Repressed memories are a common theme in stories featuring clinical psychology. Because so and so hid his past from him or herself they have trouble adapting to the present day. The answer was there all along, they just had no means to access it until it is finally revealed to them. Once they find the darkness in their past, they learn to face it, crash down hard, and come back better on the other side.
In the Chinese language, the phrase used to convey happiness is constructed of two words, 'open heart'. I'm not exactly sure the origins of this term, but having an open heart is what opens the door to happiness.
Repression is one of those obstacles in reaching an open heart. By concealing parts of your own history it creates an incomplete self. It may appear to be more like your ideal self, yet in reality all it turns out to be is an illusion, a façade. Much like the appearances of a celebrity can appear ideal, the many complications and stresses of a public life are hidden from view, at least until the paparazzi get to them. Then stories of divorce, drug abuse, sexual abuse and so forth come pouring from the shadows.
People who cannot handle a lot of stress may use repression as a technique to protect themselves from trauma or chronic stress. For those who can, they may utilize a different psychological tactic, evasion. Attention deficit disorder can be summed up as the inability to focus attention on a concentrated task for very long. One analogy is like traffic without signs or traffic lights. Thoughts travel from one to the next without any control of which one is taking the lead. There is never enough time to focus one part of yourself long enough to get to know it very well. Feelings of anxiety or sadness or anger and even joy will be fleeting. It will feel real for the short moment it is there and then disappear by the next fragment of thought that drives by. Happiness, in this case, cannot be found because it isn't around for very long.
With ADD the choice to evade isn't really there. The brain is underdeveloped and lacks the capacity to harness its control mechanisms, it can't control the traffic. Another means of evasion is stress addiction. Workaholics tend to be very focused, unlike people with ADD, and are capable of building up a strong identity and can forge an impressive career. Where they lack in control is their ability to slow down. They are polar opposites to ADD in that they are hyperfocused. All they can do is their work. They feed off of pressure, they feed off of their drive, and their work is the central part of their identity. When provided with time away from work all that remains is an empty vessel. People addicted to stress constantly seek it within their external environment. All their focus is on the outer world that the inner world becomes ignored. They feel uneasy when they are forced to be with themselves because it is someone they do not recognized, it is someone they are not acquainted with. A stranger in their own mind.
Having an open heart means having an open mind. One needs to acknowledge their own self to the fullest capacity. The inside, the outside, the strengths and weaknesses. Everything from the future plans to the long history that has lead to the present, one needs to know themselves and love themselves unconditionally. It may seem overly ideal at times, but it is something I believed can be achieved as long as the right conditions are in place. Sometimes we need to change our own situation to find those conditions, and at other times we need to change ourselves to fit our situation. But whatever the situation is we need to keep an open heart.
2.24.2013
2.20.2013
Swimming in Open Waters, or how to learn to be yourself isn't easy
I have spent the past five years exploring different fields. I started my journey pushing graphic design and trying to get into web design. At the same time I developed my musical skills and learned to record. I was absolutely convinced that I had the talent and drive to make it work. Later I started to shoot music videos as I continued to improve my music production skills. I even mustered up the courage to do a few open mics to get over my stage fright. Eventually I took up writing when I started working in a book store. Even got as far as completing a novel and wrote two-thirds of a second one. I took a pause to wait for my real life experience to catch up to my character. Now I start playing with photography and film while still continuing to perfect my music quality.
After all of these endeavours I hit a block. I began to understand what it really meant to become a successful artist. It requires far more than determination, talent, or even luck. It required a whole set of skills I never could conquer and likely never will, at least not any time soon. It was the skill of self promotion. Marketing. Even though I spent these five convoluted years working in retail to fund my pursuits, sales was something that I never really took pride in. In fact, it was something I wanted to avoid if it wasn't a necessary part of my job. Trying to convince someone, persuade them into wanting something that they may not even need or will use to its fullest capacity was always against my nature.
Throughout my university training in psychology and philosophy, I had learned to believe that the best means of creating change in a person is allowing them to discover their potential from within. That is the only time when true transformations happen. The process of external coercion was morally conflicting.
My extended education from reading books ranging from economics to religion, to neuroscience, culture, and, of course, psychology and philosophy had taught me that the proper way to nourish someone's potential is to guide them towards its realisation. It cannot be forced. It must come from within, and in order to do so we must learn to guide ourselves, to explore, to fail, and ultimately to reach a revelation. It isn't an easy process. It takes time, and how much time is impossible to predict. But one other important lesson I have learned is that you cannot do it on your own.
This is the paradox of self-discovery. We require support, affirmation, and endless mounds of feedback from acquaintances and strangers alike. For the lucky ones, they are provided a safe environment to explore knowing that there will be loving support at home. Loving and capable parents are a source of guidance, as well as a security net. They will provided you comfort in the face of failure, and they will celebrate with you for every win. Without this foundation we are kicked in to the water prematurely fully expected to tread in the open. How can one learn to swim when they can barely keep their head above water? Furthermore, how can one teach others to swim when they haven't had the chance to learn themselves?
