I live in a city that has been used as a filming location once or twice. You would think the most unusual part of this would be the fact part of the city gets closed off for filming or the pandemonium that ensues whenever it's someone famous that is shooting, but neither of these are for me. Instead however, the most unusual part of living somewhere that is used like this is when you watch the series or the movie or whatever it was, whether you are expecting it or not, when the scenes pop up that were filmed here you recognise the setting. This still happens even when special effects make changes that add or remove things from the environment. The recognition comes from the fact you've seen that place a thousand times before.
Being able to switch off and get lost in the story being told on screen is something that I can find difficult at the best of times, but seeing things in this light makes that reluctance to accept what you see even stronger. Time was, special effects were limited. What you saw was pretty much what was there when it was filmed. Computer aided special effects took decades to advance to the level they now have. Whilst I like the realism created by using real environments, I think I prefer to watch shows and movies that use computer generated imagery to the extent that they create a setting that doesn't actually exist.
There is an appeal in taking tours and venturing to spots that were used in the things we loved, but I feel that only really serves a purpose when the story that was told was set in our time. In other words when it is believable that the real place on screen is where things happened. For example there is a tour of Paris that follows the story from The Da Vinci Code and shows you the locations that appeared in the novel and were used for filming the movie. This I like, because the plot of the book and the movie is done in a modern setting, there is no illusion being broken by seeing that setting the way it is today. The loss of immersion comes when the plot plays out in different time frames, set decades or centuries ago, or when they are set in worlds that are very different to our own. In those situations when you see the location as it really is, and see through the effects on screen when you watch it, the illusion is destroyed. Like watching a magic show when you know how the trick is performed, you see every detail that normally the sleight of hand or sleight of body would mask.
This general concept I like to refer to as an unintentional fourth wall break. Traditionally the concept of breaking the fourth wall is to let the viewer in on the illusion and let them be party to the fact that what they see is not real. In these situations however this is not intentional, you could say it is like seeing the wires that hold up the performer on stage and knowing they're not actually flying.
Fourth wall breaks have been something that both fascinates and dismays me. Not just for the examples I have given above but because in my life I have made choices based on what I see on the stage and then been disappointed when I got to see behind the stage. The best example of this I can give is my choice of degree. I chose Computer Science as my major and Games Technology as my minor. I did this following the advice that if you take something you love and turn it into your career you will love your career - for anyone reading this who contemplates this, please, I beseech you don't do it. The reality is if you take something you love and try and turn it into your career you'll turn it into something you hate. It's incredibly rare to actually like your job, most people hate theirs, and this isn't me being pessimistic, in the thirty years that I have been alive I have never met anyone who genuinely loves their job and wouldn't give it up if they had no need to work.
When I studied something I loved, based on what you could see on the stage, the revelation of how everything worked in practice destroyed the illusion and took something that was fun, and exciting, and turned it into something monotonous and boring - where here too for the longest time I could not play games and see the game itself for what it wanted to be, instead seeing the components and the structure and how everything worked. It took me years until the industry had advanced enough without me being part of it before I could play games again because I no longer knew how things were done. Even today whilst many games fit that new definition, there are many more that remain within my remit, my education, and my technical ability to the point where I get little enjoyment out of them.
Sometimes it's better to see the stage and enjoy the show, than to see the broken down crumbling wall behind it and the reality of what is happening.
Harry Potter And The Renamed Novel
As a writer, one thing I hate, is when it is apparent that the person who has written a book has intentionally dumbed down the subject matter in order to be easily understood by a wider range of people. I hate it even more when this is done to such an extent that the plot becomes obvious very quickly and the content becomes predictable. This is usually the point where I give up reading and instead choose to move on to something else more intellectually stimulating.
Nowhere else is this more apparent to me, than when an English version, or to be more precise, the British version is adapted for audiences of other nations. With translations to other languages, I accept that there will inevitably be things that are lost in translation. These can somewhat be forgiven, although if the work had been translated by interpretation as opposed to simply telling the story as written then perhaps things would be different - I am somewhat hesitant to commit to that idea because my next point somewhat negates it.
When it comes to presenting the British version of anything to other countries that also speak English there is often a tendency to rework the content in an effort to localize it. Often the most jarring versions of this are those aimed at American audiences. The original Harry Potter book, the first that went on to become a series was titled 'Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone' originally, but this was changed for American audiences to Sorcerer's Stone. This isn't just specific to books, it applies to games, for example Spyro 2 was titled "'Gateway to Glimmer' in Europe, and 'Ripto's Rage' for North America - this is an example of renaming in reverse, as the American name was decided first, and the European name was decided second, there are a slew of theories why this is the case, few of them hold water, and as far as I am aware, Insomniac never officially stated why. J.K. Rowling however has confirmed the change in name for the original Harry Potter book was because publishers didn't think Americans would know what a Philosopher was, although to be frank given the plenitude of myth and legend intertwined into the series sprinkled with so many neologisms a plenty, I find it hard to believe that one word is what they took issue with but there we go.
The Americanized versions of most British things whilst adapting the content for local tastes, often completely eliminate the premise of the content they are changing. TV shows like Queer As Folk which originally aired in the UK take this to the extreme, almost rewriting the entire script and in its case it went on to produce further seasons and diverged entirely from the UK original. It is painfully apparent therefore when an American company gets involved in a production targeted at British consumers, for example the Absolutely Fabulous movie which didn't fit with the series whatsoever. It was a nostalgic indulgence for many but you will find it difficult to find many who are fans of the original series who actually think it is on par or even surpasses it.
In all of these examples there are a myriad of reasons why the changes big and small occurred when reworking the material. Some of these are more tolerable than others. Whenever it is done for the sake of dumbing down the content, I find it most offensive. In the case of Harry Potter, one can argue since it was aimed at children the change can be understood but I don't accept that argument. You will inevitably learn what a Philosopher is at some point in your life, placing it in a children's book seems one of the more appropriate places to introduce it - not least of all for the fact that the word itself is only used a handful of times in the book and no emphasis is placed on what the word actually means - you don't even have to know what it means to be able to follow the story.
I wrote a post quite a while ago about The Big Bang Theory, the TV show and how I hated the fact it progressively simplified the language used and shifted the focus away from the nerdiness and geekiness of the characters. This is an extension of that idea. There seems to be an obsession with reaching as many people as possible in almost everything we do now as a society. I don't like this attitude because it leads to a world where everything is grey and goopy there is no colour or diversity, no individuality or self expression, instead it creates conformity and uniformity. I want something different, something that is what it is and doesn't apologize for it, is that too much to ask?
Fuck your beige dreams, I want the whole rainbow.
Nowhere else is this more apparent to me, than when an English version, or to be more precise, the British version is adapted for audiences of other nations. With translations to other languages, I accept that there will inevitably be things that are lost in translation. These can somewhat be forgiven, although if the work had been translated by interpretation as opposed to simply telling the story as written then perhaps things would be different - I am somewhat hesitant to commit to that idea because my next point somewhat negates it.
When it comes to presenting the British version of anything to other countries that also speak English there is often a tendency to rework the content in an effort to localize it. Often the most jarring versions of this are those aimed at American audiences. The original Harry Potter book, the first that went on to become a series was titled 'Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone' originally, but this was changed for American audiences to Sorcerer's Stone. This isn't just specific to books, it applies to games, for example Spyro 2 was titled "'Gateway to Glimmer' in Europe, and 'Ripto's Rage' for North America - this is an example of renaming in reverse, as the American name was decided first, and the European name was decided second, there are a slew of theories why this is the case, few of them hold water, and as far as I am aware, Insomniac never officially stated why. J.K. Rowling however has confirmed the change in name for the original Harry Potter book was because publishers didn't think Americans would know what a Philosopher was, although to be frank given the plenitude of myth and legend intertwined into the series sprinkled with so many neologisms a plenty, I find it hard to believe that one word is what they took issue with but there we go.
The Americanized versions of most British things whilst adapting the content for local tastes, often completely eliminate the premise of the content they are changing. TV shows like Queer As Folk which originally aired in the UK take this to the extreme, almost rewriting the entire script and in its case it went on to produce further seasons and diverged entirely from the UK original. It is painfully apparent therefore when an American company gets involved in a production targeted at British consumers, for example the Absolutely Fabulous movie which didn't fit with the series whatsoever. It was a nostalgic indulgence for many but you will find it difficult to find many who are fans of the original series who actually think it is on par or even surpasses it.
