Embracing the diplomacy with the freedom’s wings. People and ideas talking on the world’s table. Great ideas painted by beautiful minds. Here or there, worldwide. With sunsets and sunrises full of smiles of hope. With great paths looking for the peaks. Could be yours, could be ours, could be theirs. Different smiles, different colours, different ways to reach the happiness. But the same Race.
The stones are thrown. In a world too much hurt by the ignorance and by the judgment in advance. The stones are still killing: people, lives, ideas, wings, thoughts, freedom and rights. With sunsets or sunrises bathed on blood, with nights scratched by hate, with days covered by violence. Through times which are calling the prejudice on the first line, like a soldier who lost the battle.
There are mornings which spark the flame of greatness. There are still rays of Sun shinning the Hope. A Hope which stands at the front of Humanity. Detonating the prejudice. We all smile in the same language. We all are the same Race. We all need to stand for Peace and for Humanity.
There are two types of betrayal. One is the betrayal involved in close and proximate relations, like the betrayal in relationships of love, or the breach of a promise or even a contract. This sort of betrayal is parasitic upon a structure of reliance and trust that the promise had in the promisor, which has been created by their assent itself. The other sort of betrayal is the betrayal involved in more impersonal relations, such as the one we refer to when speaking of, e.g., betrayal of one’s nation. This kind of betrayal, just as the other kind, works against the background of a pre-existent trust in place, but, unlike the former kind, this background is not one (co-)created by the perpetrator of the betrayal.
The individual who breaches a promise breaches a trust that she herself has induced in the other. Without A’s assent, we could not speak of a trust held by B in A. A demand from B addressed to A does not eo ipso generate an obligation for A. A herself must recognize, either implicitly or explicitly, the validity of the demand. Unless A’s recognition, B could not complain of A’s having betrayed her, since B is provided no grounds of trust on which to rely, in the first place. If A recognizes the normative validity of B’s demand, then A thereby commits herself not only to carrying out the demand, but also to recognizing the validity of B’s complaint, in case of A’s failure to execute the demand. That is, A commits herself to viewing her failure to act upon B’s demand as a betrayal. The upshot is that if B expects from A to do a certain thing X, A’s failure to do X is not a betrayal unless A has given her commitment to viewing her failure to do X as a betrayal. The existence of a betrayal in such bilateral situations (relationships of promisor – promisee) is, therefore, dependent, of the recognition of its existence by the perpretrator of the supposed betrayal (it is not necessary for the recognition to be occuring at the time A fails to act on the other’s demand, but it is sufficient for it to be prospectively committed to by A at the time she recognizes B’s demand; this ex ante commitment, like the promise itself, is not something A could waive at will, one-sidedly).
By contrast, in the case of the betrayal involved in impersonal relations, the existence of the betrayal does not depend upon the recognition of its existence by its perpetrator. This is because, unlike the betrayal involved in bilateral relations, the trust that the others have in A is not something to the creation of which A has contributed. It is not dependent on A’s having commited herself to B; it is not dependent on A’s having given herself a ground of trust to B on which B could rely. Instead, the trust against the background the which A’s action or omission counts as a betrayal is one which exists as a matter of public knowledge and public expectation, under anyone could fall. For exemple, the presumed duty of A not to betray her country pre-supposes a trust on the part of others on A, without A having committing herself to that duty. The trust that others have in A is the result of A’s being granted a certain legal recognition as a citizen. The trust is, therefore, impersonal in the following sense: whoever (not necessarily A) is being granted the legal recognition of citizenship, or metaphorically speaking, whoever occupies the office of citizen, is being trusted to act in a certain way, such that one’s failure to so act counts as betrayal. The impersonality of the trust involved here is such that the recognition of the existence of the betrayal by its perpetrator is immaterial to the question of whether there is a betrayal. Since A falls under the fiduciary obligation to not betray her country not in virtue of A’s having so committed, but in virtue of satisfying certain criteria of citizenship (which need not be in her intention), such that anyone else, whoever one is, satisfying those criteria, falls under the same fiduciary obligation, we could not say that A’s obligation could be suspended if A tells us that she had not been commited to carrying out that obligation. (All what I have said here should not not be taken as an endorsement of the duty to not betray one’s country; for the purpose of my discussion, I remain neutral on this issue. All what I said is that the duty in question, whether or not one accepts it, should be analyzed as exposed above).This is in contrast to a bilateral relation, such as the relation of love, where we could not say A is accountable to B for dating C, if A has not commited herself in any way toward B to not date anyone else except B. A’a action does not, therefore, count as a betrayal.
In conclusion, we can say that there are two kinds of betrayal. One form of betrayal is involved in bilateral relationships, and is dependent on the commitment of the betraying party. The other form is involved in impersonal relationships, and is dependent on the pre-existence of a trust which applies without regard to the commitments of the betraying party.
Mornings are coming with new inner for her soul. Thoughts which stay to explode in thousands of pieces. What has been done salutes aging from the deepest valley of happiness. What has been planned was following the paths up to the tops. What has been loved sparks through nostalgia in the eyes. What has been lost in the gap of confidence yells to the memories; long way spent negotiating the joy on the others’ table. Dreams steamed in the heart’s rooms, locked in the front of prejudices. Passion silenced on the waves of skirmish.
“Buff your dreams!
Make them shine.
Let them speak.
Speak to gut.
Trust your gut.
Buff your dreams”
Evenings are coming to calm the soul. Eyes of faith look to the bridges over time. Where everything could be pacific. Where dreams will rest on the serenity. And lights will buff them. Or maybe that will be another dream. The one which bridges the confidence.