Linus Pauling's golden rule: Do unto others ten percent better than they do unto you. The ten percent is to make up for subjective judgement.
This seems a very good rule, demonstrating admirable awareness of our tendency to undervalue the behaviour of others and overvalue our own. However, it's hard to take Pauling too seriously. Yes, he won not one but two Nobel Prizes (for chemistry and for peace). He also, though, famously advocated vitamin C as a miracle cure-all. His wife, Ava, was a peace activist and sounds like a very fine woman. So, well, Pauling may have been a bit kooky but was probably a good egg.
Anyway, I like this rule and would like to share it with a friend who has alienated a vast majority of his acquaintances and colleagues. The sad fact is that this person would be likely to say that they already treat others 100% better than they are treated and that the others are simply toxic. And evil. And that, indeed, there is a limit to how much one can give to ungrateful and treacherous people. And that, further, they deserve to be called out for their despicable behaviour.
Well.
I appreciate the feeling. I have, of late, experienced much of what I would classify as resentment and indeed anger. This is not new to me. It occurs at regular intervals, perhaps in alignment with the depression, which may be causal or symptomatic, who knows?
I also wish for others to agree with my reading of the situation. I wish to present them with evidence [Ah! We are back to that, are we? - Ed.] of the other's complete and utter wrongness, in every respect; and of my complete and utter rightness. I wish to be told, as I believe my friend does, "Yes indeed, how can one stand that? How foolish and unpleasant x is!" Which, of course, they will say if my evidence is good enough. Which it will be because I have chosen all the evidence that supports my view of the matter. And even where something really is ambiguous or uncertain, any other interpretation is clearly wrong. And it would be offensive to suggest otherwise.
This is how relationships fracture. And this is how we create a world full of monsters. If we live in a world of monsters, then, indeed, we must always be on the defense. No, screw that! As we know the world is full of monsters, let us acknowledge that attack is the better form of defense!
In the end, one who takes the line of attacking or even defending in every interaction is incapable of living in relationship. It really is, as my father used to say, compromises and give and take. The fungi and the trees.
What is more interesting, though, is that these relationships aren't really about two beings, a pair, a dyadic encounter. They are entanglements: grass feeds bison and gets manure and better growing conditions, bison feed wolves, whose presence deters an excess of coyotes and foxes, which benefits rabbits and mice, the rabbits and mice feed the eagles and the owls, whose presence supports the number of small birds, who may perform pollination or pest-removal services for trees, who provide homes for squirrels, who plant more trees, who offer food for wild boars, whose digging and wallowing benefits certain invertebrates and plants who support bears and bees and so on. 10 per cent more, at least, all the way through. But it's not about reciprocity or generosity... it's about an ultimate, a radical vulnerability.
This is where we have it wrong.
Everything relies on all of us being vulnerable.
And we humans hate that. We erect walls and create dogmas and believe in heaven and take pills and kill enemies and attack as the best form of defense and so it all breaks down.
Know that you are dependent on all these webs. Accept that your vulnerability allows the web to keep on complexifying.
A photo taken by my friend Francesca.

Good post.