The way back home

eye2i2 · Subject: Re: The way back home Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:52 pm

Dude/dudette, what? Are you a former writer for Leave It To Beaver or The Cosby Show?
I could only speculate how exceptional your described scenario is, outside of such prog'ramming visions, but as for my sphere, writing more on the order of Married With Children/The Bundy's hits* closer to the too-typical parenting. Imagine that.
* pogrom in some physical "discipline"/violence, and kill the laugh track, of course... (yeah, Al & Peg would describe their parenting as "loving" too, no?)

Rose colored glasses.
Theories of Relativeties.

** caveat/disclaimer: not intended to be taken as or imply an endorsement of Universal deFOO **

They cry in the dark, so you can't see their tears
They hide in the light, so you can't see their fears
Forgive and forget, all the while
Love and pain become one and the same
In the eyes of a wounded child
Because hell...
Hell is, for children
And you know that their little lives can become such a mess
Hell...
Hell is, for children
And you shouldn't have to pay for your love with your bones and your flesh

It's all so confusing, this brutal abusing
They blacken your eyes, and then apologize
You're daddy's good girl, and don't tell mommy a thing
Be a good little boy, and you'll get a new toy
Tell grandma you fell off the swing

Because hell...
Hell is, for children
And you know that their little lives can become such a mess
Hell...
Hell is, for children
And you shouldnt have to pay for your love with your bones and your flesh
--Pat Benatar

And one shouldn't have to pay for their love with their minds, either...

jawol(48) · Number of posts: 90 Registration date: 2008-11-16

eye2i2, hmmm! you are not helping here(dude by the way) The programmes you speak of are created for entertainment, children clearly are not. I acknowledge your right to your opinion but consider the above poem not relevant here. Please kindly read the second sentence of the post above yours.
I sincerely hope that the poem does not reflect a chapter in your life nor indeed anyone else's for that matter. Sadly though I have to concede that in reality it does, for some.
The point of this post in case you missed it, is that I want my family back togehter as I am sure many others do theirs.

eye2i2 · Subject: Re: The way back home Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:48 pm

jawol(48) wrote:

I acknowledge your right to your opinion but consider the above poem not relevant here. Please kindly read the second sentence of the post above yours.

Assuming I've gotten the correct 2nd sentence, as:

Quote:

It has come to my attention that a question sometimes asked of our missing relations is ‘why or how will you miss me?’ I consider this to be well worthy of a response, after all this is about ‘them’ and not ‘us’.

If this is the correct sentence, I desire humbly to tell you that I had this very sentence in mind with my original response.
I would in turn ask you to reconsider the question, pausing as long as needed with focus on the "me" in it; the "me" that is not "us" (as "not about us"). Then re-read what you said you miss, and ask if anything in that really regards "me" --particularly in the FDR/RTR perspective (as the perspective of the "me"; not to get into whether you or I agree or disagree with such)? And for that matter, is there a "me" in any personal/personality, individual ("real-time") perspective?
For the "child"-- as one willing to deFOO no less, is he/she in those experiences written about, really --Or-- are those things shared in the post really pretty generic [fill in anyone's name for your child here]? Generic, as anyone/any-child could have filled those shoes?

I'm not wishing to convey that those experiences aren't joyous, precious, and memorable; not by any means. I just don't hear much-to-anything regarding your expressed goal: the missed "me" (the emotional person your child is, as everything else experienced) in the memories, as very personal.

Quote:

I sincerely hope that the poem does not reflect a chapter in your life nor indeed anyone else's for that matter.

Thank you; that's nice of you to express.

Quote:

Sadly though I have to concede that in reality it does, for some.

Sad indeed.
And to what degree the subjectivity is crucial, makes it even more potentially so.

Quote:

The point of this post in case you missed it, is that I want my family back togehter as I am sure many others do theirs.

I understood that, sincerely. Per the above, I'm simply questioning what makes "family" for you. And for your offspring? Perhaps I should remind here, that I embrace the premise that there can be a familial cult, if and when one wishes to embrace the concept of cult. While I can relate to saying "I just want my family back together", I can just as easily hear a group labeled as culty saying "We just want our member-family back together." "Intervention", akin to "undue influence", is quite subjective.

The things you've listed strike me as being more biological than personal/social, if that connects with you at all?

jawol(48) · Number of posts: 90 Registration date: 2008-11-16

Hi eye2i2.
I am not quite fully understanding your questions but I can answer in part. I am trying to generalise a little whilst also implying my relation. I have also considered the experience of other parents and from being observational.
Regarding the ‘me’ and ‘us’ I have come to believe that I am un-able just to talk about the ‘me’ as we are all so intertwined in life and have to embrace the ‘us’. After all there would be no ‘me’ if there were no ‘us’ ( parents ) to begin with.

