#the only language they speak is one of a corporate like selfishness and lack of understanding

[weareoutofmaplesyrupdave]

THOSE IMPERIALISTIC NAZI FASCIST ASS DICTATOR ASS TYRANNICAL MICRO MANAGING CONTROL FREAK BITCHES WHO ARE OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE SEEN MY GREATx40 GRANDMOTHER BE BORN, WHO LICK THE FEET OF THE RICH AND SPIT IT BACK ON EVERYONE ELSE, ARE SITTING THERE PRUNE LOOKING ASSES ON SOME RICKETY ASS CHAIRS IN A BUILDING MADE OF SHITTY ASS MARBLE THEY BUILT ON THE STOLEN LAND THEY OCCUPIED WHILE THEY MURDERED AND ENSLAVED MILLIONS ARE STEALING EVERYONES HUMAN FUCKING RIGHTS AGAIN WITH THEIR SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION RELIGIOUS BRAINWASHING AND OVER BUDGETED MILITARY/ POLICE AND THEIR CENSORSHIP JUST SO THEY CAN KEEP THE SHITTY AND BROKEN SYSTEM THEY MADE AND FUCKED UP ON RUNNING SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THEIR WEALTH AND POWER AND HAVE A FULL SUMMERS RECESS AND GO GOLFING AND NEVER KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO TRULY SUFFER OR BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK

[whiterosebrian]

Letter To Democrats

I felt the need to do something besides raising awareness of environmental, indigenous, and socio-economic issues. I’ve decided to compose and then mail multiple printed copies of a letter to multiple politicians across the USA. I did wonder if I should copy-and-paste the letter to social media profiles like I did for the one that I wrote to President Biden. Ultimately, I decided that posting the letter would serve two purposes. First, I wanted to let indigenous activists know that they have another willing accomplice. Second, this could provide a decent template for anyone who also feels a need to write to political leaders and put pressure on them to take much-needed action. Without any further ado…

Greetings,

I am writing a generic letter to send to assorted politicians across the United States. For reasons that I will articulate over the course of this letter, I felt a serious need to address as many members of the American political leadership as possible. I do not intend to call you out personally. If you do take it as a personal callout, please consider why you feel that way.

The reports of wildfires, heat waves, and floods have filled many, many observers with existential terror. Some have even expressed utter despair over whether the world will be inhabitable by any form of life. At times I have been tempted to join the despair, to give up hope of ever leaving a beautiful legacy for future generations. For the sake of all the people of the world, I must fight that temptation. I need to do my part to fight for the future.

There are a large number of activists trying to protect the environment. However, they need help from people who have the power to make really concrete changes. That is why I am writing to you and other Democratic politicians. That does sound very partisan, but the sad fact is that the Republican party is almost a lost cause at this point. I wish to be proven wrong about that. The fact is that it already engaged in brutal obstruction during the Obama administration. A sinister side to the base already started emerging during that time as well. With the rise of Donald Trump, the much of its leadership and nearly all of its electoral base have become increasingly unwilling to offer the kind of compromise needed for a functional democracy.

The Democratic party as a whole has been criticized as very weak in opposing the radicalizing Republican Party. The current President has spoken of a desire for restoring national unity. That desire is certainly laudable in itself when Trump blatantly stoked resentment and division. Again, however, the Republican party and its core supporters have shown a complete unwillingness to work with any opponents in any way. They view their opponents as subversive enemies that need to be crushed underfoot. The Republican party has inched towards neo-fascism at a time when neo-fascism is mainstreaming around the world. The Republican party has also already been beholden to the selfish interests of major corporations for decades. It even seeks to magnify the already dire influence of corporations chiefly responsible for pollution. Its propaganda outlets outright deny pollution and mislead millions of people.

Some Democratic politicians have also been criticized as going along with corporate interests and watering down legislation meant to oppose corporate influence. By now it has become clear that corporate elites do not have the safety of the world and its human and nonhuman denizens in mind. By now it has become clear that they must be reined in for the greater good. The only language that major corporations even comprehend is money. Here I arrive at the first main point of this letter: I urge you to work with other Democratic leaders to divest from major corporations and their executives, especially those most directly responsible for polluting the Earth. I’ve also seen proposals that corporations be forced to contribute to removing as much pollution as possible. Quickening the transition away from fossil fuels is crucial.

However, alternate energy sources are not enough. Switching from gas-powered cars to electric cars is not enough. Building solar or wind farms in place of coal-burning power plants is not enough. Extraction and consumption cause their own serious problems. The problem of environmental degradation has roots that are far too deep and complicated to address here, though I will touch upon one later. Going hand-in-hand with corporate influence are the bad social and urban infrastructures that do not encourage sustainable lifestyles. I barely even know where to begin in this regard. Cities are too often built for cars and not people. Most people have to drive carbon-spewing cars to work at jobs that are not well-suited to their needs in order to pay their bills and feed their families. Too many people are left in poverty or near-poverty, some people are more-or-less isolated in suburbs, and a tiny handful are virtually untouchable in their wealth and privilege. Healthy food is not always accessible, and even when it is, it often has to be shipped very far from the source.

My second main point is this: in addition to transitioning to cleaner energy, the very infrastructure of our society needs to reformed. Local communities need to be lifted up so that they can better care for themselves without the need for distant figures constantly having to provide for them through convoluted supply chains. It’s true that right-wingers speak of “small government” with the unspoken agenda of leaving corporate oligarchs and ultra-conservative clergy to rule over ordinary human beings. Nonetheless, I believe that, at this point, government needs to assist in rebuilding communities so that they can eventually leave denizens to stand on their feet and care for each other. The pandemic, along with the poor responses of many local officials, has shown the need for communities to engage in mutual care.

I will confess that this exhortation is the vaguest one in this letter. I lack in-depth education on such matters. I bring it up in order to further nudge you in a direction that would be far better for the Earth and its people. I can offer one example of what must be done that is slightly clearer: helping communities establish gardens and small-scale farms to better feed themselves.

On a very important side note, this nation needs to divest from the military as well. The largest and most powerful military in history is known to be among the largest polluters on earth. Too many politicians seem to ignore how massive the military already is an insist on subsidizing it at the cost of actually building a peaceful and prosperous society.

I further wish to discuss the need to center indigenous peoples in renewing our society. No, I am no indigenous myself. I simply wish to point to their wisdom. Yes, the sagely magical Indian who is one with Mother Earth is a crude stereotype, and I have no intention of reinforcing it. With that said, I follow a number of indigenous writers, activists, spiritualists, and influencers on social media. I learned about how many indigenous people are attempting to reconnect to previously outlawed and hidden heritages. The stereotype could be rooted in reality.

