Darkness and Light

    Darkness is not evil.  Darkness is only what we cannot see.  Some of what is in darkness is just there.  Some of those who dwell in darkness are there because they do not wish to be seen.  There can be many reasons to want to hide.  Some of those who dwell in darkness are there because they cannot leave.  Others stay because they will not leave those who cannot leave at the mercy of those who hunt in the dark.

    It is dangerous in the dark.  Even when there is nothing that wishes you harm, you may not see dangers to avoid them, or those who are dangerous may not see you to avoid you.  Many predators can see well or otherwise find their way in the dark.  They might take easy prey.

    It is easy in the darkness to decide you must be either predator or prey.  Even in the dark though, there is good and evil in all of us.  The prey may grow powerful and become predators.  Power does not make one a predator, though.  The greatest power is needed to protect.  Keen sight is needed to see through the darkness.  Fortitude is needed to bear the injuries meant for the weak.  Greater strength is needed to restrain than to attack, because there is good in all, even the predators.  Patience and will are needed to protect without oppressing.

    Light is not good.  Light just means something is illuminated to be seen.  Just because it walks in the light does not mean it is not evil or dangerous, it just means it is either better at hiding its unsavoryness, or powerful enough not to need to hide.  Light can lead to complacency, and too much light can blind.  Evil and dangerous things can want the security of seeing around themselves just as much as the good and the weak.

    It is dangerous in the light.  It is easy to believe what you cannot see cannot be there.  It is easy to lose fear and respect for the monsters when you see them in the light.  Just because you see something does not make it not dangerous.  Just because you see much does not mean you see all.

    Also, it is easy to forget that no matter how well lit it is where you stand, darkness is never far away.

(Reposted from a prior blog, where it was written by the same author under a different name, and posted on 3/18/2012)

Generational Armageddon: Teenagers are the End of the World

    In the news, in the break-room, wherever adults gather to trade information; sooner or later the subject of the young ones coming into adulthood will come up.  It will come up, and it is the end of the world as we know it.  They have no respect, they don't know how good they have it, they don't understand what they are doing, and they are destroying their lives before they've even begun.

    In cafeterias, coffee shops, fast food places, and wherever else the young have claimed as theirs for the moment to sit and discuss the world; sooner or later the subject of what a sorry state it is in will come up.  The need for change of how the world is run will be discussed; the end of the world as we know it so that a new world can be born.

    In some symbolic traditions Death has a very interesting meaning.  That symbolic meaning is change that requires one thing to end for another to begin.  In these symbolic systems, Death is one of the few symbols that can always be seen as positive.  In these symbolic systems, this type of change is also the one that is met with the most fear and anxiety.

    In the Christian Bible, there is one book that is hardest to interpret, fascinating for many, but most frightening in it's imagery to most.  This is the book of Revelation.  It is filled with destruction, death, and change.  It also has the triumphant return of Christ in all of his glory and the promised Kingdom of God on earth.

    Every generation looks at the way that the next generation is changing everything they have built and can see the world as they know it ending.  Every generation looks at a world they are born into, and envisions a new world they can build.  Every generation sees the symbols of Revelation and interprets them in their times to see that the world is ending.  Maybe one generation some day, the youth will truly end the world for good.  Maybe some day the symbols of Revelation will play out for the final time and there will be no further improvement for the next generation.

     For now, every generation tears down some of what has been built before and builds up something new.  We work to tear out the darkness in the world and build the City of God on earth.  Sometimes we come closer than others.  Every generation has change though, every generation tries with greater or lesser success to learn from those before them, every generation has taxes, and every generation dies.  Every generation has their Revelation, and for them the world ends as they know it so that they may enter the Kingdom of God.

(Re-posted from a prior blog written by this author under another name. Originally posted on 5/1/2012)

An author with dyspraxia dysgraphia, isn't that kind of like a tone-deaf songwriter?

    There will be many little confessions down the way, but this is the first one I want to get out there. I'm a bit cross-wired in the head. I suffer from dyspraxia and the related dysgraphia. No, dyspraxia is not related to dyslexia. The word looks the same, and can have some similar results (including its own form of dysgraphia) but what is known about how it works is quite different. The best, though not technically accurate, description of the difference is that dyslexia is problems with getting info in, while dyspraxia is problems with getting it out. Dyspraxia roughly means uncoordinated. Dysgraphia means I have poor handwriting. As I am typing my writing, it would seem that this should not be a problem. However, the causes of the poor coordination and bad handwriting are still a problem.