You mention ‘familial cult’.That made me look around my world and observe. In doing so I can see that there are great many things that could be considered ‘cult’ or perhaps a better term would be ‘semi cult’.
A family to me is not a cult. It is something we are born into. My understanding is that a family will be supportive of its own kin and will eventually embrace other families in relationships. Do cults embrace other cults?

jawol(48) · Number of posts: 90 Registration date: 2008-11-16

eye2i2, with respect.
I just read the 23 ways to fight post, I think we are getting off the subject, ha ha
Regards
Jawol(48)

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Jawol -

Excellent skill in using the "23 Ways to Fight" post. Bravo!

I appreciate how much you miss your child, and wish (s)he would return. It is difficult to imagine the feelings that a parent must experience when their child who they adore more than themselves disappears into the world of a cult. Your posts have been illuminating in helping others who have not experienced this personally to have some insight into those feelings.

I love you

eye2i2 · Subject: Re: The way back home Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:16 pm

jawol(48) wrote:

Hi eye2i2.
I am not quite fully understanding your questions...

I quite understand. You're certainly not the first to find this to be the case. Embarassed

While feeling sure there'll be ney-sayers, I do wish to and I'm trying to work on improving my communication style.

Quote:

You mention ‘familial cult’.That made me look around my world and observe. In doing so I can see that there are great many things that could be considered ‘cult’ or perhaps a better term would be ‘semi cult’.
A family to me is not a cult. It is something we are born into. My understanding is that a family will be supportive of its own kin and will eventually embrace other families in relationships. Do cults embrace other cults?

Let me express my satisfaction in hearing you both are and shared that you are, looking around you. I admire you for that and applaud your courage.

On the matter of legitimacy of labeling family as a cult, in examining my past posts, I think I've found that the way I've expressed the possibility/allegation of such was also done as hoping to jar, shake, or even shock a bit. I believe this is akin to most thinking of their family as "the family" --where I can recall hearing a mafioso referred to as The Family etc.
I've often referred to "The Cult Of Family" in prior posts. In considering it further, I've come to realize that can be taken (or heard) as saying ALL family is/all families are cults. I've tried to clarify or quantify it here and there since by also posting that I reject the position that all families are cults-- and I'll stand by that again now. I might need to remind as well, that I generally don't even wish to use the term "cult", and when I do it is only where I'd like to challenge one using it, to examine their allegations precisely as they hold, but in reverse. This is akin to the saying "If one is pointing a finger at another they should be aware that there are three pointing at them as well."

The primary issues I've had with cult allegations around LiMi are the tenets proposed and called "undue influence" and "intervention". It is my present position that most parents too easily discount their influence of their offspring, yet wish to attack another on that point, calling it culty. I'll touch on that a bit more momentarily. As far as intervention, I generally see parents refusing (mostly verbally?) to or disputing allowing the individuals that they birthed the autonomy to both classify their family as culty/a cult (abusive) and rejecting their position of being allowed to leave said cult. So much so that they'll seriously consider an "intervention". From my perspective, cult labeling is mostly if not totally subjective; thus personal. I'm not wishing to be heard as saying I don't see undue influence as a valid potential, I just think it cuts both ways.

On the aspect of undue influence, this couples in my mind with your question regarding cults with cults. First, on the aspect of being born into a cult-- wow, but what an interesting consideration. How about if we consider FDR say in 40 years-- where those embracing it have children who's parents have always been in it. Thus for those children, were then not born into it? I'm not sure therefore, that being born into it is a valid distinction regarding cults. Groups like The Mormons, Scientologists, and some sects of Jews as literal examples? [and hold the snickers in the LiMi peanut gallery at the prospect of FDRers getting married/having children! --and/or being around in 40 years; if that's your inclination, Christianity anyone?] Wink

For me, one huge example of cults dealing with cults is in the form called The United Nations (where many accept each other's "passports" for example). A relatively [sic] new phenomena on the global scene, but there it is.

Closely linked to the "born into it" aspect is considering the size any cult might get to. Where I propose, that if enough folk embrace such, the label simply becomes rather than the cult, the culture. Quite a slight of mind. Think a moment about what if a vast majority held the tenets of the cult/The Cult as valid?! 1930-40s NationalSocialist (NASI/NAZI) Germany might serve as a good literal example. I argue that most Nationalists/Statists are cult members-- or to borrow your phrase, semi-cults, akin to borderline cults. But then, who defines 'cult' authoritively?

From my present perspective, the definition of family is about as suspect as the definition of culture --and probably even the definition of cult. Especially when it is the parent versus the child in doing the defining; but not disregarding when it is an adult with an adult, and/or an age disparity, etc. Whether there are valid tenets regarding individuals relative to family, like they are "forever" (or "indivisible"*), just as whether there are valid tenets regarding individuals relative to cults, seems an important, crucial question to explore. Willingness TO explore sure seems to hold the greatest potential, if we can know, to know. And so I again applaud that willingness I sense expressed in your reply.