In all of these examples there are a myriad of reasons why the changes big and small occurred when reworking the material. Some of these are more tolerable than others. Whenever it is done for the sake of dumbing down the content, I find it most offensive. In the case of Harry Potter, one can argue since it was aimed at children the change can be understood but I don't accept that argument. You will inevitably learn what a Philosopher is at some point in your life, placing it in a children's book seems one of the more appropriate places to introduce it - not least of all for the fact that the word itself is only used a handful of times in the book and no emphasis is placed on what the word actually means - you don't even have to know what it means to be able to follow the story.
I wrote a post quite a while ago about The Big Bang Theory, the TV show and how I hated the fact it progressively simplified the language used and shifted the focus away from the nerdiness and geekiness of the characters. This is an extension of that idea. There seems to be an obsession with reaching as many people as possible in almost everything we do now as a society. I don't like this attitude because it leads to a world where everything is grey and goopy there is no colour or diversity, no individuality or self expression, instead it creates conformity and uniformity. I want something different, something that is what it is and doesn't apologize for it, is that too much to ask?
Fuck your beige dreams, I want the whole rainbow.
Content Licensing
It would be a wonderful thing if there was one streaming service you could subscribe to that allowed you to watch any show, from any network, from any time past or present, with no additional charge to watch. That is the desire of many but it has never become a reality because of one hurdle in particular, content licensing. The concept of licensing content is simple, those who create it, known as the production company give the right to distribute it to another company known as the distribution company. Sometimes they are parts of the same company, sometimes they are a third party. In any case, the right to distribute that content is known as a "license" and it determines rather pointedly, who can distribute that content.
Some production companies give licenses to more than one company, and that leads to their content being available on many different services. However sometimes when a production company sets out to create content, they can't do it alone and need the backing of other companies. In these cases it is often the distribution companies who partly finance the production in exchange for an exclusive license which means that content will only be available through their services. When a production company and the distribution company are part of the same overall company, the license is almost always exclusive.
As a result, content becomes isolated and stranded on certain streaming services. Things created by FOX often end up exclusive to Hulu, things created as Netflix Originals are only available on Netflix etc. TV shows that belonged to certain TV networks end up only available on their streaming platforms, and the complexity grows until you reach a point where you have a myriad of streaming services and content that only appears on one or two of those services.
This whole post started when I saw a tweet of a "wishlist" of TV shows that someone wanted to appear on Netflix. Not surprisingly almost all of the shows they listed are exclusive to rival platforms, most of them are exclusive to Hulu. This made me realise that either general consumers are oblivious to everything I wrote above, or they know that fact and still want those services to find a way to show that content.
If the latter is the reality then this could be possible but would ultimately come down to one thing - money. For Netflix to be able to show Hulu shows on their platform, Hulu and the production companies that back it would need to make as much money from that distribution route as they would using their own services, or even more. The reality is that this would mean the Netflix subscription price would have to rise to the point where it essentially becomes their own plus Hulu's. The problem with that is while some people would pay it for convenience, the option to have both services separately exists for consumers and if you don't pay for both separately at the moment, the likelihood is you can't afford to pay for both and wouldn't pay an inflated Netflix subscription price to do so - this ignores for the moment the technicality of region-locked content which is a debate unto itself.
The other option would be tiered subscriptions, where Netflix offers a "Netflix Only" level that stays the same as their current price, and a "Netflix Plus" level that includes Hulu content as well which costs the same as buying a subscription to both.
Consumers like simplicity however. One reason Amazon Prime Instant Video is not as successful as its peers is that its cost is not transparent. It offers a subscription but that does not cover all content and the Amazon site does not make it clear what is and is not included. Beyond your base subscription there are lots of other Movies and TV shows you can watch, but to do so you have to buy episodes or seasons at a time and this costs an additional amount - consumers don't like this.
Netflix is simple. You pay one flat rate each month and you consume all you can eat and your bill will never be any higher or lower that what you agreed to pay. Introducing tiered membership would likely cause Netflix subscribers to react badly. Indeed Netflix at present already has a form of tiered membership - something not many of its subscribers are aware of, as it isn't made clear that it exists. Netflix Subscription tiers at present don't affect how much content you have access to, but rather the streaming quality and how many devices you can use the service on at once. Most people are oblivious to this fact however and pay the first price that was presented to them when they signed up to Netflix blissfully unaware there are cheaper and more expensive plans available to them.
The point of this whole post is to underline the fact that while it would be nice to have everything in one place, it's unlikely to happen. Both because the businesses that make those decisions are unwilling to open up their content to all platforms, and because you the consumer are unlikely to actually pay the subscription fee that would be necessary to gain access to all of that content in one place.
Some production companies give licenses to more than one company, and that leads to their content being available on many different services. However sometimes when a production company sets out to create content, they can't do it alone and need the backing of other companies. In these cases it is often the distribution companies who partly finance the production in exchange for an exclusive license which means that content will only be available through their services. When a production company and the distribution company are part of the same overall company, the license is almost always exclusive.
As a result, content becomes isolated and stranded on certain streaming services. Things created by FOX often end up exclusive to Hulu, things created as Netflix Originals are only available on Netflix etc. TV shows that belonged to certain TV networks end up only available on their streaming platforms, and the complexity grows until you reach a point where you have a myriad of streaming services and content that only appears on one or two of those services.
This whole post started when I saw a tweet of a "wishlist" of TV shows that someone wanted to appear on Netflix. Not surprisingly almost all of the shows they listed are exclusive to rival platforms, most of them are exclusive to Hulu. This made me realise that either general consumers are oblivious to everything I wrote above, or they know that fact and still want those services to find a way to show that content.
If the latter is the reality then this could be possible but would ultimately come down to one thing - money. For Netflix to be able to show Hulu shows on their platform, Hulu and the production companies that back it would need to make as much money from that distribution route as they would using their own services, or even more. The reality is that this would mean the Netflix subscription price would have to rise to the point where it essentially becomes their own plus Hulu's. The problem with that is while some people would pay it for convenience, the option to have both services separately exists for consumers and if you don't pay for both separately at the moment, the likelihood is you can't afford to pay for both and wouldn't pay an inflated Netflix subscription price to do so - this ignores for the moment the technicality of region-locked content which is a debate unto itself.
The other option would be tiered subscriptions, where Netflix offers a "Netflix Only" level that stays the same as their current price, and a "Netflix Plus" level that includes Hulu content as well which costs the same as buying a subscription to both.
Consumers like simplicity however. One reason Amazon Prime Instant Video is not as successful as its peers is that its cost is not transparent. It offers a subscription but that does not cover all content and the Amazon site does not make it clear what is and is not included. Beyond your base subscription there are lots of other Movies and TV shows you can watch, but to do so you have to buy episodes or seasons at a time and this costs an additional amount - consumers don't like this.
Netflix is simple. You pay one flat rate each month and you consume all you can eat and your bill will never be any higher or lower that what you agreed to pay. Introducing tiered membership would likely cause Netflix subscribers to react badly. Indeed Netflix at present already has a form of tiered membership - something not many of its subscribers are aware of, as it isn't made clear that it exists. Netflix Subscription tiers at present don't affect how much content you have access to, but rather the streaming quality and how many devices you can use the service on at once. Most people are oblivious to this fact however and pay the first price that was presented to them when they signed up to Netflix blissfully unaware there are cheaper and more expensive plans available to them.
The point of this whole post is to underline the fact that while it would be nice to have everything in one place, it's unlikely to happen. Both because the businesses that make those decisions are unwilling to open up their content to all platforms, and because you the consumer are unlikely to actually pay the subscription fee that would be necessary to gain access to all of that content in one place.
Imagination
The human imagination is a beautiful thing. It is simultaneously one of the most wondrous things in existence and one of the most horrifying things. When we think of imagination we tend to think of dreams and fantasy worlds that we create. We tend not to think of the fact that our imagination fills in the gaps whenever there is an unknown, in every part of our lives good and bad. That imagination can be an incredible resource that we can harness and use for creativity, it can also be one of the hardest stumbling blocks to get around in life.
