Faces and Feelings

Most have heard some version of the phrase "Hiding one's feelings behind one's face" - meaning to hide what is truly being felt behind a facade, a (usually) fake exterior. I am more interested in the reverse of this idea - that of hiding one's face behind one's feelings.

One's face is more than what one presents to the world. You can, as said in Bye, Bye Birdie, "put on a happy face" but our culture recognizes that a face put on is not the real person. There are phrases such as "he showed his true face" or the obvious "two-faced" insult that implies that neither face is real. One's face, one's true face, is, simply, who one is.

In this era of personal webpages, instant fame with youtube, and, of course, Facebook, there are snippets of identity available at every click. (On a side note, don't ask if I'm on Facebook - I'm not. This is as close as I get.) Employers, co-workers, that blind date on Saturday night - people are using these technological resources to, in theory, find out who the person they are interested in 'really' is. The frightful aspect of all this is the idea that one's "face-value," that is, the face presented online, is becoming the basis for judgements made about the reality and identity of one's self by others. The false or incomplete face is being seen as real.

So, there's the scary set-up. Now, how does this relate to hiding one's face behind one's feelings? (For that matter, what exactly do I mean by that phrase?)

Who one is, the core self, is a deeper thing than can be explored in one entry. However, I will say this - I do not think that we are defined by our feelings. Not our emotions, not our passions, not our regrets. Our experiences, yes, our reactions, yes, our self-spirit, yes but there is a difference between these things and our feelings. For example, I have a passion for writing. I love it, I love every aspect of it - even the hair-pulling, banging-head-on-desk ones. But, does this passion define me? No, or at least, only on the surface. Deeper than, and driving, the passion for writing is the need to express myself, to create and react to all that is around me. This need does not have the burning of a passion or the fluidity of a feeling - it is simply a part of me, like the need to breathe or the ability to think. However, this core part of my self is in a way hidden by my passion for writing - in this way, I am hiding my face behind my feelings. In this same manner we cannot define others simply by what we see - and thusly may never be able to define another person. The person who gets angry at a mess left for them to clean up is not defined by that anger (even if it happens constantly.) Rather, perhaps hir is defined by the deeper sense of a need for order and organization. The way the mind works, the structured or chaotic or twisted thinking within it, seems to be what defines a person far more than feelings. People who feel the need for order will show that in more than just anger or exasperation at a mess. It will come through in their habits, their hobbies, their work choice, and so forth. In this way, their "tidiness" etc cannot define them because the root of that tidiness (or anger or whatever) is something else entirely.

In this, we find that we can only judge or know people empirically, by the symptoms they show of who they are.

Almost

Well, we've just about got everything moved - which means posts will be more regular soon - and of course, all this exertion has provoked a few thoughts. Some have already been jotted down as drafts and will be posted in time. In the meanwhile, here's some random musings.

What makes a place home? Is is the physical place? The memories created there? A combination? Or, rather, is it the manifestation of self and a sense of belonging? I'm inclined to believe the lattermost. We put into our homes - no matter how large or small - pieces of who we are. These pieces need not be material things. One can be as simple as that water stain that always looked like a face or the view from a particular window. By attaching emotions and thoughts to such things we make them ours. We may not in actuality own the things in that view but the view itself is ours.

Transitions - why are they so exciting and scary? The reason could be the same reason we fear death, that is, they are filled with the unknown. In every transition is potential for blessing and bane. Moreover, they are filled with the knowledge that things will never be this way again. Thus nostalgia is born, retrobias, and the sense that either moving forward towards "better" things or back to the "good ol' days" would increase the quality of our lives. In this, one never finds satisfaction in the present.

More to come but life intervenes.

Elusive and Lasting

It's July 4th and I cannot help but reflecting on life's elusivity and lastingness. As an American, I recognize the sacrifices that went into and still go into keeping the right of choice for citizens. Each human life - from those given in 1776 to those in 2008 both lost and still in the fight - is but cosmically inconsequential. Yet, to use a slightly cliched but ever-apt metaphor, we are all the cause of ripples in the pond.

The war in Iraq is a topic that is unique. It has been overly-discussed and yet still has the ability to generate discussion and strife. People are asking questions such as: "What are we really fighting for anyway?" "How did this happen?" and "What is this doing to us - as people, as a nation?" We are all too close to the situation and time to answer these questions. Perhaps one day, in my children's or my grandchildren's history books, the answers will emerge. Or maybe, more likely, there will be many answers - some conflicting - depending on who is writing the history books.

It is said that one person can make a difference in this world, despite being one of billions. Certainly there have been figures in history that seem to validate this idea - Socrates, Descartes, Einstein, Jefferson, Franklin, Tesla, and so on. Yet I have to wonder if, due to the sheer volume of minds that have existed, there is not a kind of inevitably to progress. Study the history of science or literature and you see that breakthroughs in thought and technology tend to come in waves, often with many reaching - individually - the same or similar conclusions around the same time period.

This is not to say that there is no point to individual human lives or to promote a sort of fatalism. We are all our own universes, each of us a unique culmination of our time and experiences that will never happen again. Every life is one of a kind - amusingly, it is difference that creates the only universal sameness across culture and time. We all influence each other - short and long term - and we all contribute to what will influence those that come after us. In this we are all both, invariably, immortal and brief.

Passivity's Place

While doing some gender studies work, a thought occurred to me. Somehow, over the course of all the good work feminists have done, the word "passive" has become negative. I can only think that this is due to the embracing of binary oppositions.

