I've made no secret that I have an amount of disdain when it comes to controversial topics and "A Penny's Worth of Thoughts", not because I don't have a personal stance on them, in most cases I do. It's more that the idea, the general premise, the core of why I started Penny's Worth was to broaden perspectives in the hopes of bringing an understanding, rather than narrowing them in on an objective. My personal beliefs should be just that, my own personally, not something to influence the perspectives of others into, mainly because I feel that even if I could, their view of it and my view would still differ. My experiences, my thoughts, however vague at times, are not likely to match exactly with someone else's.
But, part of bringing an understanding to others is to create a system of conversation, and as I think more on things of that nature, we could certainly use more of those systems. The part my own thought stream has been following as of late is on the how. Is it even possible, when even just the mention of a controversy can polarize people's minds and perspectives on opposite sides of an argument that hasn't even started yet?
It seems silly at times, how just the word controversy can create one. But, in a sense, that's what it's designed to do: create conflict. It's even a writing mechanic, a way to introduce or develop the conflict of a story. Does it work? I could point to Harry Potter's "boy who lived" as an example. It doesn't seem like it, but it works out much like a controversy, polarizing viewpoints within the story based on their perspective of what they believe actually happened. And what is a controversy but just that?
We fall easily into the trap, too. Even more so now that before, in some cases. Perhaps from latent fight or flight instincts, except that over time, either we've used the flight so much that it's lost our value to us or we just hit a point where we actively decided that flight is no longer worth it. There's an adage, from a book or a movie that, for the life of me, the title has slipped my mind, which goes "A soldier prays for peace but prepares for war." Looking around any source of outlets these days, it seems like people forget the praying for peace, almost seeming as if they are praying the opposite.
It actually reminds me of one of my High School English papers, of which the general gist is that sometimes what is peaceful to one person can seem chaotic to another, and what could often be the key to that one's peace is a certain level of control over the chaos. Seems contradictory, doesn't it? But, perhaps, useful today. An old perspective within a sea of chaos, somehow finding peace.
It could be my thoughts are just trying to remind me of that place, perhaps in preparation of what's to come as I open my thoughts to the controversial for the first time in a long time as I place that small hint of control: broad, not specific. And though I highly doubt, even now, that I would touch some topics still, others seem just possible. This is the perspective I'd wish to share, the calm of the storm. A sense of peace and understanding within the chaos. The trick of it is, even if I tried, I could not lead you to it. It comes from a place that each person must find of their own, typically as unique as they are. A place referred to as a "Walden" as I recall.
As for mine? Well, let's just say that any of my classmates who read this will know what I mean when I say that this Penny's Worth still has my usual gaming reference within it. You just have to know where to look.
Just a penny's worth of thoughts, for anyone willing to read them.
Thursday, December 26, 2019
Friday, December 20, 2019
A Penny's Worth of Thoughts: The Negativity Stigma
Here's a thought stream that I've been finding myself in lately; so much so that I was actually intending on typing out this post last week, but found myself... I don't know how to describe it other than feeling that it needed more thought first. Stigmas, negativity, and even the duo combined. There's a lot that can be seen for both anywhere you look, whether it be an individual, or even a personal, view on nationalities, work, or even just seeing a certain state tag on the back of a vehicle who's driver probably needs to retake their driving test. And, if you let it, such thoughts can consume one's mind completely, even if it's unintentional.
To that end, I've been thinking of a thought experiment that, if I'm completely honest, I don't even know for sure if it'll work as intended. Think of the things in your life and split them: the good from the bad, positive and negative. How many of you started with the negative side first? Was it because you figured it would be easier to find the negatives? Or simply because you felt there would be more on that side? Before you scrap that thought though, try this: from the positive side, remove from the list the things that you could do without in a given day, even just for a moment. And from the negative side, remove only the things that, if they just happened to not be there one day, your day would feel... off. Did it balance out, or perhaps even find yourself on the flip side of what you originally thought: that you now have more positive than negative.
The point of the experiment is to try and show just how much more focus we can put on the negative in a given moment, to the point where we can overlook the positive that is right in front of us. And sure, I could say to try and see more positive every day, but I think some would agree that after some amount of time, even with the intention of seeing the good, we feel ourselves drawn toward the bad. Or perhaps, one particular bad just makes itself more difficult to ignore.
