There is no need for reciprocity. What bonds occur, occur within. But, this is only true for some not all. An egotist would require more than they give. A sharing giving person need nothing in return. Most float somwhere in between the extreme. You just say this one thing, perspective of your friend, so it really would be hard for me to peg him and not interacting with him personally makes it even harder.
As your friend considers plants his friends we can surmise that plants give him positive memories. He may feel bonded to them due to an understanding of plant needs in order for them to thrive. Hell, I have a brown thumb, I can kill plants. He maybe completely opposite. His knowing plants creates a bond. Perhaps the reciprocity is in their thriving under his care. That joy of seeing life thrive under your care is a creator of bonding for a human. The plant gets a great life and the human gets joy.
Friendship is not being alone. With plants he is not alone… does this make sense?
Hi Kriswest, you wrote…
then you wrote…
How can the plant give him positive memories? This is not possible and defies the no-reciprocity rule.
In general, I agree with what you say but this is an important point that remains unsolved.
How do we connect or bond in such a way where there is no-reciprocity.
In one instance you say the connection is purely internal and in the next moment you say positive memories are given from the external (this is a contradiction).
LOL, No contradiction at all, just misunderstanding.
He gets good memories and enjoyment from his time with plants. Its not active participation on the plants part, they do not know him.
He may feel a reciprocity if they thrive but, there is no actual reciprocity. His bond to plants is not dependent on that. Well, unless he is a tad obsessed. Is he??
A friend in need is a friend. .,…yes, you guessed it… …in deed.
So you are saying that connection with a friend is based on the development of positive emotions that are purely developed within an individual and are not based on any external reality. This does not make sense, why then have friends? Why not just develop internal positive emotions (as they are not dependant on anything external)?
I mentioned our instincts for pack / herd earlier, having others in our life is a survival need. People create imaginary friends to keep from being alone due to survival needs of being a part of a group/pack/herd.
Where we get these feelings from is important. Many are puzzled by the emergence of altruism, but there is really no problem.
Humans and some other animals have evolved a tendency to co-operation. In this trait persons of like-mindedness, family or extended family enter into relationships of inter-dependance, and co-operation. A evolution is a haphazard process this tendency can have remarkable and unintended consequence. Unintended as natural selection has no intention, only results.
The 'bonds" we forge are achieved through a feeling of empathy/sympathy and this emotional spectrum guides how we choose friends and identify enemies or potential threats.
Natural selection works at the level of the individual, not at the level of the Trait. Thus is selected members of species with positive traits; but they are not selected FOR their traits.
As long as the individual survives to create viable progeny all of its traits, behaviour and genetic code can be preserved even if there are neutral and even negative traits.
This makes empathy a feeling that can be directed at a much wider range of things, than just other human “friends”, or persons that simply enhance one’s survival prospects. It can even be directed at things that do not help survival at all. In the long term as long as viable progeny are made we are free to love whom we choose.
We can love a mouse. Possibly due to its childlike and vulnerable characteristics.
Outside human- human relationships there is no stronger bond a human can have than the bond that can exist between human and dog. Dogs share the pack instinct and will act to preserve the life of other members of the pack.
I think “friend” is quite a vague and limited approximation of the amazingly complex set of emotional responses and bonds that can develop between people and those they choose to bring into their sphere of trust.
NB: government health warning. When I say CHOICE i do not necessarily mean conscious choice. Most often these feelings come unbidden and can even be problematic.
It was so good you had to post it twice!
Faulty computer. It’s a dinosaur; but it’s all I have. No emphasis implied. I’m prone to short, terse responses. My computer merely puts these down twice. It may do the same for this response.
It did.
The word “friend” is a noun and used very precisely and so it must have a very precise definition.
I am interested in the "like-mindedness you talk about… please elaborate. How does it develop and where does it come from? Are we born with it? Do we learn it?
What you appear to be saying is that it is perfectly natural to create imaginary friends as this is the basis of human survival. Am I understanding this correctly?
Yes, We are not just sentient creatures we are social complex sentient creatures. Children are primary examples of this. Our social needs are ingrained. Hermits bond with animals or objects though they reject their species.
How about the imaginary friends part?
For me, someone I want to spend time with not for what this will lead to after the time I am with them (only) but because I find value in being with them during that time. In addition they are someone I can be open with myself around - this very likely implies some degree of shared values so one does not feel judged to whatever degree would make it regularly unpleasant. In the broadest sense you would have to share some thing, some activity, some being in the world together that is likely both sometimes pleasurable and also meaninful.
For me, because they don’t fit the above criteria.
Are we talking about Lazarus or Jesus adn then some simply dead guy? I didnt get this part.
I have.
I think one could.
I think some do.
How could we define what a friend is?
[/quote]
I like this statement as it expands on what Kriswest has suggested… this is the connection that was discussed.
So what does it mean to share something or have something in common?
What is the basis of our choice of selection of commonality as we have lots of things in common with many people.
The yes was the answer to that, kids are a primary example of this.
Either way, this still does not address the notion of what a friend is… it is telling me why we need friends which is very different to what a friend is.
For example: If I asked “What is food?” and a person replied “You need food as part of your survival needs” then this does not define food but instead defines the purpose of food. Instead a person could reply… food is any nutritious substance that people eat or drink to maintain life and growth (which is a more complete answer).
So what is a friend?
An adopted pack member is the easiest closest description.
Sorry Kriswest, I am a male and I assume you are a female.
I cannot read minds