Monday, October 21, 2013

Solitude and Independence: Same Same, But Different

A Louis CK video went viral a few weeks back, striking cords with many.



I remember a time as an adolescent when I began to think that books and art and research and writing were somehow more fulfilling than interacting with actual people.  What the Hell is wrong with me?  Am I (GASP!) antisocial because I would rather read this book than go to this party?!?

I decided early on that I would officially stop caring what it made me.  As I grew up, I became more of an extrovert.  However, the quiet, reserved thinker still tends to show more often than not.  Watching this video reminded me of a fact that my journey to Thailand has made me profoundly remember: THANK GOD I was one of those weird kids who loved my alone time.  How else would I remember that in a Smartphone world with constant possibility for interaction?

During the past three years, stress and grief would often make me forget that fact.  I would wonder where my love of solidarity went; I would long for it, I would seek it out.  I would get frustrated when I couldn't find it in the same places I used to.  I would distract myself endlessly between work and school and everything else, hoping to again find it someday.

When I supplanted myself from all things familiar - when the internet would go out for days on end and monsoons flooded the streets and all I had was a room with a bed and a Bruce Lee book and pen and paper - I was forced to finally face solidarity.  There it was, staring me in the face for hours on end.  Just me and my brain.  No distractions.  White walls.  A bed.  A toilet.  A fridge with water bottles and electrolyte packets, Baht coins in a cup on top of it, a room key next to a pack of gum that melted in the heat.

At first, the isolation was jarring.  Terrifying, even.  But now...

Now, I remember.
A room alone is far from empty; the mind alone is never a prison because it cannot be confined.  A mind left alone is limitless.
Vladimir Nabokov, the author of the infamous Lolita, explicated the idea in twelve sophistically sanguine lines of Pale Fire's introductory poem:

I was the shadow of the waxwing slain
By the false azure in the windowpane
I was the smudge of ashen fluff--and I
Lived on, flew on, in the reflected sky,
And from the inside, too, I'd duplicate
Myself, my lamp, an apple on a plate:
Uncurtaining the night, I'd let dark glass
Hang all the furniture above the grass,
And how delightful when a fall of snow
10 Covered my glimpse of lawn and reached up so
As to make chair and bed exactly stand
Upon that snow, out in that crystal land!

-Vladimir Nabokov's Pale Fire, First Canto

In this canto, the protagonist describes how images reflect in a window by assuming the identity of whatever is reflected in the window's glass pane.  It is a protagonist lost in the ecstasy of imagination, imagining consciousness from every minute and grandiose detail of life - observing closely enough to feel himself float like an ashen fluff caught in an updraft, or the dead bird (waxwing) that smashed head-first into the glass, tricked "by the false azure in the windowpane."   Lost in the illusion of how the reflection of furniture on the inside pane meets the horizon line visible outside and makes the bed "exactly stand...Upon that snow, out in that crystal land!"

But the point of it is this: the mind turns something as simple as a window reflection into pure magic.  It passes the most mundane of details through the imagination and churns out poetry.  Find a lonely window in an empty room, and marvel at what you might find if you shut off the idea that alone = bad.  What wonder lies in ideas when we stop long enough to form good ones!

But for every possibility of turning trivial detail into tremendous beauty, the mind is capable of equally tremendous darkness.

Therein lies the fear.

Therein lies the reason why checking your phone is so much easier than letting the mind wander.

Still - Smartphones and all - the world is still not yet enough to fill the solidarity of the mind.  The physical world, even if broken into each infinitesimal part, strung out atom for atom, cannot annihilate the basic truth of existing as a singular individual.  It cannot fill the self.  Put more simply - at the end of the day, you're always alone.  Whether you're in an empty studio in Bangkok or wrapped up in the arms of a husband or a wife.  For all your contacts and connections and loved ones.  No matter how tightly you cling to everything else, you exist as something independent of all other things.  No one will ever see the movie that rolls on through your head, no matter how many words you write.  People fade out.  They die, they move, and nothing ever stays the same.

