Tomorrow, I leave for Gainesville, Florida. It'll be a long train ride. It'll be at least a couple of days before I get my computer set up and the internet thing going, so I'll be offline for a short while.
Now, the rest of this post is gonna be self-indulgent. A little like masturbation. Except in public.
So today I got to talk to a few friends. Some old friends from back in JC, some from college, some fencing people, some kids (my little friends!). This intersected with something I've been mulling over, something Lammy said. I had commented that I had started mumbling in the last few days, and that it was his influence. He remarked, "I didn't think I could influence you."
That set me to wondering if that's the sort of person I appear to be. I tend to be aloof, yes, distant sometimes, mostly not exactly Mister Sympathetic. Sometimes I lose touch, sometimes I'm disinterested, sometimes I'm passionate and excited, sometimes I'm uncontactable. What is the nature of the friendships I form?
(I am perfectly aware that some of my readers here are people I consider friends. So, this is in some part an attempt to vindicate...something. I'm not sure what.)
I think the best kind of friends are the kind that do not need one another. Friendship should not be a giving of alms, or a charitable act of pity. It shouldn't be based on mutual guilt, or common viciousness. It shouldn't involve sacrifice, or compromise, or duty.
Friendships should be based on a kind of exaltation, where there is something so good in the other person that you want to be near it, in the same way one seeks out clear light and clean air. There should be some sort of goodness in the other person, perhaps an integrity of moral character, perhaps a refusal to bend under pressure. Perhaps there are seeds of greatness awaiting, and you receive pleasure from contemplating it. Perhaps you desire to mold the other person in some way, and be molded in return, just as the sculptor's hand is shaped by the clay.
Good friends are the kind of people you hold to the highest standards. There are people who say that best friends are those people you can say anything to, where you don't have to watch what you say. I think that's bullshit. It is strangers I don't care about, and I have little reason to watch what I say to them. Friends, on the other hand, must be worthy of my respect, and you would not speak loosely to one your respected.
Friends are also the people you should be harshest with. The character and growth of strangers is none of your concern, and so, civility is most appropriate there. It is only with friends that one should be angry, or frustrated. It is only with friends that one should care enough about to argue, or fight, or try to convince to change. It is precisely because you care about them that you must hold them to the highest standards. To ignore faults 'because he is a friend' is a horror and an outrage.
Now I'm just blabbering. The bottom line is this:
My friends are the kind of people I would want to face the end of the world with, come fire, come dragons. Not for comfort, but for companionship, for fellowship. Because they are the people who can fight the Apocalypse and win.
So, if you're someone I know and reading this, you know what I expect of you. Better get cracking.
Now, the rest of this post is gonna be self-indulgent. A little like masturbation. Except in public.
So today I got to talk to a few friends. Some old friends from back in JC, some from college, some fencing people, some kids (my little friends!). This intersected with something I've been mulling over, something Lammy said. I had commented that I had started mumbling in the last few days, and that it was his influence. He remarked, "I didn't think I could influence you."
That set me to wondering if that's the sort of person I appear to be. I tend to be aloof, yes, distant sometimes, mostly not exactly Mister Sympathetic. Sometimes I lose touch, sometimes I'm disinterested, sometimes I'm passionate and excited, sometimes I'm uncontactable. What is the nature of the friendships I form?
(I am perfectly aware that some of my readers here are people I consider friends. So, this is in some part an attempt to vindicate...something. I'm not sure what.)
I think the best kind of friends are the kind that do not need one another. Friendship should not be a giving of alms, or a charitable act of pity. It shouldn't be based on mutual guilt, or common viciousness. It shouldn't involve sacrifice, or compromise, or duty.
Friendships should be based on a kind of exaltation, where there is something so good in the other person that you want to be near it, in the same way one seeks out clear light and clean air. There should be some sort of goodness in the other person, perhaps an integrity of moral character, perhaps a refusal to bend under pressure. Perhaps there are seeds of greatness awaiting, and you receive pleasure from contemplating it. Perhaps you desire to mold the other person in some way, and be molded in return, just as the sculptor's hand is shaped by the clay.
Good friends are the kind of people you hold to the highest standards. There are people who say that best friends are those people you can say anything to, where you don't have to watch what you say. I think that's bullshit. It is strangers I don't care about, and I have little reason to watch what I say to them. Friends, on the other hand, must be worthy of my respect, and you would not speak loosely to one your respected.
