GoodbyeSickan's Xanga

Goodbye, Sickan

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:00:51 GMT

There are some movies you watch and then forget. There are some movies that you love for a while and then outgrow. There are a very few that you watch, rewatch, and then come back to years later and find it still has things to teach you.

My Life as a Dog is one of those rare films. I started this blog four years ago with a desire to use film as a way of processing and expressing the unarticulated feelings inside of me. Thanks to some unexpected plot-twists in my own life, the pieces inside of me ended up spilling out in a much different way than I had intended. In the end, though, it was all good. I went on my own coming-of-age epic (albeit later in life than most of the protagonists in my favorite films) and ended up a happier, more self-sustaining person.

My journey sometimes resembled Ingemar's journey. Like him, I had a lot of unexpressed guilt and a sense of overwhelming responsibility about things that I could not possibly have controlled. In the movie, his desire to get back his dog (now dead) symbolized his desire to return to the world of simple childhood where his sense of safety and self-worth was based on outside forces. When these forces let him down (his dog died, his mother died) he blamed himself and tried to run away from himself -- ultimately choosing to act like a dog rather than face the world (MY life as a dog, therefore, is a double meaning: both that the poor boy is pushed around like a stray as well as his attempts to avoid the intracies of the adult human world). In the end -- and this is something I did not understand about the movie when I began this blog -- he discovers that he is worthy of love, but that he must open himself to finding that love rather than expecting it to come to him. The adult world is harsher than the world of children because we must seek out those who will care about us rather than waiting for them to seek us out. It is also better because we are not slaves to the whims and destinies of other souls for our own happiness. So Ingemar is able to open himself to a world of new friendships and lovers that he had held at arms length while he waited to get back to his forever lost old life.

And its time for me to move on. This blog has served me well as a place to exlore my new sense of self, but there comes a time to break off some ties. Like Ingemar, I'm done waiting for my old life to somehow get back on track. Its not going to happen, and I don't want it to. Its not who I am anymore. And, as much as I've loved this blog, the ties to the old world are too strong. Half of the visitors here are people who never knew the old me. But the other half are old real-life friends from long ago, friends who I've probably thrown for a loop by some of the things I've discovered about myself. They are almost like ghosts: I see their footprints, they come to the site, read my latest confessions, and then leave without ever making a sound. I used to wonder what they think of me, why did they keep reading if they didn't want to talk to me? I would try to re-establish contact, but to no avail. But now I know I need to just move on. I can't live half in a ghost world of fading friendships, especially when I know that even now seeing those footprints on my page sometimes keeps me from being as honest as I want. Most of the time, I am done with being judged by people who have never bothered to get inside my mind. But in my weaker moments I still let their imagined condemnation of me get in the way of exploring who I am.

So I'm casting off the past, starting anew. I'm probably throwing out some good with the bad, but sometimes its better to cut off too much than too little. There is no one I don't want to talk to. If anyone, new friend or old relation, wants to talk to me I'm happy to hear from you. Its not about people not being worthy of me. Its about me no longer sitting around wondering why old friends aren't speaking to me. A child sits around and cries to be taken care of. An adult goes out and finds the place where he belongs. For me, right now, thats not here.

I've deleted a handful of my old posts. I didn't want to take them all down, but there were some I didn't want to leave up forever. I used to offer my darkest secrets as an offering to the world, somehow believing that if I was open and vulnerable to the universe it would be kinder to me. Now I know that my heart is precious thing, and what I share of its wealth is up to me. So I've left up anything I've written that I've felt is helpful to others, but taken down what is just about me.

I'll probably blog again if I find the right community. It's in my blood now. Write me a message if you want to know when and if I set up shop again. That goes for my "old" friends too. There's no one I am asctively seeking to cut off. Its just time to start a new chapter -- one where seeking out people who actually like the new me replaces sitting around and wondering why so-and-so never talks to me anymore.

Goodbye, Sickan. You were a kid's best friend, a comfort in a confusing world. I'd hold onto you forever if I could, but things pass quickly in this life. I know you'd want me to keep moving, keep seeking out who I am.

Homosexuality, Interracial Marriage, and how we interpret scripture

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:43:03 GMT

In my limited experience, when Christians try to discuss God’s position on homosexuality, the argument often hangs on a finite number of verses – mostly the story of Sodom, the purity laws of the Torah, and Paul’s admonishments. That’s some serious scriptural weight. We’re not talking about some obscure passage in Jude or an oft-neglected metaphor in Malachi. Moses and Paul – these are the heavy hitters. Ignore them and you might as well throw out the Bible. And yet we do need to realize that our understanding of these authors is affected by the world we live in and the beliefs of those who raised us. That’s not a good or bad thing – it just is.

