Creative Compulsive Disorder and Life

Per the suggestion of a good friend, I watched this 5-minute video with the notion that it might give me something to write about for my blog. I am simultaneously extremely happy and ludicrously frustrated that I watched it.

For brevity, this is the video portfolio of an artist born in 1990. She was younger than me. I say "was" because I neglected to read the description of the video before watching and was met with a rather abrupt "February 13, 1990 - November 20, 2013" at the end.
I was... floored. Dismay. Disbelief. Grief. Helplessness. Those are a few of the emotions I found had crept up on me so suddenly.

Zina Lahr had coined a name for a condition she thought she had. Creative Compulsive Disorder, no doubt a derivative of "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder," but with far friendlier connotations. And this tiny window into her life truly captures what she means by CCD. She sees all things in the world that are "ordinary" and effortlessly creates a way for those things to be extraordinary. And this isn't just a hobby. I would even be hesitant to call this a passion. It's clear that this was her life. Creativity was the essence of her existence.

I'm writing this on raw emotion, so you'll have to forgive the lack of clearly defined path I take here.

The only things I could feel while I watched this video were a mixture of awe and jealousy. The scope and skill within which she worked at such a young age was nothing short of amazing. And her zest is something I've never had. Not even close.
The mere "accumulation of experiences." That is the phrased used to describe a life not worth living by a show I recently watched with my roommate. While it may be a fantasy show and its rhetoric is certainly questionable in a number of ways, I cannot help but feel a resonance with my own life to some extent. Rather than taking life and making it what I desire, I simply live with what is around me to the best that I can with my limited energy and drive. Is this acceptable? Am I going to be happy like this?

But maybe it's not a fair comparison. Different people like different things in different amounts. My desire for new and stimulating experiences, as an introvert, is relatively limited by comparison to pure extroverts who thrive on such stimulation. I enjoy comforts and predictability to some extent.
So, perhaps the intent of this video isn't to show me who I'm not, but rather, to show me the way that anyone can take a world and gracefully morph it into something that is bliss for them, even if the world is, by nature, not interesting in and of its own rights.

This amazing woman showcases an incredible ability to transform everything she comes into contact with from the expected into something truly unique and wondrous. But our own inability to live to those standards isn't necessarily a bad thing. Rather, we each desire to affect the world around us in a different way- sometimes it's in extraordinary ways, sometimes ordinary. Sometimes, a combination. Zina is a shining example of a human being capable of creating their own happiness and joy.

And truly, she created more happiness for herself than I have allowed myself to.
My initial feelings of jealousy. Those were... not quite the right feelings. Because I am jealous of that pure unmitigated passion. But I believe that inspiration is probably the more appropriate emotion to be feeling. Not inspiration to be her or even necessarily be like her, but to carve out my own happiness no matter what stands in my way. It's true that I may not love new stimuli as much as she does, but when I desire new stimuli, I should go out and take it. Make it my own. Make my happiness a reality in this world rather than theory.

Zina Lahr, I never knew you, but you are easily one of the most incredible human beings who has ever lived.
Thank you. Thank you so much.

I promise tomorrow I'll talk about the actual practicality of this "disorder," and how the process might affect society. Today, this was really something for self-reflection... And apparently, I needed it.

-
Waddles

Immersion, Technology, and Gaming

Big ol' nerdpost here. Flee while you can.

So I started a new game of Skyrim for the first time in two years. I decided to use mods this time. Once I got one or two graphical mods, I wound up searching for a few hours, grabbing a total of about 50 mods, largely changing visual features, but occasionally changing functionality as well.

Now, when I enter the game, I'm met with ludicrously gorgeous scenery and unmistakeable immersion. The sounds, the sights, I can almost feel the chill as breath visibly rises from the breaths of NPCs.

Now take the existence of a game that has come close to a plateau in virtual depth, and give it this:
The Oculus Rift.

The first consumer marketable virtual reality headset with headtracking and fully immersive field of vision. To say I'm excited for the day the Rift is available for purchase and compatible with a wide array of games is probably the greatest understatement I will make in years. Removing the artificiality of sitting at a desk, faced with the normal comforts of home surrounding you, the Rift convinces your mind through your eyes that you are, in fact, somewhere else.

Watch a 46 second clip of the Guillotine experience to see what I mean.

Despite the fact that people are clearly still in the safety of their own environment, with friends, family, or loved ones around them, the idea that one of their senses has been borrowed for sole use by a game takes them almost completely into the virtual universe that they're experiencing. So much so that their eyes accidentally mistake virtual stimuli for real phenomena.

This level of immersion is unprecedented, unparalleled, and almost unimaginable. You have to experience it to believe it. Which is why I cannot wait to get my hands on one of these things.

