Deciding to play a persona afterwards, even though you have already seen for yourself that this persona is a lie.
One has made a “hard statement” and distanced oneself from another person. You can’t row back now, because that would be a loss of your own dignity and you plan and weigh up what the other person might think if you were to answer one way or another or correct and readjust your attitude/opinion. This “hard statement”, however, was made from a position of weakness and for a short time one deluded oneself that it is the authentic self. In this respect, it is so that one temporarily assumes an attitude/opinion that is not one’s own for other reasons, but in this moment of offence or rejection it seems to be one’s own.
Now one (the lover) thinks afterwards how to deal with the fact that he can no longer identify with this attitude/opinion, knowing that the Beloved Subject values it when someone reveals himself with a clear attitude/opinion.
One thinks: “I have seen through myself – I know that I no longer have this opinion/attitude, but what is more beautiful after the loss of contact, in the many years to come? Is it nicer if I now make a pathetic scene and show myself to the other person as needy with regard to his confirmation, or if I stick to this opinion/attitude although it is no longer authentic? The lover perceives in his subconscious (he usually represses it) that it causes him grief, that he enters “the story” as a liar. He thinks of the future in which the Beloved Subject will assess him on the basis of the statements he has made and he will then always be remembered as the person who has this specific opinion/attitude. It feels embarrassing for him to be not authentic towards the Beloved Subject (determined in the future) and now to have no other choice than to let it be based on it, since a subsequent correction of the statements made is not possible. What is possible is merely the blurring of positions, for example, by deleting statements made afterwards of his own accord, which he left in social media and which were not authentic. This blurring is also a nuisance for the Beloved Subject because it is often also a contact (it shows that the messages still occupy the lover, although they shouldn’t if he was authentic), but it feels authentic in contrast to “leaving” what was said, because it reveals among other things that one no longer has this opinion/attitude, but leaves open how one sees it instead. In this respect, deletion is always an emergency exit from a deadlocked situation.
Deleting messages is painful, but not as painful for the lover as leaving false information behind. Because in relation to the way of loving described here, you have to know the other person and deleted information is less distance for the lover in relation to the felt love than false information. One is closer to the other when there are no false words in between.
Compatibility and reconciliation are foreign to the other. He does not want to make a contract with a person he finds repulsive. The other (the beloved subject) fears those who come to him/her with claims or promises (see: Pat Benatar: no promises, no demands – Love is a Battlefield), so he/she rejects them and they then throw themselves in a degrading way at the feet of the beloved subject or want to make a deal that establishes an order with which they can then come to terms. Because a contract is also a kind of relationship. But you don’t even get this from the other person (the beloved subject), because she rejects any kind of relationship that could make the other person feel that he or she is even remotely important or relevant to the beloved subject (but not intentionally, but because of her loyalty to dignity). For the lover, it does not appear as if he or she has any claims or promises, but he or she feels an urge to want to get in contact with this person, which is authentic from his or her point of view, because it comes from the unconscious (it is a physical reaction: being in love, Limerence, …). However, there is one thing the Beloved Subject does not do authentically – “killing the dolphins”. That means: those situations in which the lover was authentic are left and allowed to be (see: Луна – Dolphins: И твоих дельфинов я бы не убила Я же обещала, я же говорила).
What are these voices in the lover’s unconscious that want to speak out loud and take control of the body? They want to make him give up his own dignity. To throw oneself in front of the loved subject’s feet, which is not possible, however, because the sword of Damocles threatens the final loss of value, which is reciprocated in several small blows, which then follow regularly, just like in a game of chess, the mate can be seen a few moves in advance. The voices cry and moan and checkmate is recognizable, which happens when you give in to the voices. In the opposite direction, the Lover sees the decision to completely fade out these whining voices in him and to react as a “reactionary ruler” to the fact that the Loved Subject has proved to him that she already has power over these voices. This reactionary path leads to the separation and suppression of the offending, but also to the suppression of the possible learning experience into the unconscious (and he would then no longer be a lover either). The lover is too closely connected to his unconscious. He cannot simply (as many other people can) leave aside an offence or experience, because it would damage the integrity of his inner world and he always wants to remain “a whole” and not fragment it. He wants to integrate and grow and not traumatize and reject parts of himself, because otherwise they hurt him. So: if he does not confront himself with absurdity, it loses its meaning (see “Albert Camus – Myth of Sisyphus”). The third way that the lover sees for himself is to keep the state of being rejected permanently bubbling and in consciousness. These situations are known in psychology as “Kränkung”. The lover cannot simply ignore the absurdity and the confrontation with it, because he has become aware of it and he does not want to be unfaithful to it under any circumstances. “I have seen her and have found her beautiful and now I am supposed to push her away and forget everything, with that I would push away a part of myself”.
Insert for this purpose: On the other hand, there’ s the third party: “the Net”. The unconscious that in our times is turned outside and is under the control of other people and the money/power flow of these parties. Be it dating platforms or video platforms. Where the exchange is possible, it is possible that conditions between the beloved subject and the lover become perceptible and reveal themselves to the other in a shortened form, which can allow deceptive and false conclusions. If the lover now chooses to keep the state of rejection permanently bubbling and in consciousness, and if he or she authentically represents this to the outside world as part of his or her identity, these platforms may also carry the message about his or her state to the Beloved Subject. And it is up to the interest of these platforms how the messages will finally arrive. How can this be prevented? Should the lover learn to remain silent?