If we accept the Bible as God’s holy Word, we should never go into it seeking to prove something. Rather we should try to have an open mind and allow the words to affect our viewpoint. Some people will say that the scriptures are so blatantly clear against homosexual actions that only those with an agenda could possibly find any way around those injunctions. Lev. 20: 13, for instance. Or Romans 1:27. I’m not going to argue here about these difficult passages. I’m not going to try to change anyone’s mind in a single blog post. What I am going to ask of you (and I understand that even this is asking a lot) is to just consider the possibility that the way we interpret these passages has much to do with how we grew up and who we surround ourselves with -- even to the point that it is sometimes almost impossible to get a clear, objective perspective.

Let me explain by talking about interracial marriage. Fortunately, in this day and age the majority of the church has come to the opinion that interracial marriage is no big deal. However, just two generations ago (30-50 years) there was a widespread belief among Christians that interracial marriage was not just unwise, it was expressly forbidden by the scriptures.

I had to do some digging, but through reading some old sermons I think I’ve been able to glean the main passages that brought these otherwise godly men and women to such a seemingly bizarre conclusion. I’ve tried to get into their heads here, so take the following not as my beliefs but as my understanding of what American Christians used to believe:

*Genesis 11: 1-8 God destroyed the city of Babel because of the wickedness of different races coming together.

*Deut 32: 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. God divided all mankind. Races are from Him and therefore should remain separate.

*Joshua 11:12-13 “But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them, 13 then you may be sure that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you. Instead, they will become snares and traps for you, whips on your backs and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land, which the LORD your God has given you. Punishment comes from intermarrying with other nations, causing God to pull back blessings he had previously promised.

*Ezra 10 This chapter begins “While Ezra was praying and confessing, weeping and throwing himself down before the house of God, a large crowd of Israelites—men, women and children—gathered around him. They too wept bitterly. 2 Then Shecaniah son of Jehiel, one of the descendants of Elam, said to Ezra, "We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us. But in spite of this, there is still hope for Israel. 3 Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. It continues by listing every family that had committed the sin of intermarriage. This was such a major issue that a full 20% of the book of Ezra is about the problem of intermarriage.

*Acts 17: 26 “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.” God created the races and it was He who determined they should live in different places.

*Rev. 5: 9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. God obviously recognizes tribes and nations as being distinct one from another. At least one person from every race will be in heaven, but even there they have their race. Races are meant to remain separate.

Bleah, I feel like vomiting after writing all that. But everything I just wrote was once believed by a large number of people. People who loved God, loved their family, and may have even fought for civil rights. It seems strange now, but there was a time when organizations fought against biracial couples being able to adopt. Even today, there are places where bi-racial children are seen as an abomination to God’s law.

It sounds silly and strange to interpret these passages this way. That’s because the world we live in (and I mean the world of believers), the Christian leaders who have molded the way we see the Bible, have modeled a certain way of looking at passages from the Bible. Even though God remains the same, the culture and language of people change, and their perspective of things shifts.

I am not saying I have the “real” meanings of verses connected with homosexuality. I have my own ideas, and I’ll share them if you want, but right now all I’m asking of you is that you allow yourself the possibility that the way you interpret scripture is clouded by your preconceptions. I’m not asking you to question God. I’m simply asking you to admit that when it comes to interpreting scripture, no one is perfect. In that thought, we can all find a lifetime supply of humility.

Words worth a thousand images

Tue, 19 May 2009 09:49:50 GMT

I just saw the new trailer for "The Road" based on Cormac McCarthy's book. I never judge a movie based on the trailer, but I do have to say I am a little bewildered by the mere idea to make this book into a movie. Don't get me wrong -- I am a big fan of McCarthy (and was before "The Road" came out). I am also a big fan of post-apocalypse movies. So shouldn't this be right up my alley? Plot-wise, sure. But McCarthy's least spectacular talents lie in the area of plot formation. Sure, he's decent in moving the story forward. But his real genius lies in word-crafting -- particularly descriptions and inner monologues. These are things that do not translate to the screen well.

