From: cburke@nexus.yorku.ca (Carolyn L Burke)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 20:09

I have tried to say this a lot lately. I will try again.

I need depth all of the time when I relate to another person. Without depth, there is no worth while relating for me. Passion is a sort of depth as is good thinking and creativity. Compassion is not, nor is sympahy, solipsism, or historical concern (concern ofthe past and not the present too much).

I suspect that you find relaxation and comfort in a smoothly flowing social context that I cannot find relaxing. In the long ago past I referred to this as you tryng to create a group or be a part of a group with me. In the medium past I called it my getting stuck near you. Now I am more apt to refer to it as scheduling too many events in a row in sequence. I've also indicated that ou need a girlfriend -- someone who takes lots of this energy of yours up and appreciates it. Although the sexual energy has been translated into other areas by you now, the stuff you find relaxing to do I would only *ever* find relaxing if I felt that the other person(s) I was associating with and I had really dealt fully with everything between us. I *never* havethis feeling with you.

You have claimed a number of times now that I am keeping the lid on some topics. I know I have lidded my mind's construction from you, as I would not allow a child with a scalpel to play anatomy explorer on my body. And as I would not allow myself to lead a situation socially in any way. So there is something which I will not let you persuasively discuss with me. I no longer feel I am special person, I no longer have a beautiful Neko to love, and I was falsely reassured about grad school applications. In each case, you acted as you saw fit. As I understand and agree that it makes sense to act as one sees fit, I must commend you onhaving done so, and... I must choose not to rely on you about future events of this calibre again. I believe this is also a rational decision for a number of reasons. However, relying on you and keeping you informed are separate, or can be. I do not mind discussing these things with you and keepingyou informed about my thinking and my plans and needs. However, in large part as my thinking is psychological, and as my spoken language is systematically - or at least very often - misinterpreted by you (and vice versa), I must by my standards of good judgement choose not to rely even on your thinking on any matters in this category. I must instead rely on my own.

Why I can listen to Tracey and not you: Tracey comes with packaging which states clearly what her biases are. She let's me and others know in no uncertain terms what the biases are, and what will invoke them. Contrast this with what you do. You claim tacitly that your thought prcesses are rational, clear, reliable, well-informed, etc. You claim tacitly not to have biases, although explicitely you agree that of course you must have them (Popperian point). If you do have it / them, then it would stand to reason (my reasoning anyway) that you would advertisethem to assist in communication. Allowing me to know the bias clearly would allow me also to take what you say at any time and use it by removeing the bias where I can. I *can* do this with what Tracey says, and *not* with what you say.

My personal health degrades when I live without depth for too long. Simply, depth is heart tearing openness and honesty about what really matters to a person right then. Simply. I have the sense that you do not do all of these things at the sametime. You are honest about yesterday, open about now, and heart tearing almost never.

I believe that the shit of one's decisions accumulates faster than you believe it does. I also believe that thsi is a positive world view, in that I attempt to clear my backyard of shit as much as is required to keep it relatively livable in. I try for instance never to miss when your face tells me you are unhappy. And about half of those times, I push you to talk about it. The other half I don't half the strength for.

I don't think you've ever pushed me to talk about my unhappiness, or a look of sadness that crosses my face. If I laugh, I know you will usually say "What" in a drawled question of curious desire to get in on the fun. You query about pleasures I might have and not about pains. You attempt to make me explain and analyse -- break -- what I enjoy, and not to explain and analyse -- heal -- what hurts me.

I can't take this.

Worse, I can't take that you do not talk about your own bad feelings. You are a feeling good wannabe. If you want it so much, go for it. But given how you feel so often - socially happy but psychologically not so very much - I feel like I am drowning around you. Drowning in the sorrow you feel and do not want to know about.

I prefer the world of the abstract to the world of the distraction. After years of living true to this preference it is well estabished in me, and I feel a lot of self-esteem as a consequence of having enjyed it so. Does that help?

I am not coming down on any of this in any moral way. I hope instead to be describing differences. The clarification of such may help in lessening the confusions that occur. I wish that you would respect that I am a psychological person *BY* not forgetting that I am. That's it. I would like to do the same with you in return, if I am allowed to.

C