Oh, but it only gets better. The Oculus Rift had an enormously successful Kickstarter that raised almost 1000% of its initial goal, garnering emotional investment and excitement in some of the biggest names in the gaming industry. The model they went with was a direct attempt to put Rifts in the hands of independent developers so that hundreds and thousands of people could begin playing with the system, designing games, critiquing, and formulating ideas for the headset.
The result of this? Widespread excitement among the gaming population. So much so that other designers began working almost immediately on ideas that could improve immersion in other ways.
The most popular of such ideas was the Omni. The Omni is a simple, relatively compact omni-directional treadmill designed to be compatible with the Oculus Rift and hopefully, any future games that are compatible therein.

This means that not only are we visually completely included in the virtual scenario, but we're also kinesthesiologically part of the universe as well. Our movements sync to our virtual avatars in head and feet. Ultimately, this leaves the hands and some of the more fine motor movements.

That's where the Razer Hydra comes in.

While I think it's a woefully incomplete product, the idea is largely upheld. Have a controller (or glove) in each hand that mimics placement and movement of the hands, controlled by motion sensing technology. Kinda' like the Wiimote, except about a thousand times better.

What we're left with now is an immersive experience unlike any other we've had the potential to create to this point.

Sound can easily be as immersive as sight with the technology we have.
That leaves taste, smell, and some of the more nuanced instances of touch.

While it was a failed Kickstarter, As Real as it Gets shows us where the technology is headed. Pressurized suits that provide physical stimulation based on in-game events, such as being hit by bullets, having someone touch your shoulder, or even mimicking certain aspects of pain in a non-dangerous way. With the same idea, scaled in size, you could have an entire bodysuit that allows you to feel mimicked sensations. All this while walking, looking, and acting in the real world in order to make your avatar do the same things.

All of this technology is wildly imperfect in myriad ways. There's so much to be considered and so many steps left to take, but the fact that we're this close is nothing short of miraculous. As game technology progresses, we're seeing a switch to highly immersive environments, with much greater focus on attention to detail, exploration, and the feeling that you're in an actual, functioning universe.


Imagine you're playing a horror game with all this immersive technology.
Imagine walking down a long, dark hallway. A single dim light flickers at the end of the expanse, barely lighting the floor. You hear something strange- it sounds like an unnatural slither. As you continue walking forward and looking around, you feel something slowly slide across your back.
You whip around, but there's nothing there and the sensation is gone as quickly as it had come.

Is your heart beating faster yet? The more we mimic real events that continue to be within the safe space of our own homes, voluntarily chosen at our discretion, the more we convince our brains to activate real-world hormones that are increasingly rare to experience "naturally." The rush of adrenaline, the pure terror, sweat dripping from your face, heart racing, the impending feeling that something is about to get you, but you have no idea what it is.
To willingly choose to have this sensation is an exercise in freedom in the most fascinating sense. We're using free will to actively stress ourselves out in visceral and concerning ways. But it's that voluntary aspect that makes gaming so enjoyable. Choosing to overcome arbitrary obstacles and valueless tribulations. It gives us a sense of power and meaning.

It's almost like practice for a life that's much more interesting and terrifying than the lives we actually lead.

I'm too excited for real words. Just... Like...
Holy shit, you guys.
I've got goosebumps thinking about this.

-
Waddles

The Problem of Engagement

Okay, here's my first dose of turbonerd game studies coming at you-

The problem in our society with engagement. And no, I don't mean the romantic kind, I mean the kind that we lack in our everyday lives- in our jobs, our assignments, and our activities. Engagement is the sense of involvement and active desire to participate in an activity, thought, or process. Engagement is imperative for "flow," which is the phenomenon in which we lose track of time due to how engrossed we are in what we're doing.

Flow happens when we dabble in our passions. We experience flow when we're with friends having a good time, or lovers wasting away the night, or playing games we love. Flow is the absolute experience of immersion in what you're doing. It's felt a little differently by each person and it's caused by something different for each person as well. What makes you experience flow and how is unique to you and you alone.

As a result, engagement isn't quite the same with everyone. To be truly engaged isn't exactly generalizable.

However, there are some ways that our bodies' are hardwired to be more likely to experience engagement. Meaningful work, social collaboration, awe-inspiring work, and voluntary work are just some of them. Humans have been coded to respond positively to these types of work because they help us on an evolutionary level to propagate our species and advance as a collective. With that in mind, there are certain ways that we can predispose activities to be more likely to engage people. It's not an easy task, but thanks to the direction gaming is headed, it's becoming easier to see the most efficient path forward.
Why gaming?

Games contain all four of the previously described elements. In abundance.

