Re: Should a Person Let a Former Friend Know That He/She is No Longer a Friend?
Thanks for responding Maria, I want to focus on your second to last sentence, "I don't have to explain whys unless I want to, is my response." I like your response and agree with it but your response immediately brings up another question which is,"Why wouldn't you want to?"
Two people are going along for months as friends and allies and one day your friend clicks that he disagrees with one of your posts. You figure that it is no big deal, maybe you wrote something that the person doesn't agree with but he is still your friend. It turns out not to be so, the switch is permanent! Something you said or did caused a permanent change in the other person's attitude towards you. Certainly, he doesn't HAVE to notify you that he as changed but why would he not WANT to do so?
I don't make friends all that easily but when I do, I consider a friend or an ally as an asset. Maybe, that's why it bothers me so much to lose a friend. When a former friend switches sides, unannounced, and decides to go on the attack against me, I am losing an asset, also, once a friend, I tend to be a loyal and lasting friend of long duration. I put a lot of effort into keeping my friendships going. Losing a friend to me is bad enough but at least if he tells me why he switched sides, I retain some understanding of why he decided to end the friendship. This helps and for me, it helops a lot!!
By letting me know what turned him off, it also gives me the opportunity to review the item which I wrote earlier which offended him. Maybe I will change my mind about it or maybe I won't. but it helps a lot to know what it was one said which caused a huge rift in a friendship. What has the other person got to lose by making this info known to you? If I won't change my mind, at least I receive proper closure. When this happens and I get turned off to a former friend, I always say, "We are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I respect your opinion but just can't agree with you on this point but we do still agree on many other things, so I hope that this disagreement does not end our friendship."
When a former friend turns against me and becomes an adversary, if I don't know why, then it leaves me in mystery. The bottom line for me is that it makes the world a worse place, more hostile and more unpredictable. Therefore, I believe that the proper termination of a friendship is a significant point. Why not spend a small amount of time and effort to end a friendship amicably? Why not put your cards on the table, face up, and let the other person know why you no longer want to be friends with them. Spending this time and effort can do no harm and can often do some good. That choice is their's alone and they have the right to do what they want.
So two advantages are gained by taking a little extra effort to end a friendship amicably instead of doing it without saying anything. First, the friendship might be salvaged, which is the biggest advantage. Second. the world stays more welcoming and predictable place. A person knows who his friends are, he knows that someone may disagree with him and still be able to be friends with him. The fear of suddenly losing a friend and not knowing why is removed. In short, the world just becomes a more predictable and friendly place so why wouldn't a person want to take a little extra time and effort to help make the world a friendlier and less hostile place?
Lakey
Lakey, it's the principle of the thing. It's about control. I see your question why wouldn't you want to? As a sort of weird, well yes you have the right to remain silent but the fact you are silent incriminates you. I don't agree with that.
Let me pretend I am person A. I feel that person B has become or is unhealthy for me. Maybe they always were but I did not see it. Or maybe person A and B will never really see eye to eye and the effort to do so ends up causing person A to feel exhausted, sucked dry by the vampire so to speak. So person A can decide to explain their exit stage left (giving B more chances to drain them) or person A can just exit, let the chips fall. So let us consider possibilities. Sometimes people do not take NO for an answer. So Person A if they were to decide to discuss the problem with B, because they never understand each other, will end up mentally masturbating for the many days of 'discussion' with B. Nothing will be resolved since B views the continued communication as a continuation of the link and a way to 'repair' things when A has perhaps realized there is nothing to repair and a good bout of silence would do each other good. Also, B views it as ok to pester and ask a lot of questions, whereas A is fine just letting silence envelop the room and doesn't need or want questions. Not only does A not want to explain to B about the problem between A and B BUT if A was in B's shoes and someone walked away from A, A would be perfectly happy when B did not explain and simply walked away. In other words, A is willing to have that cake and eat it too. It's not a form of cruelty, it's a matter of a different problem solving style.
And to be clear, A is not doing this to be cruel. No. A simply analyzed the situation and decided not to communicate and also that explaining why was not needed, that the details of the analysis could remain private. A does not have to have reason, does not need to give the reason if he knows it, does not have to give it out of false kindness or anything else. The words withhold or overt are completely stupid in this regard - the right to withhold anyone one chooses is sacred!!!! It is the furthest thing from a crime for a person to decide what his or her personal boundaries are. And BOUNDARY is what we are talking about here. The boundary between A and B and how that boundary works and what it is.
Now let us talk about why A does not want to. Sometimes a mom asks kid A, hey want this piece of cake, want more milk? Kid A says NO. Mom pesters. Kid A says no. He doesn't know why or just doesn't want to discuss it. Pestering doesn't change the fact that wanting or not wanting just IS and WHY is not helpful in that mix. Kid A does not stop and pontificate on the milk. Maybe he says, oh, full mom or just tired or whatever, to get her off his back.
In a trite (cookie cutter robot) relationship, everyone has to agree to follow the rules, well if you decide to stop communicating you will tell me why. I would hate to be in such a relationship. The day someone stops wanting to be my friend and walks away, I will respect that. If they choose to tell me why, fine. If not, ok. If I am sad, I will feel the sadness and give the sadness it's dignity and myself time to recover. I think that the boundary between people is extremely important which is why sec-checking, guilt, recrimination, unforgiveness and all those things are so NOT healthy; these are ratlionalizing ways of being, and self-reflective in a destructive way..
I avoid those kinds of connections because I find them unhealthy and resentful. That is just me.
As to whether it is unloving to walk away...Actually it is loving and right and fair. A long long time ago I knew an A person, a friend who was sacrificing themselves for everyone and doing what was right for everyone. Of course this is impossible since as the sheen wore off it was clear that everyone else was not reciprocating but rather using the person and often times the actions of A that were for the group ended up causing more harm. Eventually A learned to say NO and to do what A wanted. Suddenly order prevailed. Others knew where A stood and who A was and not that wishy washing all over the place harmony of before. A could now be relied on to do what was best for A. Ironically I watched as over the years the choices of A FOR A ended up to be vastly more beneficial to everyone around A. I shudder to think how the family and friends of A would have fared if A had not taken this more individualized course of action. Selfishness is a shore story sometimes. It should not be confused with evil or cruelty, which are vastly different. A only has his own point from which to view and A MUST make decisions from that point or drown in the sea of irrelevance.
Person A is only one person and can only do so much because lilfe is limited to a number of years and resources. A does their best and cares about others. At the same time, A must live with A's decisions. A must do what is right for A. I don't question why A would want to do anything. A does what A needs to do. I assume A is a good person, not a sociopath, a sociopath being a rare, rare thing. If A is a good person, then we must let A alone and respect A's decisions. If we show A respect this goes a long way further towards peace between A and B than communication. Communication DOES NOT solve ALL ills. That is unless you consider SILENCE (a form of being able to be there) as a form of communication, which I do. I have no problem with A and A's choice in favor of silence and being there silently. Person A in this theoretical rendering is someone I agree with.
I find mystery a good sensation and a good reality, not a negative and do not think that unpredictability is equal to hostility. The final question is economy. The idea that someone OWES someone else that last bit of peace. No, love and friendships are NOT planned economies. They are involuntary surplusses, free gifts. A very different thing.
You too, Lakey!
same subject different note on the scale perhaps a harmonic