When I say I love someone, I am certainly expressing deep affection for them as well as a level of trust that I won't be made to be an idiot for having that affection.
But I am not convinced that those phenomena are some sort of Higher Plane
I asked how affection could be idiotic:
If the person were not deserving of said affection--if i were betrayed, etc.
I cannot see how affection can be betrayed. Affection is not an agreement or a promise: it's a feeling. It is my own state of feeling towards another. Betrayal needs a prior agreement; some sort of trust.
My friend's reply can be summarised thus:
I don't think I can wholly separate affection from trust. If I can't trust someone at all, there's no way I could feel that level of affection for them. I could feel some affection, but nothing more than the affection I feel for something trivial.
I don't need someone to participate in an agreement in order for my trust to be broken, which may be unfortunate, but that's how it is.
I trust that they will behave a certain way, according to what I've come to expect.
I still don't think that any betrayal can take place without an agreement, nor that trust is the right word to use about expectations. Trust is an understanding that the other person will keep his word or will perform his job well, or something similar.
I think that one's expectations of others' behaviour should be thought of as being more like the expectations one has of a computer, or a bicycle. If these fail to function normally, then it can be frustrating and annoying, but they can't betray you. On the other hand, the companies that made them might have betrayed you to some extent.
In the same way, I can't be betrayed by a complete stranger on the street. I can be surprised by one, but without the law being broken, which could be considered a common agreement between everyone, there is no trust between us that could be broken. When expectations are not fulfilled it's time to learn and re-evaluate someone, but not feel betrayed by him unless he's made a commitment that's been broken (such as marriage).
I don't think it's wrong for someone to feel betrayed, not for something that is deeply personal
My answer remains sufficient:
If I were to get upset with David Cameron for ruining the country, it doesn't matter how deeply personal my feelings are; it's wrong because he hasn't yet. Things can be wrong and be feelings. Similarly, people who feel betrayed frequently have not been, and the feeling, the resentment and any actions following from that are wrong.
I'm not denying that they might be in pain, although I do believe that the pain would be less if they didn't mix up feelings of trust and affection in the first place, but that doesn't make the justification for the pain true instead of false.
This little discussion was with only one person, but I wonder whether she is representative of many people in the world. Do many people believe that their affection is enough to warrant feelings of betrayal? Would the world be a better place if people expected nothing in return for their affection?
That sort of affection is often called love: 'true love expects nothing but gives everything' is a sentiment that is often repeated. But it seems to me that most people act as though the opposite were true: one expects nothing from one's acquaintances, but expects much from closer friends, for whom one has more love. I might even add that this is perhaps why so many people stay as my acquaintances; I do not anticipate their feelings nor respond to their expectations, but remain myself all the time.
I had another conversation this week, in which we discussed emotional closeness and courtesy. One person wanted closer emotional ties and more effusion, and as part of this expected her responses to be anticipated, and behaviour altered pre-emptively. I am of the opinion that the essence of manipulation is the anticipation of people's responses and the adjustment of one's own behaviour to control those responses. I am very much against this sort of double- and multi- bluffing and anticipation. As with any bluffing situation, it can rapidly get out of control. If I am to anticipate a response, then I must behave a certain way. And if that person is to be courteous to me, then she should anticipate that behaviour, and pre-empt it with a behaviour of her own...
and we get endless guessing games about what people mean, and whether they want something or think that you do. It's pointless and silly.
Quite apart from the risk that the ludicrous scenario that I've just described degenerates into arguments or deliberate, malicious manipulation, it makes far more sense to avoid the unnecessary complexity of multiple anticipations and behave straightforwardly.
My friends are my friends because I enjoy spending time with them and because, I assume, they do not mind me. I would not call friends people with whom I had to adjust my behaviour in order to be liked; they would then not like 'the real me', and I would be constantly alert because I would be consciously changing myself, like an actor doing his job. That's not relaxing or fun, and we'd be better off doing different things.
It's a shame that a person expects others to adjust their behaviour to account for his personal feelings, because it leads to all these different problems that I have described. The straightforward tolerance of others' actions and the acknowledgement that hopes and expectations are not the same as binding agreements would go a long way to reducing the amount of argument and disagreement that happens at a personal level all over the world.
The big problem is that I cannot break through with my attitude: people expect my behaviour to change, and if I address this expectation with this sort of direct argument, that itself often counts as offensive and against expectations. There is no way in to start change.
This issue ties in with my thoughts on speaking one's mind and adjusting speech for sensitive subjects, or avoiding jokes about such subjects.
No comments:
Post a Comment