I'd like to do more, but I can't. They behaved like thugs, using the marginalization of the girl without any compassion. Resolving things by replicating violence in another way isn't the way to promote coexistence, and that's everyone's responsibility, although some are specifically assigned to that role. It's not something that excludes others. These people even told me how I should relate to others, how to establish my connections with them, when that's something inherent to the nature of our relationship. It's not something that can be manipulated or controlled in one way or another, because that leads to an artificial existence. I'm not going to be involved with the company, nor can I pretend to be. Being involved artificially, through that "being there or not being there," hinders the natural development of relationships, which is what the girl intended, until she realized that with me, it was precisely that which was causing problems for her progress, because I could leave and she would still feel a chance of returning. With me, her desire to keep relationships within a certain framework was impossible, and she was certainly judged for it, as she was emphatic about it. These scoundrels were extremely discreet about it; they didn't feel like they belonged, just as she didn't, precisely because the others didn't share her same spirit—that of being confined with the rest, of sharing interests, of getting involved. It's a fear of intimacy, undoubtedly, but even within a company, that's not easy; rather, it hinders its development. There's a factor of effort required to endure it, and the justifications certainly support the position, the idea being that we all feel empowered.

That girl, for the love of God and Jesus Christ, has certainly pulled through. Now she manages to fit in with the others, like a nail in its place, like a piece of wood fitting perfectly into the whole she's part of. She's an enthusiastic person who feels like she belongs, in her own way, in her own style. While her presentation might not be entirely pleasant given the social standing present, she's perfectly entitled to show her true self. In fact, that's the spirit that's essential in any company. I won't ask her to do that with me, because I'd feel completely unfamiliar. Between us, the past, in any form, isn't relevant to me. What matters is coordination in the present, what we're going to do right now, and then we'll see what we use to achieve it. The past, I believe, can't be an option from any perspective. Instead, we should appreciate that we tolerate each other's silences. Each of us has our own life, in our own way, and we each have an interest in the other, in our own way, but we must acknowledge that we are all different. That's the foundation of our love, something these scoundrels don't understand at all. They aim for homogenization by any means necessary, leaving one between a rock and a hard place, driven by their fear of what others might say about being with them. For them, what matters are the opinions of others, and that's where their satisfaction comes from. Between this girl and me, what matters is the embrace of "us," which we've worked hard to build over a long period, to embrace the fact that this is our space, this space between us, which is part of our lives. But I insist, we also honor the fact that we already had other things.

These scoundrels rely on empty rhetoric to confine realities, to bind them. Between us, it's not like that. We don't live in imposed peace, but in peace built by taking risks and, from there, establishing empathy. After all, every day could be our last. These scoundrels claim that empathy is the key to maintaining their image, always pointing to the future, of course, in a completely naive way, since they are simply imposing the current situation. For God's sake, I don't feel they understand a single word I'm saying, even though one of them is a professor at one of the most prestigious universities in my country. To me, he's become a guy who holds a degree, who responds politically to the demands of knowledge and the teaching profile, but in reality, he's not a man of integrity and carries out transferential practices in his work. I've never heard him, for the love of Jesus Christ, cite any theory as his guiding principle; this is something the work group to which this young woman belongs does, bureaucratically and only in this way. They understand that they don't control her, something these scoundrels failed to grasp, and it's become perfectly clear to them that we're only here for the job and nothing more.

Sentimentality isn't something to be embraced by these types, because they don't understand change, something this young woman and I have understood, something we have embraced. Among the others in the company, continuity of form is embraced; between her and me, it isn't, and that's what gives us that feeling that everything could always end, because of some misfortune. But we forget that there's always something we'll do in the face of adversity, something that has served to bring us closer and closer, in the sense that we face life's arbitrariness; we're not a closed world, but an open one. Of course, this is entirely a victory, because I saw that the young woman had an interest in me, and I in her, even though she won't admit it. I was always drawn to her strong, rebellious spirit, and her way of speaking, which made me see that she could defend her principles to the letter, but every outcry always exposes doubt about those principles, so I could establish a bond with her, through our differences. It's the coexistence of reductionist materialism and a similar kind of spiritualism, which ultimately tend to converge, since the former embraces the latter, always searching for it, just as the latter does, for both contribute to a healthy, pleasant, and balanced existence in keeping with the times—therein lies the crux of the matter. That young woman, like me with her, has learned that our spirit requires that other side, making us feel complete among ourselves, at least in its constant evolution.

We feel our own transcendence because we reject rigid forms; we want something that truly resonates with us. Thanks to our spirit, we've been pressured to be categorized, to lean towards extremes, but this very tendency has led us astray, establishing forms of coexistence that were always in question. I thought it was just her, but it wasn't. It was an argument that led us to realize we were ultimately on the same page, searching for the other extreme, and that establishing a struggle to see who would dominate was simply contrary to our spirit. Both she and I were searching for each other; both she and I knew where to strike, precisely to establish that, despite our differences, we could truly understand each other's perspectives. This is something my boss wanted to prevent at all costs, because it meant me joining the outcast of the group, thus creating internal rumors of terrible treatment, which was true, it did happen. And, to help keep that from coming to light at the expense of simplistic considerations, of manipulating my subjectivity, which isolated me from the world, was definitely the opposite of a healthy group, because it prevented me from having the essential thing in life: establishing a shared context. It was sabotage, as they always have, ever since I've known them, to be precise.

I don't feel I'm belittling my coworkers; this isn't their level, since for them life is nothing more than imposing their will on the flow of events. For her, it was the same, as it was for me, but over time we both gave in, and not for any particular reason, but because of the right person.

Stories in the same category