Roller Derby is not binary

 

If this blog has a theme it is that the world isn’t binary, however much we may wish it to be, everything is more nuanced and requires healthy balances. Roller Derby, by it’s nature can help with this.

I experienced Roller Derby for the first time last weekend. I have been living in a new city recently, so I was keen to explore new things and what was going on in this city.

Immediately upon entering the hall, people were incredibly friendly and welcoming, taking up their time to explain what was going on.

I had no prior knowledge of Roller Derby and a whole day for this sport to reveal itself to me. At first it did simply look like some people pushing each other around a track, yet by the end of the day I had a reasonable knowledge of the rules, could follow what was going on and some appreciation of the array of tactics deployed in the game.

As a spectator it is strange to watch as there is kind of two encounters happening simultaneously, with these two encounters interacting with each other. Basically, each team has a jammer and four blockers. The aim of the game is for the jammer to pass the blockers of the opposing team to score points as they go around the track. ~So the two encounters as the jammer of team A trying to progress in the same area of the track of the jammer of team B. So, whilst there are two fascinating games going on, of the jammer against the blockers, there is also the interactions in the space as the blockers can also assist their own jammer make progress by creating space and pushing the opposing blockers out of the way. There is quite simply an awful lot of strategy going on in real time.

As a team sport, with spectators there is also atmosphere. I don’t think I have ever experienced such a friendly inclusive atmosphere at a sporting occasion. I want to go again, and even learn to skate myself. What the experience did do was really resolve my issues with watching women play sport.

I believe that many heterosexual men have this issue with female sport, yet women do not seem to have the same issue in the same way. The issue is the distraction of being sexually attracted to the participants. However I know many women who go to watch men play sport and quite happy to incorporte their sexual atttraction to the players into their appreciation and enjoyment of the spectacle. I think this presents a really interesting difference in how different genders deal with what I shall call attraction to the unobtainable.

What I mean by ‘attraction to the unobtainable’ is that film stars and famous musicians etc, are separated socially from their audience. You may fall in love with a beautiful talented actress whilst watching a film, (as I also did at the weekend with Alia Bhatt whilst watching the excellent new Shah Rukh Khan film, Dear Zindagi) but you realise that your chances of even meeting the object of your affections are practically zero.

This attraction to the unobtainable is in stark contrast to our social lives, where we meet and interact with people we are attracted to, where there is at least, for a while, the possibility of forming a real relationship with those people.

This is interesting as how we deal with these two very different types of attraction is in itself different. The way we behave is different, how we think about a film star is different to someone in ‘real life’ we talk and interact with.

The essential difference is privacy, we can allow our imaginations to run riot in private. Crudely, we can let tongues hang out and stare longingly at the person on the screen without consequence, in a way we would never do in real life.

The difficulty with watching women in sport is that it falls into the grey area between the two. We can watch an attractive athlete and for a moment be distracted by their beauty, just like ‘attraction to the unobtainable’, and then after the game we may end up talking to that person socially. I think that many men just find this very confusing, it’s neither one or the other, many men, myself included, find this grey area difficult to deal with. It ‘s perhaps like Roller Derby itself, where there are two encounters happening simultaneously and we can mentally switch from watching one jammers encounter to the other. Generally men I believe are poorer at rapidly mentally switching, but it is a very useful skill.

Roller Derby presents this problem as it is still a small, but growing sport. So, there isn’t the opportunity of being lost in the crowd as you can at say say when watching the mens national rugby or football team. Yet, the game itself is absorbing so you do zone out of interacting socially with the people immediately around you to appreciating the sport and the tactical battles going on, yet there are moments when you just notice how attractive some of the participants are, just like watching an attractive actor in a film.

So, perhaps men don’t like watching women play sport because we kind of like to separate watching a game from being attracted to people. It’s not that anyone isn’t capable of mental switching, it’s just that men are not used to it. However men have learnt how to let their feelings for an attractive actress to flow without detracting from being absorbed by the plot of the film and really films are produced to ease the transition between these two aspects, sport doesn’t. As mens sport continues to dominate the main stream media, we don’t get enough practice of this mental switching in the arena of sport. It’s also how we expect the leading lady in a film to be attractive and it is part of how films work, but we don’t expect a sportsperson to be attractive, though some will be, but they may not be the winner. An example is the tennis player Anna Kournikova, who many men were attracted to, but she was never one of the best tennis players n the world. The difference is that to achieve fame as an actress you have to be attractive and be an amazing actor (sadly often being attractive is enough to carve out a lucrative career and very rare is the unattractive but amazingly talented actress) , whereas in sport you have to be good at the sport to be at the top and how attractive you are does not have any influence on it.