Whenever it comes to setting goals in life, however big or small, becoming President, or going to the shop to buy bread, we think about what we want to achieve, and how we can do it. It's easy to think of the things that are hard to achieve and justify the imagination when it comes up with a million reasons why we could never actually achieve it - we've already to an extent resigned ourselves to that outcome, so we don't fight it, and don't see the fact that we don't resist as something bad. When it comes to smaller goals though, things which we can achieve, which we know we can, in these situations the imagination can dream up a million more reasons why we can't achieve these goals either. If we resign ourselves to that outcome too then start to create a problem where we don't live our lives because of all the ways things can go wrong.
How do you overcome this obstacle then? Well for me personally the only way that ever worked for me was to deny myself the thought in the first place. In other words I think of what I want to achieve, and then try not to think about it at all, and just act impulsively. That can go very well, or it can go very badly, but even when it goes badly, there is a comfort in knowing that I didn't think it through, so there's less responsibility attached to that mistake. This can be seen as negative, and to be honest it probably is, but it's the only way I know how to overcome that desire to over think, because if I let myself think about it too much, I will convince myself not to do it, and that I know is destructive for a fact because during times of depression I can find it near impossible to get out of bed in the morning because I convince myself there's absolutely no reason to do so.
The fear of failure can deny us many experiences in life, but the only true failure is the failure to try. If you try and you don't succeed, at the very least you gain experience, you find out what does not work, you find out what went wrong, and that can be an opportunity to change and crucially, the opportunity to learn.
You could not walk when you were born. You could not talk. You could not feed yourself. You had to be taught how to hold a spoon. You had to learn the most primitive things in life starting with no understanding and no experience whatsoever. The fear of failure gains its greatest amount of power and control over you when it succeeds in convincing you of the lie that you must succeed the first time round. There's very few things in life you could do the first time you tried to do it. The first painting by the greatest artists, the first piece of writing by the most prolific authors, the first program by the world's foremost programmers, all of these things would have been simple, and likely things that they would have little desire to share. The first painting I ever did was probably a finger painting. The first thing I ever wrote was a story about an abandoned alien colony that had a plot that never went anywhere, 99% of the writing was dialogue. The first program I ever wrote in BASIC was one that drew a house using five squares, a triangle, and a circle.
Life is about discovery and exploration. Discovering all the world has to offer, and exploration of what we can contribute, even if that contribution is intended for no-one else but ourselves. The only real failure in life is to give up trying. It doesn't matter how many mistakes you make, or how good or bad you think your work is, that's not the point. The point is that the more you try and the more you learn from your mistakes, the greater you can become.
Whenever it comes to setting goals in life, however big or small, becoming President, or going to the shop to buy bread, we think about what we want to achieve, and how we can do it. It's easy to think of the things that are hard to achieve and justify the imagination when it comes up with a million reasons why we could never actually achieve it - we've already to an extent resigned ourselves to that outcome, so we don't fight it, and don't see the fact that we don't resist as something bad. When it comes to smaller goals though, things which we can achieve, which we know we can, in these situations the imagination can dream up a million more reasons why we can't achieve these goals either. If we resign ourselves to that outcome too then start to create a problem where we don't live our lives because of all the ways things can go wrong.
How do you overcome this obstacle then? Well for me personally the only way that ever worked for me was to deny myself the thought in the first place. In other words I think of what I want to achieve, and then try not to think about it at all, and just act impulsively. That can go very well, or it can go very badly, but even when it goes badly, there is a comfort in knowing that I didn't think it through, so there's less responsibility attached to that mistake. This can be seen as negative, and to be honest it probably is, but it's the only way I know how to overcome that desire to over think, because if I let myself think about it too much, I will convince myself not to do it, and that I know is destructive for a fact because during times of depression I can find it near impossible to get out of bed in the morning because I convince myself there's absolutely no reason to do so.
The fear of failure can deny us many experiences in life, but the only true failure is the failure to try. If you try and you don't succeed, at the very least you gain experience, you find out what does not work, you find out what went wrong, and that can be an opportunity to change and crucially, the opportunity to learn.
You could not walk when you were born. You could not talk. You could not feed yourself. You had to be taught how to hold a spoon. You had to learn the most primitive things in life starting with no understanding and no experience whatsoever. The fear of failure gains its greatest amount of power and control over you when it succeeds in convincing you of the lie that you must succeed the first time round. There's very few things in life you could do the first time you tried to do it. The first painting by the greatest artists, the first piece of writing by the most prolific authors, the first program by the world's foremost programmers, all of these things would have been simple, and likely things that they would have little desire to share. The first painting I ever did was probably a finger painting. The first thing I ever wrote was a story about an abandoned alien colony that had a plot that never went anywhere, 99% of the writing was dialogue. The first program I ever wrote in BASIC was one that drew a house using five squares, a triangle, and a circle.
Life is about discovery and exploration. Discovering all the world has to offer, and exploration of what we can contribute, even if that contribution is intended for no-one else but ourselves. The only real failure in life is to give up trying. It doesn't matter how many mistakes you make, or how good or bad you think your work is, that's not the point. The point is that the more you try and the more you learn from your mistakes, the greater you can become.
Old Habits Die Hard
The longer you do something, the harder it is to stop doing it. Routine and habits become engrained. Breaking that down can be very hard not just because of willpower, but because of the lack of imagination when it comes to thinking of what to do instead. If you've ever played a game, discovered a new TV show, or a book, and got obsessed with it, to the point where it becomes the only thing you do for some time, then you have likely experienced that moment when it comes to an end and you step away from it and think "what did I do before this?" and felt confusion.
This happens to me quite a bit, for the simple reason when I discover something new I tend to dive right in and try to find out anything and everything I can about it. I watch every episode, back to back if I can or as often as I can until I get to the end. I spend hours playing a game, or I read a book page after page, chapter after chapter, telling myself "One more chapter then I'll stop" until I am either too tired to keep reading or I make it to the end.
When that obsession breaks however and you have to actually think what else you can do now that you don't have that fixation taking up so much of your time, the first place I usually end up going to is the comfort of my old habits. I listen to old podcasts, or to certain online radio stations mainly Electronic Dance Music [EDM], or I watch other TV shows or Movies that I've seen a thousand times before.
In an ideal world, you wouldn't return to such comfort, instead you would continue to experience things that are new. The main obstacle to that as I have mentioned before is the issue of content discovery and how it can actually be very difficult. Having a world of choice doesn't always make it easy to choose, in fact too many choices can make it a lot hard to choose at all. When one experience comes to an end, we would ideally like to continue the discovery of new things, for example when one book comes to an end then you would want another either by the same author, or in the same genre, but with enough variation that it doesn't become monotonous.
Breaking old habits can be difficult. Even when we want to do so consciously, the reason those habits took hold and became so prevalent in our lives is often the fact that they are the path of least resistance, i.e. they are the easiest choices to make or the default or fall-back choices that we can make. Perhaps then the best way to tackle this would be to create a list when you are in the mindset to make decisions, save it, and refer to it in the future when you are in the mindset where it is difficult to choose. You could argue this is the reason people create bucket lists, because they don't know in the moment what they want to achieve in life, so they make a list over time and refer to it when they can't think what to do.
This happens to me quite a bit, for the simple reason when I discover something new I tend to dive right in and try to find out anything and everything I can about it. I watch every episode, back to back if I can or as often as I can until I get to the end. I spend hours playing a game, or I read a book page after page, chapter after chapter, telling myself "One more chapter then I'll stop" until I am either too tired to keep reading or I make it to the end.
When that obsession breaks however and you have to actually think what else you can do now that you don't have that fixation taking up so much of your time, the first place I usually end up going to is the comfort of my old habits. I listen to old podcasts, or to certain online radio stations mainly Electronic Dance Music [EDM], or I watch other TV shows or Movies that I've seen a thousand times before.
In an ideal world, you wouldn't return to such comfort, instead you would continue to experience things that are new. The main obstacle to that as I have mentioned before is the issue of content discovery and how it can actually be very difficult. Having a world of choice doesn't always make it easy to choose, in fact too many choices can make it a lot hard to choose at all. When one experience comes to an end, we would ideally like to continue the discovery of new things, for example when one book comes to an end then you would want another either by the same author, or in the same genre, but with enough variation that it doesn't become monotonous.
Breaking old habits can be difficult. Even when we want to do so consciously, the reason those habits took hold and became so prevalent in our lives is often the fact that they are the path of least resistance, i.e. they are the easiest choices to make or the default or fall-back choices that we can make. Perhaps then the best way to tackle this would be to create a list when you are in the mindset to make decisions, save it, and refer to it in the future when you are in the mindset where it is difficult to choose. You could argue this is the reason people create bucket lists, because they don't know in the moment what they want to achieve in life, so they make a list over time and refer to it when they can't think what to do.