Think of the popular tag game, Humans Vs. Zombies. In it, a dwindling force of very mortal humans attempt to fend off an ever-increasing mob of zombies that cannot truly be killed- only temporarily stunned. A game like this inspires the very roots of teamwork on both sides of the fence. Working alone provides no advantage (beyond stealth). The work is perceived as meaningful because there are quantifiable rewards and benefits to doing well for either team. The work is also perceived as meaningful because of the dire context that the game is put in. Humans are being killed off- crushed under the weight of a zombie outbreak. Obviously, it's voluntary. You have to opt into the game, and you can opt out at any time.
And the sense of awe. Awe is an interesting element because it can be mustered up from ideas as much as actual sights and objects. Seeing a massive collective of people working towards the same ends for what seems like no valuable purpose? That inspires some level of awe. Watching people in what is meaningfully a "desperate" situation gives us goosebumps.

Games can inspire us to get absolutely lost in a way that is incredibly difficult otherwise. Games make us engaged with little to no effort at all. Think about it- all you're doing is running around playing "Tag" with a bunch of arbitrary rules and some team-indicators tied to your shoulders. Why does that make our hearts race? Why does that make us want to connect and bond with other people? Why is that meaningful? Why does that make us feel like something important is on the line?

To give you an idea, let me backtrack and describe something seemingly unrelated; Kittens.
Kittens learn to hunt in a very peculiar manner. They don't actually learn by doing, rather, they learn by playing. Kittens imitate hunting with siblings and parents in order to learn how to hunt. It's a game. It teaches them necessary skills while they have fun. Their lives depend on their ability to learn in a safe environment.

Obviously, humans don't need the same kind of treatment since our environments have been sterilized from birth. However, we still evolutionarily thrive in conditions in which we play games to learn. Engagement has become something that people don't want, since it doesn't appear to necessarily add dollars to arbitrary quotas, especially for the cost. However, in a roundabout way, that's exactly what it does. When we're engaged, we're happier. When we're happier, we're more productive, more invested, and better at what we do. This includes the tedium of corporate work.

Up until this point, managerial standards have been more about punishment and an iron fist in order to get results. In the rare instances that this practice is sidestepped in favor of positive reinforcement, it's usually in the form of simple competition with a prize, or extra goodies just for participating. (Donuts in the breakroom?)
But it's largely an unused practice to actually turn the work itself into a game. Partially because we've been culturally suggested to believe that games and play are what children do. They're not something adults should engage in. Reinforcing that behavior in adults would be catastrophic! Of course, no one takes the necessary step back to ask why it would be a problem. Games are proven to make us incredibly engaged, collaborative, and productive. So, if you can turn what you need done into a game, it stands to reason that the same thing would happen. Why would we suddenly decide to be lazy or unproductive if work became a game? Could we really be much more lazy and unproductive than we are now?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx

Technically, yes. But not by much. A mere 13% of workers worldwide are engaged in what they do.
Almost double that are actively disengaged.

What would we really have to lose by trying something new? Something that is evolutionarily suggested to work? I suppose we could theoretically lose that last 13% of people, but somehow, I find that a difficult pill to swallow...

-
Waddles

On Sinning

Okay, get ready for a gloriously stream-of-conscious post. I have thought about this approximately 0% before deciding to delve into it. A good friend posited the idea to me that people have the propensity towards one central "sin" more than any other. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to be operating under the assumption that we're discussing the "seven deadly" sins.
Lust, Greed, Pride, Envy, Sloth, Gluttony, and Wrath. (I only memorized them because of Fullmetal Alchemist. I suck)

My immediate reaction was that people are capable of all sorts of sin in tandem. I am... beginning to have hesitations about how I've approached the discussion at all though. So, I'm going to step back and define each of the "sins" and give them a bit more of a thorough examination.

1. Lust: Sexual desire. Being horny. Wanting someone as an object. I don't actually like that we've classified this as a sin. Lust is not only natural, but also healthy in a mutually respecting relationship between consenting participants. I've said it before in my other blog post on Objects and Subjects, but I think that objectification is completely acceptable in appropriate contexts.

Now obviously, if we obsess over Lust and allow it to rule our lives, we become beholden to disease, danger, and questionable choices. The more emphasis we place on one aspect of our lives, the less emphasis is due to the others. A matter of moderation (I may never stop with this theme. I am so sorry for subjecting you to this).

2. Greed: The desire to possess more than you currently do. This too is a natural predilection of humans, ingrained in our psychology by default. However, without boundaries, Greed is likely to consume and destroy your life, much in the same way any of the seven "sins" can. But doesn't Greed in moderation help us as well? Without ambition and drive, we accept complacency. Without passion to gain more, we fall into the trap of stagnation. We should be thankful for the things that we do have to our name, but does that mean we should accept the status quo? To that end, cannot Greed be completely justified?
At what point do we define desire as Greed? Did women who desired the right to vote count as "Greedy"? Does the impoverished who wants food every night count as "Greedy"? We're inclined to simply "feel" when someone is or is not greedy. Desiring "fairness" isn't Greed. But does that mean that wanting something someone else possesses doesn't count as Greed? Or is that Envy rather than Greed? (More on this thought in a little while)
What if I see a stray cat, and I want one as a result? Is that Greed?
What if it's a 50" TV instead of a cat? There's an intense hesitation to call the first Greed, but not the second. Why is that? Both are luxuries. Is there something about the responsibility carried with owning a pet that somehow negates the selfishness of wanting to own one?