Roller Derby is that rare thing, a female dominated team sport, where not only is there the usual mental switching of watching the gender you are attrqacted tio playing nad beign absorbed in the intesity of the game itself, but also the switching between the two encounters of the jammers, which then also interact with other. Watching Roller Derby is as mentally exhausting to watch as it seems to be physically exhausting to play, but I can understand why the game appeals to a male audience! What I learnt was to be ease with watching women playing sport in real life.

Advertisements

The bitter aftertaste of the Olympics

I really enjoyed the Olympics, I focussed on watching the amazing sport on offer and basked in the warm glow of the success of fellow Britons. However the circumstances of this success has left a bitter aftertaste as what happened wasn’t somehow really British.

TeamGB achieved success by being well-funded and organised, allowing teams of athletes to focus on analysis and incremental improvements in performance. This is great but, hang on, ‘organised’?, well-funded’?? is simply not how the British do things old boy. This support of elite sport is in the context of drastic cuts in grass roots sport, funding cut for municipal sport facilities, slashing in funding for sport in schools, selling over of playing fields for awful developments. I think most people would rather have great facilities than watching some athletes achieve success on the other side of the world. Also, it just feels like we cheated by funding athletes better than other countries.

The funding for TeamGB comes from the National Lottery. The National Lottery is essentially a tax on the poor. It provides hope of a big windfall so people can afford a house and escape poverty, but half of the money paid in goes to ‘good causes’ such as supporting elite sport. Something similar happened when The UK hosted the games in 2012, public funding in deprived areas was cut, to release money to develop facilities in London, which is the wealthiest part of the UK. This happened in Brasil too, a poor country, lumbered with paying for the games for a poor return on facilities for the city of Rio, and they couldn’t even make cheap tickets available for the locals, leading to empty stadia, much better to take the money of a few rich tourists.

Don’t get me wrong, funding of elite sportspeople isn’t wrong, they can be an inspiration for participation in sport generally and dedication to the following of dreams. However when it is the only thing that the UK does really well, it leaves a bitter aftertaste.

Then there was the media coverage, some of  which was horribly nationalistic. I watched the coverage of events on the extra channels provided by the BBC, however the main BBC1 coverage, seemed to obsess over the UK athletes, to the detriment of a comprehensive coverage of the games, also simply not British, we’re supposed to apologise for success. I do expect some focus on the home athletes, but it was a bit much. Then there was the repeated coverage of the ‘Medal Table’ documenting, which countries have the most medals. Yes, it’s nice to see that TeamGB managed to finish with the second highest medal tally, historic even. However the medal table for me is rather nationalistic for what should be a friendly games. I grew up with the medal table being a battle between the two evil giants of  the USA and CCCP. Years of drugs scandals, led the establishment of the idea that medal table success was not a proxy for a nations success, but a representation of a sinister side of nationalism. Jade Jones, the Welsh gold medallist in the Taekwondo, was rapped, for breaking protocol and running with the Welsh flag and the Union Jack, when the rule was only to carry the Union flag (which still doesn’t represent Wales). How easily the cosy togetherness of Britain can break down. I know there is no law for the official flag, but in the stadiums there seemed a lot of UK flags with a light blue background, not the proper dark blue of the Saltire. Well OK, we’re British, we’re just not very good at being united in anything.

newunionflag

Really, the Union flag hasn’t changed in two hundred years. Isn’t it about time Wales was represented properly. Adding the yellow  cross of St David to the flag can be so simple and as you can see, doesn’t have to really change the aesthetic of the flag. There is nothing stopping anyway making this flag and using it to represent the UK.

I think the issue is that Olympics is not representing the best of humanity, not simply being a vehicle for demonstrating what wonderful things human bodies are capable of. Instead, it represents what you can do with power and money taken away from ordinary people and this is just very very sad.