Dream Theory
I've been having a lot of weird dreams lately. I should point out that dreaming in itself isn't unusual for me, due to my Nystagmus, my conscious mind never really switches off entirely. I've suffered with insomnia for most of my life, and I rarely sleep out of conscious effort it is usually when I reach a point of exhaustion that I actually fall asleep.
Dream interpretation is something that has fascinated people for centuries, so much to the point where many theories exist as to what they mean. Some people insist they mean nothing at all, some posit they are premonitions, others posit that they are simply the leftover thoughts of the day circulating in your mind.
The theory I subscribe to most is based on the concept of three brains. The theory states that humans have three distinct levels of brain function. The first is the conscious mind which is what you are using right now and use to think and express yourself. The second is the subconscious, this is the part of the brain where our thoughts linger when we are aware of them but not focusing on them, this deals with the things we are keeping in our short term memory or the working memory we use day to day. The third is the unconscious mind which controls everything that we cannot consciously control, e.g. your heartbeat.
The unconscious mind runs through millions of permutations without us knowing. It constantly processes everything and runs through the possible outcomes of our actions. Occasionally the unconscious mind will meet something it can't compute on its own so it bleeds information into the subconscious mind where it is then presented as random thoughts to our conscious mind. The conscious mind then throws back information and more experience and perceptions that can help compute things further. To take an example you sit and watch TV with your conscious mind paying attention to the TV show. Your subconscious might be thinking of something else or holding onto things you need to do later. Your unconscious mind is processing everything else about your surroundings. Everything in your periphery that you're not paying attention to. Something small moves or a sound happens you don't notice at first and the unconscious mind makes an assessment based on what it thinks happened, sometimes it can't draw a conclusion at which point it prompts the subconscious, "what was that?" and the thought jumps into the conscious, you turn your head you see what it was and that either prompts some other response or the unconscious mind is satisfied and it is dismissed.
That's the theory as to what happens when you are awake. As for when you are asleep, the conscious mind shuts down, and the subconscious then takes over. This is where our day dreams and our fantasies and our imagination get their chance to shine, with greater control over our thoughts the subconscious gets to explore things with more processing power. The communication between the unconscious and the subconscious however doesn't stop. The unconscious still dwells on all manner of other things it wants to process.
The dream theory I subscribe to posits that the same interactions happen as when we are awake, the unconscious mind receives all of the information that the conscious would normally generate but from the subconscious instead. This leads it to provide further prompts and lets us explore things in an unusual level of surrealism. The theory goes further that mental conditions such as Schizophrenia occur when we lose the ability to separate the parts of the mind into their distinct functions. In other words the unconscious mind gains a much greater level of influence when awake than it normally should, as a result the dark and disturbing thoughts that are normally locked away from us bleed through. The theory posits that when we are asleep, because the conscious mind has shut itself off to recover, the subconscious has less defence against the unconscious and the divide between the two weakens. This is why a dream can turn into a nightmare so easily. Why what we dream of can reflect what we were obsessing over whilst awake, and why dreams can often take the form of things that we have actively been trying to repress in our minds, as repression is relegation of thought to the unconscious mind.
As for those that posit that dreams can predict the future, I don't discredit that view entirely. When you play a game of chess, you think about the pieces you are playing with, and you develop a strategy. You respond to the changing state of the board and you develop models in your mind of how you think the game will play out. With the three brain theory I believe that part of the function of the unconscious is to contemplate the possible outcomes of scenarios we contemplate. I also believe that if there is something that is concerning us or is of great interest to us then our unconscious mind will likely dwell on it quite a bit, and those possible outcomes will be fleshed out in greater detail. It's not a great leap of imagination to consider the possibility if the dream theory I subscribe to is accurate, that whilst asleep the unconscious mind may present those possible outcomes to us. In other words the unconscious mind has made a prediction and it is sharing it with the subconscious, and any dream that predicts the future we refer to as a premonition. So I think it's entirely possible that premonitions are real and serve a purpose - I don't think it's because of any psychic ability or for some spiritual reason, I think it's just an openness to the act of contemplating the future with more than just your conscious mind.
Dream interpretation is something that has fascinated people for centuries, so much to the point where many theories exist as to what they mean. Some people insist they mean nothing at all, some posit they are premonitions, others posit that they are simply the leftover thoughts of the day circulating in your mind.
The theory I subscribe to most is based on the concept of three brains. The theory states that humans have three distinct levels of brain function. The first is the conscious mind which is what you are using right now and use to think and express yourself. The second is the subconscious, this is the part of the brain where our thoughts linger when we are aware of them but not focusing on them, this deals with the things we are keeping in our short term memory or the working memory we use day to day. The third is the unconscious mind which controls everything that we cannot consciously control, e.g. your heartbeat.
The unconscious mind runs through millions of permutations without us knowing. It constantly processes everything and runs through the possible outcomes of our actions. Occasionally the unconscious mind will meet something it can't compute on its own so it bleeds information into the subconscious mind where it is then presented as random thoughts to our conscious mind. The conscious mind then throws back information and more experience and perceptions that can help compute things further. To take an example you sit and watch TV with your conscious mind paying attention to the TV show. Your subconscious might be thinking of something else or holding onto things you need to do later. Your unconscious mind is processing everything else about your surroundings. Everything in your periphery that you're not paying attention to. Something small moves or a sound happens you don't notice at first and the unconscious mind makes an assessment based on what it thinks happened, sometimes it can't draw a conclusion at which point it prompts the subconscious, "what was that?" and the thought jumps into the conscious, you turn your head you see what it was and that either prompts some other response or the unconscious mind is satisfied and it is dismissed.
That's the theory as to what happens when you are awake. As for when you are asleep, the conscious mind shuts down, and the subconscious then takes over. This is where our day dreams and our fantasies and our imagination get their chance to shine, with greater control over our thoughts the subconscious gets to explore things with more processing power. The communication between the unconscious and the subconscious however doesn't stop. The unconscious still dwells on all manner of other things it wants to process.
The dream theory I subscribe to posits that the same interactions happen as when we are awake, the unconscious mind receives all of the information that the conscious would normally generate but from the subconscious instead. This leads it to provide further prompts and lets us explore things in an unusual level of surrealism. The theory goes further that mental conditions such as Schizophrenia occur when we lose the ability to separate the parts of the mind into their distinct functions. In other words the unconscious mind gains a much greater level of influence when awake than it normally should, as a result the dark and disturbing thoughts that are normally locked away from us bleed through. The theory posits that when we are asleep, because the conscious mind has shut itself off to recover, the subconscious has less defence against the unconscious and the divide between the two weakens. This is why a dream can turn into a nightmare so easily. Why what we dream of can reflect what we were obsessing over whilst awake, and why dreams can often take the form of things that we have actively been trying to repress in our minds, as repression is relegation of thought to the unconscious mind.
As for those that posit that dreams can predict the future, I don't discredit that view entirely. When you play a game of chess, you think about the pieces you are playing with, and you develop a strategy. You respond to the changing state of the board and you develop models in your mind of how you think the game will play out. With the three brain theory I believe that part of the function of the unconscious is to contemplate the possible outcomes of scenarios we contemplate. I also believe that if there is something that is concerning us or is of great interest to us then our unconscious mind will likely dwell on it quite a bit, and those possible outcomes will be fleshed out in greater detail. It's not a great leap of imagination to consider the possibility if the dream theory I subscribe to is accurate, that whilst asleep the unconscious mind may present those possible outcomes to us. In other words the unconscious mind has made a prediction and it is sharing it with the subconscious, and any dream that predicts the future we refer to as a premonition. So I think it's entirely possible that premonitions are real and serve a purpose - I don't think it's because of any psychic ability or for some spiritual reason, I think it's just an openness to the act of contemplating the future with more than just your conscious mind.
Rich Lists
People are funny about money, that's what they say. Websites like Glassdoor exist purportedly to allow you to see if you're being paid fairly by your employer by comparing the salary of others with your own - although personally I don't buy into that reason, I think most people who use the site do so out of curiosity and yes to be nosey. People want to know how much money other people have, and they don't want anyone to know how much they have themselves.