This cycle is a dangerous one and it has penetrated deep into the history of humanity. People forced outside of their development early have children and quickly transfer their lack of experience unconsciously. They fully believe their offspring will develop far beyond their capacity despite not fully understanding what that entails. Many believe that a formal education, a good job, and a fluffy salary is all that there is when the truth lies much deeper than that. It lays dormant within the soul where a child is forced to inhabit the body, expectations and responsibilities of an adult.
Having swam circles in the open water I have come back to where I left off. I know now that my initial intuition about where I wanted to belong was right the whole time, in psychology and philosophy.
I was underdeveloped. My parents didn't have the opportunity to advance their own development, so it left me searching for what that meant on my own. This entire operation, skipping from one interest to the next, was a tireless search for something that was there in the beginning. The only thing I needed was to reaffirm it through experimenting with everything else I never has the opportunity to try in the comfort of home. These hobbies were, are, and will be a part of me always, but the core of this process was the exploration itself. What I really enjoyed was the search. And now that that search is (hopefully) over I want to turn it into a career.
What drew me to psychology in the first place was the drive to understand the human condition. What makes up a person was interesting, and now with the experience I have had I have a better understanding of how a person becomes made up of anything. I want to continue to pursue how people become themselves, how their experiences make up who they are and how they will take them to who they will be.
I was lucky enough at the beginning of all of this to have found a partner who supported my search. Throughout these five years we helped one another figure ourselves out. She taught me how to swim, literally and metaphorically. We held each others hands when we broke down and kept one another afloat. Now that we have learned to be ourselves and see what we have become it is time to look forward and see where we are going. It is time to find solid ground.
After all of these endeavours I hit a block. I began to understand what it really meant to become a successful artist. It requires far more than determination, talent, or even luck. It required a whole set of skills I never could conquer and likely never will, at least not any time soon. It was the skill of self promotion. Marketing. Even though I spent these five convoluted years working in retail to fund my pursuits, sales was something that I never really took pride in. In fact, it was something I wanted to avoid if it wasn't a necessary part of my job. Trying to convince someone, persuade them into wanting something that they may not even need or will use to its fullest capacity was always against my nature.
Throughout my university training in psychology and philosophy, I had learned to believe that the best means of creating change in a person is allowing them to discover their potential from within. That is the only time when true transformations happen. The process of external coercion was morally conflicting.
My extended education from reading books ranging from economics to religion, to neuroscience, culture, and, of course, psychology and philosophy had taught me that the proper way to nourish someone's potential is to guide them towards its realisation. It cannot be forced. It must come from within, and in order to do so we must learn to guide ourselves, to explore, to fail, and ultimately to reach a revelation. It isn't an easy process. It takes time, and how much time is impossible to predict. But one other important lesson I have learned is that you cannot do it on your own.
This is the paradox of self-discovery. We require support, affirmation, and endless mounds of feedback from acquaintances and strangers alike. For the lucky ones, they are provided a safe environment to explore knowing that there will be loving support at home. Loving and capable parents are a source of guidance, as well as a security net. They will provided you comfort in the face of failure, and they will celebrate with you for every win. Without this foundation we are kicked in to the water prematurely fully expected to tread in the open. How can one learn to swim when they can barely keep their head above water? Furthermore, how can one teach others to swim when they haven't had the chance to learn themselves?
This cycle is a dangerous one and it has penetrated deep into the history of humanity. People forced outside of their development early have children and quickly transfer their lack of experience unconsciously. They fully believe their offspring will develop far beyond their capacity despite not fully understanding what that entails. Many believe that a formal education, a good job, and a fluffy salary is all that there is when the truth lies much deeper than that. It lays dormant within the soul where a child is forced to inhabit the body, expectations and responsibilities of an adult.
Having swam circles in the open water I have come back to where I left off. I know now that my initial intuition about where I wanted to belong was right the whole time, in psychology and philosophy.
I was underdeveloped. My parents didn't have the opportunity to advance their own development, so it left me searching for what that meant on my own. This entire operation, skipping from one interest to the next, was a tireless search for something that was there in the beginning. The only thing I needed was to reaffirm it through experimenting with everything else I never has the opportunity to try in the comfort of home. These hobbies were, are, and will be a part of me always, but the core of this process was the exploration itself. What I really enjoyed was the search. And now that that search is (hopefully) over I want to turn it into a career.
What drew me to psychology in the first place was the drive to understand the human condition. What makes up a person was interesting, and now with the experience I have had I have a better understanding of how a person becomes made up of anything. I want to continue to pursue how people become themselves, how their experiences make up who they are and how they will take them to who they will be.
I was lucky enough at the beginning of all of this to have found a partner who supported my search. Throughout these five years we helped one another figure ourselves out. She taught me how to swim, literally and metaphorically. We held each others hands when we broke down and kept one another afloat. Now that we have learned to be ourselves and see what we have become it is time to look forward and see where we are going. It is time to find solid ground.
2.16.2013
That Violent Nudge
School shootings, violent videogames, action packed movies, gun control. The cycle goes on. Something bad happens and people will find something to blame. It has to be something direct, something concrete or else you can point a finger at it.
