Wednesday, March 11, 2015 (Private/Skype)

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Vivienne (Eliza)

ELIAS: Good afternoon!

VIVIENNE: Hello, Elias.

ELIAS: And how are you proceeding?

VIVIENNE: (Emotionally) Well, I’m not sure, really. There is some progress, I suppose, in some respects, and in others, it just feels like it’s really frustrating and not much progress.

ELIAS: And what is your perception of “not much progress?”

VIVIENNE: Things not changing. They stay the same, and it doesn’t look like any signs of changing.

ELIAS: What?

VIVIENNE: Well, I’ll read you my questions, and that is what it’s about. The first one is about what I call denial, and wondering if this is what [my husband] and his family are doing, and if so, then what is it and why do they do it? Because I find it so confusing and so frustrating, and I want to understand it, just for me, so that I can address it, for me.

ELIAS: Very well.

VIVIENNE: So, that’s the first one.

ELIAS: And what is your perception of denial? How are you defining that?

VIVIENNE: I would define it by a subject that they know. Like, they know it’s there, but they want to pretend that it’s not there. It’s uncomfortable or they don’t like it, and they don’t want to address it.

ELIAS: Very well.

Now; can you offer one example of what you would perceive as denial in relation to any of them that fits your definition?

VIVIENNE: Well, I feel bad about it. My mother-in-law would be a prime example about how she behaved in the past towards those of us who married into the family and how they all didn’t want to know about it and acted like it wasn’t happening, and they didn’t see it, and they didn’t do anything about it.

ELIAS: Very well. And what would be an example of another individual?

VIVIENNE: Well, [my father-in-law] and all his everything, [my father-in-law] and his relationships with everybody, basically, as far as I could tell. He just seems to have huge walls up around him about everyone and everything. Yet at the same time, he can be with them but not be with them, but want to be close but hold people at bay, and it’s just really hard.

ELIAS: Now; in that, is your perception that he is in denial or that everyone else is in denial or both?

VIVIENNE: Both.

ELIAS: Both. And any other individuals?

VIVIENNE: Well, [my husband], obviously, with regard to his family in general as well as just his mother, but with regard to all of the individuals, and then…

ELIAS: In the respect that, in your perception, his denial is that he perhaps observes their behaviors or knows about their behaviors, but he ignores them?

VIVIENNE: Yes, or just simply... I don’t know. Yesterday, I was reading a passage in a book about John of Gaunt, which is one of his focuses, and it made me look at it a little bit differently. It did talk about family bonds being very important to John of Gaunt, and it seems to me that he’s devoted to the idea where if the individuals don’t fit, it doesn’t matter. It’s the idea, it’s this family, it’s this bond, and it doesn’t matter how they behave, maybe. In the past, prior to reading that, I suppose I just felt that he was choosing to ignore their behavior, like see it, know it but deliberately ignore it, which baffles me and upsets me, as well.

ELIAS: Very well.

Now, in all three of these examples there are commonalities that you could perceive that each of the individuals sees behaviors in the others, but they choose to ignore it.

Now; what I would express first of all to you is, in relation to the concept of family, there are many individuals that incorporate the idea and the perception that the family, or their construct of family as a unit, is almost its own entity and that it is more important than the individuals that comprise the family – therefore, that the idea of family, and that there are members of it, is more important than the individual parts or their behaviors.

Now; let me also express to you that this concept, or this type of perception, is expressed more so in certain cultures. There are actually cultures in your world in which this particular concept is expressed more so than in other cultures. One of those cultures is what you would term to be or identify as the Anglican culture.

Now; understand that this is not only in relation to a religious culture, but that is an aspect of it. I would express that in the main aspect of the British Empire let us say, the main body of the British culture was very heavily influenced in association with that (inaudible), in turn. When the British culture, when the British people as a nation, as a country, changed their religious affiliation and changed their allegiance in that capacity, it also changed the culture, and one of the factors that was very strongly changed in culture was associated with this concept of family.

Now; understand, this very much is associated with religious beliefs, which may be one of the reasons that this is becoming more or has become more bothersome to you in recent years in relation to this present wave in consciousness, which emphasizes many of these expressions. It emphasizes constructs.