Whether people will openly admit it or not, there is a desire to "rank" everyone in the world into one hypothetical rich list that comprises every living person. The rich lists themselves produced by various publications are perhaps the closest we come to acknowledging this curiosity publicly - except it doesn't feel as personal when you're talking about billionaires. I firmly believe however if someone is curious enough to want to know who is at the top of that list, and where various celebrities etc rank within it, then they have wondered where they themselves would rank on a worldwide rich list.
If you live in a country typically described as being part of "western society" then the chances are you are part of the 10% in terms of global wealth by virtue of your birth. You might be very close to the bottom in your own country, but from a global narrative you're already very high on that list. Within those individual countries when you break down the distribution of wealth, it's quite surprising how quickly you can climb up the rankings and with very little wealth needed in relative terms. Take the UK for example, in 2016/17 to be included in the top 10% bracket you had to earn £44,300 after tax, for an income bracket that includes billionaires that's surprisingly low. Likewise, if you want to narrow it further, to be included in the top 1% you had to earn £111,000 after tax in the same tax year to be included within that bracket, which again is surprisingly low for an income bracket that includes billionaires and would also put you in the top 0.06% globally.
You can go even further on a global scale, if you earn just £10,000 per year after tax, [$13,219] you would be in the top 12.12% globally, and ranked approximately 727,360,24th in a hypothetical global rich list. If you're curious about these numbers and would like to see where various figures would fit in then you can use the global rich list to find out more.
What I find interesting about this whole idea of ranking everyone in the world, is the perception some people seem to have with regards to where you "should be" on that list. I've seen people on social media openly discussing the wealth of some celebrities who have risen and fallen in terms of wealth, the thing that made me reflect on their comments was the apparent disbelief that someone with money might end up without money. This seems incredulous when you think about it, after all your own wealth has likely fluctuated quite a bit through your lifetime, sometimes you are ahead and sometimes you are behind, the thing that remains constant however is your relationship to money itself which for most people never changes - i.e. you either have the mentality of a spender, or that of a saver, people who are of one mentality rarely transition to the other, unless some event of great significance occurs in their life that makes them fundamentally question their relationship to money - illness, injury, redundancy, pregnancy, parenthood, to name a few although having said that, you can experience all of these things and still not alter your relationship with money at all.
Whether people will openly admit it or not, there is a desire to "rank" everyone in the world into one hypothetical rich list that comprises every living person. The rich lists themselves produced by various publications are perhaps the closest we come to acknowledging this curiosity publicly - except it doesn't feel as personal when you're talking about billionaires. I firmly believe however if someone is curious enough to want to know who is at the top of that list, and where various celebrities etc rank within it, then they have wondered where they themselves would rank on a worldwide rich list.
If you live in a country typically described as being part of "western society" then the chances are you are part of the 10% in terms of global wealth by virtue of your birth. You might be very close to the bottom in your own country, but from a global narrative you're already very high on that list. Within those individual countries when you break down the distribution of wealth, it's quite surprising how quickly you can climb up the rankings and with very little wealth needed in relative terms. Take the UK for example, in 2016/17 to be included in the top 10% bracket you had to earn £44,300 after tax, for an income bracket that includes billionaires that's surprisingly low. Likewise, if you want to narrow it further, to be included in the top 1% you had to earn £111,000 after tax in the same tax year to be included within that bracket, which again is surprisingly low for an income bracket that includes billionaires and would also put you in the top 0.06% globally.
You can go even further on a global scale, if you earn just £10,000 per year after tax, [$13,219] you would be in the top 12.12% globally, and ranked approximately 727,360,24th in a hypothetical global rich list. If you're curious about these numbers and would like to see where various figures would fit in then you can use the global rich list to find out more.
What I find interesting about this whole idea of ranking everyone in the world, is the perception some people seem to have with regards to where you "should be" on that list. I've seen people on social media openly discussing the wealth of some celebrities who have risen and fallen in terms of wealth, the thing that made me reflect on their comments was the apparent disbelief that someone with money might end up without money. This seems incredulous when you think about it, after all your own wealth has likely fluctuated quite a bit through your lifetime, sometimes you are ahead and sometimes you are behind, the thing that remains constant however is your relationship to money itself which for most people never changes - i.e. you either have the mentality of a spender, or that of a saver, people who are of one mentality rarely transition to the other, unless some event of great significance occurs in their life that makes them fundamentally question their relationship to money - illness, injury, redundancy, pregnancy, parenthood, to name a few although having said that, you can experience all of these things and still not alter your relationship with money at all.
Complacency and Complicity
Twenty years ago if a journalist or a TV presenter used inflammatory language, either on TV, or in a magazine or a publication or any public event where there were enough people to witness what they said then chances are they would have been fired. Codes of conduct and expectation of behaviour in the public eye were de rigueur. That seems to have changed somewhat.
I can't help but feel that we have swapped one form of unacceptable behaviour that was overlooked for another. Whilst all of the above was met with derision and often dismissal, behind the scenes what people got away with that wasn't in the public eye is a million times worse. Sexual Abuse, Exploitation, Harassment, Institutional Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, the list goes on. In many cases these behaviours were known about and yet the employers did nothing out of complacency, many more were complicit. Decades later as revelations abound and everything is coming to light, those who behaved in this way are being brought to account for their actions. In some cases this has led to criminal trials and convictions. The employers of the day have often touted the same line that they had no idea what was happening even with evidence that was not the case, the fact it all happened behind closed doors makes it hard to prove.
Whilst this unacceptable behaviour was it appears tolerated by the employers but not publicly acknowledged, there is a fundamental shift that has now happened thanks to social media, predominantly sites like Twitter specifically which promote the mantra of public by default with regards to the visibility of what you share. The separation of professional and personal lives has become blurred to the point where we can now see through the facade and see the face behind it. Time and again now, the people who would have been fired twenty years ago for what they said, openly express the same views on these platforms and their employers do nothing.
This raises the question of accountability. In years to come if the same revelations abound about the behaviours of those individuals out of the public eye then the employers will have no line of defense at all when it comes to claiming ignorance. We have all seen what those people really think, we have seen how they behave, to claim ignorance on the part of the employer would be to profess incompetence as an employer, which will lead to much greater scrutiny especially those that are funded by public money. The shift in accountability might then move to the employers themselves and the legal consequences would then be levied against them.
There is a perplexing flip that then occurs as a result of this change, namely that whilst before, you were held accountable for your actions if you were caught and that could have implications for your career, you are now in a position where your employer is held accountable for your actions if you are caught and that has little implication for you in terms of legal ramifications. The shift in accountability is moving the responsibility for your actions away from yourself which in turn is encouraging ever more extreme behaviour in the knowledge that you won't suffer for it, someone else will. Those employers however as stated above are complacent and in many cases complicit, to the extent where they do almost nothing at all now. We are living in a time where you can openly break the law and do whatever you want as long as you are acting with agency of another, a business or organization - in the past we called that being an accessory to the fact, today however, this doesn't seem to apply anymore.
I can't help but feel that we have swapped one form of unacceptable behaviour that was overlooked for another. Whilst all of the above was met with derision and often dismissal, behind the scenes what people got away with that wasn't in the public eye is a million times worse. Sexual Abuse, Exploitation, Harassment, Institutional Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, the list goes on. In many cases these behaviours were known about and yet the employers did nothing out of complacency, many more were complicit. Decades later as revelations abound and everything is coming to light, those who behaved in this way are being brought to account for their actions. In some cases this has led to criminal trials and convictions. The employers of the day have often touted the same line that they had no idea what was happening even with evidence that was not the case, the fact it all happened behind closed doors makes it hard to prove.
Whilst this unacceptable behaviour was it appears tolerated by the employers but not publicly acknowledged, there is a fundamental shift that has now happened thanks to social media, predominantly sites like Twitter specifically which promote the mantra of public by default with regards to the visibility of what you share. The separation of professional and personal lives has become blurred to the point where we can now see through the facade and see the face behind it. Time and again now, the people who would have been fired twenty years ago for what they said, openly express the same views on these platforms and their employers do nothing.
This raises the question of accountability. In years to come if the same revelations abound about the behaviours of those individuals out of the public eye then the employers will have no line of defense at all when it comes to claiming ignorance. We have all seen what those people really think, we have seen how they behave, to claim ignorance on the part of the employer would be to profess incompetence as an employer, which will lead to much greater scrutiny especially those that are funded by public money. The shift in accountability might then move to the employers themselves and the legal consequences would then be levied against them.