For those not familiar with the term, I will elaborate: Binary oppositions are pairs of opposites, dichotomies, one of which is (usually) considered dominant or "better". Examples include male/female, strong/weak, positive/negative, civilization/nature, and, active/passive. Many, myself included, place the beginning of such a mindset around the Enlightenment, due especially to the writings of such philosophers as Descartes with his split of the mind and body.

Allow me to be a bit unconventional here and say that the idea of thinking in pure opposites - in black and white - is, in a word, foolish.

Passivity has its place, as does being active. There are times that being passive actually requires more strength than immediately jumping into action. Passivity brings contemplation and meditation upon the situation at hand.

This is not to say that we should become stepping stones for those around us. Rather, it is important to take into account that situations and people are multi-faceted and the culmination of a great many factors - and that there are multiple solutions for any such problem. Remember Gandhi's methods, or the bus boycotts in Montgomery during the Civil Rights movement. Both were cases of taking action through passivity.

There is a danger in binary oppositions that is too easy to fall into. They are seductive, giving people an assurance that they are right and that the "other" is wrong. They promote narrow-mindedness and limit one's viewpoint. While this may sound like common sense, it is so simple to get caught up in binary thinking that it is often not seen for what it is. Remember, every "villain" has been doing what they thought was right. Opening one's self up to the idea that the "other" may be just as valuable is scary and lacks the security that putting one's self and identity in a niche brings.

So how does this relate to gender studies? Well, in the course of feminism, many rights have been gained but I feel something has been lost as well. Too many women in our culture now feel that if they do not want to work, if they would rather perform more traditional duties, that they would somehow be betraying their gender by enjoying what is seen as a passive role. This is a result of binary thinking. So many women are stretching themselves so thin attempting to be everything that is expected of them that their enjoyment of who and what they are is lost. Being active, that is, working and shunning a passive identity, has gained such positive connotations that it overshadows the main thing that feminists were really fighting for - choice. By shedding binary thinking, one gains choice and the ability to see all the shades of gray available. Moreover, one is not limited by culture's whisperings that, in a supposed a/b situation, that 'a' is good and 'b' is bad.

So. Choice of many facets or security in a limited mindset - it all depends on whether you open your eyes.

Video Games and Achievement

Hiatus over. I just cannot stand not writing for that long (ugh, double negatives - been reading too much Faulker.)

While playing one of my plethora of video games, I realized that decent part of my enjoyment in this past time stems from the sense of accomplishment it gives me. This led me to reminiscing. I realized that while I have heard plenty from the "games are good" camp about them increasing hand-eye coordination and puzzle solving skills (both true), I have heard little about the positive image they can give one's self through accomplishment.

It seems that to be proud of one's abilities is in negative light among some groups nowadays. I have read several cases of honor rolls being disbanded because of one child doing better than another - and that other getting so upset that parents complained. To talk about, or even bring up, an accomplishment, be it physical, intellectual, or a combination is often viewed as arrogant or bragging. Meanwhile, accommodations and even rewards are given to those who cannot quite reach the bar. In this atmosphere, is it any wonder that anything that gives a sense of doing something right will bring throngs of business, as video games have done?

Video games reward. There are points, unlockables, levels, things you have to work for. Sure, there are cheat codes, but they are more often for sheer absurd fun - and never quite give the same warm glow that doing it yourself does. While multi-player is the most obvious arena for proving one's skill, single-player games have their merits as well. That sense of reward, of accomplishment, is what drives players to complete 100% of a game, or keep trying that tough level over and over again until they beat it. It's what keeps us coming back - if a game is too easy, I assure you it will not get near as much game time.

Gamers develop patience, creative thinking, coordination, reflexes and more because of this sense of accomplishment. It's like the way children learn at an early age - not because they have to, but because it is fun and because they earn the sense of pride that should come with any accomplishment. This sense of pride is not a bad thing. It is an essential component of our nature, what keeps us striving to be better than ourselves.

I have lost track of the number of gamer goals I have set for myself over the years. More often that not, they are things that have no tangible value but, rather, are connected in my mind with achieving something. However, no tangible value does not mean valueless. Through my gaming, I have learned how to set reasonable goals for myself and learned how to be proud of myself without being obnoxious - after all, no one wants to play with a gloater. I have learned how to budget my time and that, sometimes, the things we want will not come easy - a lesson, I think, that is disappearing.

Ultimately, that is the real value. Pushing yourself and enjoying yourself - it's no coincidence that video games hold much of the same positive traits as sports, martial arts, or difficult crafts and arts. They may be games, and often seen as a "worthless" way to spend time, but their lessons become even more deeply embedded because of the fun in them. Just don't tell the kiddies that the video games are good for them.

Taking this a step further, and a bit away from video games, could attempting to gain a sense of accomplishment not be the reason so many of our youth are embroiled in gangs and other unhealthy behavior? If you are not getting a sense of pride from home or school, would you not seek it elsewhere - somewhere with ranks and trials? All of my literature study suggests that people have an innate need to believe in something, to attach themselves to whatever it is that makes them feel accomplished or virtuous. This applies to religion, to nationalism, to any and all of the revolutionary causes. People get caught up in things larger than themselves because it is so easy to feel small - after all an individual in this world is but one of 6.7 billion (the current guesstimate is 6,707,035,007) and it seems that all that can be done either has been or is being done. It's a daunting thought.