What Pisses Me Off About the Hunger Games

Now, before you get all psycho-fan-geek on me, I'm as Hunger-Game-crazed as they come. My pre-pub paperback copies of books 1 and 2 are respectfully mutilated. And Mockingjay I listened to on audio book, which concludes with a rare interview with Suzanne Collins. Highly recommended, if you haven't yet ventured into the world of audio books.

Additionally, if you're paying attention at all, I've adopted HG's charmingly clueless protagonist, Katniss, as my alter-ego. There may be some Freudian interpretation to my chosen persona, but let's move on.

There are many reasons I believe Collins' trilogy to be one of the finest pieces of recent literature. But for the sake of not losing every reader to my geeked-out drool session, I'll sum up. 

Important themes: challenge the established system, whether it's "good" or "evil"; human connections are messy, but ultimately make life worth living; does the end justify the means?; what you are told should always be run through the filter of what you feel is right or wrong. 

It is this outside-the-established-boundaries thinking that makes HG so popular, like so many cherished iconic stories. The audience has an easier time imagining how "things could be different" because it's someone else's reality. It's much easier to see how some other person, culture, way of thinking is flawed than to evaluate your own, from within the bubble.

This is no easy task. In real life, it can be difficult to recognize that you are even confined within a bubble. Oftentimes, breakthroughs require a catalyst. An event that pushes you beyond your limitations, out on the ledge, so to speak. Or sometimes, you realize the small-ness of your world when you come into contact with someone from another culture. And you start to ask yourself: why do I do it this way? Why do I do it at all? 

The reason is because you didn't know you had a choice. Culture (and oftentimes religion) keeps you within certain restrictions and breaking out of these can mean isolation, rejection, and in mythical contexts, eternal damnation.

Novels like HG help us wake up to our bubbles. Our pre-programmed actions that we run through without realizing it. The structures we use to make our decisions, not realizing there are other structures available, or (wonder of wonders!) that we can make our own!

While I will always have a soft spot for all things Katniss, Collins fails in one very obvious way. She questions the very fabric of society (her's is fictional, but still), but she doesn't question the possibilities of relationships structures. I mean, it's okay if we start talking about equality, peace, (and in the real world) gay marriage, and freedom from religion. But monogamy? This isn't even brought into question. Collins assumes that Katniss will have to choose between Peeta and Gale. Or, at least, that her faux-mance with Peeta means there is no possibility of her being with Gale. A big assumption for a fictional future dystopia.

Oh, Katniss is kissing Peeta on national television? Gale must be sad, jealous. Oh, Gale is sneaking kisses in the woods with Katniss? Because if Snow and the Capitol found out, then it must mean she doesn't really love Peeta. There's no way she could truly love both. (And for Katniss's sake, she doesn't really love either, but realizes she needs both to survive. But that's another story.)

Others have written about the poly/mono implications in HG and more recently Catching Fire. Some have focused on gender issues, and have even made good points. 

But what really pisses me off about the HG is the assumption. The assumption of the author. The assumption of the readers. We're thinking progressively here, people ... oh, but not quite that progressively. You couldn't possibly have a love triangle without conflict. I mean, how much would that bring in at the box office?

As long as these assumptions prevail in our entertainment, it will cement the mass populace in their comfortable bubbles.

In Collins's defense, I appreciate her ending where (SPOILER ALERT!!!) Katniss ultimately chooses neither. She is content to allow things to be as they are, as long as no one is getting hurt, which I would argue was her position all along. 

If I see one more Team Gale or Team Peeta, I think I'll puke.

Our Collective Subjective: Or, There's No Such Thing as Objective Truth

From the universe's point of view, we are of no more concern than any other atom, planet or speck of dust. The universe does not distinguish the violent ending of a human life from the snapping of a tulip's stem. There is no Universe or God of Tulips who is going to prevent you from clipping those buds in late spring. Because the universe doesn't care. It is indifferent.

