The Relational Tower



I sit up on high in my Relational Tower. I can see so much from this throne.

I look to the north and see the golden and shimmering lines which extend from me to my loyal subjects across the land. I see my supporters, my followers and my coterie going about their daily lives but all the while connected to me. They feel such privilege to be linked to me, their liege and I feed on that sense of privilege and the admiration and that adoration which is entwined around it.

I look to the south and see yet more lines of sparkling gold which link between me and my most devout lieutenants. From my vantage point I can signal to them and they will obey, carrying out my commands, executing my diktats and honouring my instructions. It is a source of great comfort to gaze in their direction and observe their industry on my behalf.

I look to the east and frown at the assembled legions which march towards me. The malcontents, the rejected, the fools and the idiots, all those who have taken up against me and now march in the expectation that they will unseat me. Yet further lines span out from me to these traitors. Dark purple lines, nearly invisible against the glowering firmament, these multitudinous lines which have those transgressors permanently attached to me and through which I pull, twist and yank. They moan, they wail and they lament their fate but there is no hope for any other for these are those who bear the stain of betrayal, the putrid stench of sedition emanates from their shambling frames. Let them come, let them advance towards me and I shall watch them as they break against my tower, like waves against the rocks as they are sent scattering and dissipating into so much spray. I watch them from afar, sometimes commanding my lieutenants to enter the fray to cajole and direct, a myriad of gold and purple shimmering and glinting as the lines combine. From time to time the purple becomes golden as by my most glorious bounty I bestow the wondrous joy upon the select few.

I look to the west and there I see you. You shine with such glory, the golden line between you and I fizzing with effervescence. A thick line which coils about your wrists, torso and throat, sending that precious essence towards me. There are days when that connection will dim to the purple of guilt, the thick line becoming stretched and thinned, but never ever breaking. I watch you as you journey towards me, face upturned, eyes rapturous, hands outstretched as the light burns brighter and those who are less than me would struggle to gaze upon you, but I always will. Though I may turn my face away from you from time to time, my dark eyes will always look for you.

I watch you all as you journey towards me, the supporters, the lieutenants, the outcasts and you. I can see it all from this elevated position as I organise, direct and orchestrate. I know what you want. I know what you all want, each and every one of you.

I am attached to you all, you are bound to me, some tighter than others, some with those chains which bite and burn, others who raise no objection to their silken bondage, but all are bound to me. I made it so. I wanted that. I am connected to so many of you. I have a relationship with each and every one. Our relational proximity varies from stranger to intimate partner, from minion to inner circle friend, from colleague to family member and so on. Relationships. I have them by the hundred and create more each day, reaching out with my tendrils of gold and purple in order to remain exactly where I want to be – at the centre in my tower.

I know why you all head towards me. You want to enter this tower and thus gain admittance to me. You wish to unlock the vast gate and pass through the imposing portal to enable you to climb the winding stone steps, each time passing without hindrance or complication through the many doors and gates which guard my inner sanctum.

I know you want to enter my inner sanctum.

Some of you want to cradle what you find there. Some of you wish to possess what your eyes will rest upon. Some of you wish to claim a portion for yourselves and be forever imbued with its effects. Some of you wish to release what is in this inner sanctum. Some of you wish to understand what lies there. Some of you wish to destroy what is revealed.

Whatever it might be, the hundreds of relationships which I have, no matter how long, how strong and how tightly bound or otherwise these may be all seek to enter my Relational Tower and penetrate the inner sanctum.

This cannot happen.

I made this tower. I built it high. I built the walls deep and thick, constructed from the stones of denial and the slabs of deflection all held in place with the mortar of fuel. I fashioned the thick timbers of the door from projection, the timber bolted together through triangulation and the lock created from a steely gaze and iron resolve. The heavy bar that is set against it arose from the blame-shifting. I have set many traps and pitfalls within this tower in order to prevent anybody reaching the inner sanctum. The stone steps are smeared with vitriol, the walls spiked with character assassination, cauldrons wait to pour their heated fury onto you and cast you in deep pits of despair. The stone is so thick that there is only ever silence here, it as if the very walls are giving you a cold and baleful stare. Everything that I have learned will be used to impede your progress, hamper and hinder you so you may not ever reach that inner sanctum.

I know you all want to go there. I know you want to reach deep inside of me, into my inner sanctum but I must not allow it. I dare not. I cannot admit anybody. Ever.

I built this tower high. I built it thick. I made it impenetrable.

I built it to keep you out.

I built it to keep me in.

We are always connected but so long as I remain in my Relational Tower in such splendid isolation then my inner sanctum remains preserved and so do I.

16 thoughts on “The Relational Tower

  1. Anna says:

    It is worth reading the Greek story about Echo and Narcissus. Narcissus is afterall whom NPD is named after. Echo, however, she is not very well known and often forgotten.

