Friendship

[Samuel]

Don't you have to have "not-friends" if you want to have friends? 'Cause if you don't distinguish between not-friend and friend, you only have people. I suddenly think we need to have less one group or another group and have more people. If you see what I mean?

[Marblehead]

Don't you have to have "not-friends" if you want to have friends? 'Cause if you don't distinguish between not-friend and friend, you only have people. I suddenly think we need to have less one group or another group and have more people. If you see what I mean?

 

Hello Samuel, my dualistically thinking friend,

 

Hehehe. I couldn't resist doing that. Sorry. (Not really.)

 

Why would you want "not-friends"? Aren't those the same as enemies?

 

How about, if you must cling to your dualistic thinking, "friends" and "potential friends"?

 

"Potential friends" are people who you have not yet met or who have not met your expectations of what a friend is. (If they changed their ways they could still be friends, right?)

 

Then we can have our enemies too. (And even these could become friends if they change their ways, right?)

 

Now we have no dualities.

 

We have our friends, our potential friends, and our enemies; each group of perple on their own continuum.

[Samuel]

Hello Samuel, my dualistically thinking friend,

 

Hehehe. I couldn't resist doing that. Sorry. (Not really.)

 

Why would you want "not-friends"? Aren't those the same as enemies?

 

How about, if you must cling to your dualistic thinking, "friends" and "potential friends"?

 

"Potential friends" are people who you have not yet met or who have not met your expectations of what a friend is. (If they changed their ways they could still be friends, right?)

 

Then we can have our enemies too. (And even these could become friends if they change their ways, right?)

 

Now we have no dualities.

 

We have our friends, our potential friends, and our enemies; each group of perple on their own continuum.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to present it dualistically; but as mutually arising, like yin and yang. To define one group of something you have to have another group of something to create the boundary. What I was trying to say, (note to self; no more late-night posting), was that to have 'friends' you have to cherish your 'not-friends' as much, since it's by their contrast you create your friends. Other wise everyone is just 'people'. Which they are anyway, but we will insist on playing with our tags. XD

 

It's like Daoists and non-Daoists. When someone says "I'm a Daoist" they create a mutual boundary with non-Daoists. They both require the boundary to exist as whatever it is they've chosen to exist as. But since everyone's a part of the Dao, is there a difference between the two or is it all in our heads?

 

I'd like to get to the stage where I can stop having friends and not-friends and just have people! Maybe one day.

[Marblehead]

Sorry, I didn't mean to present it dualistically; but as mutually arising, like yin and yang. To define one group of something you have to have another group of something to create the boundary. What I was trying to say, (note to self; no more late-night posting), was that to have 'friends' you have to cherish your 'not-friends' as much, since it's by their contrast you create your friends. Other wise everyone is just 'people'. Which they are anyway, but we will insist on playing with our tags. XD

 

It's like Daoists and non-Daoists. When someone says "I'm a Daoist" they create a mutual boundary with non-Daoists. They both require the boundary to exist as whatever it is they've chosen to exist as. But since everyone's a part of the Dao, is there a difference between the two or is it all in our heads?

 

I'd like to get to the stage where I can stop having friends and not-friends and just have people! Maybe one day.

 

Nice response.

 

I know you didn't mean to present your thoughts dualistically, I just thought it was a good opportunity to speak to the subject.

 

Yes, I do still call myself a Taoist (my label), and I do still think dualistically (my brain's function).

 

But yes indeed, it would be nice if we could view everything simply as it is without having the need to compare it with something that is opposite. Tao doesn't do that because it is perfect. We are simple humans, flaws and all.

[Samuel]

Nice response.

 

I know you didn't mean to present your thoughts dualistically, I just thought it was a good opportunity to speak to the subject.

 

Yes, I do still call myself a Taoist (my label), and I do still think dualistically (my brain's function).

 

But yes indeed, it would be nice if we could view everything simply as it is without having the need to compare it with something that is opposite. Tao doesn't do that because it is perfect. We are simple humans, flaws and all.

 

Thank you. To be fair, it's completely in our favour to view things dualistically occasionally, like in terms of dangerous and not dangerous! We'd not have got far from the plains if we'd never been able distinguish between different thing (Is that rattlesnake P.O.'d or does he want me to pick him up?) I wonder if there's a way of living with a non-dualistic view and surviving? Or maybe we have to have one or the other and keep going, warts and all!

[Marblehead]

Thank you. To be fair, it's completely in our favour to view things dualistically occasionally, like in terms of dangerous and not dangerous! We'd not have got far from the plains if we'd never been able distinguish between different thing (Is that rattlesnake P.O.'d or does he want me to pick him up?) I wonder if there's a way of living with a non-dualistic view and surviving? Or maybe we have to have one or the other and keep going, warts and all!

 

Again, a very thoughtful response Samuel.

 

I totally agree. I guess that is why our brain is configured to categorize data in a dualistic manner. I am sure that this could be called one of the instincts we are born with. Snake = bad. Of course, we know that all snakes are not bad and even those that are bad for humans serve a good purpose in Nature.

 

That just reminded me of the song, taken from the Christian Bible, I think, about the woman who took in a freezing snake to warm it by the fire. After recovering, the snake bit the woman. The snake was just being a snake. The woman was being foolish.