My Life, The Universe and Everything

Truths I learn. Barriers I seek to break. Let me scream.

Qualifying Relationships

Posted by themischord on May 2, 2005

It is an accepted confusion that we find it difficult to qualify relationships. There are two simple criteria which can help us here. No offence to the hir community, but I'll hereby refer to the object to be qualified as 'he'. Me being a woman is the only reason for this.

1. Do you like the person for what he is?
2. Do you like the person for what he is to you?

Many people satisfy criterion 2. They make good friends and companions. We like to hang out with them. They make us feel good about ourselves.

A few people satisfy criterion 1. These are the ones we refer to as role models, mentors and gurus. We try to think like them in resolving conflicts. They make us feel good about them.

Anyone whose lived beyond 20 would not disagree that finding a person who satisfies criterion 1 and 2 is just too rare. I was being very positive in saying that. Personally I think it is close to impossible. These are the people who help us know ourselves. They are the one source of inspiration, strength and empathy. They make us feel good about life.

I can think of three people who satisfy both the criteria for me. Darcy from 'Pride and Prejudice', Howard Roark from 'The Fountain Head' and Dirk Pitt from Clive Cussler's Adventure series. To answer the immediate question that will spring up in your mind, "How did you verify these characters to satisfy criterion 2?", I'll have to make the confession of having picked up the best lead female character in all the books for myself.


3 Responses to “Qualifying Relationships”

  1. Kiran said

    Darcy is a fag. Howard Roark is a born loser. You should probly grow up and venture into the dark side of the soul.

    what I want to add to your analysis is (1) and (2) are all temporal. The only master in this world is time. And even that is relative.

  2. Rajan said

    Technically ( Gawd I hate this term) speaking qualifying relationship is meaningless without context. Chaitanya I guess your assumption here is that the context is personal relationships (more specifically friends & those around).
    Also I think that is not one of those meta question( which kiran seems to have made out of it ) it is a very generic question (with a lot of market potential in it too). Next generation of social software can be built ( the first being IMs & the second being sites like orkut, linkedIn etc) if this question can be answered decently well.

    In plain speak that I would say relationships ( the ones that you have mentioned )are formed & sustained because of ‘History’ & ‘Chemistry’.

    So according to me the connection(bonday) is not all temporal.

    Darcy I don’t know who s/he is( educate me).
    I think it does’nt matter whether Kiran thinks roark is a loser or so many others out there think that he is hero. I think what is important is Howard Roark was Roark (to himself). In general sense too he was very significant because

    thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis

  3. mnssk said

    there is nothing called relationship. its all about sex :)))))

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: