Two and a half weeks ago, I met the person I trust most in my short life (Universal comparison) and got to learn that I am very bad at keeping in contact with people, of which I agree and will continue to dwell on. When I worked in the Casino, I met drinking friends a lot. Then I played poker, I met poker players all the time and now I play boardgames and I meet them all the time. Each time I am told by more trusted sources I neglect people, especially from past activities and probably will end up very lonely or won't be able to find help when I need it, of which I also agree. I cannot imagine many that will bemoan my passing but the above mentioned situation keeps to my personal philosophies and I am contented with both the up and downsides of meeting only when both are agreeable or have common cause. There are for example persons who I think are good people at heart but have no common current hobbies, interest topics or grounds on what constitutes good evidence in a debate. So I see no compelling reason to meet on obligation only to get bored or anger one another.
As the quotes below states, if we are agreeable, we will stay life-long friends if not someone who keeps one around only for personal gain will come looking whether they are friends or not. Thus I see no need for a complete change in policy.
As the quotes below states, if we are agreeable, we will stay life-long friends if not someone who keeps one around only for personal gain will come looking whether they are friends or not. Thus I see no need for a complete change in policy.
(Quotes from Hard Truths by Lee Kuan Yew and to his detractors. Even if it was Joseph Stalin, I would still say a good point in context is still a good point regardless of whether the source is agreeable to oneself or not.)
Till next word...
No comments:
Post a Comment