[Click here] to go back
to the Table of Contents
for the "Out of the Box"
Comprehension Essays.

Introduction
Today's topic will be ... friendship. Human Friendship. How are you able to discern who your True Friends actually, factually Are?

It's Hard to Accept the Truth
when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear.

Are one's friends those one can truly count on? Or are they less than that, and simply the "friendlies"? Are they devoted to you, and you them?

Devotion, of course, is not conditional. It does have a beginning, but does not have an ending. It is not defined by what is "most convenient" or "best intentioned" at an easy moment. Devotion IS NOT "in play" because there is some advantage to be gained by asserting it, regardless of what the narrative around it enables one to feel.

In fact, devotion is only truly verified when you DO find it in play at the precise time that there is nothing to be gained by the giver of it.

Devotion - profound dedication or attachment to a cause, person, etc. Without regard to any sacrifice that may be required.

In this essay, ConserveLiberty uses the term "True Friendship" to refer to "a Relationship between two people where each is Devoted to the other."

This is a much stronger view of friendship than is regarded ordinarily. And, since devotion is actually executed unconditionally, then it is also true that each is devoted to the other without the requirement that the other is devoted as well.

Quite often people are aware of friendships that "come and go", or, that "fade with time" for any number of reasons. Though labeled as "friendships" as the term is used commonly, relationships that fade are not True Friendships as defined by ConserveLiberty.

Devoted Friendships (True Friendships) remain as long as either of the devotees is alive. True Friendships do not come and go, they do not fade with time, they are not conditional.

Friendship.

---

True Human Friendship

What is the importance of considering True Friendship as being defined (in part) as inclusive of a devoted relationship?

Because we are going to define "True Friendship" at one end of a spectrum, and "Betrayal", "Exploitation", "Manipulation" at the other end.

Somewhere in the middle lies "Acquaintance", and "Partner", and even "Couple" (such as a married couple.)

Note that "devoted friendship" is not synonymous with a "married couple."

One or the other (or both) partners engaged as a married couple may develop Devotion to the other. And, we are all familiar with couples marrying who pledge devotion to the other, and mean it (at the time.) It is also true that nearly 50% of those wind up divorcing, terminating the marriage and the "pledge" to devotion. Many of those that divorce no longer share friendships with the other. And, many of those that remain married are not actually devoted to one another.

However, it is also true that some marriages do wind up executing as Devoted Friendships. And many other friendships that are also not marriages at all also wind up executing as Devoted Friendships.

---

At this point, the reader may be wondering, "Where are we going with this?"

Harmony.

How is that relevant?

Getting to the truth underlying the nature of our relationships is actually important for a variety of reasons. One of them is simply the understanding of the types of relationships we have with another. If we misunderstand them, then we are not aware of the actual, factual truths of the matters.

Harmony only occurs when we are immersed in the Truth of a circumstance as best as we are able to be. That "best as we are able to be" does not include simply believing that we are at where we want to believe we are at, even while dismissing the Facts in Plain Sight.

And, of course, misunderstanding our various relationships may generate all sorts of assumptions that are important but will not be born out. Many times, avoiding the misunderstandings or clearing up the inevitable misunderstandings right away can be prefereable.

An Example - Commerce:

How many aquaintance or business exchange relationships do you form that you assume that "trust" is established. Most would believe that there is some trust established. For example, if you give someone something of value (e.g. money, effort, object) you may have also agreed that something of value was being exchanged for it. Often, the terms of the exchange are agreed to before the trade begins to take place. However, there is usually another aspect to this. The exchange is usually made in a serial manner. It doesn't all happen at the same time. First one receives. Then the other receives. For this to happen, a degree of trust has been established. In the exchange above, first a person gives something into the other's possession first. Then the other gives the original owner some money. And now, possession of both the thing and the money exchanged for it are now agreed to be owned by the other.