    My writing is still heavily affected by these, because the way dyspraxia and dysgraphia manifest in my cross-wired brain affects the way I process many aspects of language, and heavily affects my organizational abilities. My dyspraxia doesn't make it impossible for me to do anything. It just makes quite a few things way harder than they should be or take way longer than they should take. It makes me take longer to write or type, it makes me have to pause longer to think on correct spellings or grammar, and it makes it take more effort and energy than normal for these tasks. This all taking longer and more effort leads to it being more frustrating and easy for me to be distracted. Also, more time to finish can mean more time to be tempted to change plot or setting details. This often spirals into total rewrites. It takes longer to jot down ideas and notes.

    I have still chosen to try my hand at professional writing because, disabled or not, I love telling stories. I love teaching. I love opening minds to new wonders, ideas, and possibilities. I am heavily inspired in this by a professor who took me under his wing some years ago. He suffered from mathematical dyslexia, but he loved mathematics so much anyways that he had risen to being the head of a university math department. He is an incredibly gifted man in many areas; however, his passions drove him not just to excel at what was easiest for him, but to specialize in what he loved that was hardest for him. In school, English was my favorite and most despised subject. I loved the stories, the images, the characters, the themes, and the worlds. I hated the spelling, the grammar, the punctuation, and the handwriting. I loved to write long, complex essays and stories on a multitude of subjects. I hated how I would never have enough time to finish, and the bloody gashes ripped in it by the teacher's red pen. I don't know if there is a much more eloquent way to tell a child to not bother trying to learn than symbolically massacring their work with crimson ink. Then again, if some other color were the standard for correction, I might feel the same about it.

    There isn't really that much known about these disabilities. They aren't exactly the kind of thing that gets nationwide fundraisers for research. I work with kids and teens with many of the more extreme disabilities and disorders, and I have to agree that they need the help first. Mine is a disadvantage and an aggravation. As far as I can tell, the current thought on the dyspraxia related disorders is that they have something to do with the way short term memory functions, and that it is disruptive to my muscle memory learning things. It also is disruptive of other organizational connections in the mind. I am not an expert on these disorders in general. Really, with how varied it seems they can be, it seems not many people are. I just know what experts have told me and what I have observed from my own experiences.

    I will probably go into more depth about this later if it seems there is an interest. Right now though, I'm starting putting my writing out there. I feel it is important, especially since I am writing under a pen name, to have a place where anyone who enjoys my writing can learn about where it comes from.

    For years I have nurtured stories, worlds, and characters in my mind. I can't just keep them contained any longer. I've started a few times, but kept becoming discouraged or distracted by the way my life kept falling apart. With this post, I'm not trying to claim I shouldn't be accountable for flaws in my work. Point them out, please, if you see them. I'm merely asking for patience. I really am writing as quickly and correctly as I can.

(Re-posted from a prior blog, written and posted by the same writer, on 12/03/2011)

A Passion for Continuous Improvement as a Whole Person

One of the pursuits that I am most passionate about is continuous improvement as a whole person. I have always had a passion for learning and helping teach others, but I remember when I finally had the epiphany that leveling up wasn’t just for characters in games, and that there was no good reason why I could not constantly improve on every axis. I find hope and inspiration in looking at my flaws, weaknesses, and even my strengths, then comparing all of those to a vision of my ideal self. From this comparison, I can plot a character progression by which I, in real life, seek to constantly draw closer to becoming my ideal self.

I do not just study one subject, I bounce between subjects so that, as one begins to feel like work, I bounce to another that is fun and new, and will come back to the prior subject once it is invigorating again. I have found that the more diverse my studies are, the better context I have for any individual subject. Studying history helps with understanding philosophy, which both help with understanding sociology, which helps with studying belief systems, which in turn helps me understand the reasons events happened in history and the beliefs that shaped philosophies. Understanding the physics of metallurgy and the chemistry of leather tanning informs the study of tactics of warfare in ancient civilizations, as it relates to supplying armies and a thousand other factors. I have found that almost every subject leans upon others, and that my understanding of them all increases with educating myself on any of them.

I don’t just train my mind, but my body as well. I’m in my mid-thirties; I am healthier, stronger, and in less pain than I was in my mid-twenties. Through studying advances in diet, exercise science, and physical therapy methods, not only am I able to improve my strength and heart rate, but every other area as well. In my twenties, my body and joints were in constant pain. Now, my body only hurts when it is sore, or when something is wrong. My joints have improved to a point of almost having no problems, and they have improved this way at the time of life when my joints are supposed to have started rolling down an inevitable path to failure. There is no good reason not to, at least, walk every day. With an inexpensive gym membership, I have access to low-impact cardio equipment and resistance machines to build up the strength and injury resistance of every part of my body.

