christine. "Alix," you would say to her with her red-rimmed eyes, "Even
though you and Chris aren't getting along well and are hurting more than
making each other happy, you should stick with him anyway. And after all, you
don't want to lose the security of that relationship, right? You'd be all
alone, then, especially since everyone else has partners. Forget that
dependency stuff, live with the pain. Oh, and especially stick it out even
though you know it is never going to lead to marriage, but keep that to
yourself so that things appear okay."
Could you do that? The turtle is just lying there, trying to flip back onto
it's stomach, but it can't without your help... What Are You Going To Do,
Sonny, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA TO DO! 8^)
>>>
...
SUE HIM!!!!!!
...
How's that back feeling, Kim? Is it affecting your job? Your posture?
Your sex life? Write down the details while they're still fresh in your
mind.
<<<
Well, I couldn't sue him even had I wanted to, because I didn't take his
driver's license number or plate down. I actually think it worked out very
well...
>>>
$ having a computer outweigh the detriments, and have started the ball
rolling.
$ I'm going to be buying 16M of memory from Justin, and the rest of the
computer
$ from a local store. It should all converge by this weekend.
10 Advantages > Disadvantages. Nuff said.
<<<
I just got the 16M! It is just waiting to burn a hole in a computer
somewhere...
>>>
...[Debt]
$ Thus, it looks like I am planted here for the time being.
20 GOTO 10
-Sleepless and heartbroken in Pasadena
<<<
Oh, I certainly agree, on both counts. My real concern at this point remains
the whole companionship spiel. I think it's time to start scoping out the
joints where the really nubile women hang out... It's time to go bowling!
In fact, I'm about T-minus 5hours to bowling right now. I'll let you know
how it works out.
-Heartless and sleepbroken in Belmont %~)
--
Kim E. Lumbard
______________________________________________________________________________
Home: 590 Ralston Ave Apt #3 Work: 300 Oracle Parkway
Belmont, CA 94002 Box 659304
Phone: +1 (415) 508-1852 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Perm #: 0-700-LUMBARD [585-2273] Phone: +1 (415) 506-2195
E-Mail: klumbard@us.oracle.com FAX: +1 (415) 506-7292