What happens if the Other decides to not pay for the Thing that was received from the Owner? Often this is regarded as theft. It may be described differently. For example, it may be that a debt was incurred, and then the debt was not paid for within the agreed time. And so it may be considered a defaulted debt. However, in reality, the Receiver has not given the Original Owner what the Owner had been promised. If the Receiver does not return the Thing to the Owner in the condition that it was originally offered, then in actuality the defaulted debt is simply another way of describing The Theft.

This is not at all what the Owner had been led to believe was going to happen. Nor is it at all what the Receiver had represented was going to happen. Thus, a false trust had been established so that the Receiver could take possion of the Thing without actually ever completing the agreed upon exchange.

In misunderstandings such as the example above, the awareness of the Truth of the situation was not accurate. Since understanding Truth did not occur, Harmony did not happen. In addition, in the case above, Theft occurred. What was Actually Real was not what was initially Believed by the Original Owner to be the experience that was unfolding.

One might say, "Well, it was no longer convenient for the receiver to keep their initially agreed to side of the bargain. Thus, the receiver was simply acting in its best interest. That should be OK."

Well, its NOT OK for all involved. Theft has occurred. The Owner has given something up, and it was not in the owner's best interest to do so if the other side of the bargain was not going to be completed. The owner has been exploited. That is not OK, all things considered.

Another Example - Food:

Most of the non-microbe, non-plant Living gets its nurishment by eating something else that has been alive. It's usually an asymetric relationship. By killing the thing that it is eating, the feeder no longer has to consider exchanging anything for the life that was terminated.

That which will be eaten may have regarded that it would have been better overall if it had understood the true nature of the relationship that was going to unfold.

A Final Example - Defense:

What if two groups have a common enemy, one who wants to conquer, exploit, or control them in some way? In short, the enemy, if not checked, will break things and hurt people on its way to increasing its tyranny over them.

The two groups decide to partner and agree to defend each other whenever the enemy threatens. There is an advantage to both in partnering, because taking on their full defensive protection all by themselves would be costly. By partnering, each can redirect assets that they now save not having to defend themselves alone to something else that is desired. This relationship requires Credible Trust that one can depend on. Because, if the enemy threatens, and one group does not come to the defense of the other, then the enemy will prevail.

Devotion to these types of agreements is critical to their being executed when needed. If devotion to the agreement by one party does not occur, then they may back out of the agreement when needed (for all sorts of articulated reasons.)

If the agreement is backed out of when needed, then the abdication can also be considered Theft.

Why? In this example, Friend_1 was able to benefit from the apparent "devotion" of Friend_2, and yet Friend_1 had no Real intention of coming to the aid of Friend_2. Friend_2 would have come to Friend_1's aid, but Friend_1 was not devoted and thus would not. Friend_2 loses much to the enemy, while Friend_1 has gained not having to question the devotion of Friend_2.

Having abdicated when Friend_2 was attacked, Friend_1 has no intention of making it up to Friend_2, who is now hosed.

---

Thoughts

Is it OK to establish relationships that are not honestly what they have been made to appear to be?

It's an important question to consider, and ConserveLiberty does not have a general answer to it. In fact, we wouldn't offer an answer here even if we had one that worked from our own perspective. Ultimately, that answer is up to you to derive. And it is best derived from a perspective that, as much as you can comprehend it, is factual.

ConserveLiberty considers this question more abstractly:

Is it OK to misrepresent a relationship as a Mutually Agreed to Exchange when the actual intent is to Take Value Without Giving the Value Agreed to Back?

Is it OK to misrepresent a relationship as a General Friendship when the actual intent is to Harm When Given the Chance?

Is it OK to misrepresent a relationship In Whatever Way as a strategic maneuver in order to defeat an enemy that wants to Conquer or Control You?

Is it OK to endeavor to establish a Truthfully Understood relationship in order to enable Harmony and the Conservation of Liberty?

Consider me "Bat Shit Crazy" yet?

ConserveLiberty

---

(Please use your "BACK" function to return to the previous page.)

---