    Amazing how Greek Philosophy has stories about all these troubles that we humans have. How Narcissus rejected Echo and fell in love with his own reflection which ultimately resulted in his death.

    How poor Echo who was cursed to only be able to repeat things said to her was unable to save him…

    People with NPD often seek out empaths, those who can feel their inner pain, who try to save them, but this is not possible in nearly all cases. Tragic and sad indeed.

    People with NPD build a wall around them, to protect their fragile core. Their delicate inner child. Their ego. It is the only way to survive for them.

    1. A Victor says:

      Interesting comment. Thank you.

      1. Anna says:

        You are very welcome!

  2. WiserNow says:

    On another note, I feel the need to raise the subject of ‘evidence’.

    Evidence is a word that can be flippantly thrown around, as though claiming that certain information is ‘evidence’ is a clear indication of something being ‘factual’ or indisputable.

    It’s fairly easy to shut down someone’s argument by saying, “show me the evidence”, or “you have no evidence”, or “you’re wrong, because I have the evidence that proves otherwise”, etc.

    I think it is important to consider what the evidence actually is and how the evidence actually came about.

    For instance, consider statistics. A research organisation may conduct a study in which findings that then considered ‘evidence’ of a certain belief or conviction that a theory is true based on the knowledge known at the time of the study.

    When it comes to research, the results may not be recorded accurately or may not be collated properly due to human error. The results may contain mistakes that are undetected, yet the results are considered ‘evidence’.

    Another example is that a lawyer questions an ‘expert’ witness and the witness provides ‘evidence’ according to their ‘expertise’ even though the witness’ theory is subjective or not aware of certain other perspectives or information.

    Yet another example is that an accountant may consider information based on only one or two financial years and the financial data based on that length of time alone is considered ‘evidence’. There may be other pertinent information outside that time-frame that may change the overall results of the data.

    There could be a myriad of reasons why ‘evidence’ is not actually factual or conclusive.

    When thinking of the way people rely on certain ‘evidence’, it makes me think people can be quick to look for or latch onto information that supports or validates their subjective views or biases. They then consider their views correct or superior by saying, “the evidence shows that…”. It’s easy to do and I think everyone is prone to consider things that way.

    For ‘evidence’ to actually be real and entirely factual, it needs to be considered in light of how information is obtained and also how it is processed, presented and understood.

    1. Contagious says:

      Wiser now: you are correct. Evidence is subjectivity interpreted. Hard evidence may be a bullet taken from a gun shot by a person who owns it. But someone might have stolen it. Hard evidence would be a photo or witness to a killing but videos can be altered and a witness can be biased. DNA is often hard or direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is less weighted then direct. The cookie jar is empty and a child with the only access has smudges of cookie crumbs on his face. Then you have expert opinion… anyone in the industry knows they are hired guns. Prostitutes. But good ones, they will take all the direct and circumstantial evidence and opine on it with their long lines of degrees and experience. It is an imperfect system. If there is a murder, only the murderer and victim truly know. God too if you are a believer everything else is evidence. But what choice do we have? Let the Ted Bundt’s walk our planet free versus being removed from society. Not have a forum to resolve disputes in a “ civil” way. It’s an imperfect system but it often works. Lady Justice can help:) but you are right, evidence is not truth.

      1. Contagious says:

        Didn’t you find it interesting that two very educated experienced psychologists in the Johnny depp v amber heard trial, both very well paid, came up with in opposite opinions. PTSD v BPD.?

        1. HG Tudor says:

          Not at all, it is the nature of expert witnesses in trials, it is a paid opinion.

        2. WiserNow says:

          I didn’t see or hear all of the questioning in relation to the psychologists in the Depp/Heard trial, however, I wasn’t all that surprised that they had differing opinions. I think psychology in general is an area that is ambiguous in that human behaviour is open to interpretation, even when the psychologists are educated and experienced.

          If a medical doctor takes an x-ray of a broken bone, the x-ray shows the type of fracture and exactly where the fracture is. When it comes to personality and behaviour, determinative diagnoses are not clearly defined or straightforward.

          If x-rays were not possible for example, two medical doctors diagnosing a bone fracture – to determine the extent of the fracture and exactly where it was – would probably have differing opinions as well.

          Regarding the Depp/Heard trial, one aspect I found interesting – and also disheartening – was how much the general public was influenced by ‘optics’. For example, if the psychologist was female, young(er) and attractive, then her testimony was ‘kick-ass’. On the other hand, if the psychologist looked like a bumbling, grey-haired professor, he was an ‘idiot’. I’m generalising to make a point, but the overall tendency to judge on the basis of appearance, or age, or weight, or hairstyle, or clothes, etc is something that happens in a subtle way and then spills over into a tendency to be biased about that person’s knowledge or testimony too. The Depp/Heard trial was a case where the law was made open to the public and the public made rampant judgements based on their pre-existing subjective biases.