What if I was to tell you that violent outbursts and mental breaks were not contributed by any one singular source? What if it was due to a complex interaction between various societal, psychological and biological factors? What would people think then?
PSSSHHHHTTHTTTT!!! Yeah right...
There is a constant back and forth debate on what contributes to violence. It happens all the time. From little things like sibling rivalry, to marital abuse, school yard bullying, cyberbullying, all the way up to homicides torture and massacres. People feel angry they lash out at the nearest thing. Or they just might be crazy. Something isn't right with them. It has nothing to do with me, because obviously how could I be involved with something that isn't right in front of me.
The truth is, whenever one of these incidences happen everyone is guilty. The only difference is who is more guilty than who. A child who decides to shoot up a school didn't decide that on his own. Most decisions people make are not of their own. People watch what they are shown, they eat what they are given, they complete the work they are assigned. That child was simply nudged in that direction often enough that he thinks that is his only choice. The parents are guilty for not giving him the right attention. His peers are guilty for neglecting or harassing him. His teachers are guilty for not paying more attention to his need for help. The store is guilty for making guns so easy to purchase. The culture is guilty for placing those guns into to stores. The only thing the shooter is guilty for is bringing the gun and pulling the trigger.
Every time one of these tragedies happen everyone is punished for the crime. We have to hear about it in the news. Policies have to change and debates rage on. The families and friends of the victims and the offender is deeply hurt. The entire community will be more on edge due to the lingering fear. Yet once the tides die down and things are quiet again we once again forget that we were once guilty. So again we nudge, again we put the pieces in place. And eventually it happens again. Someone snaps, we point fingers, and we all suffer once again.
What if I was to tell you that violent outbursts and mental breaks were not contributed by any one singular source? What if it was due to a complex interaction between various societal, psychological and biological factors? What would people think then?
PSSSHHHHTTHTTTT!!! Yeah right...
There is a constant back and forth debate on what contributes to violence. It happens all the time. From little things like sibling rivalry, to marital abuse, school yard bullying, cyberbullying, all the way up to homicides torture and massacres. People feel angry they lash out at the nearest thing. Or they just might be crazy. Something isn't right with them. It has nothing to do with me, because obviously how could I be involved with something that isn't right in front of me.
The truth is, whenever one of these incidences happen everyone is guilty. The only difference is who is more guilty than who. A child who decides to shoot up a school didn't decide that on his own. Most decisions people make are not of their own. People watch what they are shown, they eat what they are given, they complete the work they are assigned. That child was simply nudged in that direction often enough that he thinks that is his only choice. The parents are guilty for not giving him the right attention. His peers are guilty for neglecting or harassing him. His teachers are guilty for not paying more attention to his need for help. The store is guilty for making guns so easy to purchase. The culture is guilty for placing those guns into to stores. The only thing the shooter is guilty for is bringing the gun and pulling the trigger.
Every time one of these tragedies happen everyone is punished for the crime. We have to hear about it in the news. Policies have to change and debates rage on. The families and friends of the victims and the offender is deeply hurt. The entire community will be more on edge due to the lingering fear. Yet once the tides die down and things are quiet again we once again forget that we were once guilty. So again we nudge, again we put the pieces in place. And eventually it happens again. Someone snaps, we point fingers, and we all suffer once again.
2.12.2013
Shaping Reality
Recently at the DICE summit Gabe Newell and JJ Abrams discussed the idea of storytelling through their respective mediums of videogames and movies. They hammered at one another for the lack of direction in games, and the lack of exploration in film. Abrams didn't believe that players could concentrate on the story at hand when the protagonist is just an empty shell and mindless observer, or when players could simply distract themselves by looking in the wrong places. While Newell criticized films for its absence of agency which allows the player to be immersed within the story itself. The audience has no input within a film.
Storytelling is a tricky business, and both of these major players agree that the most important part is having people care about the characters. That way they will feel like a part of that world, that the story feels in some sense real. This is an odd notion if you really think about it.
Both the world of games and film spend massive budgets trying to create alternate universes for people to submerge themselves into for hours at a time. The extensive details of certain worlds are so pervasive that they manage to extend well beyond the medium itself. The fictional universe starts to blend in with the real one. People create Portal Xmas trees, speak in Klingon, or identify with the Force within. Some would rather live as their fictional avatars than as their real self. It starts to reshape their reality.
Now at this point people would argue that being immersed within these alternate realities can be dangerous. With people having died from over commitment to their gaming I can see why that is, yet there is something protective about the ability to escape. In my personal opinion I feel very few people really see the real reality. Very few understand why we work, why the political and financial systems work the way they do, or how the human mind and body functions. Not many can see all the complexities and the exponentially expansive richness that the real world has over fictional worlds. But would they want to?
The real world can be so complex, so challenging, and so daunting that to understand the entire scope of the human world may bring people to their knees. Ignorance can be bliss. Many would rather stay within the Matrix than leave into this horribly complicated and often bleak reality. Those who were considered geniuses often were also crazy. It was probably the weight of the true reality that drove them mad.
Gabe and JJ both announced at the end of their discussion that there may be collaborative efforts between Bad Robot and Valve to make films based on games and games based on films. They will continue to build miniature worlds to keep the world sane. It is a brave and noble mission that buys time for those who see reality to sort things out and maybe make it a little more inviting.