This is where I think some of the stigmas come in. I'd almost say the saying of "waiting for the other foot to fall" is kind of a stigma itself, leading to a negative expectation. It's as if that is our mind's default state, we see so much good, so we can't help but feel that something bad is just around the corner. Sometimes, I think, the expectation almost wills it into existence even. It's such a complex problem that I don't think there could be a catch all solution to it either.
It's reminiscent of the recent launch of Pokemon Sword and Shield even. There were loads of stigmas spreading through members of the community, whether by malicious intent or misinformation, and yet, having gotten mine about month into the release, sure, I could see some of the points made. But, in playing it, it still felt like a true Pokemon game to me. And that's the point, right? People saw the negative because they wanted it to be better, but what I think they didn't see just because something isn't better, doesn't necessarily mean that it's worse.
And perhaps that's the biggest stigma we get ourselves into. The subconscious idea that if it's not better, than it has to be worse. We get so caught up in trying to be better that staying the same feels like we are letting ourselves down instead of thinking the possibility that maybe, just maybe, at that point in time, the truly better thing is the stability of being the same. So caught up with the idea of greater or more that we lose sight of the have enough.
The best I can offer in resolution is this: that list from earlier? Take out the divides, maybe mix it up a little, then take a look at it. Really think about it when you answer one question: does it still make sense? Maybe just trade one or two things around? Sometimes the positive, good things we see everyday can get misplaced until you view it from another angle. And maybe, that new perspective you gain from that gives tell of your personal solution to the outcome.
Just a penny's worth of thoughts, for those willing to read them.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
A Penny's Worth of Thought: A concept of failure
A penny's worth of thoughts. Just typing those words again brings back some memories. I figure if I plan to continue with blogging again, what better way than what could arguably be the core part of why I started in the first place. So, why with a subtitle involving failure? Simply put, because it's a thought that my mind has had me thinking about most of this past week.
The origination of this particular thought process began last Friday, after viewing a video on youtube called "How Warframe Broke the Rules" on GameSpot's youtube channel, which I'll link at the bottom for reference. In particular, it was near the end, when asking if they thought they would know when it would come time for Warframe to end. My interpretation on the reaction was similar to how some people react when faced with a "What if" finale question, as you can almost watch her go from asking herself questions such as "Was it my/our fault?" and "Is there anything we could've done?" to spurting out an answer that almost sounds as much to convince herself as it was to answer the question. It started my thoughts on why viewing things at an ending can almost have a negative connotation, and perhaps the idea of the failure in itself.
What's kept me from typing out my thoughts before now is, even as the words flowed, I couldn't help but get a sense that they were more than just familiar. Possibly, that I would end up repeating something I had previously posted. And then, as the catalyst question to myself, asking if they would be any less true simply because of the fact that I could be repeating myself, and then asking, truly, if it would feel like a failure if I did.
"Sometimes the idea of failure depends on the perspective you look at it from" the familiar sounding phrase would repeat to me multiple times, alongside various examples, ranging from gamers losing a game to a closing-in-on-30 person being asked why they don't have a boy/girlfriend and just shrugging because they aren't quite sure how to answer it in a meaningful way. And then, to my surprise, I found a new stream of words that seemed to run parallel but not quite touch. The concept of failure itself. Because, even that can vary by perspective, and what seemed to be the added variable was time.
And so I begin with how gamers typically have a unique perspective on the concept: if they fail, they can just try again. But, as watching a number of Mario Maker videos will tell you, the time invested into a level just to constantly catch that kaizo block, even if clearly marked, at the final jump can be disheartening, perhaps even lead some to give up and call it a failure. Never mind the fact that I couldn't do possibly half of what they have done up to that point personally, showcasing that they clearly are better from the experience of doing similar stunts before, and yet calling it a failure still because that goal was never met.