People will read that paragraph a number of ways.  For many, it will be too harsh to think about; something to be feared and forgotten as quickly as possible.  The whole idea of Alone summons demons from the darkest cataclysms of the mind, slithering up from the subconscious like the shadows of the monster hiding just out of sight.  It is the adult Boogeyman; it lives under your bed, and you never know when you might feel it there.  You can't see it, but you can feel it lying underneath you, waiting to wrap you in the cold embrace of its truth: no one else is really there.  Even when you're lying next to someone.  It's no guarantee they'll stick around, or that they mean what they say.  Never will you find immunity from death and loss and the destruction of whatever you're holding onto to delude yourself otherwise.

It's no wonder people cling.  It's natural - paleolithic humans who traveled in groups lived longer, healthier lives because of the simple calculus of strength in numbers.  Those who had the strongest urge to be part of the group survived, passing their genes encoded with innate desire to belong onto the next generation, then the next.  This instinct was borne of an era where belonging meant shelter, food, sex, warmth; solitude meant cold, starvation, hardship.  The world was wild, and we were, too.

How wild it is, then, to return to that state - to be alone.

To stray from the safety of the pack.

Henry David Thoreau was one who strayed.  He left his father's pencil factory to live alone in the woods and write poetry.  What a hippie, the world said.  What a hippie, the world still says.  Thoreau summed up his decision for wildness this way:


“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms.” 

But Thoreau was never writing about solitude in the evolutionary sense.  Thoreau is not talking about deprivation, starvation, cold, and everything the Ape Brain associates with being away from the group.  What Thoreau wrote struck at the core of a transcendental idea, one which prevails over the Ape Brain in one simple way.

But, in that way, solitude is intensely illusory.  The acute sensation of being alone - of starving shelterless in the cold - no longer applies.  We live in a world with six billion people.  With smartphones.  With Facebook.  With six billion other people with the same alone-hating DNA.

So why the Hell do so many people disparage and still fear being alone???  Why do we all relate to this video so much?

Perhaps we aren't forced to face it often enough to remember how small and weak a beast solitude actually is.  Perhaps all of our distractions have taken us out of practice.  Without that metaphorical check under the bed before we go to sleep, the monster under the bed grows more and more vicious in our minds each day.

Maybe the answer is simple, like so many answers are: face your fear.  Pull the car over and sob like Louie did and wait for happiness to come back to you.  Learn that lesson.

Then, entertain the idea that you can ditch your proverbial pencil factory and wander into the woods like Thoreau.  It won't really be terrifying like you imagine.  In fact, you'll amaze yourself with the wonders you find there.  Maybe then the fear will fade, and one day you will notice how much stronger you are for facing it without your Smartphone.  Only then will being alone feel like independence instead of solitude.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Staying Power

What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

-Langston Hughes

The face of defeat is not an easy one to look directly at too closely.  When one observes the exact contours of a dream defunct - the jagged, unnatural angles of its broken pieces sticking out through someone's eyes - people look away, uncomfortable.  Uncomfortable with the reality of philosophical gravity - the always-present possibility of failure.

A Kaewsamrit fighter after losing a title bout
There's something unsettling about the way American culture views losses.  I always feel like people aren't understanding a basic calculus going on here.  It goes something like this:

RULE ONE.  You're not supposed to lose, American culture teaches you.  Losing is for...well, losers.  You don't want to be a loser, right?  Don't ever fail.  Win - don't lose.

RULE TWO.  GO FOR IT.  YOLO.  Jump on in there and take a risk.  Make something of yourself.  Only doers go and get things done, so go do.  Don't be afraid and don't look back, just do it.

We are raised by our teachers and parents to believe all of these things.  But few will bother to tell you how much these two basic ideas actually conflict with each other.

Doesn't jumping in there and taking a risk necessarily involve some inevitable failures?  And if so, isn't it true that the more risks we take the more failures we guarantee ourselves?  So the more we follow Rule 2 the more we will ultimately violate Rule 1.  And if losing makes us losers, and if we aren't supposed to ever be losers, then isn't the inevitable conclusion that we shouldn't ever take a risk?  But then, aren't we violating Rule 2 in order to follow Rule 1??  How on Earth do you follow both??  How do you "go for it" without losing?