In most cases, those heritages include animistic spiritualities, in which aspects of the natural world, from plants to animals to waters to stones, are seen as having spirits. Furthermore, these aspects of the natural world are seen as relatives to humans. I should note how some well-meaning white people, wishing to bond with the earth instead of submitting to organized religion, appropriate these indigenous spiritualties and associated practices. Indigenous writers will encourage such people to instead delve into their own pre-Christian heritages, which have similar animistic philosophies, however obscured by time they may be. I have actually been doing just that—though I won’t elaborate because I don’t want to center myself.

You may be asking, what is the relevance said common thread of the spiritualities of indigenous peoples? That animism seems to go hand-in-hand with methods of land care that developed over generations of trial and error, along with the principles behind those methods. With the subjugation and expulsion (and worse) of the land’s original caretakers, though, these practices fell into obscurity. The most dramatic example, perhaps, is the suppression of controlled burnings on the western coastline leading to the wildfires that we have seen in recent years. Indeed, the different lands of different indigenous nations need their own subtly distinct approaches, based on ecosystems, geographies, local histories, and general senses of place. Indigenous activists and figureheads are calling upon governments to heed their words on not only conservation but also regeneration.

One of the main demands that indigenous activists make is for the return of their lands, full sovereignty over them, and the facilitation of cultural revival. Yes, that is a very simple manner of justice and righting a historic wrong. It has become evident that their wisdom is a crucial piece of the puzzle of solving environmental problems as well. Simple “colorblind” or “globalized” liberalism won’t suffice when working for social or environmental justice. Indigenous activists argue that colonialism is at the root of so many of our world’s problems. Many of them even outright state that the “colonial state” in itself is a problem. I can see how colonialism has promoted the rise of an all-devouring capitalism and perpetuated it. The grim historical fact of how the enslavement of Black people and the elimination of indigenous peoples contributed to building this nation remains a grim historical fact.

I myself am figuring out the world and learning many truths, but I am sympathetic to people who have borne the brunt of colonialism. I welcome the humanistic achievements of modernity and utterly oppose fundamentalism and fascism, I assure you, but I’ve come to accept that the modern world is broken. Simple progress won’t heal the world. “Big government” certainly has a role to play in mobilizing the needed social changes, such as what I’ve alluded to above, but the “colonial state” needs to ultimately divest its own power.

I’ll try to summarize my points now. Major corporations and economic elites need to be drastically reined in and disempowered (along with the military). The transition to renewable energies needs to be quickened—but also needs to be accompanied by drastic changes to infrastructures and supply chains so as to result in less extraction and consumption. Localized communities need to be empowered so they can better care for themselves without much out faraway aid. Indigenous peoples need to be given their lands back, be elevated to leadership roles in caring for and regenerating said lands, and be empowered so they can rebuild their cultures. Settlers should learn from them as well. In the end, the state and the socio-economic system that it has upheld need to recede—not for billionaires or grand inquisitors or dictators, but for ordinary people and the earth. In truth, humans are meant to be a part of nature, and the generational challenge is for humanity to reconcile with the rest of nature.

This all may sound idealistic or radical. This past summer has shown us that we shouldn’t settle for anything less than radical social change. This nation, which has been a major world power for over a century, needs to be radically reimagined. This all may sound vague as well. I have little education in politics and governance apart from what I’ve tried to learn for myself across the internet. That is all the more reason for people like you—people with more real-world power than I—to push along radical social change. This letter is meant to raise awareness of your duty as a leader. A leader is meant to be a guide, not a dominator. There’s a chance that you could be recorded in history as a leader who did what was necessary to make the world’s healing and renewal possible.

Thank you.

You may call me Brian Solomon Whiterose.

[gravitascivics]

ELUDING EMPATHY

The last few postings have attempted to contextualize the polarization plaguing the nation’s political arena.  Through the citation of various evidentiary information, they attribute this division among Americans to the inability to address various incubating problems and issues.  This posting looks at an underlying cause for this inability.

Now, not all readers will agree with what follows, but this posting makes a case that the all-encompassing factor – the root cause of incubation – is identity politics.  According to Ezra Klein:

… everyone engaged in American politics is engaged in identity politics. This is not insult, and it’s not controversial:  we form and fold identities constantly, naturally.  Identity is present in politics in the way gravity, evolution, or cognition is present in politics; that is to say, it is omnipresent in politics, because it is omnipresent in us … It runs so deep in our psyches, is activated so easily by even weak cues and distant threats, that it is impossible to speak seriously about how we engage with one another without discussing how our identities shape that engagement.[1]

Is this true?

         When one starts talking about what is natural, one cannot solely depend on the social sciences in general or political science specifically to provide sufficient grounding for any such claim.  And surely, the reportage of a journalist (with all due respect to Mr. Klein) does not make the case either.  So, perhaps the ideas of an American neuro-endocrinologist, Robert M. Sapolsky,[2] can be of sufficient gravitas in this field to help convince a sceptic.  

But before sharing his thoughts, can one assume that a social arrangement, be it a church congregation, a labor union, a governmental jurisdiction, a corporation, etc., counts on some minimal ability for the participants of the arrangement to feel empathy among themselves?  Afterall, scarcity is part of the human condition – not to mention a condition of all organic life – that leads to inevitable conflicts.

To weather social conflicts, one main factor that allows for solution or compromise seems to be, at some level, the ability of those involved to feel what the other parties feel in relation to the conflict at hand.  And if so, that begs a question:  What causes humans to feel empathy for others?  

A lot is involved, but one important factor is whether the other party to a conflict or any interaction – be it a person or group – has some sense of being an “us” as opposed to being a “them.”  If that’s true, to what degree does that feeling need to be felt?  Well, ostensibly that would be to the degree one can ascribe the idea of mutuality.  And that sense of mutuality has to be strong enough to motivate the person to do the work necessary to engender empathy.

Sapolsky explains the mind’s machinations, both biologically and cognitively, and it turns out that empathy does not come without effort, it takes work to engender it.  Yes, empathy, under the right conditions, seems to come naturally, but only if certain factors are met.  To understand this, one is helped by placing oneself in incidences where empathy is expected – such as in situations of injustice.

Here's one.  As one can guess, actual observation of deprivation or exploitation of a victim more easily solicits empathy.  Say that one sees a person’s life being snuffed out by a policeman putting his knee on that person’s throat, as opposed to when one hears of the same incident without the assistance of a video.  The former is less work than the latter in engendering empathy and even more work is demanded if one hears some abstract diatribe about how minorities are mistreated by those in authority.  

As one goes from one exposure to the other, as just described, the work becomes harder and, therefore, less likely to be exerted.  A lack of direct experience, Sapolsky reports, acts to diminish one’s ability to be empathetic or the likelihood of it taking place.  And along these lines, he claims,

It is an enormous cognitive task for humans to overcome that, to reach an empathetic state for someone who is different, unappealing … That is straight out of Us versus Them … showing how extreme out-group members, such as the homeless or addicts, are processed differently in the frontal cortex than other people … [The] tragedy of the commons versus tragedy of the commonsense morality, where acting morally toward an Us is automatic, while doing so for the Them takes work.[3]

Or, for example, to quote this natural scientist use of nonscientific language, when it comes to empathizing with the plight of the disadvantaged, the rich “suck.”  

