today as i recall all that happened during the party, my thoughts drifted in part to a rather unusual situation that i happen to be in. and because the matter includes people that may wish to remain anonymous, i shall try to put into words as abstractly for the benefit of those who wish to be unnamed, things that otherwise had no voice...
am i in the wrong and did i really come in between? to approach this as rationally as i can, to say for one to come in between is to say that he or she cause parties to be in conflict or to be enstranged. and was there conflict? yes. was there enstrangement? definitely! to all three involved in fact... but to say that for one to come in between not only implies the previously established definition but also implies, and more importantly so, that it is done forcibly and ill-favorably. so was it done depictive of the given adjectives? on one end of the continuum, a vehement yes and on the other end, a clear and distinctive no. it is here that technicalities and definitions are to be settled to clear the muddle. and how is it to be settled? qualitatively or quantitatively? of that i am not sure and more so because we are dealing with subjective matters which we are trying to examine objectively. to annotate, on which, what and whose handle of truth are we to base the conclusion? on whose should go without saying. but how are we to reconcile the conflicting ends and clashing convictions in our quest to create the collective truth which is to form the basis of our handle?
case in point, how and when is it right to say that one got in between? when one comes in between, there are two possibilities: there is either no change or there is a change of affection. as the proof of concept here deals with the latter possibility, i shall focus further analysis on the second stated possibility as there is obviously no point in dallying with a possibility which holds no real consequence.
in the event that one is to have a change of affection, there is an important thing that we have to be conscious of and that is whether it transpired as a result of or whether it was done consciously and willingly and as the catalyst itself. let me reiterate. what we have to identify is whether the change of affection happend because of a stimulus or whether it was the stimulant itself. going further to effectively apply this to the situation for added clarity, what we have to distinguish is whether the person who had the change of affection had the emotional transition as a result of a stimulus (in this case a person of the opposite gender acting in full cognizance of the situation to cultivate an environment for such a transition) or whether the person who had a change of affection is the very same person who initiated and further cultivated an environment to a point that affection becomes mutual. that distinction clear, i can now say that if the situation were the first, then the term would be most appropriate. but if it were the latter scenario, it just wouldn't hold ground. and why shouldn't it? how could someone come in between something that is not whole to begin with? and more importantly, how could someone come in between if and when it wasn't the person who supposedly came in between who galvanized such an encounter in the first place? i could even go further and say that, taking away the person who had a change of affection, both parties had neither control or fault in what came to pass. and how did i come to say this? because the decision to stay or leave was never theirs. because the decision rests solely on the one changing or not changing his or her affection. of course both could always try to sway the decision to one side or another but the decision itself is ultimately exclusive to the one changing or not changing his or her affection.
that being established, to say then that one came in between when one changed his affection primarily, willingly and fully conscious of its consequences not only breaches suitability, it is just plain wrong. how can someone in all their objective intellect, focus blame on another simply because they are the third party? i can make only one rational assumption given the situation: it is the most convinient. how is it convinient? well it directs negativities to someone unknown for one, which is always easy to do. it also preserves a degree of the past in the sense that one can dwell on the events that happened before the other person came and linger on the possibilities of the relationship given the other person never came at all. it also negates responsibility of the previously beloved on the argument that had the other person not come along, everything would have been perfect (which is to my opinion only a fragile possibility). in sum it is denial that is most convinient. and more so putting the blame where it shouldn't be. i mean, how can someone believe in fate and conveniently put the blame on someone else when fate leads them somewhere they feel they are not supposed to be? why believe in fate and not accept your place in the 'grander scheme of things'? isn't that completely mental not to mention hypocritical? if you believe in fate then blame it on fate letting you play the role of the unchosen. if you don't believe in fate then perhaps putting the blame on the wrong person might have been a degree forgivable.
now please don't percieve this post as sarcasm or rationalization as it was never intended to be so. what i am trying to say or more appropriately, what i am trying to refute here is not my innocence on the matter nor am i trying to rationalize the part i played. what i am trying to say and nothing more is that although disagree with the notion that i am to someone's perspective, the one that got in between, i honor that someone's view on the matter considering the possibilities and the necessity on why such a conclusion must be formulated despite glaring alternatives.
which is really uncharacteristic of me... of course i felt hostile at first as i am but human and a woman at that! but after tracking what has been happening with her life or at least, those which she chose to write about and made known publicly, hostility shifted to pity. and i do pity her. a lot in fact. which is the reason why i wanted to shadowbox and lay my foundations on the matter first of all and wish for her happiness the second. now don't get me wrong. i do not pity her because there are people who take such gesture as insult. far from that, i pity her in all its purest aspect. because she has been so much and she struggles so hard to regain a piece of happiness.
some people see only the things that happen. cutting off vision and understanding when decisions have been made and consequences begin to unfold. i tend to see beyond that primarily because i think that taking responsibility is just as consequential to things as the decisions people have made. and that goes whether i asked for these things to happen or not. whether more appropriately, i asked to be involved in it or not. think of it this way, just to indulge (or perhaps not) her line of thinking. if i chose not to be involved, it wouldn't really have followed that he would have stopped. if i chose not to be involved because of respect and technicalities, it wouldn't really have followed that she would found her utopia.
i want to make this as clear as i can. although i was part of what had come to pass, i more importantly want to be a part of the things that happen after. and i choose to help even if it is not my responsibility to do so, even if i am still considered as a foe. and i don't choose to help because i believe it will vindicate me or it will make things right. i don't choose to help because i seek forgiveness (because i don't, and there is nothing to be forgiven). i choose to help because i feel that it is right to do so however unconventional or unappropriate it may be - but not so obtrusively and unwantedly.