Trying to stay the same, and never change, is a battle that can’t be won. If you fight just to not lose ground, sooner or later, you will have to take a step backwards. Then, sooner or later, you will fall back again. Trying to maintain youth or just keep your existing skills and knowledge sharp is a battle that you will lose.

The secret is to not seek to remain who you have been, and always seek to become some form of better than you were with every action and every day. If you are always marching forward, then a lack of progress, or even a step backwards, is not a major loss, because you can regain the ground lost and even take steps forward tomorrow. If you just stay good at what you are already skilled at, what will you do if that skill is no longer needed, or requires other skills to stay relevant?

To continuously seek improvement means to embrace change, especially change within yourself. If you truly are improving, then tomorrow you will not be the person you were yesterday. Improving yourself cannot happen if you only expose yourself to tasks and ideas that are comfortable with. If you are comfortable, then you are not growing. If you truly want to grow, you cannot just expose yourself to harder versions of tasks you have already mastered or higher levels of ideas you already are strong in. Growing as a whole person requires giving as much effort, and preferably more, to tasks and subjects that you find hard. The areas where you are weak are where you can improve the most.

Continuous self-improvement also means questioning and exploring your beliefs. Read, listen to, and talk to people who you disagree with. There is no better way to better understand what you believe than to honestly explore perspectives that wholeheartedly are opposed to your beliefs. Sometimes, you may even discover that some part of what you believed, or thought you believed, is wrong. This doesn’t mean that you have to throw the whole system of belief out, but it does mean you may have to look through your beliefs and find how this revelation applies across the whole system. You may even decide that core aspects of your worldview have to change, and if that conclusion is honestly arrived at, that is a good thing. It is far better to have to change how you relate to the world earlier than later. There are few things worse than, far too late, realizing you have been wrong your whole life, and the only thing that can be done about it anymore is to regret all you have ever done. Then again, it is perfectly likely that your beliefs will survive mostly or fully intact. If so then you will have gained greater understanding of what you believe, and why. Either way, challenge your beliefs often and vigorously, so that you may stand strong in your ideals, or change them before you have lived life in a way you cannot undo.

Continuously improving as a whole person also means questioning who you are and who you want to be. Caring for a growing plant does not just involve guiding the branches, feeding, and watering it. Sometimes, it involves cutting toxic or maladaptive parts off. Growth may be an additive process, but improvement can also be subtractive. Addictive, toxic, or otherwise maladaptive traits may be part of who you are now, and who you have always been. That does not mean, in any way, that those traits need to be a part of who you are tomorrow, nor do they have to be part of your ideal self. Growing hurts, but trying to change some aspect of self that is already there, especially the closer it is to the core of your sense of self, can be agony. It is terrifying to have an image of who you are and try to make real changes to be more like you want to be, because you can never have a fully reliable picture of who you will be without it. Trying to cut off the parts of you that are holding you back is frightening. It is painful. There is no fear or pain that I have ever faced that was more worthwhile than shearing off the parts of myself that made who I was my own greatest enemy. Finding peace within your own skin is an experience that is priceless.

Disasters happen, be they natural, purposeful, or just life events. Your home may be destroyed. Any of your family and friends may be taken away. There is no object you possess that cannot be lost to you. You will always be with yourself, every second, minute, hour, day, month, and year of your life. Even if you want to, you can never escape from yourself. There is no better investment in your time and effort that will improve your life than making sure that you are someone that you enjoy being around and can rely on in any situation. As a wonderful side effect, others may even rely on and enjoy being around you too.

Can Roleplay be Literature?

Every so often, in online roleplaying communities, I see repeated the question, “Is roleplay literature?” I would say that the question is misleading. Literature, by definition, is any written work; and, as it is usually asked in some forum devoted to written roleplay, it is implied that written roleplay is what is meant. Thus, the answer merely an exercise in tautology. By definition, if the roleplay is written down, then the roleplay is literature, but so is the menu at a restaurant or the warning label on a product box, if we are operating under that most broad definition.

Now that we have the most obvious problem with answering the question out of the way, as the answer by the most general definition is clearly not what is intended, we have the problem of then choosing what definition of literature is intended. Most often, when the question of whether something counts as “literature” is asked, what is meant is whether this expression of the written word has risen to the level of “art” in written form, or literary art. To which I respond that any method and medium “can” be art. Painting “can” be art, as can be shown in any art museum, but most would agree that the freshly painted wall behind the painting would not be considered “art” even though it is also painted. Neither would the whitewash on the fence across the street from a painted mural.