Now; when that, let us say, “revolution” occurred in that culture, in that country, it changed much more than merely a religious affiliation or allegiance. For, part of the reason for that tremendous alteration in the culture was set in motion by the ruling class, and the reason that it was generated in the manner that it was was to establish a deviation from the existing religious constructs, which very strongly emphasized family but in a very different capacity: family as a unit; family as individuals; family in relation to each member incorporating importance.

When this deviation from those constructs occurred, family assumed a very different construct in this culture – and it remains to this day – in that it changed from the idea or the construct that family is important in relation to each member and the interactiveness and the bond and the interconnectedness of family as a unit, to the construct of the importance of family in relation to legacy. Therefore, the individuals in the new construct became less important, and the idea of having many of them became more important. The construct became it was less important to generate that connectedness or that bond as a family unit and more important – or that the construct was developed – that the idea of family was more important than the actual interconnectedness or commonality of family.

Prior to this change, a part of that commonality and that interconnectedness, which held the bond in place, was that family expressed commonality in thought, in importances, in beliefs, in actions, in directions, and that every individual in the family unit was encouraged and expected to participate and be a part of an actual unit together – thus the term of “family values,” which denotes the commonality of the direction and the expression of the family. Therefore, the behavior, the directions, the choices, the expressions of each family member mattered.

In this change of constructs, the unit was replaced, and therefore, the unit was no longer what was ultimately important. In changing that construct and changing what is important, what each individual does or how they express themselves or what direction they engage or what they think or what their philosophy is becomes unimportant. What is important is that the family HAS members, not what the members are doing, which very easily lends in directions of what you would term to be denial.

As an example, if a family incorporates members that are generating behaviors that the perception of the matriarch or the patriarch deems to be less desirable – let us say that a family member is involved in criminal activity, or a family member is involved with substances and abusing them, or a family member is engaged in interaction and activities sexually with the same gender – many of those expressions would be deemed to be less desirable or even unacceptable but would be ignored or would not be acknowledged, for the choices and the behaviors of the individual are less important than the factor that the individual is a part of the family.

Now; in that, as I expressed, the family becomes a matter of numbers rather than personalities. Therefore, through time individuals develop different constructs in relation to how they will behave. The idea of closeness, the idea of genuinely sharing or genuinely participating or being invested or involved with each other has become much less important than physical presence. I am not speaking of “presence” in the manner that I have spoken with individuals that I interact with, and not that they are aware. I am speaking of a physical presence, that they incorporate a physical presence.

Now; in that, closeness and sharing changed to obligation; the importance shifted from interacting to be sharing or to be expressing closeness or to be involved with each other. It shifted to acknowledging that you are physically still present in the family, and therefore into a construct of obligation.

Now; in this, it also is a matter of factoring personalities. Some individuals will be more interactive in relation to their individual personalities.

Now; let me also express to you: constructs are SO strong and SO important, that through time, through history, they actually do incorporate an influence in relation to personalities. Not all personalities and not all aspects of personalities, but through history, through time, they do incorporate an influence to skew (inaudible) personalities.

Now; for some individuals, they may incorporate a strength in personality in which what that will express in display shall be that that individual may be more expressive or more demanding, or they may express stronger expectations, or they may project a tremendous strength in presence, and in that, other individuals will be more likely to acquiesce to them. Therefore, those individuals generally will be viewed as the figurehead of the family, for their personalities are strong enough that they resist that subduing influence.

Now; as you have likely already guessed, this explains your mother-in-law and her position, in that family as the present construct in her culture is important to her but not necessarily the individuals. The individuals become important to her in relation to legacy. Other than legacy, their importance is individually considerably diminished. But her personality is strong enough that she is more expressive than many other individuals in the family and generates an expectation to be acquiesced to, and the other individuals in the family whose personalities are more subdued naturally acquiesce to that, and in that, what she demands, she materializes.

As to the positions of other individuals, your father-in-law very much is a model of the new construct, historically, in that his personality is more subdued. He moves his attention in the direction of creating sociable and politeness as importance. This is very much a part of the newer construct. Therefore, he embodies that model very well. Individuals in the family, once again, do not hold tremendous importance to him, but the factor that they exist hold importance to him. The factor that they are members of the family holds importance to him.