Is Greed only justifiable if it measurably improves your life satisfaction? How could we possibly measure that, let alone hold others to it as a standard?

3. Pride: Pride holds with it much of the same connotations as "Honor." Zuko, anyone? Is it wrong to be prideful? Is it bad to be excited about the merits of your own actions? What about progress you've made? Confidence is only generated from positive feelings about yourself and your actions. Confidence is a virtual necessity to happiness, so without pride, there can be no true happiness, for in its place would rest self-doubt and insecurity.

The inverse, of course, is that we're too prideful. Arrogant. Narcissistic. Egotistical. Creatures without fault. This poses its own set of problems. With we have no humility- no sense of our own ability to do wrong- then we do not learn from our actions and we do not consider the implications of our deeds beyond what good they can cause.

Are you beginning to sense a pattern as well?

4. Envy: Much in the same vein as Greed, Envy is the desire for what is not yours. While Greed is the child that wants all of the toys, Envy is just the child that wants the toy you have. I hesitate to consider this a beneficial trait in any regard, since it's so superficial on the face of it. However, if we look at the psychological effects of Envy, we may still find some good in this "Sin." Untempered, Envy can simply consume you in the same way that Greed can. Focusing all of your energy on the goal of acquiring that which other people have. Obviously destructive no matter how you look at it.
But what if you had just a little Envy? What if you had just enough Envy to examine the things in your life in order to determine what's really important? Just enough Envy to see the things you truly want in the world? Without Envy, there's no direction from birth. We see other people having fun, living, loving, and laughing. We want that. With Envy, we have the drive to see what it is about peoples' lives that make them happy, and we seek to acquire it ourselves. Whether it's a friend who actually listens, a lover who actually respects, or a job that actually makes you happy. When we see the potential for others to be happier than we are, we see a path of progression; a method for moving forward.
Without Envy, we might be happy, but only because we don't know what would make us happier.
 Perhaps Envy is the better "Sin" to attribute to women who wanted the right to vote. Freedom is the very essence of wanting access to what other people have in equal measurement by default. A respectable and worthy project, I would say.

5. Sloth: The tendency to not act. To do nothing. To relax, vegetate, and stop. From an immediate glance, it would seem an obviously problematic "Sin" that causes stagnation, encourages the status quo, and fights progress. However, if we look further, we see the problems of fatigue, workaholism, boundless ambition, and constant movement. Humans are not meant to go indefinitely. We're not meant to run without rest. To pursue without reflection. To fly without pause. Meditation has been proven to be an effective method of increasing our ability to learn. Napping has been proven to increase our energy. Brief moments of respite give us the ability to think about our actions before carrying on. In a world without Sloth, there is no inner-reflection, no thought, no consideration, and only a draining fatigue plastered over humanity's weary face.

6: Gluttony: To consume. To take. To receive. Gluttony is the essence of absorbing without giving back. We can be a glutton for a great many things; food, wisdom, punishment, friendships. To what end is it truly bad to want to consume? True enough, if we consume too much, it will destroy us. But if we consume too little, we will perish as well. Is it wrong to enjoy this delectable cinnamon bread next to me? Is it wrong to love and have a passion for the taking of anything? To become obsessed is dangerous. To develop tunnel vision prevents our ability to consider the wide world around us. To create an ideal out of something that is real is a detraction from the grace and beauty of the natural world.
But to lack Gluttony is to lack the pure excitement of receiving things in the world. Without passion, what's the point of living? If you're not studying a topic that you're a Glutton for, you're not studying a topic that you love. You're not pursuing an interest that is likely to make you truly happy.
So we must be gluttons to some extent. Otherwise, we will be bored, listless, and unhappy.

7: Wrath: To hate. The desire to destroy. To dismantle, to wreck, to obliterate.

An immediate part of me wants to disregard this "Sin" as bad from any angle. A cursory glance reveals no benefit to this kind of anger. However, to admit that would be to admit a philosophical inconsistency with my approach. It would be to give up on the existence of moderation in all traits.

Can we have guided hatred that is beneficially destructive? An odd question to be sure. Destruction can be good, yes. However, motivated by hatred, destruction doesn't tend to yield positive results. Motivated by revenge, we only persist the cycle of violence and vengeance. But can we ever truly want to dismantle something without the feeling of scorn?
This reminds me of the notion of "objectivity." My favorite professor once reminded me that objectivity doesn't exist. Our biases will always inform our thoughts, decisions, and words. Our environment will always bleed over into our ideas. The important thing is to admit where our biases come from; to admit our own prejudices.