This is where I believe the issue lies. Yes, things can end, even with some considerable time put into them. But to consider the ending a failure, to me, is devaluing the experience earned along the way. Some goals are put just out of reach, forcing us to learn the proper timing of that final jump as a way of proving to ourselves that our experience was worth it. But to say that if we miss, if we hit that stupid block one more time, that the experience is null? I think that's just our minds defaulting to a state of negativity. Similar to how a presider of a funeral will, at some point, ask if there are memories we would like to share. Memories, not disappointments. I feel they do so knowing our minds will trend to darkness, and that occasionally, we must force ourselves to see the light.
And here I go again, thinking I've dipped into the words I've said before. Yet, with new context, and perhaps a new meaning. And I ask myself again: does it mean less now than it did then? I suppose you could say that it might just depend on who you ask.
Just a penny's worth of thoughts, for anyone willing to read them.
GameSpot: How Warframe Broke the Rules
The origination of this particular thought process began last Friday, after viewing a video on youtube called "How Warframe Broke the Rules" on GameSpot's youtube channel, which I'll link at the bottom for reference. In particular, it was near the end, when asking if they thought they would know when it would come time for Warframe to end. My interpretation on the reaction was similar to how some people react when faced with a "What if" finale question, as you can almost watch her go from asking herself questions such as "Was it my/our fault?" and "Is there anything we could've done?" to spurting out an answer that almost sounds as much to convince herself as it was to answer the question. It started my thoughts on why viewing things at an ending can almost have a negative connotation, and perhaps the idea of the failure in itself.
What's kept me from typing out my thoughts before now is, even as the words flowed, I couldn't help but get a sense that they were more than just familiar. Possibly, that I would end up repeating something I had previously posted. And then, as the catalyst question to myself, asking if they would be any less true simply because of the fact that I could be repeating myself, and then asking, truly, if it would feel like a failure if I did.
"Sometimes the idea of failure depends on the perspective you look at it from" the familiar sounding phrase would repeat to me multiple times, alongside various examples, ranging from gamers losing a game to a closing-in-on-30 person being asked why they don't have a boy/girlfriend and just shrugging because they aren't quite sure how to answer it in a meaningful way. And then, to my surprise, I found a new stream of words that seemed to run parallel but not quite touch. The concept of failure itself. Because, even that can vary by perspective, and what seemed to be the added variable was time.
And so I begin with how gamers typically have a unique perspective on the concept: if they fail, they can just try again. But, as watching a number of Mario Maker videos will tell you, the time invested into a level just to constantly catch that kaizo block, even if clearly marked, at the final jump can be disheartening, perhaps even lead some to give up and call it a failure. Never mind the fact that I couldn't do possibly half of what they have done up to that point personally, showcasing that they clearly are better from the experience of doing similar stunts before, and yet calling it a failure still because that goal was never met.
This is where I believe the issue lies. Yes, things can end, even with some considerable time put into them. But to consider the ending a failure, to me, is devaluing the experience earned along the way. Some goals are put just out of reach, forcing us to learn the proper timing of that final jump as a way of proving to ourselves that our experience was worth it. But to say that if we miss, if we hit that stupid block one more time, that the experience is null? I think that's just our minds defaulting to a state of negativity. Similar to how a presider of a funeral will, at some point, ask if there are memories we would like to share. Memories, not disappointments. I feel they do so knowing our minds will trend to darkness, and that occasionally, we must force ourselves to see the light.
And here I go again, thinking I've dipped into the words I've said before. Yet, with new context, and perhaps a new meaning. And I ask myself again: does it mean less now than it did then? I suppose you could say that it might just depend on who you ask.
Just a penny's worth of thoughts, for anyone willing to read them.
GameSpot: How Warframe Broke the Rules
Thursday, November 28, 2019
8 years
Has it really been eight years? It doesn't seem so long since my last time posting, but as the timestamp on my last post... and the fact I had to remember my password... would suggest, a great deal of time has indeed passed. Four moves, practically as many jobs, as well as the highs and lows in between, and here I sit, once again with a keyboard in front of me, and a race of thoughts going through my head as I try to pick out the exact words and phrases that convey those thoughts to type out.