Now; when the family as a concept, as a construct in numbers, is important, there is a factor that it will be important for certain family members, such as the family figureheads, to generate certain expressions to somewhat ensure that the family holds, that it remains a group, that everyone does not dissipate and move in their own directions and not incorporate some type of obligations so to speak, that will hold them together.

Therefore, you incorporate one individual as a figurehead that, in a manner of speaking, becomes the dictator, and you incorporate one individual that becomes the appeaser. In that, it solidifies the obligation and holds together, or glues together, all the members. Is it important what the members think? No. Is it important tremendously what the members feel? No. Is it important what the members (inaudible)? No. Is the direction of the members important? No, unless it moves them away from that construct, unless it moves them away from being part of the members. But other than that, what is expressed is much less important.

What is important is that the members are all present, and in that, it is very similar to a job. What is required of the members is that they check in, very similar to punching a time card, that they are expressing their obligation to express their presence as a member. How they do that is not necessarily ultimately important either, but that they do it is important.

Now; in that, there are many other constructs that each individual expressed themselves, personally. You partner very strongly incorporates that construct of obligation to family, and that has somewhat increased or gained strength in relation to the death of the other family member.

VIVIENNE: Yes.

ELIAS: Therefore, that created a hole in the family construct, and your partner is part of stepping into part of that hole to close ranks: one member falls, the others close ranks. It is not necessarily the idea that he is exceptionally close to his parents. I would express that he is as close to his parents as most individuals in that culture are, but in relation to YOUR idea of closeness and connectedness, it would be very different.

VIVIENNE: (Emotionally) It’s just so hard, because I wanted a lovely family relationship. I didn’t have one, and then [my husband’s] family came along, and they do this big family thing but it doesn’t include me, and it is really hard to witness it! And now he’s doing it even more, like you said. And it’s hard! [My husband’s niece] is being elusive and just messing me around, and I don’t know what to do about it. But you’re going to tell me! (Both laugh)

ELIAS: And yes, I will. (Both laugh)

Now; let me express to you that in relation to this concept of family, the concept can be expressed in different capacities. Some individuals place great importance in relation to genetic ties, biological ties, as family. Some individuals extend that to include partnerships and including spouses into that family construct. But family can also be expressed in association with individuals that do not incorporate biological ties. Families can be created.

In this, families can genuinely be created in the construct that YOU adhere to, for in the construct that you adhere to, it is not a matter of biology. It is a matter of closeness and connection and interaction and commonality, and you can create that. In this, it is a matter of allowing yourself to not necessarily seek out family members that are already a part of another construct, but rather to begin noticing and accepting other individuals that do express a commonality with you, and therefore developing your own family that does not necessarily include biological ties – and can include your partner, for you do already express that your partner IS family to you.

But you continue to uphold yourself and fight with yourself, attempting to force yourself to accept his biological family members as your family members or to incorporate him as your family member and have him divorce himself from his biological family members. It is more a matter of recognizing the expressions and the situations for what they are, that the construct of family in relation to his family is very different. It is very similar to your parents, but it is definitely not your construct of family, and you would not even want it to be.

VIVIENNE: No. I don’t get it at all! (Laughs)

ELIAS: Precisely.

VIVIENNE: I understand it better now, but it wouldn’t satisfy me.

ELIAS: Precisely, for the individual is not of ultimate importance, and for you, that IS of ultimate importance. I would express that is so much of an importance, that for you, your cat is a part of your family.

VIVIENNE: Yes. (Emotionally) Three or four years ago when my cat, Celeste, died, I was more upset than when my father died. I was angry when my father died. I was really devastated when the cat died.

ELIAS: Yes, for your perception is that the cat is a part of your family unit and is important as an individual.

VIVIENNE: Yes!

ELIAS: Let me express to you, this is not to say that individuals with the other construct do not experience or feel death as importance, but the importance of it is different than your importance, my friend, as a family member. It is not that they do not care or that they do not feel grief in relation to a death of a family member, but their perception of that loss is different than your perception of that type of loss, and their reaction to it or their response to it is different. Their response to it is to close ranks, not to openly be displaying grief or to be connecting more strongly with each other. No. Their response to it is to close ranks and to fill that hole and be good little soldiers. And you are not a good little soldier.