To that end, perhaps we've been approaching Wrath the wrong way. Maybe it's completely natural to want vengeance. To want to destroy out of hatred. Maybe that's not wrong? But perhaps we should agree to be honest about when we have such anger towards something? It's okay to be angry. Anger is justifiable in some scenarios. People do things that merit angry responses. How we temper our Wrath in those situations is more important than whether or not we have it. How we approach utilizing our Wrath is important. Our ability to see our Wrath and recognize its effects on our mind is important.

Without the passion and drive of Wrath, we do not as easily have the motivation to act. It is because a situation infuriates us that we stand up for what we believe in. Wrath finely honed in this context can provide us with a limitlessly useful tool for change.

We cannot deny ourselves emotional range. We should not endeavor to become robots or complete stoics. We should, however, recognize our emotions for what they are and how they affect our thoughts. We should avoid allowing our desires to rule our lives, though we cannot possibly hope to live a full life without those same desires.

So I do not think considering them "Sins" is healthy in the first place. They are merely emotions. Desires. Thoughts that, like any other, we can have too much or too little of. To shun them for their potential to cause us harm is to ignore their potential to provide for us a progressive, satisfying, and healthy life.


Of course, here I've completely deconstructed the topic and I haven't actually responded to my friend's original position. Is it likely that we all have something we fail to moderate ourselves on? Absolutely. Is it likely that there's one trait more than any others specifically that could use improvement? Probably, yes.

So I suppose this is my roundabout way of agreeing with her, under the condition that we frame the conversation in less of a problematic "sin" discussion, and more of a natural human emotion discussion.

Oof... Life is complicated.

-
Waddles

Korra Fumigation

Alright, so.

That last episode of Korra infuriated me and I need to write about it. I need to rant about it.

As such, I’m interrupting the regularly scheduled nothing on Tuesdays to bring you the reasons I was furious with the writing of the Legend of Korra’s finale. Let’s get to it.

In no particular order, here are a large bunch of generalized grievances:

1. Bolin continues to be no Sokka. This is a minor grievance, to be sure, but it irks me all the same. Sokka had actual legitimate character growth as a master strategist in A:TLA. While he was the comic relief character, he progressed and struggled with the challenges of living up to his father’s legacy, dealing with being a non-bender in a bender’s world (and all the feelings of inadequacy that comes with that) and the humility of realizing how weak he is, requiring him to play off of the few strengths he does have. Bolin, by contrast, is the comic relief character who makes literally no development between the beginning and end of the show. He’s a goofy character romantically interested in Eska despite her being an awful match for him.
2. Eska and Desna. Two really fascinating characters that were able to show us what truly in-sync benders can do. The idea of bending twins was spectacular and something interesting to be thrown into the show lore-wise, branching into a comparison of similarities between real world twins and twins in the Avatar universe. Until their characters didn’t develop in any realistic way. Eska, a powerful and disinterested elitist becomes completely obsessed over Bolin for no logical reason. In and of itself, that’s a small gripe. They’re teens. They do stupid stuff because of hormones. But Bolin is in love with her despite her attempts to kill them and her clear possessiveness? The twins were obsessed with the idea that their father knew best. They were dependent and functionally lost without the heavy hand of their father. Until he died. At which point, they inherently grasped that he was an awful person who didn’t deserve respect. In the span of a single episode, they went from being willing to kill for him to not caring that he died.
3. The eternal problem with Korra. Everything is handed to her on a silver platter. She never works for anything. Does anyone else remember Aang struggling throughout all three seasons to try to find a way to save everyone without killing anyone? Or how he spent a season and a half struggling to avoid using his Avatar state for fear of causing irreparable damage? Where did that kind of development go? Korra gets handed everything. She loses her memory? Free vision quest to meet the first Avatar. Her frustrated mood is ruining the spirit world? Instantly figures out how to have a happy and calm mind. Raava died? Here, have Raava back. Lose her bending? Magically get her bending back and also master the Avatar state at the same time. Can’t brute-force her way into learning Airbending? Brute-forces her way into learning Airbending anyway. There is no concept of consequences for Korra. Everything works out fine every single time.
4. Unulaq being completely one-dimensional. It was really cool that his vision was a world in which spirits and humans lived together. It was really cool that he wanted to be the other Avatar. That was a sweet angle. Too bad we didn’t hear about it until it was already happening- no hints that it was his desire at all. Too bad the last episode changed “Other” into “Dark” and his mission was really just to bring on 10,000 years of darkness (read: evil because the writers lack depth). Unulaq was power hungry. So we have two basic villain types in all of Avatar:
1. Insane. Azula. Verrick. These are the most interesting villains by far. Both are calculating, individualistic, and lack empathy, but they’re not out to watch the world burn exactly. They’re just out to see the world more livable for themselves.
2. Power hungry. Ozai, Sozen, leader of the Dai Li, Tarrlok, Amon, Yakone, General Zhao. 
3. The noteworthy exceptions to this case are Zuko and Iroh, two of the best characters in the first series for it, and Mai/Ty Lee. Ty Lee probably had the most unexpected and interesting change of heart, creating an incredibly powerful moment in the first series, and by extension, and even crazier Azula. The only four characters that had growth as villains were all deep and interesting additions to the cast.
5.  Jinora. Jinora was one of my favorite characters. Underestimated despite her natural connection to the spirit world. Then, she ultimately doesn't do anything! How exactly does her entering the spirit world magically make Korra able to do it? The two weren't physically or spiritually connected insofar as the show was willing to describe. Does anyone else remember Aang struggling to get into the spirit world? (Side note: Tenzin's growth as a result of this is probably my favorite part of the season) Jinora, upon leading her into the spirit world, proceeds to get captured after doing approximately 0 things worth noting. Her triumphant return at the end of the season is startlingly nonsensical. How does she revive Raava? Where did she get her? Why could only she do it? Do you remember how the original series explained a very similar phenomenon? Yue had to give up her life to revive the spirit, and it was only possible because the spirit had saved her life at birth. So what made Jinora special? What made her able to revive Raava? 
6. Holyshit themes! They tried so hard to push two themes that they ended up taking a complete crap on.
1. Dark and Light are not the same thing as Good and Evil. They avoided so ardently using the word "evil" because that's not what Vaatu is. That's not what Yin and Yang is about (the very metaphor behind Raava and Vaatu). But despite their verbal inclinations away from the notion that "Dark" is not quite the same as "Evil," they managed to make the Dark characters completely indistinguishable from Evil characters. Furthermore, despite trying to center the Avatar as a balancing point, their direction for the other Avatar was complete destruction and power. This is, perhaps, a nitpicky detail, but I'd have been far more impressed to see the other Avatar's focus be on achieving balance in another way. Just a different philosophy of balance, because that's the heart of Yin and Yang. The very act of not referring to Korra as the "Light Avatar," but choosing to refer to Unulaq as the "Dark Avatar" meant that they deliberately defined his character as the embodiment of destruction rather simply a counter-balance to Korra's place in the world.
2. Light and Dark cannot exist without one another. This was something that was pretty heavily pushed. And rightly so, it's what Yin and Yang is all about. The two are intrinsically connected, inseparable, and despite their apparent differences, they're really the same thing. They introduced something unique into the mix by forcibly separating Yin from Yang. Raava and Vaatu were separated by Wan. However, instead of delving into the philosophical ramifications of the separation of Yin from Yang, they decided that it wouldn't really change the way the world functions. Furthermore, they decided that, despite defining Light and Dark as impossible to exist without one another, Vaatu goes ahead and kills Raava. And she's dead. Game over. Fun story. Except for not making any sense in the world that they themselves built up. Then, of course, Raava comes back to life! Also in a fashion that is totally inexplicable. Except that for some reason, Raava no longer has any connection to the past Avatars. This? This all would've been bad enough. But then, they decided that Korra should be able to disintegrate Vaatu. Once again despite the explicit necessity for Darkness to exist by virtue of Light existing. They just throw that theme out the window and decide that Vaatu is dead now.
7. Asami being part of the wallpaper for the entire season upset me. She's a strong character with a complicated background, and has the potential as a non-bender to have a lot of development. Nope. She loves Mako. And that's her only role. To be conned and to be in love.
8. Ohmigod why did Korra turn into Dr. Manhattan?! How.... What.... NO! This makes absolutely no sense. It's a worse deus ex than the Lion Turtle. Where does that power come from? Why didn't they mention it before? Why not deliberately use it before? Why does the human spirit functionally have more power than the spirit of darkness? What's the point of being fused with Raava at all if she can just become a Megazord whenever she wants? Seems like that would be a far more efficient means of problem solving. Furthermore, why did this process wind up allowing her to travel on the same Rainbow Road that Aang took to master the Avatar state? The two are completely different. One is energy bending, the other is a connection with your past lives via a spirit that lives inside you!
9. Eternity Tree. Way to bring up something so important that it can teach you energy bending in the last two episodes and never explain why it wasn't important or considered beforehand. Wouldn't Vaatu, a spirit of incredibly power, have been able to bend energy? Or is that only something humans can do? Which brings us to our next point...
10. Why Korra? Korra no longer had any connection to Raava. Therefore, she was nothing but an ordinary water bender. So why was she so special that she could turn into Dr. Manhattan? Why didn't Jinora do it? She was more in touch with her spiritual side. Better yet, why didn't everyone do it if it was that easy. Double better yet, why is this only a thing that was discovered now? And what does that mean as regards to everyone else now that the portals are open? Can't anyone who wants just go become Dr. Manhattan by virtue of being human and meditating?
11. What the everloving fuck makes Korra think that she has the authority to decide that the spirit world and the human world should be connected without consulting anyone?! Let alone a logistics nightmare, there are a million difficult and complicated implications for such an act. Tenzin would have been aware of this. Even if he hadn't been aware of it, he would've known that it's not Korra's place to make a decision like that on her own.