Why?  Because the experiences of the disadvantaged to these well-off people is foreign unless they themselves come from deprived backgrounds. His description of these rich people, in general, is even more self-centered and selfish than this quote indicates, but the reader gets the idea.  In general, the more one sees victims as Them, one is more apt to believe the worse of them – they are lazy or dishonest or conniving – and that justifies any unempathetic bias the non-associated feels.  

And when one can avoid seeing the individual – as when one hears but does not see the above described incidence of homicide – one can categorize the account as the homicide happening to a group, not a person. That also adds to one attributing the incident not happening to a person in one’s own identity group.  

Often, one hears this being a problem of cognition when the solution would be education.  At other times, the problem is attributed to feelings, such as one is lacking “brotherly love.”  And this leads to a false dichotomy between emotions and cognitions.  Sapolsky claims it is a shortcoming of both making the challenge of encouraging empathy more difficult.

A bleak picture, for sure, but Sapolsky offers some hope.  Yes, one can easily see from the above that humans are doomed to a tribalistic social disposition if they cannot be sufficiently empathetic.  Left to people’s own natural tendencies and allegiances empathy is limited to those who are immediately around as one grows up. Social arrangements under such thinking and feelings will not expand and that limits a group to few resources and stifles economic, cultural, and intellectual enrichment.  

So, where is the hope?

Spelled out this way, these findings don’t seem to bode well for humans.  We have evolved to support our immediate social groups, a tendency that can be easily manipulated into discriminatory behavior, especially at younger ages.  The good news, according to Sapolsky, is that there are always individuals who resist the temptation to discriminate and won’t conform to harmful acts based on othering or hierarchy.

         … [Sapolsky] offers suggestions for how we might subvert social tendencies to conform and [instead] aim our behavior towards better social ends.  For example, his advice to counter xenophobia includes “emphasizing individuation and shared attributes, perspective taking, more benign dichotomies, learning hierarchical differences, and bringing people together on equal terms with shared goals.[4]

And given this overall concern – that social arrangements depend on good doses of proactive instruction – this message needs to be taught and encouraged for the sake of a common good.  In addition, the common good is essential not only for progress, but for maintaining what has been accomplished both socially and individually.

         But what one can read between the above lines is: these tendencies can serve those who want to exploit the social/political landscape for their own ends.  And its utilization, that of exploiting people’s proclivities to limit their concerns to their own identity, either by using direct language or code language, can prove to be effective.  

One notion that seems to be prevalent among those who do not appreciate the challenge these natural tendencies pose is the belief that one needs to be taught prejudices.  This is true, but not true.  The above indicates a natural predisposition to hold the Them with at least suspicion if not out and out hostility.  The teaching comes into play when it sharpens the targets of such disdain.  

To counter this bias, one needs proactive instructional efforts aimed at revealing to students

·       what is natural – the proclivity to divide the world between the Us and the Them;

·       the inefficiency that such biases accrue; and

·       the experiences of being exposed to as many Them as is possible in as many settings as is possible.

In short, what one needs to be taught is how to battle these divisive tendencies.  

The Ogbunu quote above hints at the direction such lessons should take.  This blog’s argument holds that in terms of civics instruction, federation theory directly addresses the aims that quote identifies and its postings have, to varying degrees, attempted to share information  that helps teachers help civics students acquire the information that would lead to healthy levels of empathy.

         One more point: Klein adds to his concern over this dysfunctionality by pointing out that by “wielding” a bias toward identity politics, people cover up many problems.  They attribute problems to Them people, not to those individuals or to an Us. Police mistreatment?  That happens to blacks.  Exploitive labor conditions?  That happens to immigrants from south of the border or the under educated. Poverty?  That happens to the lazy.  This proclivity ignores the details of how Those people are being mistreated much less defining Them as really being Us.  

As such, the tendency “forces” an array of factors under that cover so that one is removed from what is at stake for those on the other side of some contentious, festering problem.  It assists the general factors feeding the incubation that have led the nation to the polarization currently being manifested.  But then what happens, a video appears on TV, and a multitude of viewers see for the first time what is really happening to an individual.  And guess what?  Empathy among many ensues.

[1] Ezra Klein, Why We’re Polarized (New York, NY:  Avid Reader Press), xx.

[2] Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017).

[3] Ibid., 532. 

[4] C. Brandon Ogbunu, “Why Do People Do Bad Things?,” Greater Good Magazine, December 1, 2017, accessed March 14, 2019, https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_do_people_do_bad_things .  Emphasis added, AND see Anna Rita Manca, “Social Cohesion,” Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 2014, accessed July 24, 2020, https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-007-0753-5_2739 .

[reg-reviews]

Train to Busan - Remembering the Wheel

Train to Busan was my favourite film of last year. Not just my favourite Korean film; not just my favourite genre film - it was without any doubt in my mind my favourite film of 2016. Before I bought my ticket I hadn't heard any hype, hadn't seen the trailer, and literally all I knew about it going in was that it was a Korean zombie movie (which should be enough in anyone's book). So it's fair to say I wasn't expecting to have my mind blown as much as it was when I sat in my seat. But blown my mind was, to the point where I seriously considered standing in my seat and applauding when the credits finally rolled. No, seriously. 

Now, naturally I was in a serious rush after that first viewing. Looking back now, it's possible that while a significant part of that was the quality of the film, some may have been the excitement of discovering something new that I hadn't heard anyone else talking about – not my friends nor any film buffs or reviewers I followed. There's something to be said about being The First in your circle to discover something amazing, as well as the hope that you'll inspire others to seek it out and the satisfaction in hearing their approval. But there's also something to be said about staying power, and when I started to come down off the high I began to wonder if I should dare a second viewing. Would it be a film that reinforces my love on a second viewing, like The Spectacular Now, or would the roller coaster be to some degree less exciting once I knew all of its twists and turns ala Snowpiercer?

As you may have guessed, I was pleased beyond measure to find it to be the former. If I was surprised Train to Busan made me cry the first time I watched it, I was astounded to find myself crying again for round two. And I guess that’s when I began to wonder. I've seen a lot of the tropes in many films before, but why had they worked so well in this film, yet fell flat in so many others attempting the same? Why could I find myself remembering every character and dramatic moment in, of all things, a zombie movie? Over the many long, wearisome months between the film's cinematic run and its (thank God) eventual Blu-ray release, I found myself mulling over it in my mind, and now after watching it again, I feel compelled to get some kind of attempt at an analysis out of my system.

