A Penny's Worth of Thoughts: Solitude

Seems a strange topic, doesn't it?  Solitude can mean different things to different people, just like anything else, sure.  For some, it's something to yearn for, somewhere to escape from day to day troubles.  Others may choose to define it more as a punishment of choices, an ending effect that causes loneliness.  But then, why speak of solitude where I usually talk of bringing people together?  Contradictory in a sense, but I feel like there's more to it than the first impressions.

My impression of solitude was always less of the where and, in some cases, the who.  The what is what peaks my interest.  The peace or the chaos, depending on who you ask.  And, perhaps, that the ones who feel dread are simply misplacing where their "true" solitude lies.  That it doesn't have to mean alone.

Have you ever had those certain someones that just being around eases you? Perhaps a group of them?  Who's to say that that, in itself, isn't a form of solitude?  Or even a particular activity or focus, perhaps even location?  I'd be willing to bet answering those questions has you seeing the grey, whether your own or someone else's.

The question then becomes what to do with the knowledge.  Do you help a buddy break through an invisible wall, or do you decide that, maybe, just maybe, aligning with dragons doesn't seem so bad?  One-size fits all is always a little big or small for someone, after all.

It's a bit like playing a board game.  Everyone is looking for the same goal, but may have to take a different path to get to it.  Some find it easier through competition, others cooperation.  But it's always the same goal.

Sometimes you just have to realize that some of us are playing a different game.

Just a penny's worth of thoughts, for those comfortable enough to read them.

A Penny's Worth of Thoughts: The Value of Another

I know what some of you are thinking, especially after reading that subtitle, either from the camp of "Yea, we got another one" or "Oh boy, here we go again".  But, here's the thing, in keeping with the neutrality that is "A Penny's Worth of Thoughts", anyone who has read before knows that that's not what I'm going for.  In fact, if I had to say my impressions, it's the extremes on both sides causing the polarity.  In this case, there's actually a bunch of grey area in the middle, just that calling it out will often just put one in the crossfire.

So, why then?  Why paint that target, when I clearly know it will happen?  Because, as I've stated before in a number of my other posts, the neutral ground is a path to resolution, and I know, even as I read that myself, even that statement can cause problems.  Doesn't make it more or less true, however, despite the extremes either way.

I've often been asked, sometimes even criticized for, why I do so much with video games.  The answer surprisingly fits here as well: outside of the extremes, the rules of games are clearly defined in what is and is not possible.  You can start up a game, so long as it is neither already broken or with intention to break, and understand how to play, if with some tutorials.  Plus, the rules of the games, in their own worlds, often make sense, if with that stretch of the so called "game logic".

This similarity is why I write today.  Just as with games, the rules are defined until you get to the extremes, and it is the blurriness of the extremes that we see spun everywhere today.  Yes, there are peaceful protests.  Yes, there are violent officials.  But, to both, there are also the violent riots and the officers who simply want to make it home at the end of the day.  This is why I feel like my neutral ground is so important, a haven, if you will, for those getting painted, whether rightly or wrongly, as being one side or the other.

Because for as much as people say this either is or isn't about color, both of the extremes seem to be seeing an awful lot of red.

Just a penny's worth of thoughts, lost in the chaos.

A Penny's Worth of Thoughts: Difference of Meaning

You hear so much these days of arguments over two interpretations of words.  Some being twisted to suit a certain perspective, others in ignorance or confusion of what the meaning actually is.  Yet, you can still find that both of those meanings can be correct, even in a general sense.

Take, for example, allergies.  If you ask most people what allergies are, the responses will typically be one of two: either they are a seasonal or context based annoyance to a person, usually of the nasal variety, or they will be potentially life threatening if not caught early enough, usually through consumption.  Does that make the seasonal sufferers pity the severe ones, or in the reverse, the severe sufferers wish they could trade off their allergens for the less threatening variety?  It's possible, though it tends to vary person to person.

The point here is that, although the word itself has multiple meanings, each meaning is held at it's equivalent value, usually after the person either specifies or explains their severity.  Why is it, then, that it is more difficult for people to agree on other such variable words?  My thought: because the meaning each side agrees with is based on their perspective of the subject, where it can be more difficult to explain why that is it's meaning due to what I would call an experience gap.  That the meaning that we understand is based more on what we are familiar with, and it is the context, or lack thereof, that throws us off.

I've had some of my own experience on this as of late, from seeing people put quotes around the word essential, as if to demean it to either themselves or to others, to me almost mentally doing it to a phrase, wait time, as I sat on the phone to a DES line seeking answers on an unemployment question, usually after a few minute average extends into hours.  In fact, some of you may have even expected me to do it just then, despite it being grammatically correct either way, if with some word change.

The sad part is, the only way I could see resolving this particular puzzle is to suggest being more open minded to the alternatives, which for many is not an easy task.  I find it perhaps even more of a puzzle to find a middle ground otherwise, as it is an issue that, outside of certain groups potentially, is rarely seen, even rarer discussed.  But it can be done.