Storytelling is a tricky business, and both of these major players agree that the most important part is having people care about the characters. That way they will feel like a part of that world, that the story feels in some sense real. This is an odd notion if you really think about it.
Both the world of games and film spend massive budgets trying to create alternate universes for people to submerge themselves into for hours at a time. The extensive details of certain worlds are so pervasive that they manage to extend well beyond the medium itself. The fictional universe starts to blend in with the real one. People create Portal Xmas trees, speak in Klingon, or identify with the Force within. Some would rather live as their fictional avatars than as their real self. It starts to reshape their reality.
Now at this point people would argue that being immersed within these alternate realities can be dangerous. With people having died from over commitment to their gaming I can see why that is, yet there is something protective about the ability to escape. In my personal opinion I feel very few people really see the real reality. Very few understand why we work, why the political and financial systems work the way they do, or how the human mind and body functions. Not many can see all the complexities and the exponentially expansive richness that the real world has over fictional worlds. But would they want to?
The real world can be so complex, so challenging, and so daunting that to understand the entire scope of the human world may bring people to their knees. Ignorance can be bliss. Many would rather stay within the Matrix than leave into this horribly complicated and often bleak reality. Those who were considered geniuses often were also crazy. It was probably the weight of the true reality that drove them mad.
Gabe and JJ both announced at the end of their discussion that there may be collaborative efforts between Bad Robot and Valve to make films based on games and games based on films. They will continue to build miniature worlds to keep the world sane. It is a brave and noble mission that buys time for those who see reality to sort things out and maybe make it a little more inviting.
6.17.2012
A Little Transparency can go a Long Way
Anyone with a camera can start a blog about anything. This girl started to photograph her lunches and post them on NeverSeconds. She also created a rating system which includes number of hairs. A very important measure of the quality of a lunch. She shared a little part of her life every day, but it also ended up sharing a little bit of the catering company and the quality of the food system in her school. It made transparent a part of her schooling experience.
The initial reaction I had of the silencing of this blog by the Argyll and Bute Council was of a kid afraid his worst secret was being revealed so he shoves the little girl in a room and locks it. Obviously that wasn't a good strategy. If anything, once the voices of the community rose up and the ban was lifted, the actions only gave the blog more attention making the whole thing even louder. Now with even more eyes on the blog, and more pictures to come, there is even more pressure for the company to provide better quality.
It is the simplest action. Sharing a piece of your day. Yet the impact can be so wide spread. This kind of story always amazes me. Why not push it even further? Have a site where everyone contributes their daily meals and their rankings, then arrange them on a map. Then people will know where the best food comes from, and everyone might want to up their game. Who wants bad quality food, right?
6.02.2012
Lessons of a Post-Apocalyptic Now
So, with all the hype leading into and out of 2012 it makes me wonder what could come after this intense trend of epic proportions. The only means of searching for a possible answer is through the breakdown of what it means to focus so heavily on global destruction, or more accurately, human self-destruction.
The end of the world has usually been connected with the death of the planet, but in reality all it really points to is the end of humanity. Life still goes on even if a nuclear winter blacked out the sun for thousands of years. Things manage to live off of nitrogen at the bottom of the ocean, and over millions of years will manage to grow some legs and bubble their way out of the waters once again. The planet itself is so massive that its destruction is actually impossible by any human force regardless of how egotistical we think we are. So, this apocalypse we speak of annihilates only the human world. Thats one thing that the Bible got right.
Lets assume that this trend will peak this year and gradually begin to fade off into the future and that the destruction of our civilization was only the work of fiction, what comes next is hopefully growth through unity. Seems like a big jump, from zombies to flowers, peace and love, but if taken the right way it is the only acceptable possibility.
The way I see it is that this focus on death on a massive scale is the way humanity is learning that the disappearance of their society is a possibility. It's like that toddler seeing the goldfish floating belly-up wondering where the toilet will take it as the water swirls into oblivion. We have started to connect with our own mortality in the same way that everyone on this planet understands that they will inevitably die. The only difference is that the destruction of humanity will come from human hands. Everything that can kill us is a result of our own actions.
The real, real possibility is, of course, climate change. It is the one thing we will never be able to control. Never. Zombies originally were because some nosy people cast some evil darkly magical spells. Later it was because of our own stupid synthetic virus made for our selfish desires for immortality. Robots are a no-brainer. And even the classic cleansing from above method is because of our own sins. Take a step back and religion, another human construction, is the cause.
We have to accept that extinction is a real possibility. Once we have, the steps towards self-preservation kicks in. When you learn you can die you start to fear it. We fear aging, we fear disease, we fear dying, and so we fight it with all our might. When humanity starts to understand the same it will, again, fight against it. Since our destruction is only possible through our own hubris, unity is its only cure. Learning to cooperate is how humans have managed to survive with our lack of claws, flat teeth, and meekly slow little bodies. Learning to cooperate is how we will continue to survive from ourselves. We embrace 'apocalypse' now in order to prevent apocalypse later. So, bring on the destruction! It's the only way we'll learn.