In Secular Wholeness, David Cortesi observes: 

This universe regards the murder of one human by another exactly the way it regards an avalanche falling on a human, or a virus infecting one: with sublime indifference. Avalanches fall; viruses infect; mammals prey on one another-- it's what they do. 

Because the Universe is not a conscious, all-encompassing being--at least there's no indication of this so far--it negates the possibility of an objective reality or truth. As humans, we can only know truth from our own individual and collective perspectives. But as insignificant beings in a vast universe without (so far) other conscious life, there is no objective, fixed and ultimate, truth. 

Even if another conscious species were to come along, that species would be subjected to their own collective subjective. Objective reality, or truth, cannot exist because there is no One who can see every view point. There is no One who is omnipotent, though it would be vastly convenient if there were. 

Does this negate human morality? Far from it. Cortesi continues:

Now, this absolutely does not mean that we should be indifferent! On the contrary, desiring to be moral, trying to be compassionate, and urging other people to be moral and compassionate are also things that we do quite as naturally and with better outcomes for our own survival.

What it means is that there is no objective morality; there is no right and wrong beyond what humanity ascribes as right and wrong. However, the morality invented by humanity will only be from humanity's subjective viewpoint. Because you are human and I am human, This Means You!, we are accountable to our species' definition of morality. In fact, it is this very collective subjective which creates our morality, a code for living.

Religion will tell you that there is only one right way to to be and do. Which we know to be completely false as religion has failed, and continues to fail, at it's own morality as well as the collective morality. 

Additionally, as Cortesi points out, it is the refinement of this collective morality which increases our chances of survival as a species, though not necessarily as individuals. Another excuse to be immoral? Possibly. But consider your probable chances of a happy life if you choose an illegal occupation over a legal one. Consider the quality of your close relationships if you continuously lie and manipulate, instead of treating others with compassion. Yes, bad things do happen to good people, but morality substantially increases your chances of happiness.

 

What does the subjective collective mean for you? First, it means you cannot view the world in black and white, good and evil. Those are concepts we have created. The same way we have created countless gods, civilizations, and poetry. You will have to look at the evidence and you will have to think. You will have to use all of the tools at your disposal to come up with what you should do, how you should behave, how you can help others. You will have to make the decision. 

Second, it means you cannot judge other humans based on an objective moral code. Judging and convicting criminals is part of our society, but the rules by which we pass judgement cannot be set in stone. In every case, it is the betterment of the species that has to be considered, the collective subjective. As we grow and access more knowledge of the physical universe, our understanding of right and wrong changes. Our collective subjective changes. 

It is by coming together and facing the indifferent universe united as a species that we will progress.

Philosophy of Love: Am I Doing It Wrong?

Ludwig Wittgenstein

A few weeks ago, The Guardian posted a story written by Giles Fraser, a British priest and journalist. The title really says it all, so here it is in it's entirety: How Ludwig Wittgenstein Helped Me Get Over My Teenage Angst. Needless to say, the title caught my eye.

Wittgenstein, being a cherished philosopher from my undergrad years. Words are a function within a larger system, and all that jazz. Bertrand Russell described him as "passionate, profound, intense and dominating". For me, it was love at first sight! Though, I admit, I have not read much of him since, and at this point he is more fantasy than anything.

In the article mentioned above, Giles details how my dreamy, handsome philosopher actually turned him toward religion. Yes, there are many faulty arguments (if you can call them that) in this article. A hot-bed for atheist bloggers. But one particular section gave me pause:

Moreover, there is no need first to develop a coherent philosophy of something in order to go on and do it. Apropos ... you don't need a philosophy of love in order to be in love.

Say what?!

Let's take that second statement first. Everyone has a philosophy of love, whether or not they realize it. No matter their orientation, kink, number of partners, age, lack of sexuality, etc. EVERYONE has one. It would be impossible to be human and not have a structure of how you approach, analyze, and ultimately behave concerning love.