There is a perplexing flip that then occurs as a result of this change, namely that whilst before, you were held accountable for your actions if you were caught and that could have implications for your career, you are now in a position where your employer is held accountable for your actions if you are caught and that has little implication for you in terms of legal ramifications. The shift in accountability is moving the responsibility for your actions away from yourself which in turn is encouraging ever more extreme behaviour in the knowledge that you won't suffer for it, someone else will. Those employers however as stated above are complacent and in many cases complicit, to the extent where they do almost nothing at all now. We are living in a time where you can openly break the law and do whatever you want as long as you are acting with agency of another, a business or organization - in the past we called that being an accessory to the fact, today however, this doesn't seem to apply anymore.
Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey Stuff
Who you are, here and now, exists only in this moment. Who you were yesterday, and who you will be tomorrow, are not the same people as the person that exists here in this moment. Everything that you have experienced, the good, the bad, the ugly, all of it has shaped who you are here in this moment and all that is to come will continue to shape who you are and who you will become. If I was to meet my sixteen year old self, I don't think he would like me very much, not because of who I have become, but simply because he would not yet have experienced everything that was to come that would make him receptive to the knowledge and the wisdom that I've gained along the way. People often ask what you would say if you could talk to your younger self, what advice would you give them, to be honest I don't think I could tell him anything that would change the course of his life, he would still make his own decisions in the end even if it meant ignoring me completely.
I say this with confidence because although it is a case of trying to recall what you were like in that moment and recapturing that head space, you can shift this conversation forward and ask your present self, if you were to meet your future self from sixteen years ahead of today, would you actually try and live you life by anything they said? Let's discard the notions of free will and fate and the conflict between the two and keep things simple. If your future self told you to change something fundamental about your life, that required you to change almost everything about who you are, would you actually do it? Would you put in the effort to make that change? What could they tell you that would make you listen?
The absurdity of the scenario leads us to dismiss the depth of what is being asked, yet when we reflect on our own lives it is that question of foresight that we are contemplating. I've mentioned before that I think it's dangerous to judge your past self for decisions they made from your present perspective with the benefit of hindsight, because you know what happened next, they had no idea, you can't fault them for not seeing something they couldn't possibly have seen, and yet, when you shift this question to the present and the future, you are basically asking yourself if you would make that change if you could foresee those consequences.
In Greek mythology the epic of Cassandra serves as a warning to those who would wish to see the future, that what you see might not be a benefit to you in the end but rather it may turn out to be the greatest curse you would have to endure. I've been thinking about the people who have come into my life over the years and those who have left it. There are some I could have met a lot sooner, there are some I could have met a lot later, and there are some I could conceivably have never met at all. Contemplating what my life would be like without the impact they had on me that shaped who I am is not an easy thing to comprehend, primarily because you have no way of knowing for sure how things would have turned out.
What I find fascinating however as the title of this post portends, is how close our paths can actually come whilst still never connecting. I've been in the same room as people years prior to our fated first 'real' conversations, that does make you wonder if in that moment in that room we two had spoke, would we have connected then, or would we not have anything in common at that point that would bind us together as we would be so many years later? Take it a step further and you can start to pay closer attention to the people with whom you have already crossed paths and how close you have already come and for a moment contemplate where that could lead.
You might be wondering what inspired this post, and why it's been made outside of my regular posting schedule, the truth is rather specific, to the point where it reveals too much about my personal life. Suffice to say that my path crossed briefly within a few days of a moment in time that could have had a very big impact on my life; the fact I missed it by only a few days has made me stop and stand back for a moment and realise even now that for every person you can imagine their timeline as a sort of undulating tube like the one portrayed in Donnie Darko if you've ever seen that movie, one that twists and turns across space and time, intertwined with that of every other person, and that true to the words of The Doctor, we're all inside "a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff" - and within it, some of us have come a lot closer to each other than we realise.
I say this with confidence because although it is a case of trying to recall what you were like in that moment and recapturing that head space, you can shift this conversation forward and ask your present self, if you were to meet your future self from sixteen years ahead of today, would you actually try and live you life by anything they said? Let's discard the notions of free will and fate and the conflict between the two and keep things simple. If your future self told you to change something fundamental about your life, that required you to change almost everything about who you are, would you actually do it? Would you put in the effort to make that change? What could they tell you that would make you listen?
The absurdity of the scenario leads us to dismiss the depth of what is being asked, yet when we reflect on our own lives it is that question of foresight that we are contemplating. I've mentioned before that I think it's dangerous to judge your past self for decisions they made from your present perspective with the benefit of hindsight, because you know what happened next, they had no idea, you can't fault them for not seeing something they couldn't possibly have seen, and yet, when you shift this question to the present and the future, you are basically asking yourself if you would make that change if you could foresee those consequences.
In Greek mythology the epic of Cassandra serves as a warning to those who would wish to see the future, that what you see might not be a benefit to you in the end but rather it may turn out to be the greatest curse you would have to endure. I've been thinking about the people who have come into my life over the years and those who have left it. There are some I could have met a lot sooner, there are some I could have met a lot later, and there are some I could conceivably have never met at all. Contemplating what my life would be like without the impact they had on me that shaped who I am is not an easy thing to comprehend, primarily because you have no way of knowing for sure how things would have turned out.
What I find fascinating however as the title of this post portends, is how close our paths can actually come whilst still never connecting. I've been in the same room as people years prior to our fated first 'real' conversations, that does make you wonder if in that moment in that room we two had spoke, would we have connected then, or would we not have anything in common at that point that would bind us together as we would be so many years later? Take it a step further and you can start to pay closer attention to the people with whom you have already crossed paths and how close you have already come and for a moment contemplate where that could lead.
You might be wondering what inspired this post, and why it's been made outside of my regular posting schedule, the truth is rather specific, to the point where it reveals too much about my personal life. Suffice to say that my path crossed briefly within a few days of a moment in time that could have had a very big impact on my life; the fact I missed it by only a few days has made me stop and stand back for a moment and realise even now that for every person you can imagine their timeline as a sort of undulating tube like the one portrayed in Donnie Darko if you've ever seen that movie, one that twists and turns across space and time, intertwined with that of every other person, and that true to the words of The Doctor, we're all inside "a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff" - and within it, some of us have come a lot closer to each other than we realise.
Lent
For those who are of Christian faith, every year for the 6 weeks that lead up to Easter it is a tradition to observe Lent. For six weeks adherents are encouraged to give up something meaningful for the 6 week period. There's no requirement to continue to abstain after Lent has passed, so it is in essence a New Year's Resolution that has an expiry date slapped onto it.
Whether you are religious or not, whether you're even Christian, the idea of giving things up for a period of time has been around for centuries in many forms. I've written before about the concept of a detox and what it usually involves. Lent in many ways can be considered a spiritual detox if you will.
I was raised Christian, although I would now consider myself not to belong to any religion in particular, mainly because there are problems I see in every religion and I prefer to have a personal faith that I can define and decide for myself what I believe and what I don't rather than being told. I wasn't always this way however and there was a time when I followed the traditions the way they are supposed to be followed. Lent was always something difficult for me to comprehend, not because of the task in itself but the act of choosing what you want to give up for 6 weeks.
Over the years I have picked silly things, junk food, alcohol, and various other vices that whilst there was some benefit in giving them up, ultimately for me personally I ended up swapping whatever I gave up for a place-holder instead. For example if you give up take-out there's an inevitability for me personally that I will end up stuffing my face with other food that isn't exactly any better for me which defeats the entire purpose.
The religious origin of Lent however is intended to cause feelings of piousness. There is meant to be reverence paid by giving up something meaningful and enduring the mental and physical absence thereof. Still of all, that's not the way most people go about doing it, which leads you to the conclusion that traditions, whilst often seen as being something old and conservative and unchanging are actually fluid and forever changing, their body being defined by what those who observe them collectively agree. The origin and the "right" way to do things is irrelevant, what is relevant is how the majority do things. This is one of the many problems I have with religions - the fact that those who follow them are often zealous about their beliefs and yet they themselves don't actually adhere to the beliefs they profess to follow.
So if you gave up something this year for Lent, then all I would say is that you need to ensure you don't just replace whatever is absent with whatever can substitute it, if you don't do this then you may as well not have given up anything at all.