BTW, just for the record, I am a parent of two daughters, both now adults (one with children of her own, etc). The aspects of a willingness to selflessly severe that bond, I take into my life regarding them. In having considered what I now see to be border-line abuse issues (e.g. physical "spanking") and authoritarianism (e.g. voice inflection), marrying a woman with serious undealt with deep emotional issues to be a mother, along with pressing Christinsanity during their formative years, my contact and time with them is very guarded; and for the most part, I leave the initiation of it to them. I've also written them both detailed letters regarding my mistakes, regrets, apology, and my aspirations regarding changing my "self".

*I used the word "indivisible" quite intentionally, because it is in the U.S. (Nationalist) Pledge of Allegiance, thus a possible cult/semi-cult affair. The biological bonds, as mere historical facts when it comes to 'adult' children, are of course per se indivisible, or irrevocable; if one wishes to call that family, they have the prerogative of course. And if they're the majority, they'll have a dictionary printed to prove it?! Cults generally do such proving?! However, saying that historical occurrence as fact makes interaction permanent/perpetually guaranteed? Well, that's easily arguable as being undue influence and culty --in my book. study

Principally, indistinguishable from a(ny) cult leader (politician?) saying a member can't leave because they "joined" involuntarily?

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Thank you for sharing more about yourself, eye. It is good to get to know you better.

Nelle

eye2i2 · Subject: Re: The way back home Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:33 pm

jawol(48) wrote:

I just read the 23 ways to fight post, I think we are getting off the subject, ha ha

--wait

... does this mean we were fighting?!? Shocked

like cats & dogs peace?

(and we're not even going there regarding one of the best things about fighting is making up out...) Wink

---NonSpooner2

jawol(48) · Number of posts: 90 Registration date: 2008-11-16

eye2i2 wrote:

jawol(48) wrote:

I just read the 23 ways to fight post, I think we are getting off the subject, ha ha

--wait

... does this mean we were fighting?!? Shocked

like cats & dogs peace?

(and we're not even going there regarding one of the best things about fighting is making up out...) Wink

---NonSpooner2

Let's take a break for a few minutes lol!

QuestEon · Number of posts: 552 Registration date: 2008-03-25

jawol(48) wrote:

Let's take a break for a few minutes lol!

That's what I like to do with eye, too. Let him chill for a couple days and then attack him again when he least expects it.

-Q.E.
"23 Ways to Fight Like a Bastard."

_________________
-Q.E.

Conrad · Subject: Re: The way back home Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:58 pm

Eye, you make some decent enough points, but that doesn't detract from your status as a dogdamn hippy

_________________
My Blog

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

QuestEon wrote:

That's what I like to do with eye, too. Let him chill for a couple days and then attack him again when he least expects it.

Hey, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the pointer! cheers

- NonE

eye2i2 · Subject: Re: The way back home Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:50 pm

Alex · Subject: Re: The way back home Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:33 am

QuestEon wrote:

Chaohinon wrote:

jawol(48) wrote:

Did you really set out to hurt your family?

A question like this is entirely self-damning. Your child would not have cut off contact if they weren't feeling hurt themselves, whether it be from a specific event or a gradual unfolding of events.

And even assuming that your child is consciously trying to hurt you, have you taken the time to ask why that would be? Either of yourself, of your child, or of others who may have relevant accounts to share.

I think it's easy to forget what a tremendous security blanket family (in most cases, anyhow) represents. And for someone - especially someone who hasn't outgrown dependency on authority figures - to flee from it takes a lot. Venturing into the world can be frightening for some, and it must have taken something infinitely more so to drive them away.

I think if you truly care for the person you've lost, you would want to ask what may have happened to cause such a schism. Pointing your finger at some obscure libertarian podcast stands out as a blatant attempt to evade the heart of the matter. This is not to say that it's immediately your fault, but the situation just begging for a careful and thorough consideration of that which parents so often gloss over.

Hi, Chaohinon!

Welcome! I appreciated your thoughtful post and I hope it is the first of many. I'm not going to challenge anything you said above because I agree with you 100%--every single word. I don't think you can really understand the child who leaves his or her family until you understand what a tremendously terrifying and painful step it must have been--a desperate step people take when they believe they have no other choice.

And as much as I think jawol(48)'s post is a loving post, that particular question--"Did you really set out to hurt your family?" is one that may backfire for the reasons you suggest.

In fact, I think the values you're talking about (having a clear understanding of how everyone is experiencing the family) are so important, they're universal--they should exist on both sides.

