Saturday, October 23, 2004

Nothing at All

In light of recent events, which have pitted my friends against my friends, and the subsequent comments and actions made because of this epic struggle, I have made the mistake of allowing a solitary thought on the subject to creep subversively into my mind. Although it's regrettable, now that it's firmly located in the confines of my head, I keep getting the strong inclination that it's not going anywhere - for a long, long time. Without going into mass detail, my group of friends, socialistically known as the 'the group', has been encountering some turbulence of late. It's my feeling and my duty, I believe, to stay as impartial as possible, simply because I'm just not the confrontational type - especially in regards to matters that don't matter. However, despite my mindset, the group seems to feel differently. People surge and bound and rush to get involved because, god forbid, they might miss something, some crucially insignificant piece of information that has no bearing whatsoever on anything - except destroying friendships that shouldn't be harmed. I refuse to name names, to take sides, and everything above, below, or in between that. It's none of my business who hates who and for what reason (or lack thereof), and if my position so happens to anger someone else, which I don't see happening, than so be it.

I apologize for the digression, but it was wholly necessary for a segue into the my point, which I'm sure you were all getting restless to discover. If there's anything that this dramatic waste of an episode has taught me, it's that reclusion isn't a shameful thing. Reclusion might be the only appropriate action to take when things have become so god forsakenly miserable, and I find it hard to blame anyone for doing so. However, reclusion has conditions, and these conditions demand respect and adherence. Thrusting oneself into solitary confinement is a welcome thing to do only if the problem from which you're escaping isn't one that you, single-handedly or partially, caused. Then, my friends, reclusion is cowardice. Big difference. I bring this up because this tends to be the solution to everyone's problems - regardless if they had one or five fingers in the cookie jar. Hiding's never solved a thing in the long run - eventually you have to come out, whether you want to or not. There's simply no way around it. On the other hand, removing yourself from the scene because you had no part in causing it (and because the potential for getting sucked and dragged into the thick of the mess is rather high) isn't at all wrong. In fact, it's right. And, unfortunately, it's the mistake my group has seemed to have made. While these events where in their infancy, people failed to realize that getting involved from the start means you're in until the end. No one took the time to realize that the business of two people is just that - the business of two people, not three, or four, or twenty six. Unfortunately, people seem to have instinctual attractions to other peoples dealings - and it only digs the holes deeper. It's something to be ashamed of - of course it is - and I applaud the people who followed their common sense and stayed the hell away. Good job.

Another issue, and the question I originally mentioned earlier in the post, had to deal with being all things to all people. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to delve into the more conceptual, abstract aspect of things - and steer clear of 'the group' mess. It was brought up, back in the day, that people who try to be all things to all people, people who have more masks than Venetian costume parties, are people who simply cannot be liked. It made me think, and I've yet to reach a conclusion on which is the best path to take. The question is this:

Is the worthier goal to be friends with everyone, which would entail being all things to all people, or to be everything to one person?

Yes, you've probably noticed that it's a rather black-and-white issue, but that's the way I am. When you cut to the chase, there is no grey - no matter how bad some people want it. Here's what I mean. If you're in a group of friends, the chances of that group being identical in personality to you is right there next to impossible. Therefore, changes have to be made in order for people to get along - it's a fundamental fact of life. Sure, if you want to be yourself and have no friends, be my guest, but it's undeniable that certain changes in personality and behavior have to be made when around certain types of people - and that certain type of person is everyone other than yourself. But the question I'm posing, the question that has really left me thinking, and rather perturbed, is in dealing with friendship with one other person. Can I forget the masks and the grand mission of being everyone’s friend and focus primarily on nurturing a friendship that seems to have more potential, more meaning than any friendship to date? Again, should I be all things to all people or everything to one? Lord, do I wish I had the answer. To be quite honest, it seems ten thousand times more rewarding to be everything to one person. I won't beat around the bush or dance around the topic - I'll just say it. Yes, I would take sincere, undying friendship of one person over vague and impersonal friendship with a group any day of the week. I suppose then that the real question is what's the right thing to do? I would hope I'm not alone in assuming that every person has one person in mind, one person for whom they'd give the breath in their lungs to be everything. It's fantastical and almost illogically ideal, but it's something I believe to be worth striving for - to long for. I can only hope that I'll be everything to someone, and that someone be everything to me.

One could say it comes down to yes or no. I can agree with that, but I think there's a better set of alternatives. When I find that someone, that one person that makes me want to sacrifice every minute of everyday just to be with them, it's not a matter of mere yes or no - it's a matter of all or nothing. It's a matter of choosing a bunch of meaningless people to associate as your friends, or being with the one person you devote yourself to, the person who you're proud to have with you, the person for whom you'd do everything.

Like I said, it comes down to one or the other.

All or nothing.

You can’t hide.

2 Comments:

At 10:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is the worthier goal to be friends with everyone, which would entail being all things to all people, or to be everything to one person?

...everything to one person of course. No thinking involved. Hopefully more people feel the same way.
-Adrian

 
At 12:30 AM, Blogger Sean said...

One can only hope, right?

Sean

 

Post a Comment

<< Home