VIVIENNE: No, I’m not! (Both laugh) I’ve known that for a while! Oh dear!

ELIAS: Now; in this, perhaps in understanding the cultural aspect more so, it can aid you in relation to what you express as important and not important, and what you express in personal reference to yourself.

I expressed to you previously that your partner’s choice and actions of phoning his mother once a week is NOT a personal affront to you. Perhaps now you can express a greater understanding of that, and therefore, that may become less important to you that he generates that action. It is not that he is choosing her over you; it is not that she is more important to him than are you. That is not the situation, and that is not the intention, and he is not generating that expression to slight you or to be in opposition to you. He is merely fulfilling an obligation, and in that, he is closing ranks. It is expected, and it is what he knows, for that is his construct.

VIVIENNE: But if that’s his construct, how do I fit in to it?

ELIAS: How you fit is that he has, in similar manner to some of the other family members, some of the younger family members that are of similar age to yourselves and younger, they have somewhat adopted both constructs to a degree. Therefore, what is occurring in their own families, such as yours, is they are paying more attention to the individuals, and in their own families, the participating individuals are more important and do incorporate more value and more significance. But in the whole of the family, they all move together as members. Individually, they also have adopted – some of them, not all of the them – adopted the other construct in varying degrees, and therefore, their partners, their children, other individuals, extended family members, have become more important.

I would express that this is also very much a part of this shift; for in this, these constructs are becoming more known, more obvious, more exposed. What is one of the aspects of this shift in consciousness? Not only becoming more aware, but the value of the individual and interconnectedness. These are expressions that are part of this shift. This is an example of how this shift is affecting of individuals. Even if they are not seeking out information objectively, they are changing, they are moving, and they are shifting, regardless. And this is one of those examples.

This is a very strong construct that was adopted in that culture in your history and has been held very strongly for several hundred years, and has been held so strongly that it has gained a tremendous foothold in that culture.

Now; that culture is very much limited to the main body of Britain and not its satellites. For, that culture is not expressed in Canada, in Scotland, in Ireland, in Wales, in Australia, in New Zealand. It is not expressed. Where it has been expressed almost as strongly as in the main culture of Britain is in South Africa, which is also changing. But that culture has been expressed very strongly in that country also as being heavily influenced by the British culture. There are other countries that do express this type of culture, which is not influenced by the British culture at all, but they are definitely in the minority of countries within your world. I would express that to a degree Japan has expressed this type of culture also.

VIVIENNE: I’m getting a little bit confused, because you’re saying it’s not expressed in Canada, but then you’re talking about my husband’s family as sort of embodying how it changed for the older generation. I’m getting a little bit mixed up there.

ELIAS: The factor that it has not gained an entire foothold in Canada is not to say that there is no influence at all. I am merely expressing as a country, in general, that that country has not succumbed to that culture as a whole. That is not to say that there are not significant influences and therefore pockets within that country in which that culture does express and is adhered to.

VIVIENNE: I really want to talk about these things a little bit more, so maybe I will ask Mary if we can continue the conversation perhaps tomorrow.

ELIAS: Very well! Very well.

VIVIENNE: Because there goes the timer! (Both laugh)

ELIAS: I will very much be acknowledging of you and shall be very much anticipating furthering this conversation.

VIVIENNE: Yes, because it’s really helpful to me. I really like to understand the background, as I’m sure you are aware. It helps me a lot.

ELIAS: I would express that there is tremendous information in history that is very affecting of your individual daily lives now.

VIVIENNE: Well, I love history! (Both laugh) I pay a lot of attention to history!

ELIAS: Perhaps it will become an even more exciting subject.

VIVIENNE: Yes! That would be great. I already love it. That will be even better. Thank you.

ELIAS: I shall be greatly anticipating our next meeting, my dear friend, very soon.

VIVIENNE: Very soon, please.

ELIAS: In wondrous lovingness to you and a tremendous encouragement – you are not moving backward; you are continuing to move forward. Ha ha ha!

VIVIENNE: Thankfully. Okay. (Both laugh)

ELIAS: In wondrous affection to you, my dear friend, as always. Au revoir.

VIVIENNE: Bye-bye.

(Elias departs after 1 hour.)

---

Copyright 2015 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.