The basic plot of the story (parent & child survive disaster, parent loses hope but hangs on long enough to provide a safe future for his child) has been done a million times, both with and without a worldwide apocalyptic twist. It is not a bad story. Like the monomyth, its the kind of tale that can be told over and over and still resonate with our souls. But the plot in itself is simple, and the problem is plot is really the only thing that movies do right.

I'm not knocking cinema. I love films and feel in some ways they are a lot more relevent to modern society than any recently published book. But movies hang on sudden plot twists and unexpected reveals. These are things that work better in movies than in even the best W.W. Jacobs stories. When it comes to expressing a state of mind, a view of the world, a sense of the future -- movies are very clunky about these things and usually have to resort to visual allegories to get the point across, cliche symbols that would be dismissed as obvious and overused if they were in written form. Without the author subtly guiding the description to leave clues about a deeper significance, a barren wasteland is just a barren wasteland -- capable of evoking little more than a general sense of despair. In such instance, a word can be worth a thousand images.

People often say not to worry about movie versions, because the original book still stands beside it. For authors like Tolkien, whose genius lies in bold, verbose dialogue and stunning plotlines, I agree. He is too strong a voice to be wiped out by any alternative version. But I worry for authors like McCormac, whose genius lies in a much more subtle language of mental starkness. The film will undoubtablyh have no problem precisely recreating the book's simple plot, but in being able to so accurately capture the external and less important aspects of the narrative, it may completely overwrite the story in the minds of the audience, replacing a small heart-wrenching fable with a grand sci-fi extravaganza.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:01:55 GMT

warning: this post is a lot more religious than most of the stuff I write. deal with it.

Christ has risen.

Its no more true on this day than any other, but its no less true either. I dont usually speak church-ese, but I happen to agree with the above statement. It's why I call myself a Christian and it is the one thing, sometimes the only thing, I have in common with the multitudes of church-goers at sunrise services right now. My faith is not an easy thing. Most of the time, it would be easier for me to not believe. Not going to get in a theological apology of it all right now. There are things I read in the Bible that make God seem complicated, contradictory, and unknowable. But that's no argument about whether he exists. A lot of people, especially authority figures, often seem complicated, contradictory, and unknowable. Doesn't mean they're not real. I don't want to get into specifics because I know peoplec will want to discuss the merits of this or that translation and how it relates to other passages. That's fine, nothing wrong with that -- but what I'm saying here is not about specific dillemmas in trying to understand God, just that these conundrums exist. And those things mess me up inside because I want to please God. Its not a feeling of should, or even asking if I could. I just want. Its such a deep desire in me that I'm not sure its not the base of most of what I've done in my life -- both good and bad. I want to make him happy so bad, like I'm a little kid getting to skip school to go to work with my dad.

That desire isn't something I really act on anymore. At least, not by itself. That kind of zeal has led me down too many dead-ends, where I ended up being totally lost in what I thought God wanted and totally separated from being true to myself. These days, I focus on how big God is. He's not going to fall down or crumble because I make a mistake. He's not going to throw a tantrum if I don't get everything right. The world isn't going to end if I don't discern God's exact will for how long I should push myself on the treadmill. He'll be there, so big that He doesn't need us to know He's there -- I need Him. He was there, alive and in charge, long before I met him. And the fact that the longer I live, the less I realize I understand about him -- that doesn't change the base of my faith. The one thing, intangible and invisible, that led me to him in the first place:

His love for me.

He doesn't love me because I love him. I love him because He first loved me.

And nothing can separate me from that love.

That's the base, the ground floor, the foundation.

Anything I say beyond that is just window-dressing.

Have a good sunday, everyone.

Chivalry's not dead, but it sure is sick

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:24:49 GMT

Ever notice how conversations about "how to treat a woman" proceed?

First, a man will say "I treat women with respect."

Another man will pipe in with "Women really want us to lead."

A third man will agree, saying "its our duty to honor a woman by protecting her."

About then, without being asked, a woman will pipe in: "Women don't want you to lead!"

Then another woman will respond "Yes, we do. We need men's strength and leadership."

Someone else (sometimes a man, sometimes a woman) will try to be diplomatic and make a compromise: "men should protect women, but they can't control women."

So they all grudginly agree that it is chivalrous for a man to protect a woman and honor her by being sensitive to her, but wrong of a man to demand a woman to obey his every whim. Thus, the solution reached is not one of equality but rather one of temperment: the man can be in charge as long as he is nice about it.