Whether or not the method for creating the work is roleplay has no more relevance than asking if visual art is still art because it is made on a computer screen or carved instead of painted. The relevant issues for determining whether a piece is art, or more specifically, if a written piece is literature, are intent and reception. With graffiti, tagging something or just scrawling obscenities is not likely to count as art. It is just action for the joy of the process, not intended to really inspire anything in the viewer, and it is unlikely to inspire anything in the viewer more than the mess left by a dog on a sidewalk would. However, graffiti that is purposefully made to inspire some feeling or idea in the viewer, and is successful in doing so, is quite clearly art.

This is where we reach the real point. The question, as intended, appears to be more properly expressed as “Can the method of roleplay result in literary art?” I believe that it can result in art, but that usually, it does not. First, there is the question of intention. While much visual art starts out as a doodle or sketch, most doodling done in the margins of notes taken in a class or meeting are not art. Most doodling is just done for the joy or soothing nature of the process, not meant to convey anything to an audience. In the same way, roleplay is usually done just for the joy of the experience, with no real intent to inspire any real feeling or idea to any audience, other than perhaps the other collaborators. Also, much like doodles made by a group of friends, many roleplays will never be looked at by anyone but their creators.

To extend the doodling analogy though, where doodles can result in art is when the doodler is inspired by their own creation to go through the arduous task of creating art inspired by it to show to others, and inspire them. A doodle in the margins of notes may be perfected further into a sketch, then a pencil drawing, then be inked, and finally painted or otherwise finished into a polished final form. Where roleplaying results in art is when the roleplayers go through the same process. They are inspired by the rough doodle that is their roleplay, and use it as the rough draft for an outline. They put in the work to find what to take out because it does not contribute to the finished piece, and what to build up or add to strengthen it. They write, rewrite, rewrite again, and edit until they have taken the roleplay and forged it into literature.

There are many novels or otherwise polished stories that started out as tabletop role-playing game stories; for instance, the Diskworld novels by Terry Pratchett or many of the novels set in the Dungeons and Dragons games have their origins in a roleplay. Many such works have been very well received, and are acknowledged by many as literature.

The difference is in the intent to communicate to an audience, putting in the massive amount of work to make it polished well enough that it can be received by an audience, and whether it then inspires that audience. Whether or not something starts out as roleplay makes absolutely no more difference on if the finished work is literature than whether an initial doodle that becomes a painting was done in pencil or pen. The difference is the intent and hard work that it takes to bring it from the rough initial form into something that has become art.

Why is Protectiveness Seen as Dominant?

As I have mentioned in a prior post, I am at the early stages of exploring my local BDSM community. I am thereby being heavily motivated to explore, online and otherwise, many aspects of this culture that I am becoming involved in. I have found many things that I have definite questions about why certain actions and feelings are assumed to belong to one side or the other of the various complementary roles found in BDSM. In particular, many of the traits that seem to be attributed as dominant or submissive seem counter-intuitive to me.

The trait that I wish to discuss today, and why I find the assumptions I am finding about it in the community counter-intuitive, is physical protectiveness. There appears to be a heavy assumption that the desire to provide physical protection is a dominant trait, and a desire to be the one protected is submissive. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am in no way saying most dominant persons are not protective of their submissives, nor am I implying that there is anything less than wonderful about a dominant feeling physically protective towards their submissive. What I am questioning is: why it is assumed to be an aspect of dominance?

I can think of no society where the guard at the gate is viewed as dominant over the royalty they protect. I can think of no time where I have heard of someone feeling that a celebrity or dignitary is submitting to their bodyguards by allowing them to protect them. To my mind, actively placing the physical safety of another above the safety of oneself is overwhelmingly an act of subservience. Yes, a king, queen, or other head of state is often viewed as the protector of those they lead, but they provide this protection by way of commanding the soldiers and others below them that the leader commands to place themselves bodily in danger to protect the whole.

As a switch, I crave both the power of dominance, and the serine clarity of submission. I do admit I feel protective of any submitting to me. However, I feel much more protective of any who I submit to. I personally feel protective of those I care about no matter what role I take on, but I perceive the drive as feeling much more purely realized within the context of protecting one to whom I have submitted myself. I do not know if this is true of others, but I know that it is true for me.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this is one of several examples I have observed where, because it is generally assumed that dominance is masculine and submission is feminine, that any trait that is generally assumed to be masculine must be dominant and that any trait that is assumed to be feminine must be submissive. In a homestead environment, it has generally been assumed that the male is the dominant head of household, and is also responsible for the physical protection of all within the household. With some exceptions, such as defense of children, physical protectiveness is generally viewed as very much so a masculine trait. In fact, to many people, the ability to physically protect those they care for is the primary trait by which the value of a man’s masculinity can be measured. Is this accurate? Not any more so than most other gender role generalities; many women have just as much of a drive to physically protect as any man. However, even when the drive is present in a woman, it is often viewed as masculine.