The word "philosophy" may be a bit off-putting for the uninitiated. But don't run screaming just yet. From the time you were born, you were interacting with the world, developing beliefs about it, and reacting to it. As you got older and could understand language, you may have had particular worldviews and opinions thrust upon you without your knowledge. Religion would be one such worldview. Hopefully, as you became older, you used your knowledge about the world, as well as your own experiences to form a worldview, a philosophy, about what life is, how it functions, and the best way of getting along in it. This is your philosophy, most likely terribly flawed, as everyone's is, but a philosophy nonetheless.

Giles even agrees with this:

Philosophy is ... creating better intellectual maps that reflect what people are doing when they say the things they do.

In other words, there are reasons for your actions. They don't just happen randomly, even if you don't know what those reasons are. Your beliefs, values, and ideals are at the root of all your actions. 

Now let's apply this to the experience of love, whether that be the way you love your partner or the way you love your new car. (I'm looking at you, LordofDarkenss!!!) Every person has some idea of the experience of love, though our ideas about the

experience may differ extensively. We call this a universal experience because it happens to everyone, in all cultures, time periods, across the scales of skill or intelligence levels. To love is part of what it means to be human.

The first time you fell "in love", kissed someone you were attracted to, or had someone profess their love for you, you had a profound feeling, an experience.

And from that moment, you associated this experience with the concept of love. You began developing ideas about what love meant, how you were supposed to act, and ultimately what you wanted your "love life" to look like, even if that means you wanted nothing to do with it at all. This is your philosophy of love.

Giles stated that we don't need a philosophy of love in order to be in love. But human beings cannot help forming a philosophy of love, even if unintentionally. A human's ability to reason ensures that some kind of philosophy will form for all experiences. Therefore, since everyone experiences love (universal experience), everyone must have a philosophy of love. And this happens even if you don't know it's going on.

The second problem with Giles's statement is that he claims you don't "need" the philosophy to be in love. His implication, I believe, is that human beings experience love naturally without needing any rational activity taking place. Falling in love, he's saying, is not like deciding how or if or when to start a business. However, it is naive to think that you can do something well, or that your plans will turn out well, without a solid philosophy about them.

If my philosophy of love is that I am the center of the universe and everyone I "love" has to do what I say, well, it's obvious I am going to fail miserably at my relationships. (Unless of course I meet a really kinky submissive.) That's an extreme example. Let's look at one that's more frequent, and since this is a blog about poly (sometimes, anyway), let's make it a poly example.

I was raised to believe that the only choice for love was a long-lasting monogamous marriage with my soul mate. This was a faulty philosophy given to me by my mother about love. Why is it faulty? For one thing, I do have a choice. Monogamy is not the only choice. Having multiple, simultaneous partners is a choice. Having no partners is a choice. The truth is, if you can conceive it, it's a choice. I didn't know that. For another thing, the word "soulmate" is an invented concept, perpetuated by Hollywood. Letting go of the dream of finding that one perfect person just for us can be brutal. It's a seductive fantasy. There's probably a host of other reasons this philosophy is flawed, but we'll move on. 

Getting married, then, based on this faulty monogamous philosophy created all kinds of problems for me. I wasn't happy being with just one person. And, my "soulmate" didn't turn out to be "perfect". It's unreasonable to think any partner could be. You can guess, no doubt, this made for some pretty shitty "love". If I had chosen to continue within this faulty framework, I could have gotten divorced and looked for a new "soulmate". And so, the cycle would continue.

When real life doesn't fit our philosophy, we have the option to change it. By adopting a new philosophy, I could make decisions that made me, and everyone around me, much happier. Taking time to research (a fancy word for gaining more knowledge about a subject) and rationalize and do some serious introspection led me to a different philosophy about love. My new philosophy fit the poly lifestyle quite nicely. I was even able to short-cut many poly relationship pitfalls due to my poly Fore-Sisters and Brothers, who made the mistakes for me and kindly blogged them on the internet! (I cannot thank you enough, Fore-Sisters and Brothers. And I could never list you all. Just know that I'm grateful.)

