Notes on the fallibility of friends
There are some friends where you know they are good people but you would never want the friendship to go further than the current state. That is where I am at with a certain individual, called B.
I have nothing personal toward B (as far as I can tell by searching myself) & I greet them warmly each time I see them, but I have an underlying belief that B is not someone I need more of in my life. My breakdown is such (and in no part a complete examination of the individual); They are neither an aesthetic man nor a moral man [from Kierkagaard]. I have been reading much of the Either/Or dichotomy and it has tinted my view in the current state. The closest would be the aesthetic man par excellence - someone picking & choosing which on either side to accept. (Now I must be clear, for I myself most likely also fail into this category as I try to understand the beneficial state of each & mediate a resolution). But beyond that straddling of archetypes, B also possess a condition of pure opportunity utility. B is not selfish, or in so far as I can not tell B is selfish more than the typical individual, and B does not posses the enlarged ego that most selfish people I know have. But B always (in my perceived instances without fail) chooses what is most beneficial or hedonic to themselves. This can be displayed by their choice of sometimes helping another, whether for the improved social perception of such an action or as a transaction cost of society in order to maintain a suitable standing. But often B will forgo the self-sacrifice needed to put others above self. There is a level of objectivism, an Ayn Randism essence, that overgrows the action and decisions for B (Now would be a good time to note that I have not read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged so I am still quite fuzzy in the linkage between those terms and this individual). B’s heliocentric ego makes normally perceived actions as two-faced and nefarious, even (as I suspect) if B is doing many of them from the goodness of their heart. B’s lack of martyrdom makes establishing any deeper vinculum feel forcing and condition on the upfront proposal of proof of personal gain. Within my circle, B is not solo in this lack of menschness (and maybe this is more an indictment of my own selection process). Two additional characters, A & C, also show this tendency towards objective social interactions. But while A & C show some level of self awareness & are willing to be corrected when challenged (though not always), B is not of the same mindset. B is austere in their position (on most everything) & resistance to any change or personal growth towards more completed living.
As I write this, maybe it’s this lack of change I find most displeasing, as their assertive position of knowing (and being) correct or above others drives a wedge between us. But I posture that it is not the static nature (though I prefer an individual with more germination) but instead their incredible pompous attitude towards others & the world. That patrician attitude will maintain the abyss between myself & B. One where I am reluctant to extend more olive branches to only be used as switches against my flesh. B holds the only position they have experienced in their life; one of an internal eye looking outward to a world surrounding them. The eye has never been turned inward, or even viewed B from an external position. It could be that sycophant behavior of B keeps me away.
I have for the most part avoided too much pleasantry between us, partially due to my perceived opinion of B but also due to a second thought that ended my mind as we interacted more. B wants more of our interactions, of myself, than I would like of them. They wish to cleave into something more while I want to cleave away (and yes I wrote this line specifically to use cleave in both definitions). My elusive nature might be enabling such feelings, as the allure of something unattainable creates the perception of something worth possessing. But I have no such desire to confluence on more points than strictly necessary. B is within my circles of friends but remains on my circumference. B is a desert mirage; never to be tempted by the potential for a cool drink, because I know there is no such oasis in B’s presence.
This brings the second of issues B befalls upon me; the others. Others who know B, or who wish to know B generate their own thoughts & wish to be confirmed by my history and judgement. The old tradition of not gossiping or speaking ill of others acts as a stake through my throat preventing me from spilling my true opinion. All I can muster is “oh B? Yeah they’re pretty cool”. Luckily no one has asked me for deeper thoughts, besides once an inebriated friend said “B is pretty awesome” & my rebuke was “yeah I guess”. This lead to a soon forgotten discussion of not talking poorly about others & allowing people to make their own rational choices (and yes I know I skirted the actual issue, that was my intention).
As a way to dampen any ill will towards B (additionally I don’t enjoy beating down others in a diatribe when they have no change at rebuttal though this opining has been a cathartic experience) I will say B is an exceptionally smart person & an engaging conversationalist. B is someone who has few faults & most strangers would assuredly put B in the top echelon of people to have in their circle. B’s dichotomy of being near perfect in many categories but lacking in other critical ones (or at least critical to me) makes be an enthralling person to keep around but never someone you’d want in your corner when it matters most. & potentially that might be the most damning praise I can give for a friend.
-Castoranas