Friends are also the people you should be harshest with. The character and growth of strangers is none of your concern, and so, civility is most appropriate there. It is only with friends that one should be angry, or frustrated. It is only with friends that one should care enough about to argue, or fight, or try to convince to change. It is precisely because you care about them that you must hold them to the highest standards. To ignore faults 'because he is a friend' is a horror and an outrage.
Now I'm just blabbering. The bottom line is this:
My friends are the kind of people I would want to face the end of the world with, come fire, come dragons. Not for comfort, but for companionship, for fellowship. Because they are the people who can fight the Apocalypse and win.
So, if you're someone I know and reading this, you know what I expect of you. Better get cracking.
posted by WhatRoughBeast at 8:34 AM
4 Comments:
Hey you. In NY now hopping around - think I'm going to White Castle later. Have you seen the movie? Harold and Kumar go to White Castle? Should catch that man..
Well - I agree at least partially with your comments. Friends (at least some of them, and at least some part of all friendships) should be based on a kind of mutual admiration and respect. That is, I'm your friend because I think you're a great kind of guy, not because I think you're a wuss who needs me in your life. And you're right, the best kinds of friends are also those who would frankly tell you when you're going way wrong and would also accept your (constructive) criticism. Friends should influence one another towards greater heights and to a purer and stronger character.
And I would bring this a bit further, to say that this should be true of life partners as well - that your wife/husband (and I will cease to be PC from here on) should also be someone you love and respect to be able to live a life totally apart from and independent of your own.
I would add one caveat though. Even though friendships should be based on exaltation, not need, even the highest of men feel weak and need assurance at times. So the companionship and fellowship we speak of does involve sacrifice and duty, the kind that springs out of love. Otherwise I would say that the respect and exaltation you speak of could be just as easily applied to a great enemy or opponent who has won your respect.
I'm not sure if I'm making sense - as usual I will bow to your greater clarity of thought and speech. :>
Anyway, once I get back to my PDA I'll dig out this great quote from Angelic Layer about the 3 duties of friends, and see whether it fits your description.
Yo -- this is decidedly not worksafe, but I had to share. :P
www.lovelife.ch/stopaids.php
Check out the wallpaper with the naked women fencing -- it's been circulating among the SCA fencers, and I had to pass it on. There's a television spot, too... that one's got clips of not only naked fencing but naked hockey and naked motorcycle racing as well. Apparently it's all part of the current Safe Sex campaign targeted at Switzerland.
And re: friendship -- I agree, for the most part. I think when people talk of best friends they can "say anything to," they're really saying that they can tell their friends things they wouldn't or couldn't tell strangers because the history they have with their friends provides a greater context of understanding. Their friends can see where they're coming from when other people would not. And ideally, while holding you to high standards, friends are still willing to give you the initial benefit of the doubt.
And that allows for a certain measure of relaxation around them that one might not permit one's self around other people. Cause it's nice to be able to be yourself in an atmosphere where you're not going to be judged critically for letting down your guard. It's not that you watch what you say around strangers and are careless around friends -- it's that, whatever you choose to tell of yourself to strangers, you don't expect them to understand. Friends will at the very least try to understand, and probably get the jist of it if nothing else.
But yeah, the whole "inspiring excellence rather than slacking into mutual dependency" bit is all good.
Zim,
Sorry I missed you man. Stupid train schedules and post offices being closed on weekends. And yes, I've seen Harold and Kumar. It's like one of the 2 DVDs I own.
Your point about love and my criteria being equally applicable for enemies is well taken. In the little triangle of love some psychologists like to use, I believe one can feel companionship, definiteyl lust, for one's enemies. It's the third angle of the triangle, the Affection, that might be missing. Affection is still something I'm learning about. I think I was born without that part of the soul.
Aubli,
*drools* What can I say? Deliciousness.
I thank you once again for your insight. Not just with regards to naked fencing women, but the issue of friendship.
I accept that I was too harsh in my blanket rejection of the idea of being casual with friends. There is a kind of casualness that's good, maybe even necessary, to a good life. It's the relaxation of cats (or tigers, or very small dragonlings) around people they trust.
On the other hand, this is the image I have: the man/woman, surrounded by hangers-on and syncophants and gossip-mongers and gluttons, eyes shining with excess, lips glistening, mouth open and loose with a kind of glee. In his mind, the words, "What does it matter? I'm among friends!" This is what I reject.
Post a Comment
<< Home