I should admit from the get go that I did not study film at University, and that my relatively limited knowledge of film technique comes primarily from various Internet essayists (both text and video). So I'm in a somewhat difficult position – I'm convinced the film demonstrates amazing storytelling, but I'm far from an expert in deeply analysing them. The main reason I feel compelled to even try is, well, I can't find any kind of in-depth analysis of the storytelling in this film. Hell, I can't really find any analysis at all. I mean, without looking, I can guarantee there are some fairly complex analyses of recent films like La La Land, Moonlight, and even genre movies like Arrival and Shin Godzilla, and they're all deserving to their own degrees, but I'd easily consider Train to Busan as worthy of such discussion. So, since I can't find anything to help me understand why this film worked so well, I'm left to try and get my own thoughts down and attempt to work it out for myself.

When I initially started this piece, I was going to keep the spoilers to a minimum. That plan will go out the window by the end, but for the first few paragraphs at least I'm going to focus primarily on the clip below. For context, it takes place about a third of the way through the film after the passengers have disembarked from the zombie-infested high-speed train, at a station they believe is safe from the infection. As an aside, I love that this clip is available on YouTube. Not only do I feel it perfectly encapsulates everything I love about this film, but the lack of subtitles (a feature I wish were available on the Blu-ray) and no familiarity of the Korean language allows for a complete focus on the visual storytelling on display.

For arbitrary reasons, let's start with why I cared about all the characters so much. While it must be mentioned that the casting is amazing, the actors all charismatic, and the costume designs are visually distinct and striking, I feel there's more to it than that. If that was all it took, then I why did I care so much more for the characters in Train to Busan than those in a film with equally strong examples of those attributes, like The Force Awakens? There are vague terms I could throw around like "flawed", "likeable", "realistic" or even "badass", but I guess if I were to do a post-viewing analysis as to why I found these characters compelling, I think it comes down to a little bit of visually demonstrated personality, a little bit of understanding character behaviour, and a feeling sense that the characters are driving the story while remaining true to themselves.

Let's look at the clip above. Now, at first glance it would be easy to see this as just everyone running away from zombies, which in a way it is. But to paraphrase a quote or idea I once heard somewhere that's stuck with me (though for life of my I can't remember if it was in a storytelling, inspirational, or political context, weirdly enough), "We are not our situations – we are how we react to our situations". And that's exactly what's on display in that scene – yes, everyone is running away from a horde of zombies, but their distinct personalities and psychologies are evident in HOW they're reacting. The degree of their emotional responses, their body language, and especially who they prioritise (whether themselves or others) speak volumes about each of them.

Let's get more specific and look at the main cast of characters one by one. We first see Sang-hwa in the blue jacket descending on the escalator. He displays an immediate reaction of panic and fear upon seeing the oncoming zombie horde, but he follows this up with a (relatively speaking) calm and coordinated move of lifting his pregnant wife (Seong-kyeong) over onto the stairs before following himself. Later we see him risking his own life by charging to attack a zombie before it grabs the little girl Soo-an, and sticking around to hold the doors allowing the survivors more time to escape. So, on paper this sounds like he's a generic hero, but his facial expressions and body give him some more depth. Sure, he looks scared and concerned, but you can also see hints of frustration and perhaps even anger there, which I think is also expressed in the way he punches the zombies almost out of spite and annoyance. This reinforces earlier and later scenes which demonstrate his short temper, and can even be seen in the way he hurries the Homeless Man out of the way, and when he calls out to the business man Seok-woo to hurry up (hell, in the subtitles he calls him "Asshole"). As an aside, I've seen some websites claim Sang-hwa is meant to be a professional martial artist, but I don't agree. The actor who plays him is a mixed martial artist in real life, so I believe they may be projecting those attributes onto the character. If anything, to me the fighting looks scrappy, raw, and full of anger and annoyance, which feels a lot more appropriate for the character.

As for Seong-kyeong, while we don't see as much in this particular sequence, we can get more than just "pregnant wife" from her character. She too maintains a constant look of fear and panic, naturally, but like her husband she remains relatively focussed and in control. We see her run towards her husband and Soo-an, focussed primarily on getting the latter to safety. Before descending the steps to the station, we see her check out the window, showing her intelligence and attentiveness (also seen quickly after they're on the platform and she's looking around to ensure the coast is clear, whereas most everyone else is running in a blind state of panic). Soon after, we see them pause temporarily upon seeing the zombie that's fallen between the two elderly ladies, then move TOWARDS one of the ladies to help them, further demonstrating both being selfless. But even in this brief scene we see she may not be so perfect, namely in her reaction when the Homeless Man blocks the door. She clearly hesitates, perhaps worrying that letting him in would let a zombie in too (perhaps even worried he's become a zombie), and after she opens the door for him she steps back with a look of disgust on her face (which wouldn't be the only time themes of classism are brought up in the film).

Now let's look at Soo-an's father, the business man Seok-woo. As extra context for this scene, the reason he, Soo-ann, and the Homeless Man are on this walkway instead of descending with most of the others is because Seok-woo called a business associate in the area (listed in his phone as a "lemming" indicating both his position in the corporate hierarchy and his attitude towards those beneath him) to find out a way to avoid the quarantine they were all heading for (The Homeless Man overheard him on the phone). We first see him talking to his daughter, like he's trying to reassure her, before he walks towards the military officer across the walkway. But this isn't a typical "Everything is going to be okay, I'll be right back" type of reassurance – it's incredibly brief and detached, as evident when he immediately starts running away while Soo-ann visibly wipes tears from her eyes (tears shed because she was upset at her father's selfishness) and the camera zooms back to emphasise her feeling of abandonment. But while he may not care very much about Soo-ann's feelings, he clearly cares about her – as soon as he realises things have gone to shit, he immediately looks back and runs towards her. As for aspects of his character, as well as the business attire (which I should stress he didn't even really need to wear that day), his default expression of fear comes across as desperation and stress, and as when he's called over towards the glass doors by Sang-hwa he doesn't even consider helping anyone else on his way, only himself. We also see he's not a violent or aggressive person, perhaps exemplified by the fact he literally tried to fight off a zombie using a book.

Rounding out the rest of the cast (besides Soo-ann, whom I think I more or less covered across the previous entries), the Homeless Man is clearly a clumsy, panicking, even somewhat cowardly man (seen not just in his facial expressions and limp, but also in how he doesn't stay and help secure the glass doors), he's not completely selfish as evidenced by his brief assistance of Seok-woo with his coat. Yong-guk (the young male baseball player) is seen urging Jin-hee (his female friend) to escape, the latter hesitant to leave (and all of this is clearly told through maybe 3 seconds of body language), both showing their selflessness by his helping with the glass doors and her assisting others into the train. And finally we have the elderly business man Yon-suk, who is clearly not only scared and desperate but completely selfish. While he appears to grab someone and help them when they see the horde, this is only because that man was the train driver and hence somebody useful to him. Though this may come across as thoughtful, once he's on the train he hysterically grabs the train employee in a desperate plea to get the train moving, showing he only cares about his own safety. Then later once the door is closed does it again but more threateningly, even going so far as to shove aside Jin-hee when she objects.