5.25.2012
Nanny States Make for Spoiled Students
The student protests of Quebec have made for good news. It even ended up on the radar of some international news outlets. Stories of striking unity between students against the state for some greater moral reason seems to have all the glitter needed to fuel the movement and its coverage. But that doesn't look to be the full story.
A recent piece in the National Post entitled "The Language of Protest" highlights the fact that McGill, an internationally acclaimed university and one of the two Anglo universities, have been mostly absent in the movement. The article brings about an interesting position stating that this may have more to do with the mentality of what it means to be French, or more accurately Quebecois, referring back to revolutions and the lifestyle of the actual French.
Quebec is noted to be a 'nanny state' with a great deal of public programs that differ from the rest of Canada. Even with the lowest tuition rates in the country, a small hike to align prices with ongoing rates of inflation have sparked outrage.
What's the real problem here?
It may seem like an ultra-conservative criticism to think that the French-Canadians are being unreasonable, but it only looks that way when you stand so far to the left. Maybe if they took the time to stand a bit closer to centre, things might make a bit more sense. Having an increase in costs to cover the constant rise in prices is an inevitable part of the modern economy. Food prices have been climbing steadily and the numerous cafes that plaster around the Quebec region haven't been able to avoid the increased costs of coffee either. So, why should tuition be any kind of an exception? The only reason to think this is because this particular cost is controllable within the local scale.
It seems a little bit selfish though to battle pricing purely from a local standpoint when, at the greater scale, prices continue to rise. The way I see it is that the Quebecois have been spoiled by their maternal government. If we take the conservative's hard stance as paternal in nature, what we have here is a battle of favoratism between different styles of politics. The nurturing, caring style of the left, versus the less forgiving, practical style of the right.
In my view, it is time to face reality and understand that the state can't protect you forever. At some point it is time for Dad to kick you out of the house and force you to find a job and fend for yourself. As a centrist, I highly favour a socialist method, but public funding is only meant as a source of guidance, not a free ride. As an Albertan, I can empathize with the students wanting to reduce tuition as some of the highest fees stand within this province. Balance is key. So while the freer lifestyle of liberal provinces seems enticing, the conservative view of hard work and social contribution also has its merits.
At some point, we have to pay up simply because that's a part of life. Prices change. People lose jobs. People get sick. There are many things that we cannot control for as individuals, and so the government should provide measures to allow the best chance of survival. A second chance is always around the corner. This does not mean, however, that the state should bear all the responsibility. Sometimes the children have to take care of the parents when they're down and out. This is one of those times. It's time to start charging the kids to stay at home, and the rent is more than reasonable.
5.17.2012
Snack Time
After having some Mini-Wheats for breakfast, I went out and grabbed a coffee and donut right before work about an hour later. I had a proper lunch, but then dinner was a mix of Toaster Strudels and rice crackers, plus some juice somewhere in there. Finally, I had leftovers from dinner the night before as a snack. So, overall I guess I ate two decent meals and a bunch of snacks.
It always made me curious though what is considered appropriate for a meal. Cereal with milk is okay, but isn't cereal just bite-sized cookies? Just because they don't have a lot of fat doesn't mean it isn't a lot of carbs. Other breakfasts sometimes include waffles, fruit, syrup, pancakes, muffins, and a variety of other sweets, most of which could probably be served as dessert.
Now, lunch. It seems to be actually quite decent as a meal. Most people grab a sandwich, or soup and salad. At least something with some sort of vegetables and meat with a bread item. Other lunches may be burgers and fries with a pop. It's pretty rare to hear of someone having sweets for lunch though.
Dinner is usually reserved for the real food. The main meal. Meat, veggies, grains, the whole plate piled high and the family, supposedly, sitting comfortably in a circle. Is it wrong to eat something from a toaster? What if it was a bagel with some butter, a small salad, and a side of soup? I've eaten my fair share of subs for dinner, and probably some burger combos in my lifetime made a quick meal. Does pop count as a dessert? How about a chocolate bar?
In people's heads all around the world, certain types of food are considered appropriate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. But why? Do they have anything in common with one another? I remember learning that lunch is the largest meal in Latin countries. In Asia, I'm pretty sure they don't have cereals and milk, or waffles and pancakes. I'm not even really sure what a traditional breakfast in, say, Japan or Korea would be. How about India? In the end, does it really matter?
Food is food. It provides energy and resources for our bodies to function. As long as we fulfill those requirements, I'm not entirely convinced that the order matters. There is the matter of blood sugar spikes and dips though, so maybe the size of the meal or the composition affects something. But if you had the time available to snack through the day to compensate for those highs and lows, would it really matter? Snacking for meals probably isn't a big deal. Things like tapas and dim sum probably prove that. The thing that bothers me, however, is snacking AND meals. That's where we get into some trouble.
