Thursday, November 15, 2012

Response to Kaeshi & Brad—Part VII: The Gangrened and Diseased Limb

The day after I posted my critique of PURE's War & Peace performance in an Open Letter to Kaeshi Chai, she sent a response that I understand made significant rounds through the internet. Since it contains many false and hurtful statements about me and others, I feel compelled to respond.

What follows is the seventh (!!!) part of that response. For further info, please see:
(Kaeshi's letter, continued)
The truth is, I also simply no longer wanted her in my circle at all. Period. I am much happier without her in my life and I liked who I was as a person much better without her presence. 
Again, this seems disingenuous, given her multiple requests to meet with me—which she rejected only when I requested a mediator who might challenge her world view. Then consider her subsequent conciliatory email, once again asking to meet—only this time with a mediator of her choosing—which I then rejected.

Now: This decision to improve one's happiness by removing another from one's life is something that should be looked at closely.

One of the great benefits of the New Age/Self-Help movement has been in providing a framework of autonomy: We learn that we choose much of our experience and therefore have the power to change it for the better.

But the key to choosing is taking responsibility for what we have already chosen. If we do not recognize what elements in ourselves have attracted unhealthy/hurtful relationships or patterns of experience then we are powerless to permanently change them.

And while excluding or removing ourselves from that which grieves us may create a powerful illusion of "choosing," we are much better served by remaining in relationship with the Other, and looking at ourselves squarely to grasp what compels us to reject them. Without out such humble, honest self-examination, then—even though expelling the unwanted person or situation may create an ego-boosting sense of happiness—the underlying cause is not cured. The internal pattern that attracted the experience in the first place is still operating and will likely attract a similar experience again.

Worse, if our decision to unfairly reject/exclude another then harms that person, our conscience should compel an added burden of guilt and shame. Further, if we attempt to suppress such negative emotions, we inevitably diminish our ability to experience positive emotions.

As Brené Brown, author of The Gifts of Imperfection: Letting Go of Who We Think We Should Be and Embracing Who We Are, wisely advised in her signature TED Talk "The Power of Vulnerability": "You cannot selectively numb emotion...shame...fear...disappointment. ...You can't numb those hard feelings without numbing the other...emotions. ... So when we numb...we numb joy...gratitude...happiness."

In other words, the very attempt to secure happiness by unjustly and remorselessly walling off another—defining that person as a thing to be shunned—in itself potently hinders our ability to feel the very happiness we sought!

Now, admittedly, there are hurtful, exploitative, callous people who perhaps can justifiably be shunned. Further, it is reasonable to have two fine, decent people who are simply better off apart.

But Kaeshi's own behavior proves that neither was the case because she needed to vilify me in order to excuse her unilateral rejection of me. It is not the act of dissolving ties that should weigh most on her conscience here, but the intent and manner in which it was done.

It hurt me terribly to learn she had defined me in this horrific way. But as I came to understand her view, I began to look at how I had defined her, how I had viewed her and what I had needed from her—and how that affected my ability to relate to her; I resolved that healing and reconnection might be possible if we could come to see one another clearly.

And so in May I wrote a letter to her saying:
For my own part, I have had my share of needs and insecurities as well, and you too have “a special way of getting to me.” As we have discussed, I do my best to deal with my challenges in this regard, but I am a human being with my own history of feeling neglected, wanting attention, lacking confidence, etc. And, as my teacher and artistic director, some of these more difficult aspects have been cast on you, giving you an inordinate amount of power over me—which I understand has been uncomfortable for you to deal with. ...
Truly, it breaks my brain to even attempt to comprehend the image you seem to have of me. ... Because whomever it it is, it is not me.
It is, in fact, yourself. 
There are many qualities that you ascribe to me which you, yourself, possess. But you can’t or won’t see them in yourself, and so you put them on me. ... May I suggest you write down a list of those qualities, both good and bad ... and meditate on that list. ... [Because] it is wholeness, being able to humbly see oneself as one truly is—'warts and all' and accepting the difficulty and discomfort of that—which allows the ego to relax making compassion and compromise possible.
She wrote back:

Wow, this is quite an essay. I probably won't read it through because I'm really busy but I'm touched that you spent that much time writing it. 
At a glance I can see that you feel depressed, bitter and angry. 
I am saddened by it but I see it from a completely different point of view. It clear [sic] to me that you don't really know me at all and what motivates me to action. ... Even though your words are dripping with vehemence and hate toward me, I am still going to send you positive energy tonight.
Sigh.

This does not mean that I expected the same of others. I did not think less of mutual friends who stayed in communication with her. My decision for a break was mine alone.
She claims the "break was [hers] alone," yet she speaks of her "circle"—implying her decision would, in fact, affect the feelings and attitudes of others. And, indeed, it did as many felt forced to choose sides, either subtly distancing themselves from me, or supporting her in decisions and attitudes they knew would be professionally and personally damaging to me.
She has since twisted my words into untruths...
I quoted her verbatim and in context.
No, of course I do not blame my arm dislocation which happened last September on her... that's just ridiculous. I believe it was a physical manifestation of how overextended my schedule was last year. It was a major wake up call from the universe. Yes, I probably could have ended things better with her, I just felt like one of my limbs (connected to PURE) was so gangrened and diseased, it was much simpler to chop the whole thing off with a clean break from each other than start the slow and painful process of more mediation when we both did not both have the distance of time to cool our emotions and to establish a healthier perspective.
This is the strangest, most self-contradictory paragraph in the letter. Curious that it starts with the remark about "twisted words," because what follows twists itself into the most mindbending contortions.

First, she says she does not blame her arm dislocation on me. Yet three sentences later, she blames me!

Follow:  From this: "I just felt like one of my limbs (connected to PURE) was so gangrened and diseased..." I conclude that I, in fact, am the "gangrened and diseased [limb]...connected to PURE." (And let me tell you, you have not lived until you have been compared publicly to a gangrened and diseased limb!) And the universe's "major wake-up call" to Kaeshi is to "[end] things with [me]," which is conveyed somewhat dramtically via the dislocation of her shoulder.

So... If I am not around, the universe does not need to deliver any limb-rending messages, and her rotator cuff stays intact. Correct?

Ergo: I am to blame for the dislocation of her shoulder. (!!!)

Anyway.

So she dutifully heeded the universe's call to eject me, but did not seem to do much about her "overextended...schedule" which is more full than ever and caused her to miss many of PURE's War & Peace workshops exploring conflict cause and resolution.

Further, if her schedule were such a concern to her, would it make sense to cast out the very person who had been doing the lion's share of work for PURE? Had it not been for my high-level involvement, no production of PURE Reflections would have occurred in 2011.

Lastly, she speaks of a the need to "[chop] the whole thing off with a clean break", but inconsistently goes on about having "the distance of time to cool our emotions and establish a healthier perspective." At face, it makes little sense, but it is in fact consistent with what actually happened: She reached out once her emotions had cooled, but she showed no respect or concern for me or my emotions...

And how could I, with any self-respect, then reconnect with her?

To be continued in Part VIII: Transgressions
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)