it sounds like Shrek and donkey had boundary issues. It is okay to set boundaries in friendships and relations. its healthy even, and you cant make a good friend or partner If you’re not healthy.
@Scarlett
I’ve only seen parts of the first one, but I seem to remember they were thrown together by circumstance, and were very mis-matched from the get-go: but then went through trials together.
So throw in “the band of brothers” syndrome to give them more a dynamic of “family” than of just “friend”? Sometimes for the sake of family, you do have to suffer a very lop-sided relationship for a while?
@Jear77
If they are in the gutter we can choose to walk away from them for the time being. But sooner or later we all need to be reconciled with where we came from; if we dare hope for any kind of actualized and effective existence.
But to stop to take a few kicks as we leave is pathological for them and for the self.
@Jear77
Weren’t you just trying to convince me it’s easy to recreate something?
Plus if you don’t burn it you don’t need to recreate it. If their side is burned they will have to recreate it. This leaves you many more degrees of freedom. That puts you in a far better position.
@Jear77
But isn’t this the very same age-old scourge we’ve always faced? The “battle of the egos”?
If the aim and focus becomes “Truth” rather than “I Am Truth” . . . we don’t need to burn a single bridge. Others may burn their half in a desperate bid to maintain their “I Am Truth” delusion.
But we can choose to be informed, more fully actuated, of greater freedom and functionability, should we so choose.
@griz there is a point beyond ego. A point where it makes no sense to cut your losses. There is a fallacy that says too much time or effort has been put into a thing, therefore you need to “stick it out.” This is the opposite, a healthy boundry that states “no more. Never again” and holds fast that line.
@griz If necessary, and you know they will hurt others if not taught a lesson, and the hurt was deep enough, why not? A lesson carved into their very soul so they know not to mess with others that way.
@Jear77
I wonder how we would feel with the same visited upon us?
(Remembering that we live in the era where anyone can announce out of the blue even decades later that we have somehow grievously harmed them in some innocuous and poorly-defined way and they are justified in utterly destroying us. You’re now going SJW on us, are you?)
@griz this is a dog eat dog world. Sometimes you need to do such things to prevent even greater problems later on… and sometimes it’s not just “hurt” – sometimes, oftentimes, in the real world, people need to die.
@Jear77
I understand; yet aspire to be more than just a dog! My focus has a source of sustenance rich enough that I don’t need to devour others, even if I might fancy it in my darkest recesses.
Sometimes people do. I can allow that there may be a time and a place for capital punishment. I’m enough in touch with my dark side to know that I could do it if I really really had to, say to save a child.
22 responses to ““why does you being my best friend entail me doing everything k don’t want to do?””
k and J?
Relationships are the road. Destinations are just the end of the road.
@five2one that was suppose to be an “i” but no edits were allowed
it sounds like Shrek and donkey had boundary issues. It is okay to set boundaries in friendships and relations. its healthy even, and you cant make a good friend or partner If you’re not healthy.
@Scarlett
I’ve only seen parts of the first one, but I seem to remember they were thrown together by circumstance, and were very mis-matched from the get-go: but then went through trials together.
So throw in “the band of brothers” syndrome to give them more a dynamic of “family” than of just “friend”? Sometimes for the sake of family, you do have to suffer a very lop-sided relationship for a while?
@griz even family needs to be kicked to the curb when enough is enough.
@Jear77
If they are in the gutter we can choose to walk away from them for the time being. But sooner or later we all need to be reconciled with where we came from; if we dare hope for any kind of actualized and effective existence.
But to stop to take a few kicks as we leave is pathological for them and for the self.
And for the society.
And the race.
@griz or it could be you simply make no time for them and move on.
@Jear77
Moving on is often only wise recourse. In the short term at least.
But just how far and how fast can one run from something that is an intimate and eternal part of them?
What was that poignant line from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire? “Never whole again”.
A “partial person” . . . can NEVER be fully actualized.
@griz not necessarily. Sometimes the bridge burning occurs from both sides.
@Jear77
Weren’t you just trying to convince me it’s easy to recreate something?
Plus if you don’t burn it you don’t need to recreate it. If their side is burned they will have to recreate it. This leaves you many more degrees of freedom. That puts you in a far better position.
@griz Not really. It depends why it’s been burned. Maybe each side thinks they’re in the right.
@Jear77
But isn’t this the very same age-old scourge we’ve always faced? The “battle of the egos”?
If the aim and focus becomes “Truth” rather than “I Am Truth” . . . we don’t need to burn a single bridge. Others may burn their half in a desperate bid to maintain their “I Am Truth” delusion.
But we can choose to be informed, more fully actuated, of greater freedom and functionability, should we so choose.
@griz there is a point beyond ego. A point where it makes no sense to cut your losses. There is a fallacy that says too much time or effort has been put into a thing, therefore you need to “stick it out.” This is the opposite, a healthy boundry that states “no more. Never again” and holds fast that line.
@Jear77
There is a difference between walking out of something, and burning the bridge.
Saying “I’m out of here”, does not have to necessitate a few parting kicks or a flaming inferno to destroy all traces of a way back.
That’s Battle of the Egos.
@griz maybe the bridge burning occurs because you want to make sure they never hurt ANYONE else again in the same way.
@Jear77
As each “bridge” is an inter-personal construct I fail to see how anyone else can use “your bridge”.
The only place it goes . . . is from your “personal world” to theirs. The “entrance” is intrinsic to you. How would another access it?
The only way to deny “society/the shared existence” access to them . . . would be to exile them from it. And how would one go about this?
@griz by destroying them
@Jear77
Hello Marxism!
Yikes.
@griz If necessary, and you know they will hurt others if not taught a lesson, and the hurt was deep enough, why not? A lesson carved into their very soul so they know not to mess with others that way.
@Jear77
I wonder how we would feel with the same visited upon us?
(Remembering that we live in the era where anyone can announce out of the blue even decades later that we have somehow grievously harmed them in some innocuous and poorly-defined way and they are justified in utterly destroying us. You’re now going SJW on us, are you?)
@griz this is a dog eat dog world. Sometimes you need to do such things to prevent even greater problems later on… and sometimes it’s not just “hurt” – sometimes, oftentimes, in the real world, people need to die.
@Jear77
I understand; yet aspire to be more than just a dog! My focus has a source of sustenance rich enough that I don’t need to devour others, even if I might fancy it in my darkest recesses.
Sometimes people do. I can allow that there may be a time and a place for capital punishment. I’m enough in touch with my dark side to know that I could do it if I really really had to, say to save a child.
But I hope I never have to.