So, to review, a faulty philosophy of love caused me to make decisions which led me to a very unhappy situation. However, a well thought out, introspective philosophy led me to a life where I am happier than I

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

have ever dreamed. So, yes, Giles, you can fall in love without a solid philosophy, but if you do YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. If you want your love life to be worth anything, you're going to have to put some thought into it. And a lack of knowledge about your personal philosophy (even if you say you don't need one) will cause needless heartache for you and your loved ones.

[A]ttention is properly directed on what one does, how meaning is indexed to behaviour. Neither [psychology nor philosophy] is about the clever answers one can provide under cross-examination. Which is just as well – because I don't have them.

A naive worldview, indeed. Whether or not you like it, Life will throw hard questions at you, and sometimes you will have to address them with "cross-examination" speed. You may not have the "right" answers every time, but if you have a well-thought-out philosophy of life and love, you will have a head start. Life does not accept "I don't know" as an answer. Life deals out consequences anyway. In this case, accumulating as much knowledge as possible about yourself and your experiences will better equip you for Life's obstacle course.

Who Am I?: Major Depressive Disorder and Identity

Major Depressive Disorder is the result of brain functioning which produces (or fails to produce) sufficient chemicals. It is a disorder I have struggled with all my life. At some point I should probably post an entry detailing my particular journey through personal madness. But for now, it suffices to say that I cannot remember a time when I did not view the world through an angry grey lens. As a child, I assumed everyone experienced the world the way I did. And at 17, I was (voluntarily) admitted to the nut house and began the long road to recovery.

Of course you never really "recover" from your brain's faulty chemistry. But neither does choking down a lottery of medical cocktails solve all your problems. I had to do some of the work too. And that's what I want to address today. Who is this "I"? 

Thanks to (being dragged kicking and screaming* to) read Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God, I have been better able to clarify just what it is that I believe makes up the "self". The "self", or the individual, is composed of a unique set of desires, thoughts, decisions, values, abilities, and all of those are (directly or indirectly) the result of the brain's functioning. 

What this means is that, when it comes to depression or moodiness, my brain fails to function like most other brains. So I say to myself, "Self, how can this be you? How can you be a person who loathes yourself? Are you really this person who unfairly compares yourself to others? Finding faults in others to feel better about yourself? Being angry with anyone who is 'prettier', 'smarter', or 'more successful'?" I mean, is this who I am?

Truth is, I like to think of "myself" as the person I am when my cocktail has supplied me with the necessary chemicals. I'm thoughtful, confident, and gracious. I help others to the best of my ability. And I find I have unlimited stores of patience with myself and others.

When I'm feeling poorly, I'm self conscious around people whom I don't trust not to judge me, who might think, 'Well, that's just who she is, negative, argumentative, and lazy." But I don't really see myself as "that" person. I prefer to assign those attributes to the disorder. I aspire to keep my dark side from interfering with my behavior and relationships. The depressed person is not really me. I am this other person who is happy, and compassionate, and patient and generous.

But this, of course, isn't true. I am that depressed person. That person is me. As much as I don't like it. 

One funny thing about medication (which they don't tell you about initially) is that it doesn't last forever. By that I mean, your body builds up a tolerance to it. This is true of all medications (as far as I know) not just antidepressants or psychiatric medications. So, it came to pass, on the eighth year of my second brand of happiness-in-a-pill, that my mood, energy, empathy, and ability to feel pleasure plummeted. It was time for a new med.

Changing medications which alter one's mood is a bit like playing Russian Roulette. The effects could be minimal, the switch could be easy. And the first time I changed meds, this was my experience. However, back to reality, this time around it has been a bit more difficult. Among other unpleasant side effects, I have noticed a sudden inability to tolerate criticism in any form. (A quality whose reverse--the ability to accept and effectively utilize criticism--I take great pride in, when I'm feeling "myself".)

A stranger passes me on the street, I smile as I normally would, he looks away, a neutral expression, no smile. And my thoughts run rampant. It's like opening the Pamplona bull gate! I start jumping to all kinds of conclusions that I know aren't true, and running for my life before one of those bulls gores me. He hates me. I'm ugly. I'm worthless. Everyone hates me. There's no point to living. I am pitifully out numbered.