The feeling of powerlessness for the lover: when you are looking for a way out and the painful feeling comes up: “I am at her mercy; and this is absurd, for I am a human being in my own right whose body alone is capable of living without her, and yet my gesture shows that I am imagining a connection between us that reveals itself as a relationship of dependence, and she suspects it; she knows that in spite of all my charade I will always direct the contact with her into this – stupid direction – that I hand over power to her and then want her to use this power in my sense for my dreams or wishes, which should confirm to me that it is not or will not be like it was originally experienced in childhood in such a special and intimate contact”. The lover becomes aware in mutual exchange with the beloved subject that she is “capable” of giving him the feeling of really meeting a woman at the same level (not only the superficially attractive one), because he has recognized it: he has been seen through by her in his behavior which he has even repressed from himself. She sees through that he is putting on a show with her to confirm that he will not be rejected again. By trying again and again to transfer power to her and then testing whether she uses this power in his sense and if she doesn’t, he rows back again and pretends that he doesn’t care about anything.
Actually the lover has outwardly grown up, but has taken these moments and experiences of rejection with him from his childhood and as soon as he meets a woman of whom he thinks that this woman can reflect the event of the rejection at that time, so that he can finally manage to finally solve the experience of that time, in that just such a “kind” of woman confirms what he has always wished for before, he then puts this game into effect without consciously wanting it.
Based on the many previous experiences, he is looking for ways to solve this as painlessly as possible if it does not work out again. The most proven method is “freezing”, which does not trigger the final rejection, but before the final escalation stage he leaves the situation of the contact in an absurd, blurring state, which he hopes to escape the condemnation and it feels like a kind of balance, because he once managed where it was very important to handle it that way and now he sees it as a proven method. Or else: he admonishes himself not to become a stalker. Too easily one could think his behaviour is “passive-aggressive”, because it might seem like an accusation to the beloved subject. But in most cases, the lover actually only expects that a kind of “reconciliation” takes place, that you come to an agreement, find an understanding and a “contract”, in other words that you get along. But he chooses exactly that kind of women (unconsciously) who don’t get along and who finally reject him when he takes the chance. Knowing that this will be the case adds the additional absurdity that the lover feels “cringe”. He is ashamed of how he is and that he is like a drug addict chasing a kick and has to pretend to himself that it won’t be like that.
Parallel to all this absurdity, however, there is usually also a hint of a possible connection (platonic) with the Beloved Subject on an unreachable and only suspiciously perceived level visible to him. He then thinks for himself: “but I know that I have more to say to her and that there is more that connects us than just this absurd theatre. It is exactly these platonic things that I have been striving for since childhood at the first insult and never gained access to”.
The Moving Finger writes: and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it
Not wanting to receive the final confirmation that you are out of place (wrong in the eyes of the other person). Not wrong (all people have faults and weaknesses), but precisely wrong in this contact with the beloved subject. Out of place as a lost and deceived person, because the deception is to pretend to the other that you are looking for him (the other), but for the other it becomes obvious that you want to be saved. Thus, no contact among equals is possible, but the lover comes up with the idea of a relationship based on dependencies and distribution of power and tries to hide this from himself and the other.
– The lover here is someone who is looking for “unconditional love”; someone who does not reject him even if he is the way he is (sometimes full of contradictions, evasive, harmless, …). Primarily he is the one who wants to be loved, or he disposes his affection in a way that is arbitrary.
– The Beloved Subject here is someone who is looking for ” conditional love “, in which one gets to know oneself and the other and knows more and more precisely and accurately what kind of person the other is. She wants the experience of a mutual caring for people who mean and concern you in their entirety.
The Beloved Subject shows the lover that true love (meaningful and therefore painful as well as joyful) is “conditional love”. But this is also closely linked to the danger of rejection, and so the lover always chooses “unconditional love” as a lifeline when he or she does not feel up to the situation.
When the Beloved Subject reveals that it remains in absurdity, this pleases the lover; for it shows: that he was not completely rejected/rejected, but was only rejected for those parts that were there: demands, expectations. But since there was no discussion, this remains uncertain, but in this respect it has put the lover in a state of rest, in which he now remains thrown back on himself and no longer hears the compulsive voices telling him the claims and expectations. He is in a kind of dream world (land of make believe), because he is still stuck in a lie/hope that there will still be a reconciliation or an acceptance/tolerance. The complexity of the connections, however, ensures that he has to let it rest (in the absurdity) because he simply cannot see through it. He senses into his unconscious and feels: “yes, it fits, I feel somewhat okay with the situation”. The lover can thus be satisfied if he deludes himself that he has been accepted in a certain way in the distance of the loss of contact. Be it that he was not blocked, that not all his messages in social media were deleted, he feels supported in his self-esteem again. It feels right for him and he feels gratitude for the Beloved Subject for leaving value where it was given.