commitment

Commitment gathers the many wandering fragments of energy that is our soul, concentrates the gathered energy, then focuses the bean on goals we set for ourselves.
It is part of the nature of human energy, after the exertion of such effective concentration, to relapse into the original, ineffectual state of dispersal. Where this happens, the normal state of a person’s life is the dispirited inertia of dispersal, punctured at intervals by bursts of committed action, spectacular revelations of the immense possibilities of committed work, but so brief that they confirm the dispiriting belief that the natural state of humanity is impotent torpor; they feed the crippling allusion the intelligent life of commitment can only be momentary revelation of transcendent beauty, a singular eruption of unworldly energy bursting briefly out of eternal lethargy.
If we wanted to reverse this unbalanced distribution of commitment and apathy, we would had to find ways of increasing the frequency with which committed consciousness wove its way into the drowsy fabric of daily existence. We would have to make the focused presence of committed thought a regular, routine part of the passage of our life. We would have to find ways of making a frame for our daily lives from the active expression of our commitment.-Ayi Kwei Armah

this passage has been playing on my mind as of late. i've been thinking about the changes i want to make to my life and the need to show unwavering commitment to those changes. that's a tough thing for most people. is there anything you do everyday that's not included in the basic funtions of life? most will say no.

last night i had some friends over and i gained a level of understanding that previously eluded me. most people don't know how to be commited to a goal that isn't individualistic. divorce rates are the proof of this. when did the world change so drastically that it became ok to be completely self-involved? caring about being happy all the time or feeling the euphoria of "first love" 15 years later is a near impossibility. last night i argued with a friend that being "in love" is simply a more complex form of infatuation. people who marry for love are bound to break-up. when i was 19, my second b/f asked me to marry him. it wasn't romantic b/c he wasn't a romantic man. i wasn't "in love" with him and told him so. his reply: why would i marry for love? in my culture (he was ghanian) we marry for practicality and to build a solid foundation. you choose a woman who can complement you well. my parent's were not in what you americans call "love" but they care deeply for one another and love each other in our way. they are a good match and have been together for nearly 40 years." at 19, i thought that foolish. i approached the idea of love from a very westernized ideal of marriage. over the years, i've come to see the wisdom in his statement. love isn't about flowers and candy and perpetual euphoria. it isn't violent or hurtful either. love is shared unwavering commitment to a cause greater than yourself. it's sharing the ideals for a future that goes beyond you or the unit. that's the kind of love i have now. thinking about it in contrast to what i'd previosly experienced is amazingly different. everything before this seems almost childish in the wants expressed by both myself and the other party. but it's not just my intimate relationships but my life's goals. the things i've always thought that i wanted... they all seem almost trivial. now i'm thinking- where do i go from here?