Saturday, October 22, 2005


People tend to blind themselves when it comes to friendship. It's quite obvious that there is a gap between people that they constantly try to bridge. This attempt at bridging the gap comes in many forms of relationships, some good and some bad. Humans are communal beings at heart and basically spend their entire lives trying to unify with people. Reaching out to others is quite healthy and instinctual, however one should be careful that they do not reach out on the basis of attachment. Most people don't have a high sense of self worth, and as such are willing to basically delude themselves into thinking that "this is the best that they can get." This results in people hanging out with "friends" who don't really care about them, and this is done only to falsify a sense of acceptance.

Another big problem with false relationships is thinking of friends as property. For instance, saying something like: "I have a lot of friends." You don't actually "have" them, for you don't own them. Once one starts to think of friends on a non-attachmental basis, then they will enjoy them not as possession to be "consumed" but as true people who bring the most out of every moment with you. However when friends are not around one will not despair because nothing has been lost. Something must be possessed first in order to have lost it.

The very first person to look out for should be oneself before all others (I'll clarify this in later writings). In terms of relationships, the best way in which to do this is to freely love without thought of return. Doing so will result in those who are worth being friends with, responding in kind. Ironic isn't it that in being "selfish" will result in being unselfish. If someone does not respond to love in kind, then drop them and move on. You are better than that.

This was just a brief overview of the friendship relationship, I'll probably hit it again in more detail in the future.


  1. hey!

    i definately agree with you about the whole 'dependancy' thing. That is something I have had to come to terms with myself... so in dealing with that, I encountered this: friendship shouldn't be about your needs at all. You talked about this when you said that the best way to love was to love "freely without thought of return." What i'm challenging is the idea that if they don't respond in kind, that we should drop them and move on.

    I definately agree that it's frustrating to love someone that doesn't love you back, but what are you saying to that person when you "drop" them? Basically, "you're not good enough for me. I'm better than that (i.e. "I'm better than you.") Ok, here's where it gets tricky. If you're saying that it's not okay for someone to say that to you, but it's perfectly fine to say it right back, then what you get is a bunch of people who think they are entitled to be loved by every single person around them. How is that loving freely without thought of return? If that rule only applies to the people you want to love, then it's not really getting you anywhere. Even the most vile, horrible people love thier friends. It takes a lot more out of you to love people who arent' your friends.

    I'm not saying you should go buy them a Christmas present every year and call them every day, but... i dunno, completely blowing them off isn't cool.

    What do you think? just my two... okay more like twelve... cents!!

  2. if someone doesn't love you back, regardless of the type of relationship, absolutely drop them! they are indeed NOT as good as you if they do not give love freely as you do.

    to put it another way, you are not loving yourself or being true to yourself if you continue to love someone who does not love you in kind. this is called an abusive relationship!

    thanks for the comment and thought.

  3. "if someone doesn't love you back, regardless of the type of relationship, absolutely drop them! they are indeed NOT as good as you if they do not give love freely as you do."

    Hmm, not really sure what you mean by "drop them" Andrew. Are you saying to be friends you have to "have" them in some way? If not, then what is there to drop? I would say if someone does not does not love you back, just don't let it affect you in anyway. I definitely think you should continue loving someone even if they don't love you back. But make sure you are loving in the non-attached way that leaves both people completely free to be themselves. Like you said in your first post, "In terms of relationships, the best way in which to do this is to freely love without thought of return".

  4. i hate to mention it andrew, but merely caring/being compassionate toward someone who does not necessarily respond is not actually called an abusive relationship. it is called Charity in the not-a-handout sense of the word. I serve food at the Salvation Army--because i care about those people. Some of them are appreciative, and some of them aren't. Certainly those who don't appreciate it aren't abusing me. Does this mean that i should only be nice to people who are nice to me back? cuz ooh, that gets you in a lot of trouble. For starters, who should be nice first, you or the potential friend?

  5. Of course it does not necessarily mean an abusive relationship. I'm talking about friendships that do result in them and their cause. Good for caring about others at the Salvation Army, yet that has no correlation to friendship with a peer, so the connection is moot.

    And come on, you seriously think I'm advocating only being nice to others who are nice? There's a difference between loving and being polite. Trouble? I won't respond to that.

    I appreciate helpful responses as always. I'm not the best writer, so I welcome comments that help me clarify my points.