“Welcome to the chef’s table. I’ll be taking care of you tonight as well as preparing your meals. Can I tell you about the Guacamole list?”.
We quickly order ‘the one with goat cheese’ and commence our conversation. I’m with a friend who I know more deeply than most others. After some pleasantries and a brief explanation of the word 'melioristic’, we arrive at my love life.
I explain how I think every relationship between two humans is different and that trying to draw a line between 'want to date’ and 'want to be friends’ is silly. Every situation is a different blend of the two. As well as a blended value for an infinite number of other dimensions in the Vector of Human Interactions. Sometimes you know for sure that you want to date a person. Those people are special, and those moments are very memorable. However, most of the time you just know that you enjoy a person and think maybe you might want to date them. It’s important to be thoughtful about the other person’s feelings, but being unsure is not a reason to pretend you feel nothing.
In response I get…….(Silent Stare Of 'Not Impressed’-ness)
I nervously order another Cucumber Margarita. Then comment on the Guacamole.
She changes the subject. Interesting conversation follows, but I’m in suspense most of the time.
Eventually, I ask, “Does the way I’m handling my love life disappoint you?”. The answer is yes. This person who I know more deeply than most others claims I shouldn’t work off of her standards, but that she does better. Of course I can’t settle for that. Of course I need to be able to function at her level of standard.
She tells me that she makes sure that nothing is expressed except for friendship until she know she wants to try and date a person. I guess that makes sense. I’ve heard of Postel’s law. But if I feel something that’s in-between friendship and romance, shouldn’t I express something that’s in-between friendship and romance?
The Scottish Philosopher David Hume would say that our point of view adjusts our raw emotions ( 'impressions’ in his terms). Meaning that we reconcile what we feel with a sense of what we ought to feel. He would say that it is the responsibility of your general point of view to correct your emotions to “what is socially average and widely accepted” .
It’s a solid explanation, but is it how I want to live? Beyond arguments and reasoning, do I want to knowingly exist that way. Well, it turns out that I just might.
I kind of like this way of thinking. It forces you to make a decision. You have to decide upon your General Point of View (in Hume’s terms), and then you have to act appropriately. This can be related to compassion. It’s compassionate to want to act in a way that helps someone else know what to expect.
Apparently, this doesn’t come naturally to me. At least not in this context. But I think I get it in a cerebral sense, and I think I can give it a shot.
I’m glad my friend was not impressed. I also love Cucumber Margaritas.