4.29.2012
Too Much Technical Reality
With the recent screening, there were mixed reviews saying that the quality of the shots made the overall experience somewhat odd. Some said it was like a play on a stage. I can related to that statement very well. When I walk into a Sony store and they have their super hi-res HDTVs streaming Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, the movie actually looks very strange. The edges are too crisp, and you can tell the difference between the actors and the CG background. You can detect too much detail in the sets. Sets are sets for a reason. They are much cleaner, crisper, and less messy than things in real life, but because of that they appear odd when there is too much detail. When you watch a movie it feels very different than when you visit the set at Universal. Being actually on the set feels fake while the purpose of movies is to make things seem real. Confused yet?
The point of a movie is to detach people from real life. Nothing in your actual life actually feels like a movie, and no matter how realistic the acting or storyline of a movie is it still doesn't feel real because things are framed for you in a deliberate way. Movies try to create a different world and immerse you inside, so that you are drawn away from reality for a little bit. To do that the look and feel of the film actually has to be somewhat unreal. Using too sharp a camera and too high a frame rate makes the film world seem like the real one. That's not what the audience is expecting when they enter a theatre.
But for the gamers out there they aim for 30, or even 60 fps, to keep themselves satisfied. How does that work? Well, games are very different. They aren't shot. The sets and characters are automatically unreal regardless of the frame rate. Even the most advanced graphics engines still look fake. The physics and textures are, in my opinion, too perfect to be real. The environments and character models look exactly like that, models. They feel more like a constructed world, where things never breakdown, rather than a real one, where there are constant imperfections.
Regardless of whether we are talking about games or movies or anything else, like books or photos or paintings, there is at some point where the greater resolution or depth or frame rate doesn't add to the experience any further. It might actually detract from it. Better quality sound or picture is only useful if there is a use for it. Online video is the best example of that. Things like Youtube focus mainly on the content. The quality can range from old webcams, to shaky phone cameras, to professionally produced videos, but what really matters is what are you watching. An awesome cat video is still awesome even if it's a little pixelated, as long as you can tell what's going on. More pixels don't really make it that much better. Same goes for music. MP3s are low quality, yet they are small in size and convenient to carry. Better than a high quality file that takes forever to transfer and requires expensive equipment to really appreciate.
The bottom line is that the content is what matters most. The convenience of it probably comes at a close second. Technical detailing varies in importance depending on how much it enhances the content itself. I think people will generally move towards the same consensus. Less focus on tech, more on content.
3.08.2012
Bottoms Up
This makes for an interesting social experiment. The whole Kony2012 movement relies heavily on a bottom-up level of influence, meaning it isn’t dictated from people who already have a lot of influence from the top-down. The people at the bottom end have less power, but greater numbers, so theoretically a union of the bottom could rival the power levels of the top.
One of the main features of the campaign that I am curious about is the level of commitment of the people in this ‘army’ for peace. While it is true that the internet has bred a greater level of interconnectivity, the depth of the interaction is rather shallow most of the time. Viral videos spread ravenously, but only for a limited time. Once the movie, or tv show, or the latest cat sensation has died no one really remembers it anymore. They just get distracted by the next big bandwagon.
With something like social reform, the process is very gradual and requires longevity in focus. It is great that the creator of Kony2012 has worked hard for 8 years to push this movement. That shows a high level of commitment. It is a level that many people can’t carry on their own. It could be because they have their own commitments, their own family, their own career, but I believe one of the greatest obstacles to lasting social change is something inherent in our social culture: individuality. What you do for yourself is more important than the collective. The focus of the Western world has always been this way. That’s why we have a free market. The only reason for cooperation is for the ulterior motive of personal gain. The other reason is for popularity.
The people who contribute to Kony2012 and get a kit might feel like it’s the cool thing to do. Be cool like the other kids. It might seem skeptical, but I don’t believe many of the people putting up the posters would truly understand the message itself, or fully understand what they are fighting for. They are just following orders, which, ironically, validates their ‘army’ structure.
Nonetheless, it is an interesting experiment, and it may or may not be the turning point for social politics on a global scale. Though I have always imagined that the emergence of a global political structure is inevitable, this format might not be what I imagined. To be fair, it is always a surprise how the world develops, so I could be wrong.
1.18.2012
Why SOPA is really a battle of generations
Old ideas versus new ideas. At some point, certain types of technologies and ideas take over older standards and become the new status quo. This is what Schumpter called creative destruction, and this is what SOPA is all about.
People can, and will, knit-pick at the little details regarding this intellectual and cultural battle purely because that's the way the legal system works. In reality there is something much bigger at stake which is the future cultural standard of communications and entertainment. This war started long ago with the entity that was Napster. Piracy ran rampant with this p2p program, and the music industry wasn't happy. So they brought it down and for many years nothing really changed. People still pirated using all the other p2p programs that already existed or were produced to replace Napster. It wasn't until Apple really pushed the mp3 into the realms of digital publishing that it became a legitimate business model.
The problem at this time wasn't that piracy was easy, or preferred, or even really desired. There was simply no convenient alternative. Buying physical CDs and ripping them wasn't the most streamlined process. The power of digital media is that certain physical mediums are no longer necessary. They become obsolete. Why bother buying an actual CD when it will never be put into a player.
Even now the battle for the music realm is continuing. The main difference is how they compete within the digital realm. The battle has moved away from pirating vs. ripping to something like streaming vs. downloading. Markets speak and companies adapt. The ones that don't fail. CD sales are pretty much ignored nowadays. The main focus is on digital downloads.