          I think that social media, fame, celebrity, stardom, influencers etc, have made people – in general – more superficial and quick to judge on appearances. It may be a combination of being inundated with so much data and media and news that people have to make snap judgements and quickly move on to the next thing, together with marketing and film/media stereotypes where a certain ‘look’ or youth or lifestyle is promoted as ‘ideal’.

          I find it disheartening because this kind of reinforcing of stereotypes or fantasy ‘ideals’ in a real-life legal case can be misleading and make people even more prone to judgement and bias.

          1. annaamel says:

            Hi Wiser Now,

            I don’t know if you watched the expert witnesses’ testimonies but the older male professor you refer to did bumble, a lot – and the younger, female psychologist presented stronger testimony in a much more effective way. If one judges them based on the content of their testimony, it is very fair to see her as superior. I don’t think it can be bias if there is ample evidence for an opinion. There was another older male expert witness – another psychiatrist -and he presented very well. He was not subsequently portrayed negatively.

  3. WiserNow says:

    “Everything that I have learned will be used to impede your progress, hamper and hinder you so you may not ever reach that inner sanctum.”

    Interesting post, especially when considered in the context of the recent post and comments about the Depp/Heard trial and the legal system in general.

    This week in Australia, the legal case surrounding Brittany Higgins and her allegations of rape in Australia’s Parliament House against a political staffer has again becoming prominent in the news. This case is a complex and interesting one because it combines politics with the legal system – two systems that both involve narcissism, power, as well as a historical male patriarchal basis. Both are ‘inner sanctums’ based on the construct of male power.

    There’s a stark contrast between the Depp/Heard trial and the impending trial in Australia. For one thing, the Depp/Heard trial was a civil case while the Australian rape trial is a criminal one. Still, in the Australian case, the alleged perpetrator’s identity was promptly hidden and protected for more than three years and the trial is now delayed again until October this year after it was set to commence this month in June.

    The latest delay was granted after the alleged rapist’s lawyers successfully argued that a recent journalist’s speech after receiving an award and the intense media and social media response to the speech would prevent the accused from receiving a fair trial.

    The judge agreed (albeit reluctantly) with the lawyers, saying the intense publicity about the case had “changed the landscape” and that much of the publicly discussed material had obliterated the distinction between an allegation and guilt.

    When these legal considerations in the high-profile case in Australia are compared with the ‘trial’ that resulted in Amber Heard being found guilty, the ‘legal’ considerations in each case are worlds apart.

    1. annaamel says:

      The Brittany Higgins case had to be halted – Wilkinson’s comments had the potential to significantly bias proceedings. Both parties deserve fairness in court – the accuser and the accused. If Wilkinson wanted that trial to proceed as planned she should have given a speech that was more measured. As to the Heard/Depp trial I thought it was legitimate and the outcome was fair.

      I don’t see these trials as examples of male power hindering female progress. I think of trials as carefully controlled processes to ensure that two opposing views or versions of reality can meet and the finest details dissected to get closer to which version is correct. It isn’t always perfect and it is not always easy to work out where the truth lies, but the foundation of our system is to presume innocence until guilt is ‘proved’ in court. Both these cases have operated from this foundation, IMO.

      I don’t think of the relational tower as an example of male power hindering female progress either. Anyone can have a tower. Anyone can be barred entry.

      1. WiserNow says:

        I’m curious annaamel, are you male or female?

        1. annaamel says:

          Hi WiserNow.

          Sorry, I was a bit abrupt in my last post. I am female 🙂

  4. foxkrystalle66 says:

    HG :
    You are an amazing design of a brilliant mind inside Man..

    The Relational Tower is a privileged place of the highest rank more real than any other place.
    Like a castle standing on a hill the old Roman stonework still in place, you feel safe…you are safe.

    Walls and walls protect and shut you in…

    Gods and goddesses worthy of your kind made for the “good” of the kingdom now come to be there with You.

    Filled with maidens ready to love you; beckon to your every call. Fantasies realized were sent of the Devil to keep you there…l

    The more I read the deeper I dreamt. A fantasy filled world, an underworld landscape surrounded by dungeons, dragons and maidens all about.

    HG: You are the Lord and King of your kingdom, self-assured and confident, both desired and feared.

    You are a masterful storyteller in which what goes on behind the surface deep within HG Tudor comes to life and magic flows out to all of us…

    Love ya Darlin……. Krystalle

    1. A Victor says:

      It is all about the fantasy with them, isn’t it, nothing real. That is their reality.

      1. Anna says:

        Almost like the children’s nursery rhyme.

        “I’m the king of the castle and you’re the dirty rascal”

        Kind of thinking.

        But then… there is the saying…

        “Those on their high horse, fall harder”

Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.