Remaining friends with someone, dropping friends, being dropped
Old friends for older people: Friends who are not partners, work colleagues, neighbours, or have any other regular connection with one's current life, friends one has known for some time and who are, possibly, distanced in some way. That is, an effort is required to meet up.
Are they just family substitutes? Is having old friends only a crutch to lean upon to deny one's loneliness? What is their purpose? If one has been involved in a dramatic event in one's life with a friend, then, obviously, the connection with that friend will remain strong. Otherwise, the retention of the friendship demands analysis.
Meeting an old friend usually includes a life update, queries about mutual friends, before moving on to general conversation mirroring conversations of earlier years. It is enjoyable, satisfying and worth the effort. However, what are the differences between this and frequent meetings with newer more easily accessible friends? What is the advantage of the old friends?
An old friend provides a connection with one's past that is more real than one's own memories. Thus, an old friend helps to carry one's past, to preserve it. However, other than for practical purposes, retention of one's past is merely a gentle massaging of the ego. That is, the ego wants to be sure that one's life is important, that most of what one has done in one's life has had meaning, purpose, usefulness and can be examined positively by others. The ego needs to be assured that what one did years ago was not pointless and, in particular, that one's life has progressed in a direction without aimlessness. Therefore, a past that is remembered by a friend is useful to the ego and, moreover, the fact that the friend is still a friend ossifies meaning in both one's past and one's present simultaneously.
Are there any other purposes to old friends?
Are they more reliable and helpful than newer friends? Not necessarily - the degree of reliability is dependent on the person not on the longetivity of the friendship. Are they more tolerant of one's foibles than newer friends? No. They may be more aware of negative aspects of one's personality but that does not imply that they are more tolerant, only that they are less likely to be surprised by them. The lack of surprises is welcome, but only because it removes the necessity to improve and develop one's personality and to be sensitive to how one is perceived by others. That is, the company of older friends is easier, and lazier, because there is less necessity to be aware of perceptions of one's personality.
Thus, the above shows that old friends have a purpose, and that their purpose is to reaffirm one's identity and assure oneself of a presence in the world, and also to provide a social environment where one can be less sensitive (or less worried) about how one is perceived.
I argue that both of the above are negative. The need to have reassurance about the purposefulness of one's life is a confession of doubt about one's life. The reassurance is, of course, spurious; therefore, one is seeking to be assured of something erroneously. This assurance, provided by the continuity of friendship over a long time, allows oneself to be fooled and, thus, makes one less likely to seek improvement in one's life. Clearly, the lack of necessity to be aware of perceptions of one's personality, as described above, encourages laziness and, again, makes one less likely to seek improvement in one's life.
Therefore, in order not to be fooled and to be aware of continuing to seek to improve one's life, when is it appropriate to drop old friends, and, more importantly, what should one learn when one has been dropped?
When meeting an old friend, queries will be put about the state of each other's lives. How are these queries answered? (Clearly, if they are answered without honesty, then the friendship can be readily downgraded to acquaintance.) If the queries are answered honestly, how is the information posited within the history of oneself of which the friend is already aware?
If the latest information is posited separate from one's history, that is, in the manner in which one might impart information to a newer friend, then the oldness of the friendship is being eschewed. This does not reduce the friendship to acquaintance; however, it does change the nature of the friendship. That is, the friendship is being changed to something similar to that with newer friends, removing the desire of the ego to be assured about continuity of purpose throughout one's life up to the present and requiring an awareness of perceptions of oneself and what one is saying. Thus, this is very positive, made more so by the fact that friends are aware of one another’s histories and, necessarily, one another's foibles. Positing information in this way sidesteps the perils of old friendship reliance, as described earlier, and, if the friendship continues, it will remain useful, strong and be of benefit to both friends.
But, positing personal information updates separate from one's history is beneficial only if both friends do it. If one does it and the other doesn't, there is immediately an imbalance. There is an imbalance of perceptions of requirements of the friendship. One friend is hugging the past to seek assurance; the other is presenting a forward-looking outlook that admits the past but does not fall back into it. The forward-looking friend will feel dragged backwards. He will note with clarity his friend's reliance on history. He will be aware markedly of his friend's attitude of failure to be sure of his worth in the present. In such a scenario, the friendship is doomed. Mutual respect degenerates, rapidly. They may continue as close acquaintances if geographical location allows; otherwise, they will gradually lose contact. One friend drops the other.
Is such a dropping a deliberate act? I would say yes. The forward-looking friend drops the other because the other is living in a world that has less worth than the forward-looking friend desires from his friends. Friends are respected. Any cracks in the respect, that cannot be addressed, mean acquaintance will be all that can be realised. It is similar to deciding whether or not a current acquaintance can become a friend. Dropping an old friend, or downgrading him to acquaintance, is not more difficult that deciding that a current acquaintance will not be upgraded to friend, because of the rapidity of the realisation of the imbalance, described above.
And so, the most important question is what should one learn if one is dropped or downgraded?
It should be taken as a huge well-aimed kick up the backside. One is wallowing, not just in the past, but also in the false world created by self-deception. One has used friends to gerrymander the foundations of one's life and to distract oneself from what is required. Welcome the dropping. Act!