The large number of traits that are assumed to be dominant or submissive, primarily because they are assumed to be masculine or feminine traits, are problematic when the patriarchal assumption that the dominant must be masculine and the submissive must be feminine is called into question. Personally, as a male, while I feel rather masculine when in a dominant role to a feminine female partner, I feel much more at peace with my masculinity when submitting in a masculine manner to a feminine female partner. I realize that this experience is not universal, that there are men who wish to be feminized in their submission that they wish to offer to a dominant masculine female partner. I realize that there are many places in between on all axis involved with this. I just wish to question the assumption that these traits, in this essay specifically physical protectiveness, are inherent to one end or another of the dominant/submissive dichotomy.

I strongly believe in the viability of masculine male submission through protectivity towards the dominant partner. I strongly believe in the viability of a feminine female dominant accepting the protection of their submissive’s protection as an act of accepting the submissive’s submission. I do not feel that this lessens or calls the viability into question of any other dynamic. I believe that, if one accepts that female/male dominance/submission is viable as the male/female dynamic, it naturally follows that assumptions of what dominance and submission are that were formed under the assumption of masculine dominance over the feminine must also be called into question.

I feel the need to repeat, that I do not believe that there is anything problematic with a dominant of any gender feeling protective of those who submit to them. I also do not believe there is any problem with a submissive basking in the protection of their dominant. The only problem I see is the assumption that this must always be the case.

Arm the Hippies

I honestly believe that one of the biggest problems with the two party polarization of United States politics is the political polarization of weapon training and ownership. This does not come from a strong belief in the sanctity of the second amendment or that guns are evil or good in of themselves; instead I believe that, in a democratic society, linking ownership and knowledge of how to use weapons to one end of a political dichotomy is in of itself dangerous.

In a democratic society, the vote works because it is a simulation of who would win if we had a civil war over the given issue at that time. The political campaign and voting process measures manpower, funding streams, ability to organize, zeal, rhetoric, apathy, and many other determining factors that are also applicable in a civil war scenario. As long as this simulation model is accurate, the democratic process stops us having to physically fight to impose our will on the rest of the population. We measure with a vote who would win and the issue is decided with little to no actual bloodshed.

This all breaks down when the training to use, and ownership of, weapons is entirely on one side of the political spectrum. This makes the entire simulation invalid. It makes it so that if there ever was an issue that the armed party was ruled against in the voting process, and they felt strongly enough about it, it would no longer be in their interests to abide by the democratic results.

I don’t know what issue would be polarizing enough to lead to such an outbreak of violence, but if the polarization of weapon ownership and training continues as it seems to be going, it would most likely be a rather swift and one sided revolution. This is especially true with the fact that a large portion of the military and law enforcement personnel in the U.S. also feel pushed towards the gun-toting end of our political dichotomy. In a civil war scenario, which side is the side of serving your country and neighbors can become rather muddled.

I don’t know what issue would be so divisive that one side would be willing to use force on the other, but the historical evidence is overwhelming that one will come up eventually. Eventually, if we continue this way, there will be some issue that the party with guns feels strong enough about that a large portion of them will feel that it is worth a cost in human lives to see it done their way. When this happens, if the vote does not go their way and it is obvious that use of force will go their way, blood will spill. It will be a disaster. It also will have been entirely preventable.

Just as there are American conservatives that abhor weapons, it is important that we recognize that having armed liberals is important to keeping everyone safe and our system on course. Really, I feel much more comfortable with people who hate weapons and abhor violence owning and knowing how to use them than people who have a fascination and love of weaponry. I don’t see passing laws requiring all citizens having weapons training going through, or going over well even if passed; but I would argue for a need to encourage people, especially those who would never want to use a gun, to know how if it is ever needed.

Disarming the population would not be actionable or practical even if it were preferable. If one side of our political system is heavily armed, it is unsafe in the long term for the other side to remain unarmed. It creates the situation where violence does become an easy answer. Violence is much harder to leap to when your opponent may be able to defend themselves than when you have every reason to believe they are helpless.

In all fairness, it is true that having both sides armed will not stop a civil war. My argument just is that having only one side being armed makes it too tempting for the other side. It makes it tempting enough that over a long enough time scale it seems to me to be inevitable.

Arm the hippies to make it possible that they won’t have to fight.