 In all, not only did the show avoid making the interesting philosophical connections that were begging to be addressed (The same issue I had with season 1 of Korra), but they also took all of their own worldbuilding, and passed it through a blender. I was completely okay with the direction they were going up until the very last episode. Everything before that was nitpicky and I was willing to accept for the quantity of episodes available. But not after the finale. Not after they ruined every possible lesson they could've been trying to teach.
(Not quite accurate. They taught one lesson in the entire show. Forge your own future. You are not defined by your past.)

In its own right, the show would be acceptable, and even pretty good. But following up from the original ATLA, it gets a 'D'. The loving craftsmanship of the entire first series was just completely absent in Korra.

A Docked Ship

I was talking with a friend the other day when a quote came up; a quote on a fortune cookie, actually. The saying has some general variation in terminology, but its effect is unmistakeable.

"A ship in port is safe. But this is not what the ship was built for."

I've been thinking about this quote a lot. It seems to have struck a chord with the current upheaval I'm going through in my life.

The world was not designed to be safe, comfortable, or easy. The absence of these traits shouldn't function as a deterrent for experiencing life. If life is wasted worrying about the potential negative consequences of any given choice, you've already doomed yourself to stress, anxiety, and indecision.
Not only are you not going anywhere, but you're actively sabotaging your life as is.

This is particularly at odds with some initial thoughts about humanity and/or society. Namely, the American dream, which consists of a stable career, stable relationships, and owning of a home. The American dream is an attempt to make stable and comforting that which is inherently not so. I can't reasonably place a value judgment on this decision. After all, stability does afford us some happiness and stress-avoidance, even if it's not technically natural, per se.

Likewise, humanity actively seeks stability since it's environmentally ideal for raising children. Safety and comfort is a virtual necessity for squishy children. Stability also guarantees a longer life for the parents.

With that in mind, it seems obvious (to me, at least) that our metaphorical ship is no more meant for stormy waters as it is meant for the harbor. The ship, rather, is meant for the experience along the way. The ship is intended to provide function and form, while maintaining some level of safety. It is, after all, better to be in a boat than it is to be adrift on a plank of wood.

As such, the ship gives us some direction, some safety, and some utility. We have some semblance of control in an otherwise untamed world of waves and waters. It is perhaps then best if the captain knows how to navigate the ship in order to avoid troubled waters, while still maintaining course and purpose. Thus, there is intent without reckless abandon. Comfort without complacency. Stability without boredom.
Given the most skilled captain, one could even analyze and calculate the potential danger of a storm before actually being in it, giving the ability to pick and choose adventures that promise to be exciting without being unnecessarily dangerous.

Of course, this is all following a pretty strict analogy that doesn't really have any bearing on the world by necessity. So I'm dancing around a point instead of actually making it. There's a reason for that though- I'm interested in letting you, my dear reader, come to your own conclusion on how to approach the sea of life, before giving my own position.


Maintaining my unhealthy love of Aristotle, I favor the golden mean. The virtuous middle between any two extremes- in this case complacency and recklessness. Life is meant to be lived. Experiences are meant to be had. Sadness, love, anger, frustration, joy, elation, jealousy, pride, comfort, solace, exhaustion, fear. These are all natural things to experience. These are emotions that, when experienced, inform our perspective of the world. The more we experience, the more we can hope to understand the world in which we function. To that end, there is some need to stretch the boundaries and experience beyond our comfort zone.
But, for the same reason, there is some need to sit comfortably in the middle of our bubble and remind ourselves of our position and our surroundings.

Travel, but do so cautiously. Experience with intent to learn. Take every experience as a lesson for the future, and don't avoid things just because they're completely terrifying. Some of our fears are totally irrational. Like a fear of trying new foods.
*Cough self-deprecating humor Cough*

Analyzing which of our fears are justified and which are not is the difficult part. I'm still sorting through that, so I'll let you know how it goes when I get to the other side of this chasm.

-
Waddles

Happiness Conflicts

My fingers are a little mangled, so I'm gonna' try to keep this one relatively shortish.

Persisting in the new tradition of talking about topics from this wonderful book I'm reading, I'm interested in addressing the issue of conflicts to happiness.

Why is global depression increasing? What can we do to reverse the flow of emotions from negative to positive? What are the causes for our individualized feelings of unhappiness?