Are they just family substitutes? Is having old friends only a crutch to lean upon to deny one's loneliness? What is their purpose? If one has been involved in a dramatic event in one's life with a friend, then, obviously, the connection with that friend will remain strong. Otherwise, the retention of the friendship demands analysis.
Meeting an old friend usually includes a life update, queries about mutual friends, before moving on to general conversation mirroring conversations of earlier years. It is enjoyable, satisfying and worth the effort. However, what are the differences between this and frequent meetings with newer more easily accessible friends? What is the advantage of the old friends?
An old friend provides a connection with one's past that is more real than one's own memories. Thus, an old friend helps to carry one's past, to preserve it. However, other than for practical purposes, retention of one's past is merely a gentle massaging of the ego. That is, the ego wants to be sure that one's life is important, that most of what one has done in one's life has had meaning, purpose, usefulness and can be examined positively by others. The ego needs to be assured that what one did years ago was not pointless and, in particular, that one's life has progressed in a direction without aimlessness. Therefore, a past that is remembered by a friend is useful to the ego and, moreover, the fact that the friend is still a friend ossifies meaning in both one's past and one's present simultaneously.
Are there any other purposes to old friends?
Are they more reliable and helpful than newer friends? Not necessarily - the degree of reliability is dependent on the person not on the longetivity of the friendship. Are they more tolerant of one's foibles than newer friends? No. They may be more aware of negative aspects of one's personality but that does not imply that they are more tolerant, only that they are less likely to be surprised by them. The lack of surprises is welcome, but only because it removes the necessity to improve and develop one's personality and to be sensitive to how one is perceived by others. That is, the company of older friends is easier, and lazier, because there is less necessity to be aware of perceptions of one's personality.
Thus, the above shows that old friends have a purpose, and that their purpose is to reaffirm one's identity and assure oneself of a presence in the world, and also to provide a social environment where one can be less sensitive (or less worried) about how one is perceived.
I argue that both of the above are negative. The need to have reassurance about the purposefulness of one's life is a confession of doubt about one's life. The reassurance is, of course, spurious; therefore, one is seeking to be assured of something erroneously. This assurance, provided by the continuity of friendship over a long time, allows oneself to be fooled and, thus, makes one less likely to seek improvement in one's life. Clearly, the lack of necessity to be aware of perceptions of one's personality, as described above, encourages laziness and, again, makes one less likely to seek improvement in one's life.
Therefore, in order not to be fooled and to be aware of continuing to seek to improve one's life, when is it appropriate to drop old friends, and, more importantly, what should one learn when one has been dropped?
When meeting an old friend, queries will be put about the state of each other's lives. How are these queries answered? (Clearly, if they are answered without honesty, then the friendship can be readily downgraded to acquaintance.) If the queries are answered honestly, how is the information posited within the history of oneself of which the friend is already aware?
If the latest information is posited separate from one's history, that is, in the manner in which one might impart information to a newer friend, then the oldness of the friendship is being eschewed. This does not reduce the friendship to acquaintance; however, it does change the nature of the friendship. That is, the friendship is being changed to something similar to that with newer friends, removing the desire of the ego to be assured about continuity of purpose throughout one's life up to the present and requiring an awareness of perceptions of oneself and what one is saying. Thus, this is very positive, made more so by the fact that friends are aware of one another’s histories and, necessarily, one another's foibles. Positing information in this way sidesteps the perils of old friendship reliance, as described earlier, and, if the friendship continues, it will remain useful, strong and be of benefit to both friends.
But, positing personal information updates separate from one's history is beneficial only if both friends do it. If one does it and the other doesn't, there is immediately an imbalance. There is an imbalance of perceptions of requirements of the friendship. One friend is hugging the past to seek assurance; the other is presenting a forward-looking outlook that admits the past but does not fall back into it. The forward-looking friend will feel dragged backwards. He will note with clarity his friend's reliance on history. He will be aware markedly of his friend's attitude of failure to be sure of his worth in the present. In such a scenario, the friendship is doomed. Mutual respect degenerates, rapidly. They may continue as close acquaintances if geographical location allows; otherwise, they will gradually lose contact. One friend drops the other.
Is such a dropping a deliberate act? I would say yes. The forward-looking friend drops the other because the other is living in a world that has less worth than the forward-looking friend desires from his friends. Friends are respected. Any cracks in the respect, that cannot be addressed, mean acquaintance will be all that can be realised. It is similar to deciding whether or not a current acquaintance can become a friend. Dropping an old friend, or downgrading him to acquaintance, is not more difficult that deciding that a current acquaintance will not be upgraded to friend, because of the rapidity of the realisation of the imbalance, described above.
And so, the most important question is what should one learn if one is dropped or downgraded?
It should be taken as a huge well-aimed kick up the backside. One is wallowing, not just in the past, but also in the false world created by self-deception. One has used friends to gerrymander the foundations of one's life and to distract oneself from what is required. Welcome the dropping. Act!
posted by JohnDTraynor at 2:37 pm
0 comments