The problem with this conversation is that it treats 50% of the population of the world as if they were of a single mind and demeanor. It says that roles in a relationship should be determined by supposedly universal decrees rather than looking at what works for each individual relationship.

The very quesiton "what do women want," in fact, dehumanizes women. Why treat women as some huge single unknowable obselisk? Why not turn to a woman and ask her "what do YOU want, as an individual?" Some women will say they want to be an equal. Others will claim to thrive under the authority of a strong man. But until it is a question to the individual and not about women as a group, you will never get to know the person you love.

The same thing is true for men. The statement "this is what men should do" limits and stifles individual strengths and weaknesses. Why not turn to a man and ask him "what do YOU want, as an individual?" Some men will say they want to be an equal. Others will claim to thrive under the authority of a strong woman. But until it is a question to the individual and not about men as a group, you will never get to know the person you love.

That is the danger and sickness inside chivalry or any other term meant to encapsulate some code of proper conduct between the sexes. A man who says he honors a woman, but claims that all women at their heart want the same thing, is a sick person. He is cut off from not only the true individuality of his lover, but of himself because he forces himself into a role based on the role he forces her into. He does not let the relationship develop naturally. For some relationships, perhaps even for the majority of them, the truth is similar enough to the "code" that the damage will never be noticed. But for the millions of men and women whose abilities and desires do not conform to the decrees of "chivalry," it is a crippling illness that will keep them all their lives from discovering who their partner is and who they are themselves.

THIS IS NOT A POEM

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:41:25 GMT

This is not a poem

A poem cannot exist on paper. It is a song, a shout, a verbal expression. When it is written down, it is something else: a set of instructions perhaps. What are these linebreaks and spaces? They are stage directions -- rules, skeletons even, but not life. And poems that rely on visual presenation? Poems that, without being triple spaced or strangely capitalized we would not know they're poems? Those are something else. They are pictures, a drawing. Maybe art, but not poetry. Poetry is spoken, shouted, and sighed. Until it reaches another's ears, it is only dead air escaping self-absorbed lungs. Or dead ink on dying fingers. Touch it, fondle it, but do not raise it to your lips. Insert metaphor here. Inset cliche here. Insert folk saying here, put just half of it in quotations to make it seem ironic. Follow the meter then mess it up, just to prove you knew it was there. Hide it in a book. Print it on the page. Put it in a box. Keep it static, keep it safe. Shove it up your ass, but keep it off your tongue.

Preparing for insanity

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:25:50 GMT

This post began as a reply to AngelVanished's March 29th entry, but it kept getting bigger and more general so I decided to put it here.

Anyone who has kept up with my blog knows that I'm bipolar. Its something I've dealt with most of my life and I am fortunately at a place now where I am aware of it enough to limit its impact.

There are a whole host of stages that I enter, most of them lasting weeks at a time. The cycle usually goes: depressed, "normal," manic-happy, manic-obsessive, manic-angry, "normal," back to depressed. Its not nearly as obvious to others as it used to be, but I still feel them. Prescription medication, once something I dreaded, is something I've found can be very useful in letting me keep a clear head. I also use some techniques that I've developed on my own over the years.

The most useful technique has been to take mental "snapshots" of myself to remember for later. For instance, when I'm manic and extremely upbeat about life, I take a mental photograph of myself. I record everything I'm feeling and every reason I'm feeling that way. I make a picture in my head of what I call the "happy me." Then, when I am depressed, I pull out this "happy me." The sad me isn't cheered up by the happy me, but it does help me realize that whatever I'm going through, its got at least a 50-50 shot of getting better again. I do the same thing when I'm depressed, to later remind the manic me not to start projects that I won't have the energy to finish later.

I've also taught myself to be super deliberate about myself and what I do. I regularly visualize an overhead camera watching me. This helps me see my situation from an objective perspective, to see if I'm over-reacting. It doesn't always work, but it helps. For instance, I hate it when area rugs are out of place. I always hate it. But when I am manic, it makes me so mad that my face turns red and I used to throw things. Crazy. right? Well, now when I feel that level of rage coming on, I say to myself "oh, its one of THOSE days." Then I know not to trust myself that day. I try not to write angry blog entries (though at the time I'm convinced I absolutely need to) and I make extra attempts to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt because I know I'm not in my right mind. If I have the time and space, I'll lose myself in some project -- either fixing a computer, redecorating a room, or a marathon session of a single-player video game. Its just gotta be something that releases mental energy at a more or less constant pace -- without the chaos of another person -- for an extended period of time.