Just ask any number of leaders you can come across in Guild Wars 2 why they use the shorthand for crowd control, or CC, as a way of requesting more damage per second, or DPS, on a single boss enemy when in squads or groups.

Just a penny's worth of thoughts, for those who can see the meaning of it.

A Penny's Worth of Thoughts: Crazy World

Things have gotten out of hand here recently, haven't they?  This pandemic has definitely shown how critically opposite point of views can get, even in regards toward attaining the same goal.  There are areas where hearing one of the approaches can have you thinking "Yeah, that could work" while the other can bring out the "Wait, what?" out of you.  There are even varying degrees of each: me, personally, align with the self-isolation, partly because it's an easy thing on my part, usually playing games online with my buddies and all, and partly because, knowing my condition is classified as an auto-immune disorder, it may be the wisest idea for me.  That being said, there is a difference between preparing for the storm and personally emptying shelves of supplies that I may need for a yet uncertain amount of time.

The flipside of that, however, which I think is becoming more prevalent as time goes on is the cabin fever effect showing it's potency, though not without it's own reasons.  Many of those individuals are in positions that know that things will stack against waiting it out over time.  Goods and services are still in use, perhaps even more so now than before, and they have a fear of the reserve supply of each also running it's course.  On this side, I also agree.  I'm eager to return to work, if for nothing more than extra stability.  And so, once again, I find myself standing neutral in a field of polar opposites.

There are arguments to be made for each, as always.  Arguments that you can see or hear through news outlets or social media.  Arguments searching for a one-size-fits-all solution, despite the fact that there has rarely ever been one.  Certain people are better suited for some than others, and the, I would say almost off-hand, parts for the others aren't always the best of options either, as there are just some things that can't be handled from home, just as there are things that can be surprising or overlooked, even with an excess of caution.

In a way, it kind of reminds me of any one of a collection of collectable card games.  The deckbuilding being representative of our knowledge of what to expect, usually with minor additions or a side board for our cautionary stance.  But one thing remains the same, we never truly know what will be on the other side of the table, sometimes not even when enough cards have been played for a reasonable prediction, as there could always be trade outs or tweaks made to what we assume it to be.  But, you can always tell an opponent's familiarity with the game, usually by either their lack of or over-preparedness.  Still, even when we think we know what will happen, one surprise turn can completely turn it around, and that is something I know many think about, with the generally held stance being that there's only so much preparation you can do before the game begins.  The rest you have to do as it plays out.

Otherwise, in attempt to make sure we have all the pieces, all we succeed in doing is running our deck dry.

Just a penny's worth of thoughts, for those willing to draw on it.

A Penny's Worth of Thoughts: Challenging One's Self

Here's an interesting thought: Why do some people make things harder on themselves?  Sure, some will say it's for the thrill of the challenge, but it's also possible to go so far that you give up because it becomes too hard.  You may think there's a fine line between the two, only to be surprised at just how much grey area there is between them.

Consider the last time you asked yourself how much more you could take or even simply stated that you couldn't anymore.  Did it continue or stop?  What motivated you one way or the other?  Was that motivation worth it in the end?  Simple questions to ask, much harder to answer, wouldn't you agree?  Perhaps it was a time you told yourself "Never again" only to do it once more without realizing it.

It can also be humbling, thinking on past goals that were never attained for one reason or another.  The challenges within challenges we've set for ourselves over the years.  At what point was that one criteria, that one extra challenge too much?  And yet the progress we had made, perhaps been blind to in some circumstances, meant little if we couldn't answer that challenge.

This one I have personal experience with.  For most of this past year, I had attained a Pokemon Organizer Basic license, which basically allowed me the ability to host officially sanctioned Pokemon tournaments.  Anyone who knows me could tell you that this was a big deal for me, yet for the entire year I had it, I never once used it.  I thought about it, sure, who wouldn't, but no plans ever came to fruition.

It wasn't that I thought I'd be a bad host.  I've helped many people learn the game over the years, whether it be the TCG or the video games, though it may have required a different approach, as I've usually not been one to force people to play the standard format.  No, the thought that bugged me was the hot shot challenger, the eventuality that someone who cares more about winning and losing than I do would come to one of my events, and within the span of one game try to convince everyone that following me could be hindering them.  Because to me, the game has never been about wins or losses, but bringing groups of friends together, occasionally bull-shitting each other along the way.

Sure, it's hard to argue that it'd be nice one day to go to a Pokemon World Championship event just to say I went.  But to actually be able to compete at that level?  I don't think I'm anywhere close to the experience some of those players bring to the table, honestly because I don't think I could bring myself to care so much about the wins and losses.  Every game has a lesson to learn, especially when helping others learn it.  Sometimes it can mean holding of on your combo long enough to gauge someone's true strength and skill.  To help them see their own value.  The hardest skill to master can be how to lose a winning game.

Just a penny's worth of thoughts, for those motivated to read them.