Whether you are religious or not, whether you're even Christian, the idea of giving things up for a period of time has been around for centuries in many forms. I've written before about the concept of a detox and what it usually involves. Lent in many ways can be considered a spiritual detox if you will.
I was raised Christian, although I would now consider myself not to belong to any religion in particular, mainly because there are problems I see in every religion and I prefer to have a personal faith that I can define and decide for myself what I believe and what I don't rather than being told. I wasn't always this way however and there was a time when I followed the traditions the way they are supposed to be followed. Lent was always something difficult for me to comprehend, not because of the task in itself but the act of choosing what you want to give up for 6 weeks.
Over the years I have picked silly things, junk food, alcohol, and various other vices that whilst there was some benefit in giving them up, ultimately for me personally I ended up swapping whatever I gave up for a place-holder instead. For example if you give up take-out there's an inevitability for me personally that I will end up stuffing my face with other food that isn't exactly any better for me which defeats the entire purpose.
The religious origin of Lent however is intended to cause feelings of piousness. There is meant to be reverence paid by giving up something meaningful and enduring the mental and physical absence thereof. Still of all, that's not the way most people go about doing it, which leads you to the conclusion that traditions, whilst often seen as being something old and conservative and unchanging are actually fluid and forever changing, their body being defined by what those who observe them collectively agree. The origin and the "right" way to do things is irrelevant, what is relevant is how the majority do things. This is one of the many problems I have with religions - the fact that those who follow them are often zealous about their beliefs and yet they themselves don't actually adhere to the beliefs they profess to follow.
So if you gave up something this year for Lent, then all I would say is that you need to ensure you don't just replace whatever is absent with whatever can substitute it, if you don't do this then you may as well not have given up anything at all.
Suicide
As a disclaimer I would like to say this post contains a lot of information which is very candid about the thoughts and feelings that I endured at one of the lowest points in my life. If this is something you don't want to read, I strongly advise you to stop reading now. I don't condone any of the actions that I describe here, this content is a recount of what I went through, not a guide for others.
In my previous post I mentioned there was a time in my life when I was suicidal and that this leaves a mark on you that never really goes away. I wanted to go into this in a little more detail. The mark I refer to isn't a physical one - I have none of those thankfully. It is a mental mark that stays with you from that point on and it is defined by your perception of death or more importantly of dying.
One of the questions people often have when discussing dying, apart from what happens after, is the question of whether or not you are afraid of dying. The answer to that for me is no. I am not. The process itself doesn't scare me, what I fear most about dying is the potential pain I would feel in the process. If I was assured my death would be painless then there would be no fear at all for me. Part of the reason I associate pain with death is because when you actually consider killing yourself, the question of how you would do it is inevitable and the answers that can be presented in almost every scenario involve a lot of pain. Classic approaches like jumping off something high, or jumping into a river or body of water to drowned yourself are often given. In both scenarios you would likely experience agony. In the case of somewhere high, the necessity is that you would actually die from the impact, the major risk is that you would not, in which case you're in for a very bad time. In the case of drowning, the actual process is incredibly painful as the lungs fill with water and literally explode, this is like being stabbed a thousand times over and a thousand times more from inside.
As for death itself that is not something I fear anymore. It was something that I did fear when I was younger. When you have been to that lowest of lows and looked death in the face you start to see it more clearly, and see it for what it really is. To paint a picture, throughout life we picture death as the grim reaper, a cloaked hooded figure of mystery that represents something dark and foreboding. When you stand before it however and are ready to embrace it, willingly, the reaper lowers their hood and you get to see the face of death. There's two ways people usually react in that situation, the first is to react with paralysing fear which ultimately causes you to step back and brings a willingness to run away from death as fast as you can. The second is what happened to me, that is you see the face of death and you see through the darkness and see it for what it truly is, an ending. If you embrace it then that's it, life is over. If you decide you're not ready or that you have more you want to do before you die, then you end up living on as I did.
Having seen the face of death and realizing what it really is, an ending, nothing more, it's not something I fear any longer. It's also not something I seek out. I have accepted that it will happen to me when my time comes, whenever that may be. I have accepted that for now I have a life to live and I have a purpose, although to this day I still have no idea what that purpose is, but that's one reason to keep living - to find the answer.
While I don't fear death for myself, it is something I fear for other people, or rather I have an anxiety that death will take the ones I love before I am ready to part with them, that is a fear of a pain of a different kind, one I do not feel ready to endure and I hope it will be many years, decades, longer if possible, before I have to experience that, I'd prefer never to experience it at all.
This has led me to the realisation that the ultimate element of death and dying that causes people to fear it so much is the unknown. We don't know what happens, we don't know how it feels, when it will happen etc. That's part of the reason why that fear is removed for people who have been in that place of suicide, because the means chosen reveals how it happens, and the finality of the decision you will make reveals the reality of what happens after - nothing. At least as far as the physical is concerned. We can save the spiritual debate for another day.
If you have ever been in that place, or if you are there now and you are looking for advice or you want some insight from someone else who has been there I would say one thing that I have tried to live by since: once you have reached the bottom of all bottoms the only place to go is up. Once you have been willing to die, and wanted to die, the desire to live can be found in the realisation that the world and everything in it hold no threat to you any longer. The biggest threat this world can make against us is the threat of death, if that is something you were willing to embrace there is literally nothing in this life you cannot face. Or to put it in simpler terms, if you are in that place willing to lose everything and let go, then turn and face life and think, "what have I got to lose by trying?" because if you feel that you have absolutely nothing to live for, you have absolutely nothing to lose by aiming as high as you possibly can and doing anything and everything you can possibly do to reach that place.
If you need help or if you have been affected by anything written here then I urge you to contact one of the charities below:
In the UK:
Call the Samaritans on 116 123
Further helplines can be found here
For LGBT specific help you can find more information here
In the USA:
Text CONNECT to 741741 to reach Crisis Text Line
Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on 1-800-273-8255
For other countries you can find information here
It can seem at times in this life like you are completely alone and that no-one cares about you, or that you have no-one to turn to. This is not true. There is help out there for those who ask. There are people out there who will help you. This world can seem cold but there is warmth, sometimes that warmth is hidden deep but it is there to be found. Reach out for it and it will reach back.
;
In my previous post I mentioned there was a time in my life when I was suicidal and that this leaves a mark on you that never really goes away. I wanted to go into this in a little more detail. The mark I refer to isn't a physical one - I have none of those thankfully. It is a mental mark that stays with you from that point on and it is defined by your perception of death or more importantly of dying.
One of the questions people often have when discussing dying, apart from what happens after, is the question of whether or not you are afraid of dying. The answer to that for me is no. I am not. The process itself doesn't scare me, what I fear most about dying is the potential pain I would feel in the process. If I was assured my death would be painless then there would be no fear at all for me. Part of the reason I associate pain with death is because when you actually consider killing yourself, the question of how you would do it is inevitable and the answers that can be presented in almost every scenario involve a lot of pain. Classic approaches like jumping off something high, or jumping into a river or body of water to drowned yourself are often given. In both scenarios you would likely experience agony. In the case of somewhere high, the necessity is that you would actually die from the impact, the major risk is that you would not, in which case you're in for a very bad time. In the case of drowning, the actual process is incredibly painful as the lungs fill with water and literally explode, this is like being stabbed a thousand times over and a thousand times more from inside.
As for death itself that is not something I fear anymore. It was something that I did fear when I was younger. When you have been to that lowest of lows and looked death in the face you start to see it more clearly, and see it for what it really is. To paint a picture, throughout life we picture death as the grim reaper, a cloaked hooded figure of mystery that represents something dark and foreboding. When you stand before it however and are ready to embrace it, willingly, the reaper lowers their hood and you get to see the face of death. There's two ways people usually react in that situation, the first is to react with paralysing fear which ultimately causes you to step back and brings a willingness to run away from death as fast as you can. The second is what happened to me, that is you see the face of death and you see through the darkness and see it for what it truly is, an ending. If you embrace it then that's it, life is over. If you decide you're not ready or that you have more you want to do before you die, then you end up living on as I did.
Having seen the face of death and realizing what it really is, an ending, nothing more, it's not something I fear any longer. It's also not something I seek out. I have accepted that it will happen to me when my time comes, whenever that may be. I have accepted that for now I have a life to live and I have a purpose, although to this day I still have no idea what that purpose is, but that's one reason to keep living - to find the answer.