SOPA is following along the same path that the whole Napster incident, but instead of mp3 it covers a much larger beast called media. Visual media also includes audio. More importantly, it is a central hub for all things creative, from visual art, to dance, to music, movies, sports, advertising, news, and pretty much anything else you can conceive of. Media has become the main source of communications in both the developed and developing worlds. What has changed in the recent decade is how media is consumed, and just like it did with music, there is a major paradigm shift towards digital media. The way the tides have changed it is undeniable that the old style of media is heading towards obsolescence.
No movie is filmed anymore. They are recorded. Music production requires computers. And TVs have lost their bunny ears for digital cables. Even the advertising world has shifted much of its attention towards the internet where more and more of peoples time is invested. Televised programs and movies will undoubtedly become webified as computers become increasingly pertinent, so much so that what we consider a TV is becoming more like a computer, only with a bigger screen.
The old way of doing things can only last so long before it becomes overtaken by the new ways. Nevertheless people resist. No industry or paradigm wants to die gracefully. They would rather go all out in a bloody brawl, guts and all. This is also a reflection of the old ways. Industries, institutions, administrations, nations, religions, ideologies all prefer to fight to stay alive, leaving many in the crossfire, rather than go out peacefully and know when their time is up. SOPA is not likely to live, and neither will old Hollywood. If by some chance the old regime manages to sneak this bill through it will not live through the backlash that will arise.
Once the war of traditional and digital media ends, the war between fossil fuels and renewable energy is still far from over.
People can, and will, knit-pick at the little details regarding this intellectual and cultural battle purely because that's the way the legal system works. In reality there is something much bigger at stake which is the future cultural standard of communications and entertainment. This war started long ago with the entity that was Napster. Piracy ran rampant with this p2p program, and the music industry wasn't happy. So they brought it down and for many years nothing really changed. People still pirated using all the other p2p programs that already existed or were produced to replace Napster. It wasn't until Apple really pushed the mp3 into the realms of digital publishing that it became a legitimate business model.
The problem at this time wasn't that piracy was easy, or preferred, or even really desired. There was simply no convenient alternative. Buying physical CDs and ripping them wasn't the most streamlined process. The power of digital media is that certain physical mediums are no longer necessary. They become obsolete. Why bother buying an actual CD when it will never be put into a player.
Even now the battle for the music realm is continuing. The main difference is how they compete within the digital realm. The battle has moved away from pirating vs. ripping to something like streaming vs. downloading. Markets speak and companies adapt. The ones that don't fail. CD sales are pretty much ignored nowadays. The main focus is on digital downloads.
SOPA is following along the same path that the whole Napster incident, but instead of mp3 it covers a much larger beast called media. Visual media also includes audio. More importantly, it is a central hub for all things creative, from visual art, to dance, to music, movies, sports, advertising, news, and pretty much anything else you can conceive of. Media has become the main source of communications in both the developed and developing worlds. What has changed in the recent decade is how media is consumed, and just like it did with music, there is a major paradigm shift towards digital media. The way the tides have changed it is undeniable that the old style of media is heading towards obsolescence.
No movie is filmed anymore. They are recorded. Music production requires computers. And TVs have lost their bunny ears for digital cables. Even the advertising world has shifted much of its attention towards the internet where more and more of peoples time is invested. Televised programs and movies will undoubtedly become webified as computers become increasingly pertinent, so much so that what we consider a TV is becoming more like a computer, only with a bigger screen.
The old way of doing things can only last so long before it becomes overtaken by the new ways. Nevertheless people resist. No industry or paradigm wants to die gracefully. They would rather go all out in a bloody brawl, guts and all. This is also a reflection of the old ways. Industries, institutions, administrations, nations, religions, ideologies all prefer to fight to stay alive, leaving many in the crossfire, rather than go out peacefully and know when their time is up. SOPA is not likely to live, and neither will old Hollywood. If by some chance the old regime manages to sneak this bill through it will not live through the backlash that will arise.
Once the war of traditional and digital media ends, the war between fossil fuels and renewable energy is still far from over.
1.05.2012
Cleaning Up
Cleaning is such a pain. Why do we even have to bother with it? It would be great if there was a world where cleaning wasn't necessary to live your life, but I guess that's one of the prices we pay for building cities.
I've got some dishes to do, just cleaned the bathroom, and I should probably vacuum at some point before going to work. These things didn't always exist. People used to just eat in the wild and do their number one and two wherever they pleased. It was natural for this to happen and even completed the circle of life. Now everything is indoors, grease and grime don't belong anywhere, and we each have our own little self contained box. We have to keep these things clean otherwise we poison ourselves in our filth.
On the plus side, we get some privacy, disease rates are down, and we get cool magical things like electricity and invisible signals from around the world. It's probably because we have all these new activities to do that cleaning just seems to get in the way. I want to watching some culture breaking videos and help others create virtual worlds, but I gotta go clean the frakken dishes first! Argkk! I hate dishes..... When are we going to have some sort of awesome non-stick nanocoated dishes that become 99.9% germ free just by being awesome. One day.....