 

The Olympic Games, #TeamGB and women on the telly

The Olympic Games is on in Rio, they are a wonderful televisual feast of sport. I thought I would document some of the reasons I like them.

TeamGB

Having a Great Britain [and Northern Ireland, so really it’s team UK?] team in itself is odd. For almost every sport, there are separate teams for the nations of Wales, Scotland and England. So the Olympics is even more different to sport as usual for people of the British Isles. Some people don’t like this, one reason is because it can mean the highest ranked sports people in a country may miss out on an Olympic spot as the British Olympic committee only funds so many athletes for each sport and this creates frictions between the sporting bodies, even though I think it’s generally done reasonably fairly. For example in one of the Judo classes, there was a real battle between a Welsh lady and and an English lady for the spot and by a narrow point margin the Welsh lady got the opportunity. A second reason is that there is an intense sporting rivalry between the nations of the UK, so team GB, in say the Rugby 7s, is made up of players from all UK nations, but often mainly drawn from the English team. This was really really odd, because the rugby rivalry is so intense, it just seems wrong to put this aside for the Olympics, I did but there has to be representation from all countries for this to work, which doesn’t necessarily produce the best team.   The team is usually the English team with the odd Scot or Welsh person, who will not be used to playing together and may be used to playing in a different style. The Rugby 7s was particularly odd this time, making it’s debut as an Olympic event.

Generally, I don’t like major, well covered sports being at the Olympics, as they get enough coverage and exposure in the media anyway. the Rugby 7s was hugely enjoyable, The ladies final was a hugely high standard and hugely dramatic and in the gentlemans final, my support for Team GB actually only lasted about 2 minutes, as Fiji were just immense and sometimes you just have to stop and applaud such a display of skill.

However for other sports, it’s simply nice to be able to come together to support fellow British and Irish athletes, to forget for two weeks the politics and rivalries within the UK, to enjoy the sport. Major sports like Golf and Football, I don’t approve of Olympic inclusion, because, they are well supported anyway and I regard the Olympics as a vehicle for the promotion of sports that struggle to become a regular part of mass entertainment.

The sheer niceness of it being Team GB, rather than Team Wales, presents three levels of support. Nonetheless, in each competition, I end up supporting someone. I support Welsh athletes first and foremost then the rest of Team GB, but also competitors from all over the world. I just like the sense of the world coming together to appreciate top level sporting competition and the sense that as supporters we are also part of the team, freed from national affiliation, you can enjoy the sport without nationalistic fervour pulling the heartstrings. I don’t know if this is the same for people from other countries that don’t compete under the banner of a union state. Really it’s simply good to see the Union Jack being waved for a positive unifying reason for a change.

The Sport

It’s great to see sports you have interest in, that you wish were higher up the media agenda some involvement in and the top athletes getting world-wide exposure. It is also super to see other sports getting the exposure too, even if I can’t move beyond finding Dressage rather silly. The Olympics is really good for these sports, encouraging new participation and inspiring people with what dedicated humans can achieve.

There is something special about the broadcasting element of having experts in a sport on the telly explaining what is going on to a largely ignorant public. You can watch sports you take zero interest in for four years. what broadcasters do if is give some back story to the events and the individual competitors, so even if you don’t know the sport, you can get involved in witnessing the emotional journeys.

Women

Generally, I am so pleased that both gentlemen and ladies compete  with equal billing for a change. Womens sport generally plays second fiddle to the men, but there is no real justification for this. Yes, elite men can run faster, jump higher pull harder, throw things further and lift heavier things, but that isn’t really very interesting. There is just as much skill, tactics and drama in sports of both genders and fortunately the broadcasters largely respect this, if only for the Olympics, if only it would happen all the time. It is sad that sometimes, some male broadcasters don’t reveal that they haven’t quite got the equality idea.

Being a heterosexual chap, I actually, much prefer the womens events at the Olympics. So, really, whatever gender you are attracted to you can get behind athletes you are attracted to. The female preference, primarily simple because there are so many really pretty women and I just like athletic competitive women, but also that women suffer a lot less from this ‘don’t show your emotions’ nonsense, that is drilled into us men as children, so as a spectacle, the women show much more how they feel about their performances. Yes, I want the attractive women to do well and feel with them, but it doesn’t stop me appreciating the skill demonstrated.