As well as the above-mentioned visually-reinforced character traits, each character has a consistent psychology throughout. You constantly understand why each character behaves the way they do in every scene, so it never feels like a character is acting inexplicably or "stupidly" for the sake of raising the tension (unlike, say, the more recent Alien films). Even the arguable villain of the piece, Yon-suk, feels all too human and in a way pitiful, despite him acting consistently selfish and destructively.

So, that's enough about visual characterisation for now, so let's try and analyse some of the other storytelling techniques in this one scene (again, I'll stress I'm somewhat limited in my knowledge here, so bear with me). If there's one thing I'm a sucker for, it's a film with great editing. Hell, I'll admit that The Accountant is a bad film, but I thoroughly enjoyed the hell out of it because the editing was so damn good. In any case, Train to Busan is no exception. Even setting aside vague notions of the rhythm of scenes, and appropriate length of shots to let the emotional beats play out, there's just some solid cuts going on here. One of my favourite examples is the quick close up shot of Sang-hwa reacting to the horde before panning outwards, allowing the audience to become more invested in the situation by focusing on a personal reaction amidst the chaos. Another is right after the zombies attack the soldier pleading for help on the walkway. We pan from the Homeless Man to Seok-woo, cut to a close-up of him from the opposite angle turning around, then cut to where he's looking (his daughter waiting as commanded while chaos ensues behind her), then cut to his feet starting to run. It's simple but elegant motivated editing – seeing a person looking a direction and then cutting to their point of view – but it works.

Another of my favourite little techniques in this scene in the use of slow motion. It's common to see slow motion in other films used to make an action sequence seem more exciting or give it an epic feel, but here (like in its rare use throughout the rest of the film) it's used to emphasise the panic and desperation, mimicking what happens when the adrenaline kicks in (along with the sound drowning out). And like with one of the previous editing examples, it allows the audience to focus on another personal situation amongst the chaos, and also give us time to take in all that's happening in what is for the characters a short amount of time. As a cherry on top snapping back to real-time when the immediate danger is briefly alleviated with Sang-hwa's elbow gives that strike additional weight.

While it's hard to pin this down to a single technique, I must also really praise the film's sense of geography. Whether it's something vague like genius storyboarding or the above-mentioned motivated editing or what have you, you really do have a strong sense of where everyone and everything is in relation to each other in every scene and shot. Another classic example of this idea: the station shoot-out in The Untouchables. This may not seem relatively important, but as a recent example my enjoyment of the recent Free Fire was hindered because I was frequently confused as to the relative locations of all the characters. Now, you could argue that this sort of spacial awareness is harder to get across in a more open environment like an abandoned factory than a more two-dimentional setting like a train carriage, so it may be an unfair comparison, but I still feel that a little bit more understanding and cohesion like this can go a long way in terms of engagement.

Let's take a look at my favourite scene in the film, which I think exemplifies this idea perfectly. This scene comes much later in the film, so let’s raise the spoiler warning to the next level.

Even if you go into this scene fresh, you can tell exactly where everyone is in relation to each other, including the zombies, without ever showing the two main groups of characters in the same shot. It's mostly told through the framing and angles of each shot, and the editing flowing naturally from where each character is looking to what or whom they're looking at, and all in the space of less than 20 seconds. On top of that, the "Oh fuck" moment is beautifully executed. First we have the classic countdown, second we have the rising tense music with the slow zoom in, third we have the established pattern with the shots cutting back and forth between the two characters, and then finally that pattern and hence the tension is broken with perfect sound mixing – following up the isolated, enhanced sound of the soda can being crushed with deafening silence. Setting up the pattern, building the tension, then releasing it to maximum effect.

Speaking of tension, I must also take a moment to praise how Train to Busan manages to frequently raise it without feeling too contrived and forced. Focusing on the station escape sequence once more, the few moments where more shit hits the fan all feel believable and organic given what has already been established in previous scenes. A zombie runs into Seok-woo because it's already established that area is swarming with them. A few survivors accidentally open a carriage full of zombies because they were in too much of a panic to take the time to remember which carriage they came from and look through the window. Zombies crash through the glass walkway where we saw Seok-woo and the Homeless man earlier. Later on, the darkness caused tunnels becomes a major plot point, and again this feels genuine enough because firstly of course trains would go through tunnels, and secondly because it plays on an already-established and reinforced attribute of the zombies.

Now, if there's one thing I know less about than visual storytelling in films, its writing and story structure in films, but what the hell, let's have a crack at it. There's a term going around some parts of the web describing an ideal form of story structure, popularised by Matt Stone and Trey Parker of South Park fame - "Therefore/but". It basically boils down to character-driven cause-and-effect, and that's Train to Busan in a nutshell. For example, let's look at what happens after that station escape scene. The main characters are now split across three carriages, and which carriages they wound up in was determined by their character traits and actions during the escape. The fact they are now separated sets up the tension for the next stage in the plot – some characters try desperately to cross zombie-infested carriages to their loved ones, while others try to prevent their crossing due to fear of becoming infected. The actions each group of characters takes is completely consistent with their actions and choices during the previous scenes including the escape, and the progression of events feels organic and natural, with a logical progression and order. Contrast that with a film I watched only recently but with some similarities - 30 Days of Night. In that, you also have a small group of survivors that slowly dwindle, but the progression of events feels disconnected, like you could jumble up a majority of the set pieces and it would have as much impact. If Train to Busan demonstrates the "Therefore/but" idea of storytelling, then 30 Days of Night demonstrates the "And then" idea, where story beats often aren't impacted by what came before, and don't really influence what happens next.

Continuing on with storytelling and structure, another film I watched recently that gave me a little bit of inspiration was Their Finest. In it, a character comments that while (or perhaps because) in real life a person's death may not feel like it has a point or meaning, in a story a character's death absolutely must. And again, Train to Busan nails this idea almost perfectly. As well as the numerous nameless victims littered throughout to remind us of the constant threat and tension, almost every death of a main character (see below) is effective because it's either caused by another character's actions, it has a clear and distinct impact on the story or another character's arc, or a combination of the above. We care about the characters because they impact the story, and we mourns their deaths because we see how they impact the remaining characters. Compare this again with 30 Days of Night. Setting aside isolated deaths like heroic sacrifices or characters wondering off by themselves and dying, there are a couple of moments when we're clearly supposed to feel something when the main character is forced to put others out of their miseries. But these scenes fall flat primarily because the characters that die aren't well established or impactful, and because the main character's choice to kill them doesn't really feel like it's in service of any sort of clear development or arc. They're trying to come across as emotional, but they haven't earned it.