I've got some dishes to do, just cleaned the bathroom, and I should probably vacuum at some point before going to work. These things didn't always exist. People used to just eat in the wild and do their number one and two wherever they pleased. It was natural for this to happen and even completed the circle of life. Now everything is indoors, grease and grime don't belong anywhere, and we each have our own little self contained box. We have to keep these things clean otherwise we poison ourselves in our filth.
On the plus side, we get some privacy, disease rates are down, and we get cool magical things like electricity and invisible signals from around the world. It's probably because we have all these new activities to do that cleaning just seems to get in the way. I want to watching some culture breaking videos and help others create virtual worlds, but I gotta go clean the frakken dishes first! Argkk! I hate dishes..... When are we going to have some sort of awesome non-stick nanocoated dishes that become 99.9% germ free just by being awesome. One day.....
12.26.2011
Family Values
My parents are one of the many couples from the past generation that has divorced, and ultimately it's for the better. Louis CK did this bit about how shitty marriages compound on kids and then they grow up and marry other people from shitty marriages and pass it onto their kids. It just all becomes so heavy. At the very least they should get some peace even if it means in two separate households. And that's the truth. The truth is often funny when it's just so bizarre, yet it can be kinda sad if you let it really sink in.
He also did this bit on his show with his Mom visiting by surprise admitting that she's a lesbian. She used to be all alone and neglected, but then she never really showed any affection for her two sons. Louis' brother on the show always loved her, but she can't even say it back. When confronted she just leaves the room.
What I love about Louie show is how honest he is about things. Things are shown in a very raw kind of form most of the time. These things he mention are the truth about a lot of families. Parents and children on pretty much every other show are expected to have this unconditional love for one another, and regardless of the tragedies that happen in life family is always there for you. In reality this just isn't the case. Unless you have good parents who really cared about you, not just cared for you, this kind of loving relationship isn't natural. I honestly believe any kind of love is never automatic. It has to be developed.
The same thing goes for siblings. Just because you live together and share some common genes doesn't really mean you will all get along. People change as they grow up and develop into different people. The good parenting thing mentioned above usually helps form good relationships between siblings too. It helps for the family to share experiences together, but still be open to the different paths that open up between family members. Sibling rivalry isn't so common for no reason. Not everyone wants to fall into the shadows of those older than them, so they try hard to differentiate themselves and create value for themselves in the family. If your siblings aren't open to these changes it just pull them apart.
Love has to develop. And anything that develops can fail to develop or it can be broken.
Having family and living under the same roof only gives people lots of opportunities to interact. It doesn't guarantee that they will care about one another or love one another. That only happens when they share their experiences together in a positive way and make it through the bad experiences. The belief that love is automatic and unconditional is a myth. It has been shown time and again that people cheat, abuse, harass, exploit, and cast out those they are supposed to love. These things only happen because the love was never there or because it was lost somewhere along the way.
Sharing blood and sharing names is only a start. It's the effort along the way that really matters. This is why we can learn to love strangers who become our partners and our friends. Family who don't talk to one another are no closer than strangers in a building. It takes effort to make family into partners and friends in life too.
Love is not a guarantee. It is something that we work towards and fight for.
He also did this bit on his show with his Mom visiting by surprise admitting that she's a lesbian. She used to be all alone and neglected, but then she never really showed any affection for her two sons. Louis' brother on the show always loved her, but she can't even say it back. When confronted she just leaves the room.
What I love about Louie show is how honest he is about things. Things are shown in a very raw kind of form most of the time. These things he mention are the truth about a lot of families. Parents and children on pretty much every other show are expected to have this unconditional love for one another, and regardless of the tragedies that happen in life family is always there for you. In reality this just isn't the case. Unless you have good parents who really cared about you, not just cared for you, this kind of loving relationship isn't natural. I honestly believe any kind of love is never automatic. It has to be developed.
The same thing goes for siblings. Just because you live together and share some common genes doesn't really mean you will all get along. People change as they grow up and develop into different people. The good parenting thing mentioned above usually helps form good relationships between siblings too. It helps for the family to share experiences together, but still be open to the different paths that open up between family members. Sibling rivalry isn't so common for no reason. Not everyone wants to fall into the shadows of those older than them, so they try hard to differentiate themselves and create value for themselves in the family. If your siblings aren't open to these changes it just pull them apart.
Love has to develop. And anything that develops can fail to develop or it can be broken.
Having family and living under the same roof only gives people lots of opportunities to interact. It doesn't guarantee that they will care about one another or love one another. That only happens when they share their experiences together in a positive way and make it through the bad experiences. The belief that love is automatic and unconditional is a myth. It has been shown time and again that people cheat, abuse, harass, exploit, and cast out those they are supposed to love. These things only happen because the love was never there or because it was lost somewhere along the way.
Sharing blood and sharing names is only a start. It's the effort along the way that really matters. This is why we can learn to love strangers who become our partners and our friends. Family who don't talk to one another are no closer than strangers in a building. It takes effort to make family into partners and friends in life too.
Love is not a guarantee. It is something that we work towards and fight for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)