Similarly, I take precautions when I feel myself slipping into depression. Depression is something I used to think I could avoid through prayer, exercise, sex, friendships, I'd try all sorts of things. But for me its a chemical reality, and what I have to do is realize that, just like in my manic stages, I've lost perspective. Its not that the things I feel aren't real, its that I'm looking at them through a magnifying glass. I'm not seeing the wide world that holds these little specks in check. Its not easy, but the sooner in the cycle I just admit to myself where I am, then I can focus on being okay at not seeing the whole picture, knowing it'll come into focus again.

What about you guys? Do you suffer from these kind of chemical changes? Do you do anything to "prepare" for oncoming depression, or maybe other bad moods that you can see coming?

Who needs a soul? Let me tell you 'bout my robot friends . . .

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:05:27 GMT

Bender: “you’d want a robot as a friend?”

Fry: “sure, ever since I was five.”

Ok, and now for something completely different. I was watching the finale of the new Battlestar Galactica the other night, and it got me thinking. I'm a geek.And, as a geek, I have always felt that it was the great shame of our generation that we were born too early to take advantage of the concept of mechanical men (err, that didn’t come out right).What I mean is, like Phillip J. Fry, I have always wanted a robot for a friend.You might want to ask me why I want a robot for a friend, but if you did ask me that I’d have my robot friend kick you in the shins.And you couldn’t do anything about it because, hey, he’s a robot.He doesn’t even have shins.But then you might ask “well, wouldn’t there be some kind of law against robots hurting humans like in I, Robot?”And if you did ask that, I’d have my robot friend kick you in the shins again, because its my fantasy and I make the rules, got it? Besides, anything with Will Smith in it doesn't count. He's like the Scrappy-Doo of science-fiction.

Now that we’ve got that all straightened out, I bring you the top ten robots I’d want as my friends.

10. R2-D2

awesome. couldn't leave him off my list. but not much to say about him that hasn't already been said. moving on . . .

9. The Robot from "Lost In Space"

8. Twiki from "Buck Rogers"

Bidi-bidi-bidi!

7. "T-800" from Terminator-2

Seriously, what kid with father issues wouldn't want this guy in their life?

6. Vicki from "Small Wonder"

This show was probably my first guilty pleasure. It was so wonderfully bad I just had to include it on my list.

And now for my top 5 . . .

5. A.W.E.S.O.M.-O (South Park)

“A.W.E.S.O.M.-O would like some cheesy poofs”

A.W.E.S.O.M.-O would be an awesome friend.He is programmed to do just about anything a little kid would want, like play video games, deliver anal suppositories, and even pitch movie concepts for a hundred bucks a pop.The only problem with A.W.E.S.O.M.-O is that he’s not really a robot, he’s just a fast smelly kid in a cardboard box.Oh well, it was definitely the most likable version of Eric Cartman I’ve ever seen.

4. H.E.L.P.E.R. (The Venture Brothers)

“Beep-beeep-beep”

H.E.L.P.E.R. is the obsolete baby-sitter of the now grown Dr. Venture.His existence is both an aid to the doctor and an annoying reminder of his wasted youth.In outer appearance, he seems to be the love child of an office chair and a drawing lamp.His one redeeming quality is his unwavering loyalty, which is why he makes this list.

3.Jude Law in A.I.

Oh come on.Who wouldn’t want their very own love-bot?OK, I know – this isn’t THAT kind of column.But think about all the other stuff you could do with your very own Jude Law.You could,um, well,. . . Anyways, if nothing else you could always have him impersonate the real Jude Law so you could meet his friend Terry Gilliam. That’d be worth something.

2. DATA (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

I'm particularly thinking of this one episode where Data befriends this little boy who lost his parents in a horrible accident (why did they think whole families serving on the same ship was a good idea?Can’t they just all communicate via holodeck – I mean, those things have got to be networked, right?)Anyway, the kid decides he’s going to become an android to get away from his pain.He talks like Data. follows him around, does everything he does.Here’s the cool part: Data is totally down with it.He’s never annoyed at the kid, never tells him to get a life or to grow up.Data has this tremendous amount of knowledge, but he never lords it over anyone.He’s always very open-minded and ready to learn.You rock, Mr. Data.You rock.

