There is an issue that has been bugging me: I've been conscientious of whether I'm being taken advantage of or taken for a ride. Of course taken advantage of is rather easy because of my physical stature, my humbly character, and my incredibly timid and gullible nature. My Dad has always warned me that I would be taken for a ride with women who ask me for my homework or ask me to study with them. In return they give me the stranger face and play the hard-to-get female who places me in brother-position. Not that this is incredibly true to life because women sometimes don't expect anything in return just as I don't expect anything in return from certain people I call "friends." I call these benefit of the doubt favors.
Sometimes I wonder do people owe anything to anyone? In terms of the title "friendship" which is clearly known to both sides, do people return favors or pseudo-favors? Do they even think about keeping track of favors in and out. I refer to these are in-favors and out-favors. The in-favors are what I receive from my supposed friend or colleague. I will explain colleague in a bit. Out-favors are what I do for my friends-colleagues in return. I lended my cheapass camcorder to Liz last summer so that she can use it on her odyssey halfway around the US and back. I funded her in material sense and hopeful sense by texting her, communicating with her, traveling to Barnes and Nobles to mapsearch with her, and funding her $80 (my busking cash). I was reluctant to give her the $80 but after hearing her cellphone issue and low cash issue over the cellphone I knew I had to take action. Besides "I help when I can" and this is my philosophy. However I can live by my philosophy and die by my philosophy but sometimes I am stingy. But that's beyond the point because I did help her. I expect that Liz returns my camcorder as soon as possible. But it seems that she is not taking the initiative to return it to me because of other reasons that are her reasons. I won't fault her for having her reasons because that's her life. But I do wonder does she bear in mind that she should return my camcorder. It is an obligation on some levels because the camcorder does not belong to her first and foremost. It is not an emotional obligation because we are not close friends. Even if we are that would only lax the situation and I would allow her to keep it, just as I would allow Linda to keep my favorite books. You can argue that I should press for my camcorder back because it is mine and maybe she forgot that it is camcorder for whatever reason. It may not be imperative that I need the camcorder which means I can relax it and not ask for it. But for some ulterior reason, maybe for sentimental reasons, I want to have it back in my hands.
I witness "sliding scales" even in friendship because emotions take over rationality. Certain flashbacks causes a different emotions and certain benefits of the doubt repeat themselves to the point where a friend IS being taken advantage of but that person refuses to acknowledge it is happening to him or her. He refuses it because he somehow allows it to happen or denies its possibility under the very title "friend" which bonds these two persons together. I don't fault them for believing in this title because I get hooked up with Linda and Joe--I treat Joe to lunch and spend certain amounts for him and I ultimately purchased a bag for Linda and for myself that pursed me $320. I believe that these compulsions are motivated by emotion rather than rationality. Sometimes the cash does work its way to me because cash allows me to buy certain things that only benefit me and I wouldn't want it to benefit anyone else because it benefits me. Examples of this include lunch and dinner. If I could spare dinner outside with friends, I would, mostly if these are not necessarily great experiences that are Yelped or rated by Zagat I would not pay or even go unless these are my close friends. The reason for this is rather simple: it is under the excuse that I am starting a new healthy diet and also the excuse that I need to save money. Now, the fallacy is as follows: I've always had to save money and it will always be a sacrifice here or there. But in reality I don't sacrifice, I spend. In reality, I eat and I don't think. So to tell my friends taht I need to eat healthy and I need to stop spending money (ON THEM) is rather rude and absurd especially when your friends are not asking to eat with them every night, which would then drain your cash. It is cases like these that expose the true nature of the friendship. Perhaps it's not the money issue or affordance issue, it's that the two people don't want to be around each other or be friends anymore. Yet they enjoy the comforting title "friends" because it keeps them in preservative denial and it keeps them from facing the truth that they've drifted away. You can say that to face it is life-affirming, but facing it is a freedom to them as well, so it's up to them to face it or just let it drift farther and farther away.
Money IS a big deal for me. Though my Facebook pictures and posts prove otherwise that I throw money away left and right is extremely antithetical to the socioeconomic background I am part of. Clearly I wish that friends would urge me to save money, to conserve money. Just because I perform in the subway and make a lot of money does not mean I should spend my money lavishly like I did a few months ago on designer bags. I regret this behavior because it gives people an image and I should have expected the consequences of it changing other people's image of me. Clearly other people believe that either I'm rich or that I am completely inconsiderate of the cash I own. It is telling people that I should be taken advantage of, though this isn't recognized as taking advantage of Ken in its immediacy, but it is a form of extortion in terms of the friendship scale. Now, I help whenever I can and I WOULD help someone financially even if they are my acquaintance. If someone took advantage of me and they're my acquaintance I would be damned in the long run because I won't have that money. But in the long run, I will only accumulate money. So is the issue of making money at stake here? Is the question really Should I return to busking and stop complaining about my money being depreciated? Busking is not work, please realize that, it is not something I can simply go and do, as in work, you get a semi-stable pay. You can choose to see as a rather free choice because work is bounded to schedule. But this does not give you the right to believe that I can go and get money whenever I can; I have extenuating circumstances (though this occurs with jobs too) that cause me to be unable to busk, such as some other musician in my spot, or the cold weather and fatigue (Keep in mind I stand for eight hours straight and skip one single meal). However, someone can argue that if I desperately need cash as I do sound I should stick it out and stop complaining. Fair enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment