The Epiphany of the Symposium

So this is it. In the future I will reflect upon this moment, and recognize it as the point in time and thought where I crossed the line, and gave up on this silly venture.

I've been thinking, and I believe I truly understand now what my mother warned me years ago, that in any sort of relationship (even normal friendship), reciprocity is paramount. Not in that one should expect others to return favors all the time, but surely some of the time. I am inherently an altruistic person, and this extends to what I am willing to do for my friends. I'd like to say that I am there for them almost all the time, though I may have faltered on occasion, and for that I am sorry. Conversely, being the reasonable person that I am, I do not hold others to the same standards to which I hold myself. This simple statement, I believe, has far reaching consequences with regards to my outlook on life, and how I carry myself, in theory. In fact, it sums up quite nicely the extreme seriousness with which I take my 'reasonableness': I hold myself to a high standard, but I am reasonable and tolerant enough to recognize that I cannot possibly hold everyone else to this standard, and not fail to be disappointed at every other turn. On the other hand I realize that nobody is perfect, least of all myself, so it is clear that I cannot expect perfection of others. (please don't any of you take offense at this)

Where does this bring me? After much soul-searching, I have come to several significant realizations, which is why I am sitting here blogging at three in the morning on the day of my calculus final. What do I look out for in a person? I have been asked this before by a dear friend, and at the time, the best answer I could provide was: another Me. And now I realize why. Because it would be guaranteed to work out happily for everyone. What are the things that hold a relationship together, that enable it to weather the worst of storms? These are none other than the simple qualities of patience, tolerance, reasonableness, being open to constructive criticism, and so on. Find me two people who embody these traits and I will bet my life that they will go far together. I personally take these traits very seriously, and try to incorporate them into all aspects of my life; thus I have in myself half the equation already (I do not mean to sound arrogant; merely matter of fact).

From where will the other half arise? Obviously it has to come from the other person, if such an ideal partner exists. How will I recognize such a person, out of the countless many I have and will encounter in my entire lifetime? It is brilliantly simple, and this is the end product of my deliberations: It is a person whom I appreciate for who she is, and who in turn appreciates me for who I am. That's all there is to it. I'm not saying that one must accept everything in the other person; only that in principle one must be able to find resonance in the other's fundamental virtues and values. Beyond that, if both parties possess the "win-con" traits I enumerated earlier, their relationship will be unbreakable.

What relevance does this have to my situation now? It cleared the fog of doubt around my head, and showed me how things really are. I realize now that many of the things I had interpreted as signs were probably merely circumstantial at best; no more than the confluence of coincidence and voices in my head. I do not hold anybody at fault here whatsoever; if anything, I was wrong to have read too much into it (as I am oft culpable of doing).

The other thing is regarding reciprocity. If I am always looking out for others, and doing their worrying for them, what do I expect in return, if at all? For all I espouse about altruism, the hard truth is that I am but a mere human being. But what can one honorably expect in return for true friendship? Nothing material or tangible. Why, 'tis naught but humble Appreciation. After all, even the poorest man, devoid of worldly possessions, is capable of giving this. Even animals can give it. If I help a stranger, I would at least expect a smile and a word of thanks. So I think I can safely conclude that it is not unreasonable to expect some measure of Appreciation from one's own friends. Not only some appreciation, but an amount that is fair and commensurate to the sincere service rendered.

Much as I loathe to delve into stock market analogies, but it all boils down to investment. Suppose I can choose to perform an action to help someone out, or perhaps provide a suggestion, say a rearrangement of furniture that is entirely to the other person's benefit alone. Suppose furthermore that if I provide such a suggestion, I am entirely obliged, as a helpful friend, to assist in some manner of effecting such an improvement, even if it were effortless and trivial for me to do so. What could possibly motivate me to partake in such an endeavor? Three things:
1. My contribution will be recognized and duly appreciated, to a reasonable extent. 2. The absence of my suggestion will be made obvious at some point in the future, i.e. my inaction will have negative consequences for myself. 3. I feel good for helping a friend, even when help was not requested or even considered in the first place (i.e. I perform the action for its own sake). Now suppose that the first two criteria failed right from the get go. All that is left is my own altruistic, helpful self. Under many circumstances, this should still be sufficient motivation to go ahead, and to do so cheerily. But what if this happens again? And again, and again? All with the same conspicuous (lack of) outcome? Is one not permitted to question whether it is but a fool's errand? Is it not folly to proceed in a similar manner indefinitely?

I must, in all fairness to myself in the eyes of the reader, reiterate at this point that I do not perform favors for my friends while expecting them to return them in the future. But everything must be within reason. Unappreciated initiative is, for all purposes, useless to the initiator. For a stark example, consider why initiative is absent in most experienced NSFs in the SAF? Simply because 1. your boss is too half-witted to recognize your ability anyway 2. your boss recognizes it, but doesn't give it more than a passing thought 3. your boss recognizes it, considers the situation, and then assigns you more saikang for make benefit his own CV. It is entirely analogous.

So then, to the Symposium. Is it better to love or to be loved? When that question was posed in class, I sat on the "to love" side, but I could not really articulate my rationale, even to myself. But now I see I was not wrong to have chosen that side. For the one who loves calls the shots as he sees fit. And when he realizes that it is a lost cause, he has the prerogative to simply walk away. And that makes all the difference.