But here's where I must raise the spoiler warning level to maximum, because, believe it or not, I'm going to talk about what I think was the weakest part of the film and some other major plot points in the last third. Yes, believe it or not I'm going to not only be slightly negative about this film which I adore, but I'll even get a little pretentious and suggest an improvement.  

So let's talk about The Homeless Man. 

Now, I must say up front that the character's weaknesses have nothing to do with him being homeless. Rather, the character doesn't completely work because it's lacking in a lot of the qualities I've mentioned above. While his fear, clumsiness, and shock are all solidly depicted visually, his actions don't feel completely consistent. Just before the station escape clip, he's calmly and stubbornly refusing to leave the walkway because he overheard Seok-woo on his phone organising an alternate escape route, but at that time he was visually shown as still being in shock and hysterical. During the escape, his choosing to help Seok-woo by covering the attacking zombie with his coat also doesn't feel completely consistent with his desperation and clumsiness.

A friend of mine has a theory that by setting up the Homeless Man as an intruder on the train, along with the editing fake-out just before we first see him, the audience associates him with the infection and thus gets us off on the wrong foot. I agree, and would add that on top of that he is reinforced as a hindrance and liability for the group on at least two other occasions. But these might not have necessarily been death knells of audience empathy, and could've served as functional set-ups for a redemption death. In fact, let's take a closer look as his death scene.

Now, on paper this should've worked – the once-cowardly character here sacrifices himself so Soo-ann and Seong-kyeong can escape, culminating in a bleak yet almost beautiful sequence in which zombies pour through the breaking glass like gushing water. And yet whilst its far more stylish than the deaths of both Sang-hwa and Seok-woo, it falls completely flat emotionally. The reason, I think, is that unlike the other two deaths this one feels completely one sided - the tragedy is the Homeless Man and his alone, whereas the deaths affected other characters. Sang-hwa's death worked because he bonded with Seok-woo and helped him grow as a character, and Seok-woo's death REALLY worked because he tragically died just at the moment he finally became a decent father to Soo-ann. The Homeless Man needed some sort of relationship and arc associated with another character, and I believe there's an obvious candidate: Seong-kyeong.

As you can see in the clip, just before The Homeless Man dies, Seong-kyeong looks back at him, as if (from a storytelling perspective) it's meant to be a pay-off for an emotional beat that wasn't fully established or fleshed out (perhaps, and I should stress I'm completely speculating here, in a scene or two that were cut for whatever reason). I mentioned above how Seong-kyeong appears to briefly react to The Homeless Man with disgust and weariness when he jumps in their carriage at the infected station, so one possibility could be that her look was her coming to realising her own misguided prejudice of him. Personally, while this this fits into the themes of classism well enough, I don't think this works psychologically for Seong-kyeong at this moment – she's undoubtedly still mourning her husband, and THAT'S what the filmmakers could play off. Remember that clip above with the soda can? Just before that sequence, The Homeless Man was lagging too far behind, and after he steps on the can it leads to the situation where Sang-hwa is bitten by a zombie and doomed, so it's entirely possible that The Homeless Man could feel responsible in some way for Sang-hwa's death (or for Seong-kyeong to be even more disgusted in him). So all we'd need is an extra scene to reinforce one or both of these dynamics, perhaps after they're kicked out of the "safe" carriage or as they're walking along the tracks. After an accidental glance, the two shy their eyes away quickly, her in disgust and maybe hatred, and him in shame and guilt, all in the space of even 5 seconds, and that might've been enough. That way, The Homeless Man's death becomes not just a heroic sacrifice, but a moment of redemption for him, and forgiveness from her

As an aside, a further nit-pick of this scene is the forced setup. While I praised Train to Busan for cleverly raising the tension in previous scenes, here the cause is a literal fiery trainwreck that comes out of nowhere . Again, might be minor, but a sense of contrivance (even subconsciously) probably didn't help. 

Looking over all of this, it looks like I’ve only pointed out tried-and-true storytelling techniques – body language, character interactions, motivated editing, slow motion, basic sound mixing, cause and effect storytelling – and haven’t really highlighted anything truly experimental or innovative. But that’s exactly my point, and perhaps the reason why this film isn’t being talked about more and why I feel it should. Train to Busan doesn’t really break new ground in terms of storytelling, and if anything sticks quite rigidly to established tropes and cliches of the zombie genre, and yet it’s still incredible. So many recent big-budget blockbusters fail in these basic areas that we need films like Train to Busan to show everyone how it’s done.

Train to Busan doesn’t reinvent the wheel. It remembers why the wheel worked in the first place.

[the-river-dream-shore]

@burtonesquevincent​ tagged me, thanks! :)

Rules: answer all the questions, add one of your own and tag as many people as there are questions i mean you can tag other people then :)

1. coke or pepsi?

lemon pepsi? idk

2. disney or dreamworks?

Dreamworks! 

3. coffee or tea?

herbal/fruit/light green tea. I don’t like bitter taste.

4. books or movies?

both

5. windows or mac?

Windows? I used to want Mac, but today it just seems like an overpriced product that prefers design over functionality. Once game developers start including Linux I’ll switch to Linux.

6. dc or marvel?

I feel like it’s more about the writers, as I just don’t like big corporations much. I really liked Young Avengers and Journey into Mystery. And Agent of Asgard, but it broke my heart so idk if I can recommend it (yes I can), I’ve also read some Robin stuff (mostly Nightwing and Red Robin), where the quality differed as it was written by numerous authors. I want to read Ms Marvel. I started to read Wicked and Divine (Image comics) but there was too much pop-culture references that said nothing to me (not sure, if i’m too eastern Europe, too young, or too abstinent for it. but I might revisit it later because the plot was interesting)

7. xbox or playstation?

PC. Only game console I like is a good ol’ gameboy. (read as: i’m broke and i’ve never owned either)

8. dragon age or mass effect?

Dragon Age, the plots seem more interesting and I love fantasy more than military sci-fi. I don’t like the design of either. I would say I’m picky, when it comes to 3D games, but then... I like WoW, Minecraft, Don’t Starve, Pokémon, Undertale, point ‘n’ click text-heavy adventures and Subnautica and not much more. So idk :D I prefer isometrics and 2D, exploring landscapes, gathering resources, getting to know characters, uncovering mysteries. Romance, timed missions and teambuilding? Nah. 1st person shooters? EVIL.

9. night owl or early riser?

hoo hoo, it’s currently after 1AM and since I don’t have work tommorow, I’m not getting out of bed before the lunch :D

10. cards or chess?

cards. chess are too depressive (idk why, it just makes me sad even if I don’t lose)

11. chocolate or vanilla?

vanilla. I rarely eat chocolate and I used to like the white one the best before I started eating vegan. i got used to the chocolate flavour and sometimes actually crave it a lot, but i still mostly prefer vanilla flavour. 

12.vans or converse?

never had any of them, but I would really like to have converse style shoes that go mid-calf length.