1. Bender

“bite my shiny metal ass”

Its Bender.The coolest robot ever.This guy is so cool, he can knock over liquor stores and still come off as lovable.He’s the reason Futurama got the “black lung” award year after year (an mock-award given out to shows that are irresponsible about how they portay tobacco usage).Basically, Bender can get away with anything.Yeah, he’s got this obsession with killing humans, but its mostly all talk so chances are you’ll be safe.And you’ll never be bored.

That's it for me. What robots do you wish you could have around? Or any fictional characters for that matter. Maybe you think the giant robots from Neon-Genesis Evangelion would be better. You'd be wrong, but what can I do about it?

OK, now it might have occurred to you that some of these are androids, not technically robots.If that thought did cross your brain, I’d suggest you keep that to yourself.Your shins need the rest.

No, It wasn't your son.

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:16:43 GMT

To what extent is it ethical to fictionalize about a dilemma that you've never actually been in?

Not exactly your normal Xanga question, but one I feel is important. simbathe2nd recently posted "Killing my Son," a fictional account of a woman's emotions after a failed abortion.

Fictionally putting yourself in someone else's shoes is a tricky endeavor. Obviously, anyone who has ever written anything that is not 100% true has experimented in this. Its the joy and often the very purpose of fiction writing -- to understand life through someone else's eyes. But there is a difference between using fiction to try to understand someone else and using fiction as an excuse to judge someone else.

Lets take, for example, the depiction of native Americans in the poetry of Longfellow (particularly the long poems "The Courtship of Miles Standish" and "The Song of Hiawatha.") A glancing look at his poetry can lead one to believe that Longfellow is sympathetic toward Native Americans. They are seen as strong warriors who want to protect their way of life. A closer look, however, reveals that Longfellow liked to portray Native Americans as incredibly violent, unnecessarily cruel, and incapable of having the same range of emotion as Europeans. So while he romanticizes their struggles and their hunts, he always comes down to the idea that they are incomplete people. More importantly, he leaves no room for doubt in his portrayal: he is absolutely sure that he understands Native Americans.

That is the real danger in stepping into someone else's shoes: believing that you can reach reliable conclusions. It is a noble thing to reach for understanding, it is an arrogant thing to think you've ever reached it. It is especially troubling when your estimation of how someone else should feel leads that character to self-hatred -- because in doing so, you are revealing your hatred of them.

When you present a fictional portrayal of someone, but do so in a manner that seems to indicate that you understand what they are feeling, the conclusions you make come dangerously close to saying "this is what people who have actually been in that situation SHOULD feel." Its a dangerous move because you can't really get in their heads, and its not fair of you to define you are they are for them. If you’ve talked to them, just let them share their story as they want to. No sense making up your own. To me, it reeks of trying to control their heart.

Mad Video Game Skills (as in, my skills at handling video games that used to make me mad)

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:27:02 GMT

Wow.What a year it’s been.When I look back at events beyond one year ago, sometimes I feel like I am looking into another life, the memories of someone who grew up with me but is not me.Not that I've developed a split personality.In fact, I’d say I'm more of a whole person now than I ever have been – a person more aware of whom I am and willing to accept every part of me.

After I quit student teaching, I found myself delightfully lost.For the first time in my adult life, I was without a clear direction or path.It was incredibly refreshing.You know that part of “Office Space” where the main guy gets hypnotized so he doesn’t worry about anything?It was like that.I had this chemically induced epiphany of how little what other people thought of me mattered.My wife and I have always been great at communicating and now it just got better.I care about her and she cares about me, but it was so freeing to be able to talk about what we wanted out of life completely apart from what we thought we were “supposed” to want.And this led to all sorts of revelations.

One of the small but in my mind significant revelations was a definite change in the way I played video games.I love video games.I always have.But I used to get so irritable when I was playing them that I could only play them when no one else was around or else I’d snap at them.Now I realized how insane this is.I used to look at that little score in the corner of the screen and, totally without realizing it, a little part of me would actually let that score determine how I felt about myself.I was so adrift in a sea of external expectations that I even let 16-bit code tell me how I should feel about myself.It’s a revelation that I still use in my life when I come up against a negative person.Where I used to feel bad about myself, now I just visualize that video game score going down. And as it goes down, I recognize how silly it is to gauge anything real by it.

Sorry for dragging this out.This whole series of reflections has gotten a lot longer than I meant it to be.But I think I’d rather take this slow and really examine all the ways my life has changed.So more revelations to come.