There's no easy answer to the vague question of "why are people getting less happy." Popular ideas range from increasing population, decreased opportunities, increased expectations, decreased authenticity, to the media's focus on negativity, and even the perception that people are unhappy is causing us more stress! There are a lot of hypotheses and not a lot of answers. So what's the point of this blog post? Well, the expanding realm of positive psychology has been focused on defining, examining, quantifying, and providing happiness for people in the last two decades. To that end, a lot of research has been done on what techniques objectively improve the frequency with which our brains' reward centers activate.

So, what are the techniques and why aren't they working?

That's the catch- they do work. People are just afraid to employ them. We're often recommended a number of methods that are intended to increase feelings of positivity in our life, but we're prone to dismissing them without giving them a chance. Why?
Skepticism. Cynicism. Remarks that the techniques feel "inauthentic," "corny," and lack genuineness. This shouldn't really hit as a surprise. Humans defend the status quo and we're terribly uncomfortable with change most of the time. Telling someone to change how they approach and operate within the context of life is going to make them wary before it does anything else. "This is all we know- it's comfortable and it's working fine...ish."

Ultimately, my belief is that we're so engendered to believe that failure is an epidemic to be wiped out, that we've lost the ability to take chances for fear that it will simply end in a perceived "loss." If we fail, there's something innately wrong with us. As a result, it's better to be complacent and mediocre than risk failure even if the rewards would be great.



What are these techniques? Maybe they're just unreasonably difficult? I at least don't think they are, and yet I still have some trouble with them.

The most simple and effective technique is simply the expression of gratitude and kind thoughts. Compliment a stranger, hold a door open, thank someone, smile politely, but sincerely. This is widely shown to generate positive feelings of optimism and confidence throughout the day. The science behind it is evolutionarily logical too- when we see someone else smile, we are charged and feel positively ourselves. The idea, from a guess, would be that humans thrive under conditions of happiness and societal well-being. When we observe this state in others, we feel it in ourselves because no intervention is required in order to preserve the human species. If we're sad, disinterested, or rude, however, then there's a problem. We feel stress and uneasiness- not necessarily because our own lives are lacking something, but solely because we perceive those around us as suffering and unhappy.

Two other techniques are less socially defined, but still show a remarkably positive effect on our minds;

1. Think about death. This is counter-intuitive since death is inherently depressing as far as natural phenomena goes. However, if we briefly think on death in a non-personal/non-emotional context, it provides a lasting sense of peace. "Post-traumatic bliss." The idea that our individual struggles are nothing in the grand scheme of things. The things that make us sad today may be gone tomorrow, replaced by something new for worse or better. And that change will continue ad infinitum.

2. Dance. As stupid and obvious as it sounds, synchronizing our bodies with music we enjoy stimulates our brains in a way that effectively increases and stabilizes our mood.

What's more is that doing any of these activities in a social setting releases inhibitions and inspires a comfortable sense of connection with people around you. Having a philosophical discussion about death with others can actually make you feel more at peace with yourself. Dancing with friends makes you feel great, as I'm sure you're aware. Exchanging smiles, laughs, and compliments with friends and/or strangers does too.

Why is it so easy to lose sight of something so simple then?

Cultured expectations, among other things. We're driven towards productivity without a goal. Unquantified and vague productivity. We have to do it without failing, and we have to do it alone. Cubicles, standardized testing, and even one of the foremost words in the American mindset- Independent. (For more of a rant on this, see Friday's post on Asking for Help)
We stop playing. We stop having fun. We stop enjoying. We stop gaming. That's what "happens" when you become an adult. Basically, you stop "being a child." Unfortunately, one of the by-products of this is having to redefine "happiness," since it's so simple for children. Happiness is social bonding, physical activity, and play. To distance ourselves from that, we've had to culturally create a new definition for happiness.
Drinking. Having money. Having power. Having land. A family (whether it functions well or not). Religion (whether it's truly adhered to or not). Sex.

(Side note: It's not even good sex! Sex is only acceptable if it's non-communicative, man on top, meaningless, passionless sex)

We've taken "happiness" and ripped the soul from the concept in order to make a more productive and bland set of workers.


What do we do?

Stop being skeptical. It doesn't matter of it's corny. It doesn't matter if it seems inauthentic. The phrase "fake it 'til you make it," while inelegant, accurately describes how the human mind functions; if you convince yourself that you're happy and confident person, you'll act happier and more confidently, inspiring similar emotions in those around you (per the earlier notes on evolutionary psychology). When they're happier, you're genuinely more optimistic, even if you caused it by faking happiness in the first place.

It sounds stupid. Primarily because it is. It's a method of tricking the mind into behaving how you want it to behave rather than how society is trying to make it behave. And if the only thing standing in your way is your own skepticism, your own cynicism, your own fear, then you're so close to happiness. The only thing preventing it is something entirely within your control; You.

So dance, compliment strangers, smile, and be polite.
It'll make you happier. And the only thing preventing it is you.


-
Waddles