13. fluff or angst?

hurt comfort with happy, even unrealisticaly sweet ending. shut up.

14. beach or forest?

calm beach near a calm forrest where there are no dangerous or annoying insects (my skin is delicate and insects tend to be inconsiderate :D)

15. dogs or cats?

generally? cats, i just too often can’t share the dog enthusiasm and being a good team player exhausts me. but animals have different personalities that doesn’t have to match the stereotypes, so I keep an open mind.

16. clear skies or rain?

both is nice, as long as it changes in few days

17. cooking or eating out?

Eating out, probably. I’m not a terrific cook and I hate doing the dishes.

18. spicy food or mild food?

Spicy!

19. halloween/samhain or solstice/yule/christmas?

Halloween. But I like both :)

20. would you rather forever be a little too cold or a little too hot?

eh, probably the first one, but both sounds shit

21. if you could have a superpower, what would it be?

Telekinesis and flying. Aka I wouldn’t have to get up for snacks and I could avoid all obstacles and people when running late somewhere. Also discovering abandoned roofs and towers :3 Oh, and it would be nice if I actually could remember stuff and stay motivated :D

22. animation or live action?

unfair! but if I had to choose, 2D animation. 

23. baths or showers?

baths aren’t an option mostly, not enough hot water or bad bath tub. I love baths, but only when it’s perfect temperature and a nice bath tub. otherwise, showers.

24. team cap or team ironman?

MCU? Steve. Comics? Idk, neither.

25. fantasy or sci-fi?

my favourite setting is when it mixes

26. do you have three or four favourite quotes, if so, what are they?

All that is gold does not glitter/Not all those who wander are lost (LotR)

Everybody want’s to change the world but no one wants to die (MCR)

27. youtube or netflix?

youtube

28. harry potter or percy jackson?

Harry Potter. I didn’t read PJ.

29. when do you feel accomplished?

when I can make the brave decision.

30. star wars or star trek?

really?? both, ofc.

31. paperback or hardback books?

hardback, except for the Terry Pratchett books.

32. horror or rom-com?

Hm. How about a horror setting, but it’s funny in an un-american way?

33. tv shows or movies?

eeeeeh, probably movies, i don’t have much time lately so it’s more accesible medium for me

34. favourite animal?

cats, water turtles, parrots, elephants, monkeys... 

35. favourite genre of music?

rock, country, rock ‘n’ roll... I like quick beat and catchy melody. I don’t like recitals/hip hop/rap, baladas and whiny pop.

36. least favourite book?

I tend not to remember books I dislike. Serves them good.

37. favourite season?

Late spring, not too hot summer days and early autumn. Temperature is everything.

38. song that’s currently stuck in your head?

Nothing in particular. But I’m always in mood to sing good ol’ MCR at shower :D

39. what kind of pyjamas do you wear?

sweatpants/shorts and a tank top/shirt. zero shoes.

40. how many existential crises do you have on an average day?

Lately, not that much? It’s like twice a week usually, but nothing devastating.

41. if you can only choose one song to be played at your funeral, what would it be?

i don’t think I’ve actually thought about my funeral before? I wouldn’t choose anything with words, just some calm but uplifting melody. Maybe Undertale (from Undertale :). 

42. favourite theme song to a TV show?

dun dun dun... go go naruto! :D idek, I don’t even atch TV shows that much...

43. harry potter movies or books?

I liked the books more, but I can’t remember when I read them the last time. The movies are cool too though :)

44. you can make your OTP become canon but you’ll forget that tumblr exists. will you do it?

I’m not giving up this site up! It has it’s problems and bugs, but most of the time it encourages me and puts nice pictures on my dash, so I feel better.

45. do you play an instrument and if so, what is it?

I play the piano badly and I have a basic knowledge how most of the instruments work, does it count? :D

46. what is the worst way to die?

hopeless

47. if you could be entirely invisible for a day, what would you do?

I would use it to make a political statement or action - I would try to find dirt on openly bigoted and hateful famous people and politicians, and maybe sabbotage some neonazis.

48. If you could have personally witnessed anything in history what would it be?

I’d be fascined to find out what was there before the Big Bang. I don’t think I’d be able to comprehend it by just human senses alone though... 

49. If you could understand animals but you could never understand humans again, would you?

No. I worked hard to understand at least a little about humans. And I don’t think understanding animals (at least to some extent) is impossible for humans.

50. What is your most favourite album currently?

I don’t do albums.

51. What is your favourite word/phrase/colloquiallism? Name one (or more) per language you speak c:

We’ll burn that bridge when we get there. (eng)

Wanderlust (de) - longing to travel and explore (ok, saying i speak german would be a bit of an overstatement, but i like this word and i vagely understand german, so...)

Kdo si hraje, nezlobí (cz) - [playing prevents mischief] used in situations where the playing leads directly to mischief

52. What mythical creature would you like to be able to transform into?

And now, the tags! I tag everybody who:

- likes doing long tag games

- is willing to tag me in ther post so i can read your answers

( @kaimaciel? @kitikara? @gentianablue? :)

[germainedelarch]

Why is lack of self worth such an integral part of the human condition? And why isn’t asking other people how they see us part of building up that sense of self more often? Why is the negative and self-flagellation our go-to voice? And why do we just accept all of this as the status quo? (Thank you, MandyPants, for inspiring this sub-tweet).

This comes on the back of a post I wrote the other day [link to 6 Days after #topsurgery: #Selfcare is hard…]

It’s a myth that self-love is an inside job. Especially when thinking overrides feeling and thinking comes from a brain hacked by thousands of external viruses (the voices of others, their judgements and expectations, and our perception of their judgements and expectations; how we think people see us vs. how they really see us).

Please read this theory, it’s SO liberating:

This warped view of self and others’ views of us is especially true for those of us with mental health issues, stress, low self esteem – all of us, in other words – whose internal hard drive is compromised by these viruses, not just the software.

How do you run functional software when the hard drive is compromised? And how do you fix the hardware of your brain with the hardware of your own brain in order to run functional software free of viruses?  More on ways of thinking when your thinking is untrustworthy because of external and internalised stigma here (coming soon).

Self-love as an inside job: the old joke about how many therapists it takes to change a lightbulb: Only one, but the lightbulb has to want to change. Recovery IS an inside job, but if you’re not asking for help from those who can help you, it’s impossible.

S(ave) O(ur) S(ouls): Message written on the inside of a toilet door at Tara Psychiatric Hospital, 2011.

Not very helpful writing a note for help on the inside of a toilet door, when you’re the only one inside it, and the person following you needs as much help as you do… (Yes, psychiatric hospitals can and mostly do cause more trauma than help, but again, it’s about finding that one person who SEES you and LISTENS).

  How did this change (and continues to change) for me?: The waiting to be saved vs. saving myself with the aid of chosen family and healers?