Unfortunately, people who become associated with FDR are given equally insensitive claims about the hurt their families experience following a defoo. These claims--and most attempts by Molyneux/FDR to extend the defoo--bring the issues no closer to resolution than ignoring the pain of the child before the defoo.

Stefan Molyneux repeatedly--as sweeping generalities--counsels defooers that the family isn't hurt when they leave. Or if there is pain, it isn't real or legitimate. Repeatedly, he has used clever phrases such as "you don't defoo your family, they defoo you." He characterizes the anguished attempts of the family to reach out to their child as simply the wailing and gnashing of teeth of those who have lost their ability to control or humiliate. He counsels defooers to cut off all communications, which incidentally also shields them from seeing first hand what the family is experiencing.

Any attempt by Molyneux to claim he does this on a case-by-case basis is clearly false. In books such as "On Truth," and many, many podcasts, he makes blanket condemnations of parents and families.

If it is wrong for parents to ask a defooed child "did you set out to hurt your family?" without really understanding what the child has gone through, it is just as wrong for a counselor to consistently claim--"go ahead and leave--your parents don't understand you anyway and you aren't going to be hurting them in a way that really matters."

Because in summary, that is Molyneux's opinion and that is his advice.

My question has always been--once the defooed child has made his/her escape, once they've established the separate peace they need and deserve for their mental health, what next? If hanging around FDR is the answer, then why do the closest members of Molyneux's inner circle seem no happier today--and in fact are still posting with their same family complaints--than the day they joined FDR? (In my opinion, the longer they stay, the worse the family complaints actually become!)

Clearly, clearly there are unresolved feelings. For those who have such feelings, why not just say to their families: "I left because I felt I had to. I'm not apologizing for it and I'd be disappointed if you didn't make an earnest attempt to understand why. However, I do have unresolved feelings. Some of them are anger. Some of them could be love. I'm willing to do the work to see if we can have a family relationship, but only if you are prepared to do the same. If so, then we all need to go into counseling together and resolve these feelings and I need your commitment that you will fully participate. This is the only available, non-negotiable, next step for us--take it or leave it."

That seems so extraordinarily common-sense to me. Yet, in hundreds of thousands of posts on FDR and in over a thousand podcasts, I've never seen it seriously suggested--not once--that troubled families should seek counseling. Only separation.

Why is that, do you suppose?

Big to quote, and I'm gonna have to come back and give this a good response. Right now the electricians are about to cut power at my house..... I want to say that that is one awesome post QuestEon. LiMi interest just resparked in earnest. Wow. So save me some room in the thread and I'll be back.

For now, welcome Chaohinon! I tend to align along similar lines regarding advocacy of the child in these situations. Sometimes posts like the OPs make me slightly ill, frankly (will go into later). However, I keep trying to come back to some balance and perspective. This is difficult I think because we're talking about 2 big things: Rage, and Betrayal. Both make a person fairly blind. On the other hand, the grief and longing of the parent are also understandable, abuser or not, victim of cult-abduction-of-child or not. How can we reconcile these perspectives within ourselves?

To be open-hearted in reading the OP, I would call this post and Invitation. Its like an elegy from the hearth to the departed. Really, when someone has severed a relationship, for whatever reason, all either party can do first is offer an invitation. The alternative is coercion, and obviously that isn't going to generate a relationship even if it generates behavior (see the State).

On the other hand, when someone is insecure in their autonomy even an invitation can seem like an invasion. Nonetheless, the ball is really in their court in how they 'take' such an invitation. As its the only legitimate step towards reconciliation how can we fault a grieving parent for offering it, however unskilled or poorly timed?

Lets take an example of an abusive parent. Their child deFoo's and the parent wants some contact. Perhaps they just want to continue the abuse but this doesn't mean they don't actually want contact. Offering an invitation to reconnect isn't abusive in itself, though it could do damage irregardless if unskilled. Clearly, in this case it behooves the child to be more than cautious. Unless the underlying abuse is resolved it is pretty clear that the stance for self preservation should be: Reject the invitation.

One problem for the 'victim' in this scenario is that the abuser may invoke guilt or fear of retribution if the invitation goes unanswered. I think this is why I tend to get irritated at such invitations. They remind me of a dynamic I'm not yet done with that is destructive. Even a heartfelt invitation CAN contain coercion.

But the other problem with a bald invitation is the repetition of a rejection. Yes, rejection. If the invitation does not acknowledge the situation and truly recognize the other's hurt, it is railroading and repeats the hurt that probably originated the deFoo in the first place.

And apologies to some parental types I've ranted at here on LiMi in the past. I've tried to dig up that thread so I could find out what I was going on about, but have not found it yet. Clearly I was projecting some rage and I'm really sorry about that...whoops, now gotta go. Power going off Sad

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.