Slow Havamal: 43

[kylec]

The 43rd verse warn us that while we should always be friendly to the friend of a friend, we should never become friends with his enemy.

George Washington’s admonition to avoid entangling alliances seems appropriate to this verse. If we’ve taken the trouble to get to know someone, to build a relationship, and we find that person praiseworthy as a friend, it stands to reason that a new acquaintance who he considers a friend will have some merit. There are exceptions. I’m sure we all have a friend whose buddy we think is an idiot. But for the most part, those we appreciate have similar tastes. That said, we don’t have to adore the second-order friend, or even establish a primary relationship. What Havamal suggests is that we simply demonstrate friendly behavior. This is a courtesy to our own friend. I may not want to hang out with the new person but I’ll treat him with the same regard I give my friend, because if I’m a jerk, I put my friend in the awkward position of having to answer for my behavior. It reflects badly on him, just as it will if the other person treats me badly.

A mutual friend is in effect a buffer, or a peacekeeper. The relationship limits my potential behavior to whatever is acceptable to that middleman, and does the same for the other person. This provides strangers with a standard model of acquaintance. We know some of the ways we won’t behave, even if inclined. Likewise, it removes some of the rigor of the vetting process. My friend isn’t likely to hang out with a throat-cutting thief. If, however, the new guy and I find each other mutually intolerable, it’s a fair bet that our friend will be forced to let go of one of the relationships, if not both—slowly, or quickly. Most of the reason we treat a friend of a friend with respect is to maintain the original friendship.

Of course, the wider the circle we both travel in, the more likely there will be conflicts. My friend is also bound to have enemies—maybe not in the sword-swinging sense, but people he would love to never encounter again. To pal around with these folks is tantamount to treason for the same reason that I wouldn’t abuse his friend. It’s an insult to his judgment. If he finds the person despicable and I find him amicable, my friend and I may have less in common than we thought. For sure, I won’t be able to hang out with both of them at once, so each time I choose one, I reject the other. The temptation to ultimately forge an exclusive alliance one way or the other is strong. Perhaps inevitable.

This is all the more troublesome because their enmity may be due to some irreducibly personal reason that has nothing to do with me. He may be the ex-boyfriend of my friend’s wife, for example. Or they could have squabbled over something beneath both their otherwise admirable characters, and men of pride struggle to apologize. In other words, I may be dealing with two people who are both worthy of friendship, and could be friends with one another under other circumstances. In that case, I can choose, or let them choose for me. This very situation is one that comes up at least infrequently for me. I tend to make friends with strong personalities, and sometimes they just hate each other. Meanwhile, I’m polite to a fault, and don’t insert myself into their dramas. I see no reason to sever ties with a good person because he and another good person have latched on to some petty dispute, but there’s hardly a choice. What usually happens is I find myself trying to split time between them like a pair of divorced parents. While they usually don’t begrudge it (not explicitly), I imagine it places a hard limit on how deeply I can develop the relationship compared to if we all got along.

On the international scale, these entangling alliances can’t help put end in bitter dispute or bullets.

This verse applies just as well to the internal self, though. My friend can be seen as my will: the thing I want to accomplish or improve at. His friends are those pursuits that mutually support the first goal, and his enemies are a will divided. They contradict and undercut the first at every step, even though they may be perfectly reasonable goals taken alone. For example, if a concert pianist also wants to be a professional fighter, he may find that every hour practicing one takes way from an hour practicing the other, and both require full devotion. His nimble hands are battered stiff by one hobby, and is symphony friends don’t care to attend his fights or meet his gym crew. He can have it both ways and be a generalist, but only if he’s willing to sacrifice deep development of both hobbies.

That’s a valid approach. There are probably benefits to getting along with everyone to a moderate level, without having any blood brothers who know your soul. And a lifelong friendship has other advantages that many passing acquaintances never will. It’s a choice, and we’re asked to be conscious of the choice we make. As is the choice of the original friend. Who is the first person I’m beholden to? If he’s cantankerous, I won’t likely get to have many other friends. He’ll drive them away.

Maybe the first step is to be a friend to the self. No hateful self-talk or sabotage, no divided will unless I’ve weighed the costs and benefits. Then I can choose for a best friend the one who gets along with me and my way of living. My social circle would expand slowly and deliberately, taking care to avoid those entangling alliances that wreck relationships and leave me with only a loyal companion or two, if any. Everyone if our life relates to the others and alters the whole in some way. Odin would ask that we understand how, and choose our friends and enemies wisely.

Comments

[kallianeira]

Kyle,

Every time I come here I receive a huge serving of material for meditation. Thank you.

And my peculiar experience of your thinking is that much of it seems to circle, and address, the fundamental moral problems raised in "Gone With the Wind". I'm not gonna do a PhD on that novel, but bouncing off the ideas here i think it would be easy.

[kylec]

Thank you! I've never read Gone with the Wind, or seen the movie. Guess I'm a lousy southerner. But always feel free to riff off of these posts.

gone to the pictures

[kallianeira]

Yeah, there must be a lot of expectation, reverent and otherwise, around that book in your part of the world. I didn't realize that that's where you live. It must be a looming (even monolithic) presence to negotiate. For such as me it is disjunct from such snares and is simply a stunning work of literature and historical research.

I don't think I'd go seeking any great Australian novels, if such there be, for like fear of being pressured into some kind of posture.

However, there are a number of quintessential movies about Australia (all directed by foreigners) you might similarly be able to enjoy without strings:
Walkabout
Wake in Fright
The Sundowners

Sorry about the repeat reply there. I thought I was editing my original one and it turned into a new one.

Re: gone to the pictures

[kylec]

I'll keep an eye out for those films.

I don't live in the south anymore but I was born and raised there. actually, the book was hardly a presence at all for me. I lived in a rural area and most people didn't read much. I'm not sure I ever heard it discussed. the first person I met who professed an admiration for it was my wife, a Californian. I should probably remedy that at some point and give it a read.