So why come back now? Why, after all this time, do I proceed with reviving a blog that some may have forgotten that they were even following? In truth, even I am not 100% sure. But one thing I do know, in this day and age, there are a bunch more perspectives to view from than I had once even perceived, with the main difference between each, it seems, being merely a question of perspective. As my past posts, and even my own perspective of my abilities, would suggest, I have a knack for seeing things from other points of view. It may not be crystal clear all the time, but I'd like to think, even when my word choice is wrong, I at least see enough to understand a basis.
Even still, the perspectives I try to understand; whether it be through social media, personal interaction, or just witnessing events, can be so distant that you could almost give whiplash to the brain instead of the body. Most seem to stem from a thought of "I'm right, so the other must be wrong" even though it's, often, much more complicated. The confusion, frustration, or even anger at times comes from a lack of middle ground to discuss openly, because even when it is offered, ideas seldom come without their own biases.
As is typical for me, my medium defaults to a game that I feel helps to convey my thoughts, if not easier, simpler to some respect, and oddly, there are two that come to mind this time: Chrono Trigger and Evoland 2. Both share a similar premise, time travel, with the differences being basically all else. So why these two for an ancient blog revival on perspectives? Because one could argue that the story is the same, but told through another perspective. One is told by choice. The other by accident. In a broad sense, you could say that in both storylines, the plot climaxes with stopping a "world ending catastrophe" involved with the time splitting element, directly or indirectly.
Where they differ is where I think the words in my head are correlating the perspectives. They start simply enough; in one, the choice is made to rescue a companion before finding out that something ended the timeline, while the other, an unfortunate accident that you try to help a companion return home from comes to learning that it may not be such a simple trip.
The point is that while time travel is a key component in both, for one it's introduced as part of the conflict. In the other, is essentially serves as the only path forward until the true conflict is revealed. And I feel like this is where my perspective thoughts lean: While we like to feel like we have choice in most everything we do, there are on occasions times where we feel equally as much that the decisions are predetermined, and it's not always black and white as to which is which. Hell, I'd wager enough to say that sometimes, it's even possible to confuse the two.
It reminds me of that old "6/9" meme on the same idea; where two characters point to the number, saying what it looks like from their side. I remember a time when that had meaning. Most days you see in anymore, there's an addendum that says that one should clearly be right, and the other completely wrong, stating that there should be more numbers nearby that hint at which it is. And logically speaking, I would agree. But, I've also seen true where things... don't always behave logically, and I think that was the original point, lost in the conundrum. With a vacuum without logic, what you see is based on your own perspective. At the same time, with logic, the logic itself becomes it's own perspective. So here's my question: Seeing the puzzle with logic, is your perspective by choice or predetermined by the logic at which you adhere it to?
In the end, I suppose it doesn't matter much in this particular instance, but I would also say that it's not always the case. People who do things out of fear, anger, or sometimes just to survive can feel like they are in a situation in which that decision is taken from them, that they did what they were forced to have to do. At the same time, if you do something out of habit, even if the habit started as a choice, at what point did it become predetermined? Four choices later? Ten?
The problem I see most have with seeing other's perspectives is that those elements are removed, even in the best of cases. It's difficult to understand one's habits, one's fears, one's triggers unless you were there to see them develop. And that, in part at least, is why you see such the divide in perspectives today. Young look at the elderly, or even authority, with disdain simply because those individuals can't understand them, while at the same time the elderly or authorities just watch, confused simply because they can't understand, because the situations that are happening are actually foreign to them.
It is unfortunate, too. There is no clean middle ground, either because time has moved without us, or because we fear our time is coming to an end. And there's no easy solution, as much as one or all sides try to find one. Even in Chrono Trigger and Evoland 2, the resolution isn't so clean cut. Sure, you can fix the timelines, but one asks the question of when it is resolved, while the other ask makes you question if the resolution ends up being the cause all along. The best advice I can give? Perhaps to just take a moment, regardless of which side you are on, and ask why, and to keep asking why, even if you eventually reach that "I don't know... just habit, I guess" answer. To not solve the problem, but to try and learn why the problem exists in the first place. And if you find that point of disconnection, perhaps ask if there is a way to tie some wires together. Because even if the current isn't as strong, at least it would be better than nothing at all.
