Honestly, Martin also provokes me a bit. I bet he thinks we are silly girls. (Just kidding, Martin. )

You’re compartmentalizing too much. They weren’t “selected” for any particular cause or trait. The music has made it stronger, made it possible to be friends in spite of differences which did not immediately rise to evidence.

You didn’t read my disquisition about the nature of friendship. The affection that binds people is not reducible to a form one can fill out. That’s not friendship. That’s joining a club. Not the same thing.

The conversation reminded of the Dickinson poem, which I think is about how we form attachments of love or friendship. I’m agreeing with you and Mark that it’s an organic process in which serendipity plays a big role.

I’m not trying to be contrary, you know. It just comes naturally!

Unmoved, she notes the chariot’s pausing
At her low gate;
Unmoved, an emperor is kneeling
Upon her mat.

I’ve known her from an ample nation
Choose one;
Then close the valves of her attention
Like stone.

-Emily Dickinson

(you literalists out there, for “soul” please read “inner subjective experience”)

I admit to be a bit tongue-in-cheek about the country music as a deal breaker, but there are many people I know that I hang out with because of certain common interests who have over time become friends. The basis for the relationship may have started out as common interest, but evolved into a condition wherein, when it matters most, we can depend on each other for care and help and related things that are simply not reducible to categories. For want of a better word, it’s Chemistry. Trying to sort your friends according to definable positions is one way to jeopardize your chances of ever having a real friend.

Mark specifically says that his friendship with “Two of our closest friends” is based on music. How are we to understand that if not that his friends were selected for their interest in music?

Incidentally, you used the word “merely”, not me. I did not say they were choosing “merely” on topics and ideas. I also did not say that honesty and integrity are sufficient. Once again that is your own spin on what I said. I believe that both sets of criteria are used by us all. My post was meant to highlight that Mark et al prioritise topics and ideas while I prioritise values.

Other factors will also come into it, some of which we may never have even thought about before now. For example, I find the smell of cigarette smoke lingering on someone’s clothes makes me gag and I cannot imagine having a close friend who smokes. I even find it pretty difficult to stand close enough to one to have a conversation, so a friendship is just a non-starter, no matter how honest they are.

Intellect is no bar to friendship, not for me anyway. I have a close friend who is an art professor at our local university, and another who is a road sweeper whose response to the death of princess Diana was to bemoan the fact that he had not yet had sex with her. But he does know a lot of really good jokes.

When I said that choosing friends based on values first should make for a more rewarding and enriching experience, what I meant was that unlike the chess player who goes to his chess club and meets other chess players, I do not socialise in “interest groups”. This is not a conscious decision, it is just something that this thread has helped me think about and realise. If I socialised in interest groups I would know other kite flyers, other painters, etc. but I don’t. This means that I am not restricting my choice to people who are interested in things I am interested in. I would have thought that this makes me more likely to know people whose interests are not common to mine than someone who socialises in interest groups. It is this broadening of the experience that I perceive as being rewarding and enriching. Am I wrong to think that?

As for what I get out of the blog: I don’t enjoy people who are contrary just for the sake of being so. It’s okay to play devil’s advocate and pretend to speak for a position you do not personally hold, as long as you are genuinely doing that and making real points that would be made by someone who did hold that view. But just arguing for the sake of an argument is trivial and uninteresting.

I suppose what I am after is having my ideas tested. I don’t want to convert anyone and am not trying to persuade, I am instead inviting a critique of my ideas, what for the want of a better expression I might call my philosophy. If someone can point out that it is internally inconsistent, or must necessarily lead to some undesireable state then that will be a real bonus. To that end I find the brevity of most comments prevents the author from properly explaining the rationale for their opinions, and that I find deeply unsatisfying. Just saying, for example, that “Superlatives are usually wrong.” and then using a superlative in the very next sentence gives us no opportunity to understand what the writer is trying to say. Was the first sentence preparing us for the redundancy in the next, or are they two entirely disconnected statements? (A moment’s thought will show that the first of them is obviously wrong, anyway).

Mark specifically says that his friendship with “Two of our closest friends” is based on music. How are we to understand that if not that his friends were selected for their interest in music?

Incidentally, you used the word “merely”, not me. I did not say they were choosing “merely” on topics and ideas. Other factors will come into it, some of which we may never have even thought about before now. For example, I find the smell of cigarette smoke lingering on someone’s clothes makes me gag and I cannot imagine having a close friend who smokes. I even find it pretty difficult to stand close enough to one to have a conversation, so a friendship is just a non-starter, no matter how honest they are. And I will gladly accede that even honest folks can be boring; honesty alone is not enough.

Intellect is no bar to friendship, not for me anyway. I have a close friend who is an art professor at our local university, and another who is a road sweeper whose response to the death of princess Diana was to bemoan the fact that he had not yet had sex with her. But he does know a lot of really good jokes.

When I said that choosing friends based on values first should make for a more rewarding and enriching experience, what I meant was that unlike the chess player who goes to his chess club and meets other chess players, I do not socialise in “interest groups”. This is not a conscious decision, it is just something that this thread has helped me think about and realise. If I socialised in interest groups I would know other kite flyers, other painters, etc. but I don’t. This means that I am not restricting my choice to people who are interested in things I am interested in. I would have thought that this makes me more likely to know people whose interests are not common to mine than someone who socialises in interest groups. It is this broadening of the experience that I perceive as being rewarding and enriching. Am I wrong to think that?

As for what I get out of the blog: I don’t enjoy people who are contrary just for the sake of being so. It’s okay to play devil’s advocate and pretend to speak for a position you do not personally hold, as long as you are genuinely doing that and making real points that would be made by someone who did hold that view. But just arguing for the sake of an argument is trivial and uninteresting.

I am not a psychoanalyst - not even an amateur - but I suspect that Vicki has so far been sincere in her disagreements.

I suppose what I am after is having my ideas tested. I don’t want to convert anyone and am not trying to persuade, I am instead inviting a critique of my ideas, what for the want of a better expression I might call my philosophy. If someone can point out that it is internally inconsistent, or must necessarily lead to some undesireable state then that will be a real bonus. To that end I find the brevity of most comments prevents the author from properly explaining the rationale for their opinions, and that I find deeply unsatisfying. Just saying, for example, that “Superlatives are usually wrong.” and then using a superlative in the very next sentence gives us no opportunity to understand what the writer is trying to say. Was the first sentence preparing us for the redundancy in the next, or are they two entirely disconnected statements? (A moment’s thought will show that the first of them is obviously wrong, anyway).

p.s. I had to google “Britney Spears” to find out what you were talking about!