I know I do find generally seem to find different women attractive to most men. It’s so refreshing for all sorts of women to gain exposure for showing off their skills in the same way as the men. Though it does make me feel frustration that in many other fields it is only ladies who are perceived as attractive by the masses who seem to get to be in the media. We still live in a world where talented television presenters disappear after they reach a certain age, which doesn’t happen to male presenters. Really I just like the message getting out there that you don’t have to be thin, have huge breasts to get exposure.

Sporting Sexism

In other news, we have had a fantastic month of sport. Part of me would like to wax lyrically over the wondrous performance of the Welsh football team, reaching the semi-finals of Euro 2016 and providing great joy for us Welsh footie fans, both on the field and the sense of unity it provided for the nation as a counter-balance to all the divisive brexit stuff.

However I’m going to talk more mainly about tennis as the Wimbledon tennis tournament finished at the weekend. I love watching sport for many reasons: It is an inspiration to improve my own fitness levels and an inspiration in the dedication to perform at the professional level, the strategies and interplay of tactics provide interest too and an appreciation of the sheer skill of the athletes. These aspects are often trumped by the emotional engagement where the viewer supports one side or the other. This is where tribal loyalties come into play.

Whilst I am a fan of several football teams, there is something different about national teams, because you didn’t choose the team, you were raised with it. Normally when I have watched any football match I can’t help but root for one team over the other, this is a widespread phenomena. During international football tournaments I usually have to pick a team/ country to support. This decision process is interesting as it is the culmination of the weightings of many factors, such as: Are they underdogs, have I visited that country, do I have friends from that country. Even without any guiding factors, during a match I end up picking a team to support. This picking a side phenomena, happens in every sport I watch. However when i am attached to a particular team, I am more engaged emotionally, the highs are a lot higher and the lows much much lower.

So, to tennis, I am not a massive tennis fan, I generally prefer team sports. Tennis does have an easily observable tactical interplay, coupled with the mind games of the swings and roundabouts of confidence of the players. I believe the most popular form of tennis is the Men’s Singles, but for me I find the mixed doubles much more fascinating. More fascinating because it is now a team sport and that makes things much more interesting and the team dynamic becomes interesting in itself, they smile more and seem to enjoy playing. It also tends to be a bit slower, it’s not just about whacking the ball as hard as possible and this gives watchers more time to consider the battles playing out.

This brings me to sex. I have written a little about the trials and tribulations of being a heterosexual male. There is another phenomena that I don’t seem to have much choice about and that is finding sportswomen attractive. So, and I think this applies to most people, that we end up supporting athletes we find the most attractive, perhaps especially when they are wearing skimpy clothing and running about a lot. Sometimes I think this is awful. Awful because there tends to be a general consensus agreement about whom is attractive, I’m a little off normal, but there isn’t a huge amount of variance. So attractive sportspeople gain more support than those less attractive and this is unfair. It is unfair because someone could be a brilliant exciting player, but they don’t garner support because the other person is more attractive. Generally I don’t think there is anything at all wrong in being attracted to people, it’s natural, but it can be an issue if you decide to act on this attraction.

What I mean by acting on this attraction isn’t as sinister as it might sound. The act is often a male commentator making remarks about a sportswoman that are not related to their sporting ability, such as ‘how lovely they are’, you do hear this from time to time. I was watching the Mixed Doubles final from Wimbledon and found myself thinking that Heather Watson is impossibly lovely and beautiful, however if I was a sports commentator I would not mention this. I don’t know how much other people find this, but watching that match I went through appreciating the sporting spectacle, the drama as I would for any other sporting event, but underneath this is a part of the appeal are the continuing thoughts of how attractive she is as a woman. It’s like sport can become kind of like soft pornography.

I am a huge advocate of equality. I love watching rugby, I have female friends who play rugby. However I can’t bring myself to go along to the games and support them, because of the sexual aspect, I imagine that I would feel like a pervert watching women rolling around in the mud. I have been told not to worry about it, but at the back of my mind I’m wondering if my motivation for going to support and appreciate the game is affected by a desire to appreciate their bodies.

