My pet peeve is money. Not the lack of it, but its existence.
Just had an hour long discussion with a colleague... he's a financial economist, so he obviously wanted to defend against my ideas. At some point he said "I'd like to agree with you... but..." 'But' is another of my peeves. Not in the managament jargon sense of the term where they say no target is impossible. I'm referring to 'but' that tells us to ignore the spirit and focus on physical human existence instead.
Singapore has been one of the best experiences in my life, simply because it has allowed me time and space to reflect, to just be. It's been disturbing to think that at some point in time I may have to go back to the world that does not agree with my thoughts. I do not seek agreement, but I need freedom of thought, and spirit.
I've been reflecting on how relationships operate around us, more so, on the expectations. "We've worked hard to bring up our children. When they grow up, they will take care of us." "I love my spouse and provide her with care and comforts. In return, she should gel in my family, help my mother in the kitchen. Of course, I'm modern in thoughts and would definitely want her to pursue her own career. But I need to balance between my spouse and family, so she'll have to adjust."
These are what might be defined as 'fair' in the given scheme of things. Yet, the spirit questions... why does everyone, from lover to employer to banker to parents want commitment? The way I look at it, commitment is a promise to fulfill expectations. Fair enough, if one says that the other person 'invests' in you in some sense. However, what does this commitment succeed in doing? It might bind me physically to fulfill those expectations. So the other person is secure in that relationship. However, can a commitment bind me spiritually? Or even mentally for that matter?
In relationships, why do we seek commitment and not love? Is it because in the world we've created love is conditional? Why is love expressed only to a dutiful daughter or a devoted wife? Doesn't the wayward son or the philanderer spouse need more of it?
The biggest farce of all, if I have to be judgemental, is marriage. Of course, love exists in many marriages. But I wonder why it does it have to be adulterated with faithfulness, commitment, duty, tolerance, adjustment, realignment, responsibility... Isn't it possible for a relationship, (or marriage, if you have to make it socially easier) to simply exist because there's love? Why do we strive for the byproducts that result out of love that are named responsibility, duty and so on? Why is it that when we contemplate a marriage, those are the points of discussion rather than love?
What difference would it make to you on your deathbed if you cooked food for your family or had a cook doing it for you? ... if you participated in all the rituals that your family believed in or chose to be away from it because they did not make sense to you? ... if you bought gifts for your parents from every trip abroad or simply ensured they are able to live well? Does your love for your people reduce because you cannot enjoy cooking? Can you love your family only if you believe in their religion? Does the amount of money you spend on a person connote love? Yet, these acts hold you liable to be labelled as dutiful or irresponsible, obedient or rebellious, caring or uncaring.
Money is my pet peeve because with it, we have created a system around us that has made us powerless. We've created a polity that governs our resources, a society that moderates our behaviour, an economy that dictates our lifestyle. Politicians decide which country can have nuclear power and which has to be disarmed. The society says having a child out of wedlock is immoral. The economy chooses what kind of food and drinks we have access to. At some point in time, some corner of soul cringes and says, "this is corrupt, hypocritical, unfair". Yet, we choose to submit to the system. Why? Because we have chosen to lend our power of discretion to create a system around us. Collectively, this power has become so cogent that we are overwhelmed, not realising that we are feeding it. Yet it is convenient to have this system around us because then we are not responsible. There's always the system to blame. It's easy to play victim.
What if I do not want to play victim anymore? What if I do not want to commit to my lover or employer or parents in the conventional sense of the term? What if I want to live and to have a relationship, work and have fun, but for the sheer love of it? They say it's not fair... it does not create security for them. They do not want to believe in love. They do not want to believe in themselves...
A couple of years ago this blog of mine was a collection of my poems, mostly based on love. I deleted them all, because they do not reflect who I am now. They call it evolution. And they hate it. Change creates insecurity, so our systems strive to maintain stability and stagnate the soul. Commitment is an insurance against change. Every now and then, the soul breaks free from the system. Then they call it revolution. We've lived the same cycle over and over again. No wonder when people do something significant and socially acceptable, we say they've created history. Because they've done the same thing again!
My soul does not want to create history. I wish to create life instead...