So why come back now? Why, after all this time, do I proceed with reviving a blog that some may have forgotten that they were even following? In truth, even I am not 100% sure. But one thing I do know, in this day and age, there are a bunch more perspectives to view from than I had once even perceived, with the main difference between each, it seems, being merely a question of perspective. As my past posts, and even my own perspective of my abilities, would suggest, I have a knack for seeing things from other points of view. It may not be crystal clear all the time, but I'd like to think, even when my word choice is wrong, I at least see enough to understand a basis.
Even still, the perspectives I try to understand; whether it be through social media, personal interaction, or just witnessing events, can be so distant that you could almost give whiplash to the brain instead of the body. Most seem to stem from a thought of "I'm right, so the other must be wrong" even though it's, often, much more complicated. The confusion, frustration, or even anger at times comes from a lack of middle ground to discuss openly, because even when it is offered, ideas seldom come without their own biases.
As is typical for me, my medium defaults to a game that I feel helps to convey my thoughts, if not easier, simpler to some respect, and oddly, there are two that come to mind this time: Chrono Trigger and Evoland 2. Both share a similar premise, time travel, with the differences being basically all else. So why these two for an ancient blog revival on perspectives? Because one could argue that the story is the same, but told through another perspective. One is told by choice. The other by accident. In a broad sense, you could say that in both storylines, the plot climaxes with stopping a "world ending catastrophe" involved with the time splitting element, directly or indirectly.
Where they differ is where I think the words in my head are correlating the perspectives. They start simply enough; in one, the choice is made to rescue a companion before finding out that something ended the timeline, while the other, an unfortunate accident that you try to help a companion return home from comes to learning that it may not be such a simple trip.
The point is that while time travel is a key component in both, for one it's introduced as part of the conflict. In the other, is essentially serves as the only path forward until the true conflict is revealed. And I feel like this is where my perspective thoughts lean: While we like to feel like we have choice in most everything we do, there are on occasions times where we feel equally as much that the decisions are predetermined, and it's not always black and white as to which is which. Hell, I'd wager enough to say that sometimes, it's even possible to confuse the two.
It reminds me of that old "6/9" meme on the same idea; where two characters point to the number, saying what it looks like from their side. I remember a time when that had meaning. Most days you see in anymore, there's an addendum that says that one should clearly be right, and the other completely wrong, stating that there should be more numbers nearby that hint at which it is. And logically speaking, I would agree. But, I've also seen true where things... don't always behave logically, and I think that was the original point, lost in the conundrum. With a vacuum without logic, what you see is based on your own perspective. At the same time, with logic, the logic itself becomes it's own perspective. So here's my question: Seeing the puzzle with logic, is your perspective by choice or predetermined by the logic at which you adhere it to?
In the end, I suppose it doesn't matter much in this particular instance, but I would also say that it's not always the case. People who do things out of fear, anger, or sometimes just to survive can feel like they are in a situation in which that decision is taken from them, that they did what they were forced to have to do. At the same time, if you do something out of habit, even if the habit started as a choice, at what point did it become predetermined? Four choices later? Ten?
The problem I see most have with seeing other's perspectives is that those elements are removed, even in the best of cases. It's difficult to understand one's habits, one's fears, one's triggers unless you were there to see them develop. And that, in part at least, is why you see such the divide in perspectives today. Young look at the elderly, or even authority, with disdain simply because those individuals can't understand them, while at the same time the elderly or authorities just watch, confused simply because they can't understand, because the situations that are happening are actually foreign to them.
It is unfortunate, too. There is no clean middle ground, either because time has moved without us, or because we fear our time is coming to an end. And there's no easy solution, as much as one or all sides try to find one. Even in Chrono Trigger and Evoland 2, the resolution isn't so clean cut. Sure, you can fix the timelines, but one asks the question of when it is resolved, while the other ask makes you question if the resolution ends up being the cause all along. The best advice I can give? Perhaps to just take a moment, regardless of which side you are on, and ask why, and to keep asking why, even if you eventually reach that "I don't know... just habit, I guess" answer. To not solve the problem, but to try and learn why the problem exists in the first place. And if you find that point of disconnection, perhaps ask if there is a way to tie some wires together. Because even if the current isn't as strong, at least it would be better than nothing at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)