Thankfully, years of meditation and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy have enabled me to nab these thoughts right out of the gate, wrestle them to the ground and strangle them outright. (That's right, bull fighting, baby!) But that can't stop the emotions and tears that inevitably follow.

TheLordofDarkness and I have been fighting more often than usual during this Great Transition, and, I suspect, in large part because of it. Every problem he tries to express to me I hear as criticism, and it's all I can do to keep those pesky, terrifying thoughts at bay. I have no energy or mental aptitude left to address the actual problem. Is this who I really am?

The answer is "yes" (as discussed above), but that is not all. I am also the person who decides I don't want to be this way. I am the person who tackles the terrible thoughts, and refuses to let them control my behavior. I am the person who calls the doctor and I am the person who has the courage to say, "No, I am not okay. I need a change. I need some help." This is me too. 

Don't get me wrong, the most terrifying experience a person can have is when her own brain is trying to kill itself. When the self is trying to kill the self. Suicide is a alluring and deceptive mistress. Yep, this is still me. But not all of me. Because, while I have one voice that says suicide is easier than dealing with pain, there is another voice telling me that it doesn't have to be painful, and I can make it through, and I should ask for help. And I can always make the choice. Ultimately, this defines who I am: my choices.

*Have we not yet created a tongue-in-cheek font? I'd use it here if there was one. Can someone please get on that?!

As a personal side note, you may be sick of reading mental health stories like mine and roll your eyes at things like what I'm about to say. And if that is the case, feel free to stop reading. I give you a free pass. For everyone else, if you suspect you or someone you care about is suffering from a mental illness, PLEASE ASK FOR HELP! Do not let anyone tell you how you are feeling or what you need, except a mental health professional. The worst that can happen is that you suffer a small amount of embarrassment being told there is nothing really wrong with you. If you do have a mental disorder and you choose not to seek help, the best you can ever hope for is a miserable, unhappy life. The worst, is no life at all.

Cultural Conditioning: Watching Kids at Play

It’s refreshing to watch children play. For one thing, I am reminded what it was like to be totally free to express myself in every way I could think of, without the fear of being shamed. It is balm to the soul to remember that freedom is still inside of me somewhere. Albeit small and silent.

The other reason I love watching my children express their imaginations, is that it reminds me of the filter my cultural upbringing has instilled in me. The filter through which I view the world. For example, my first encounter with filters was when I realized most people didn't walk around as angry as I was.

When I was younger I was angry all the time. Instead of rose-colored glasses, mine were gray and sometimes black. As a result I was an embittered and impossible child. (Sorry, Mom.) And I thought this was how everyone saw the world. It wasn't until after years of therapy and meds that I discovered, most people can and do enjoy life! How odd.

This is to say, we aren't aware of our filters until they are pointed out to us. Typically, children have had much less exposure to cultural norms and expectations. So they aren't restricted in their play the way adults can be.  As kids become more aware of cultural rituals and rules, it is curious to see how they mix and match the ideas, sometimes following the rules sometimes making up their own. This is the game I play with myself as I watch them, trying to notice my own indoctrination through their obvious lack of it.

Which brings me to an anecdote from our annual family vacation. I am not “out” as poly to my family and many of my friends. My mother is a pastor and I live in a hoity-toity part of the Bible Belt. It’s not fair that my young children should be ostracized for choices they didn't make if it’s within my control. My children are young and do not yet have direct knowledge of my relationships outside the home.

On vacation we’re all sitting around in the living room of a rented space, watching my two children (boy and girl) and my brother’s two kids (also a boy and a girl) play. My daughter (the oldest) decides they should all “get married”. A relatively routine game for children, still navigating the complicated ocean of relationships. What girl didn't plan out her wedding day at least a few hundred times.? (Sigh. Also, cultural conditioning.)

But in the kids’ imaginary game, who’s going to marry whom? Well, we wouldn't want any feelings to be hurt. So, my daughter decides (with absolutely no input from me) that they will all get married together. She will marry both boys, in one ceremony. And her girl cousin will marry both boys in another. (I’m also loving the female patriarch implied here!)