While I don't fear death for myself, it is something I fear for other people, or rather I have an anxiety that death will take the ones I love before I am ready to part with them, that is a fear of a pain of a different kind, one I do not feel ready to endure and I hope it will be many years, decades, longer if possible, before I have to experience that, I'd prefer never to experience it at all.
This has led me to the realisation that the ultimate element of death and dying that causes people to fear it so much is the unknown. We don't know what happens, we don't know how it feels, when it will happen etc. That's part of the reason why that fear is removed for people who have been in that place of suicide, because the means chosen reveals how it happens, and the finality of the decision you will make reveals the reality of what happens after - nothing. At least as far as the physical is concerned. We can save the spiritual debate for another day.
If you have ever been in that place, or if you are there now and you are looking for advice or you want some insight from someone else who has been there I would say one thing that I have tried to live by since: once you have reached the bottom of all bottoms the only place to go is up. Once you have been willing to die, and wanted to die, the desire to live can be found in the realisation that the world and everything in it hold no threat to you any longer. The biggest threat this world can make against us is the threat of death, if that is something you were willing to embrace there is literally nothing in this life you cannot face. Or to put it in simpler terms, if you are in that place willing to lose everything and let go, then turn and face life and think, "what have I got to lose by trying?" because if you feel that you have absolutely nothing to live for, you have absolutely nothing to lose by aiming as high as you possibly can and doing anything and everything you can possibly do to reach that place.
If you need help or if you have been affected by anything written here then I urge you to contact one of the charities below:
In the UK:
Call the Samaritans on 116 123
Further helplines can be found here
For LGBT specific help you can find more information here
In the USA:
Text CONNECT to 741741 to reach Crisis Text Line
Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on 1-800-273-8255
For other countries you can find information here
It can seem at times in this life like you are completely alone and that no-one cares about you, or that you have no-one to turn to. This is not true. There is help out there for those who ask. There are people out there who will help you. This world can seem cold but there is warmth, sometimes that warmth is hidden deep but it is there to be found. Reach out for it and it will reach back.
;
A Decade of Happiness
Until you turn 30 there is a question that you are rarely asked with respect to your own life - that is, what was your favourite decade? Under 30 this question tends to be more generalized to time periods usually in the not too distant past as opposed to your life in particular. Whenever you reach your 30s however you get to a point where you have lived a life that is long enough to actually ask this question with regards to the years you have actually been alive, or more often as is the case, the decades that you lived through.
For me personally this is not a question that I can easily answer in the normal way. I was born in 1988 so I wasn't really old enough to experience the 80s. I grew up in the 90s but there were a few traumatic experiences mainly to do with bullying and how bad that got which, at one point led me down the path of suicide. I am still here thankfully which has left behind a resolve that never quite leaves you. Nevertheless the 90s also encompassed some of the happiest times of my life, but because of those darkest times I can't really pick that either. As for the 2000s, again part of that contains yet more traumatic experiences, and again bullying played a part but not to the same extent. The reason I won't pick the 2000s is because it is the decade that includes my high school years which for me amount to a period of Hell.
You might be concluding that I would therefore have to pick the 2010s by process of elimination, however I can't in clear conscience pick them either because of some of the events not only in my life but in the lives of many others that have happened which have tainted this decade beyond redemption. This decade has brought with it countless deaths, not only of people I knew personally but many I did not who I admired, with 2016 being a particularly grim year when so many people I looked up to in my childhood passed away, the icons I knew and loved faded from this life, and yes, those two great political upsets of Brexit and You Know Who both came to pass which really strikes a line through this decade. To be honest I will be glad when it is over.
For me personally in my life if I had to pick a decade that I thought was my best, or the one I loved most, it would have to be defined in an unconventional manner, rather than 10 to 10 I would define it as 2004 to 2014. I say this because for a start, in 2004 I went to college. Those two years were arguably the happiest years of my life so far. I was studying something I had an interest in, and I was surrounded by people who for the very first time were there because they chose to be there and wanted to be there as opposed to being there because they had to be there - this created a fundamental shift in atmosphere that was unlike any education I had up until that point. The college itself was also very relaxed, we were treated like adults, and for the first time I experienced a greater level of freedom and most of all, trust. The lecturers in college bestowed trust in us as students and that level of respect put the onus of responsibility on us but not in a way that was overbearing, or punitive. You were helped as much as you wanted help, and left to it as much as you wanted to be. I regard every lecturer I had in college as a talented, knowledgeable, and adept teacher. Every subject I felt I actually received an education and most importantly I felt the person teaching me knew what they were talking about - which helped me massively as I ask a lot of questions and they were met with nothing but patience and explanations in response.
The three years that followed college were the years I spent at University where despite the academic side being lacking in my view, the life experience I gained was priceless. My time at University was worth the price for the life and the opportunities it gave me, not so much for the degree itself. The subsequent years after graduation weren't so great but they weren't so bad either. The final year of that 10 year period saw me gain what I regard to be my first professional job as opposed to unskilled, or temporary, or freelance work.
Finding a 10 year stretch that was free from the lowest lows is a lot harder than you would think, especially when you start to pin down the actual dates that events in your life came to pass. I do at times wonder what the future will hold. I tend not to dwell on that because the pessimist within me does not conjure up a lot of happiness. If you had asked me 20 or 25 years ago what decade of my life did I think would be the best I probably wouldn't have said one so young, as is always the case I was far too eager to grow up at a time I look back on now that I am far too eager to relive.
For me personally this is not a question that I can easily answer in the normal way. I was born in 1988 so I wasn't really old enough to experience the 80s. I grew up in the 90s but there were a few traumatic experiences mainly to do with bullying and how bad that got which, at one point led me down the path of suicide. I am still here thankfully which has left behind a resolve that never quite leaves you. Nevertheless the 90s also encompassed some of the happiest times of my life, but because of those darkest times I can't really pick that either. As for the 2000s, again part of that contains yet more traumatic experiences, and again bullying played a part but not to the same extent. The reason I won't pick the 2000s is because it is the decade that includes my high school years which for me amount to a period of Hell.
You might be concluding that I would therefore have to pick the 2010s by process of elimination, however I can't in clear conscience pick them either because of some of the events not only in my life but in the lives of many others that have happened which have tainted this decade beyond redemption. This decade has brought with it countless deaths, not only of people I knew personally but many I did not who I admired, with 2016 being a particularly grim year when so many people I looked up to in my childhood passed away, the icons I knew and loved faded from this life, and yes, those two great political upsets of Brexit and You Know Who both came to pass which really strikes a line through this decade. To be honest I will be glad when it is over.
For me personally in my life if I had to pick a decade that I thought was my best, or the one I loved most, it would have to be defined in an unconventional manner, rather than 10 to 10 I would define it as 2004 to 2014. I say this because for a start, in 2004 I went to college. Those two years were arguably the happiest years of my life so far. I was studying something I had an interest in, and I was surrounded by people who for the very first time were there because they chose to be there and wanted to be there as opposed to being there because they had to be there - this created a fundamental shift in atmosphere that was unlike any education I had up until that point. The college itself was also very relaxed, we were treated like adults, and for the first time I experienced a greater level of freedom and most of all, trust. The lecturers in college bestowed trust in us as students and that level of respect put the onus of responsibility on us but not in a way that was overbearing, or punitive. You were helped as much as you wanted help, and left to it as much as you wanted to be. I regard every lecturer I had in college as a talented, knowledgeable, and adept teacher. Every subject I felt I actually received an education and most importantly I felt the person teaching me knew what they were talking about - which helped me massively as I ask a lot of questions and they were met with nothing but patience and explanations in response.
The three years that followed college were the years I spent at University where despite the academic side being lacking in my view, the life experience I gained was priceless. My time at University was worth the price for the life and the opportunities it gave me, not so much for the degree itself. The subsequent years after graduation weren't so great but they weren't so bad either. The final year of that 10 year period saw me gain what I regard to be my first professional job as opposed to unskilled, or temporary, or freelance work.
Finding a 10 year stretch that was free from the lowest lows is a lot harder than you would think, especially when you start to pin down the actual dates that events in your life came to pass. I do at times wonder what the future will hold. I tend not to dwell on that because the pessimist within me does not conjure up a lot of happiness. If you had asked me 20 or 25 years ago what decade of my life did I think would be the best I probably wouldn't have said one so young, as is always the case I was far too eager to grow up at a time I look back on now that I am far too eager to relive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)