(Also spoken about previously in my post about spirituality. [Link to: Why I’m zen in the midst of chaos: Spirituality for recovering-Christian Atheist Literature Snobs like myself (& images of my text tattoos]).

How can self-love only be an inside job when we don’t live on an island by ourselves and the mirror we look into shows us how we see ourselves, not how we are? The only truly reflective mirrors are those who love us – truly love us, unconditionally; those who SEE us for who we are, no for who they want us to be for them. This is why Chosen Family is so important.

It was one of the exercises they did with me at one of my Tara (psych hospital in Johannesburg) stays [link to Loony bins #lettersfromselvespas(t)sed]. A room full of suicidally self-loathing people writing down good things about each other, then giving them to each other, with that message: if only you could see yourself the way I see you (which inspired my image-making as a ‘photographer’) [link to my website of images created by, for and in honour of all the No one is more YOUer than you” peeps].

  From that day, after that exercise in a Tara group therapy session, I made a point of asking people I trusted what they liked about me (psychologists call this “reality testing”). And I started fighting the programmed lesson that self-pride is selfish and narcissistic and boastful and the innate compulsion to brush the compliments off and started taking them in. Especially those repeated by more than one person, and those that rung true in the deepest part of me that I kept telling to shut up because I was worthless. That’s how the endless (because it’s always in progress)  journey of self love began for me.

  Self love is an unconditional acceptance of self as we are, without the “I can be so much more and so much better”. Self love is “I am enough”. Self love is unconditional. Yes, we can want to be our best selves.

But:

Firstly, this is a continuous process, a being, not a goal; and, secondly, this becoming is only possible through the constant reiteration of unconditional love from those around us and ourselves. 

Which can only flourish in a letting go of those who do not see us, those who do not love us unconditionally. However difficult that may be. Because the only thing more difficult than letting go of “loved ones” and loved things that don’t serve us, is keeping them and self-loathing in our lives. 

Is any of this easy? Fuck no. Is any of this achieved overnight? No, fuck no. Is any of this achieved, a done deal, over and “here’s your certificate”? Only if you’re a monk living in the mountains meditating 12 hours a day.

It’s a process, one day at a time, one decision, choice, feeling, action of “I’m choosing my self-love/self-care/Spoonie  voice over my internalised critical voice” (which is never ours, but our mother’s/father’s/religion’s/society’s and all of them at once).

  Change the metaphor

I loathe the term “it’s a learning curve”. Really? We go from 0 to 50 to 100 and reach enlightenment, self-actualisation, Nirvana, success, the goal, self-love? Such bullshit. Instead of a curve, think of W.B. Yeats’ gyre – a constant widening and upward moving spiral, which narrows again – because nothing is linear.

It’s a two steps back, one step forward dance, which as we get better at it becomes a three steps forward, one step back dance, and more often than not back to two steps back, one step forward – but NEVER to the same step.

I’ve always said there’s no such thing as rock bottom. There are multiple rock bottoms, with each one of them being on a another level, never the same ‘downward’ level.

And speaking of steps: Capitalism with its metaphors of ascending ladders, goals reached, success, perpetual forward motion REALLY sets us up for failure, because it has the antithesis of failure of “success” – an ever-changing target that no one can achieve. And why should we? The “success” that Capitalism allows us to achieve means very little for us as human beings, not corporate automatons.

Of course the artist above depicts this as failure, because in the “success” metaphor of life, this is success, and, obviously, leads nowhere.

So rather than these steps think of steps in this way: Not upward steps, Escher/Hogwarts steps: not success, but growth (growing); not a linear learning curve, but a gyre; not achievement, but being; not I love myself, but, I am learning every day, through those that love me unconditionally, to love myself. Sometimes I’m in the middle of the tornado-like gyre and things are shit, but as things fall apart, they also expand and grow, and so do I. (I love Escher for so many reasons, but also because it reminds me of the magic of Hogwarts).

    Closing thoughts, for now, on this subject:

Why do we not want to heal? Yes, we say and believe we want to heal, but something holds us back. What is it?

I don’t heal because healing = “fitting in”, being part of the status quo, being one of the sheep, not being an individual. Staying sick (depressed, addicted, stressed, whatever) becomes an addiction, a coping mechanism.

I don’t heal because society proves that those that don’t fit in, the Black Sheeps, the Anomalies, the Freaks, the Individuals, are either swallowed by society (treated and made part of the pack), or pushed to the edges of society (jail, psych hospitals, communes in the middle of nowhere) (Read Claude Levi-Strauss on the anthropoemic vs. anthropophagic society).

So I fly my Freak Flag high, to stay an individual, to stay apart from the sheeples, to distinguish myself from the herd. Because “normalcy” and convention and politeness and society and civilisation in all its forms – religion, school, authority figures, etc. have rejected me.

But the truth is: we are ALL freaks. None of us fit in. None of of us are sheeples. Some of us are plugged into The Matrix, and others aren’t. We have no right to judge those who see the world the way the world wants us to see it. Those plugged into The Matrix have stories, hopes, dreams, traumas, insecurities, and want, so desperately, not to fit in, but do the best they can to fit in out of fear.

It is our responsibility as The Fearless, Terrified Ones who want to heal to learn these stories, to speak other people’s languages – their home languages, their cultural languages, their Sandton languages, their Bloemfontein languages, their corporate languages, their love languages; so that we can get over the romanticised and dangerous notion of the mad, starving artist; the square peg trying to be pushed into a round hole. The more we learn we’re not alone, the less lonely we feel, the more we connect with those around us, the more we heal.

Hermit-ting has its place. The mad artist moments have their place. The sheeple moments have their place. (And let’s not for one second argue we’ve never been a sheeple, in some space at some time for some reason). No one is an island. No one has a monopoly on pain.

We are all worthy of love, healing, being heard. There is nothing glamorous about suffering in silence. Let’s stop being so fucking polite and judgemental; ask for help, give help, love others who love us, and allow those who we know on a gut level are good for us into our lives.

There are billions of people on the planet. Rejection from a parent, a loved one, a church, an authority figure, a rapist, etc. is ONE ISOLATED (and sometimes not isolated) incident. Why should it define us?  We are enough. I am enough. I deserve to heal. I deserve to be happy. I deserve love. I just need to prioritise who I expect if from: me, and those who SEE me (in the Avatar sense). The Spoonies. The soulmates. The tribe members. The chosen family.

  As always, this is a work in progress and notes towards the book I’m writing. This is all my opinion as I sit here today. I’m writing as a #notetoself to remember these lessons so that I don’t have to re-remember them as often any more, so that I remember the Escher steps rather than the Capitalist steps. So that I remember my self, my selves, and all the selves I can be.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Why is self-love so fucking difficult? #selfcare #depression #addiction Why is lack of self worth such an integral part of the human condition? And why isn't asking other people how they see us part of building up that sense of self more often?