What was incredible to me was how all of the other kids went along with this idea without batting an eye. Makes perfect sense, we all want to live together and be happy, so we’ll get married the way our grown-ups do. Of course the ceremonies were elaborate (and expensive!) And she got to walk her two “men” down the aisle.  Flowers, veils … we spared no expense.

Fortunately for me, no one noticed this social faux pas. Except my husband, who bore holes into me with his eyes from across the room.

Another glaringly obvious “rule” of the game was that only the girls could marry boys. Girls marrying girls, or boys with boys, wasn't suggested. An example of mixing and matching the rules, and also, I think, far too little exposure to gay culture (not by choice, by circumstance).

The "rules" of culture are not always so straight forward. Sometimes you don't even realize what you're doing until you meet someone (usually from a far away land) who does it differently. And, on occasion, cultural "rules" can be a positive thing, like positive peer pressure. But more importantly, it's being aware of the conditioning that makes a difference. This is what allows us to change course, should the time ever come when it's needed. And it allows us to be compassionate and tolerant of others, especially others with different cultural conditioning.

A challenge for all of us: be more aware of your conditioning as we move through our day.

Inventing Concepts: God, Love, and Poly Labels

Why is the idea of God so popular, so hard for societies to shake off despite the evidence? Like all ideas, “God” is an invention of human consciousness. Developed over thousands of decades by great and weak minds alike. “God” has taken on a life of its own (literally). But again, there was a time when our caveman ancestors weren't aware of the concept of “God.”

“God”—as constructed by the human mind—is the embodiment of superhuman qualities. Some noble, others not so much. However, like all concepts, if you ask 50 people what “God” is like, you will get 53 answers.

When you say you love God what does it mean? It means that you love a projection of your own imagination, a projection of yourself clothed in certain forms of respectability according to what you think is noble and holy; so to say, 'I love God', is absolute nonsense. When you worship God you are worshiping yourself - and that is not love."   –J. Krishnamurti

For each individual, then, “God” is a projection of our best self. The person we would be if we weren't so … well, human. To that I say: What’s so wrong with being human?

Likewise, “love” is another attempt to label a human experience. We've all used the word “love” and we assume others know what we mean. To some extent, every individual has experienced love, or at least it’s opposite. But again 50 questions, 53 answers.

Even philosophers going back to the Greeks couldn't agree on the meaning of “love.” Plato said that love is beauty, and this is just as true today. And just as useful?!

So, then what does it mean, practically, for my life tonight when I’m making love or praying to my self-burlesqued deity? Like “love,” “God” is just a concept, constructed around a human experience. There is no reality of either to discover, no proverbial curtain to pull back and suddenly understand.

I have no problem with belief in “God” if that helps you. The same way I use the word “love” with my children and partners. But when I do, I’m aware that the “love” I feel for them is a pitiful attempt to label a human experience that can’t really be defined, contained or explained.

Understanding concepts in this way helps me to view labels as impermanent and inexact. It fills me with compassion for others, especially for people or ideas society labels as “evil.” Again, just a concept invented by humans.

It works the same with the labels we attach to relationships. I read a lot of static on poly boards about relationship labels: “primary,” “secondary,” “boyfriend/girlfriend,” “FWB,” etc. A lot of whining too about not attaining the desired label with a partner, or using the wrong label. Are “secondary” partners really secondary? And similar shit.

What’s important is that you know what your relationship is, where it’s at, where it’s going (or not going), what your partner thinks about you. If you need a label (or feel uncomfortable about an assigned label), it’s time to blow the insecurity whistle. Labels for people outside the relationship, who don’t know the intimate details. Labels carry no meaning of their own. It’s only the meaning we bring to them. Being upgraded from “girlfriend” to “ fiance” doesn't change your relationship one iota.

My recommendation: only use relationship labels when necessary, with the understanding that they do a shitty job of classifying your relationship. Otherwise, decide they don’t exist, end the conversation and start enjoying the human being next to you.