The answer is simple; the rules are flawed.  The conclusion is sound but the premises are BS.  You can't follow both.  It's the biggest steaming pile that anyone has ever sold you.  It's not probable.  It's not possible.  Forget it.  The sooner you do, the better.

If we know all of these things, why do we still shame people for losing when they gave everything they had?  Why do we judge them for it?  Why can't we see that both the man who has an impressive stack of losses - in addition to the rare undefeated champions- has lived far more than the man with none?

The first time I saw one of the fighters from my camp lose, I expected the coaches to be angry or upset or disappointed.  But the coaches were none of those things.  The team was none of those things.  Instead, the focus was on what could be learned.  How to improve.  What to do differently to avoid making the same mistake.

Why doesn't the rest of the world work like this?  I thought of how different my Western education was growing up.  Mistakes in academia were always deemed unacceptable.  Coming in second instead of first was a thing to be mourned, ashamed of, and angry about.  God help you if you submit a memo to a judge that has a grammatical error in it.  Misread part of a question on a law school final?  You're sunk.  You're done.  Never speak of it to anyone.

In the fight world, each and every mistake gets broadcast for the audience to see.  There is no hiding behind anonymity.  Academia had taught me that this would probably invite nothing but chastising and mockery.  But you know what?  For all the punches I've not thrown right - for any losses - for any mistake - I've never known a teammate or coach to provide anything other than constructive criticism.  I've been lucky to be around great people.  But, more than that, losses are viewed differently in the fight world.  The people who let their dreams die with a single loss don't survive long enough to come back and do any of the chastising or shaming - those get filtered out right away.  The ones who stick around don't see losses as a destruction of their dream to fight or as a fracture to their identity as a fighter.  Instead, a loss is a misstep to be learned from to become a better fighter.  It makes for a sweeter comeback.  It fuels more fire.  The mourning of a loss is always bittersweet because of the knowledge that the current sting makes the future savoring of a win all the more powerful.

The morning before I left Bangkok to head back home, I sat at a cafe down the street, contemplating and digesting the details of the journey thus far.  I was more physically drained and yet spiritually full than I had ever known.

Water danced in the sparkling sun from a fountain just outside the cafe.  It shot straight up, working endlessly against gravity.  Each drop would rise to the apex of the arc only to fall to the bottom yet again; the pumps and machines would work in perpetuity to keep this silly maneuver going.  They would suck power from the wall, power someone somewhere had to buy from someone who had to convert it to electricity from oil deep in the Earth.  All this work so that water would never stay where it's going.  All this work for what?  For nothing?

All-this-work-for-what was, of course, the wrong question.  The beauty was not in the completion of a loop or the specific getting of somewhere; it was not in the win, or the destination, or the ending.  Life everywhere was exactly as this water; what defined this water, and everything living, was the fight.  Pushing back.  Pushing up, over and over again.  Pushing out and against opposing forces was as basic as a seed breaking through the soil and reaching a new leaf into the sun.  Pushing out and against opposing forces is life-force in its most elemental of forms.  It is the difference between living and dead.  Perhaps this is why fighters so often describe a fight as when they feel most alive.

We fear looking into the eyes of the defeated man because we see a parable of death; we see the moment when pushing out and against opposing forces might actually cease.  Maybe today is the day that mystical energy that fuels us runs out.  From what unnamed, blackened well in the human soul will I dig out the courage and will to keep pushing back?

So what, then, gives fighters staying power?  What keeps them coming back?  Perhaps what fighters know is that failure does not break a dream.  Perhaps fighters just never stop dreaming.

The dream deferred for a fighter does indeed explode; it fires off in a million ecstatic directions, boundless in its measure of ferocity, stretching out past the rational calm self and its facade of reason - funneled into a punch or a kick or a submission, into the moment when nothing else matters but the resounding "no" to the universe's idea that "you can't."

Whatever the reason or the explanation, we continue to watch them and wait, waiting for them to peel up off the canvas and inspire us to get back up again and again and again for all the times we inevitably have yet to fall.