Everyday when out and about I see attractive women wearing attractive clothing and it is nice, but it isn’t the reason I go out and about. I’m just wondering what it is about sport that is different. It also applies to films, sometimes I am motivated to watch films with actors I enjoy, whether male or female, yet there is that little bit of extra motivation if I regard the female actress as attractive. There are very attractive female actors out there, who don’t act very well, so I am not motivated to watch their films, yet it is possible to ignore their acting ability sometimes. Really I wouldn’t have enjoyed watching this tennis match so much if it wasn’t an enjoyable well played game. At the end of the day, no matter how attractive someone is if they are not good at what they are doing, the appeal of watching them diminishes. It seems that the motivation of watching a game is decided by a weighing up of many factors, sexual attraction being only one. The best things to watch are when the sportspeople are both good at what they do, entertaining and very attractive!

To TMO or not to TMO

There have been a couple of incidents at the rugby world cup where use non-use of the TMO (referring referreeing decisons to video evidence) seem to be influencing the game in a way they shouldn’t be.

The fact that video replays are shown within the stadium when play has stopped, allowing players and fans to see if a referee has made a wrong decision is wrong, refereeing is a hard enough job as it is without such scrutiny.

TMO is used at the world cup and the six nations and has become part of the game at international fixtures. However, it should not change the way the game is played and make it different to playing at club or amateur level.

The first incident occured in the opening match between England and Fiji. Fiji appeared to score a try, the ref and the linesman were behind the ball and a try was awarded. This is normal at club level as the the probability is that a try has been legally scored. Then, a slow motion replay was shown on the big screen which clearly showed the Fijian player knocking on just before the try line. The ref then (as the kicker was preparing for the conversion attempt) stopped play and referred to the TMO, and the decision to award the try was reversed. Even though technically it wasn’t a try, it only wasn’t due to the TMO rules, hence changing the game. TMO should only be used for marginal decisions where the ref is in doubt or unsighted. To be consistent then  every try would have to go to TMO.

The TMO rules need changing as at the moment the TMO can only be used in specific circumstances such as  to pick up foul and dangerous play, which is good for ensuring player safety. However TMO can’t be used for penalty decisions, this has an affect on the game as  teams are then encouraged to take penalties instead of pushing for a try. There are too mnay penalties in the game as it is in my opinion, more should not be encouraged.

Which brings me to the other incident, in yesterdays quarter final match between Scotland and Australia. It was a superb match, with 1 point separating the teams with 90 seconds to go. Scotland messed up their own lineout, it appeared to be an accidental knock on followed by an accidental offside. Everyone expected an excitign final scrum with an Australian put in. Instead the ref awarded a penalty, a wrong decision, that affected the outcome of the game in the final minute. The ref has to make an on the spot decision, but couldn’t be certain it was a penalty or not, if it’s not clear a penalty shouldn’t be awarded. Here was a situation where whether it was a penalty was unclear, so perhaps should have been referred to the TMO. The ref could, however, have asked the linesman if they had seen anything.

As a supporter of the Welsh national team I have seen the odd wrong decision lose us games. Having said that, watching at home on the telly I’ve also seen penalties awarded to Wales, we shouldn’t have, Refereeing is tough and wrong decisions are simply part of the game. However again thsi incident was shown on the big screens at the game, the crowd and the ref watched it and saw that a wrong decision had been made. This time the ref couldn’t refer to the TMO and potentially reverse the decision. This is the inconsistency, why TMO for a try and not a penalty? It will be interesting to see how the IRB respond to the use of TMO in this world cup.

As a fan of rugby, such things do ruin games as a spectacle for the supporters. It was a great contest to watch. For Scotland, coming close to getting to the semi-finals is heartbreaking, to lose the match in the final minute by a wrong refereeing decision, doubly so. It’s tough on the victors, Australia, too, as they are seen as not progressing by winning the game, but by being lucky with a refereeing decision, celebrations are then muted. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth for the neutral too ( I was of course supporting our comrades in Scotland).

Finally and incidentally, I do not condone the abuse the referee has received online. Completely uncalled for, as i said a very tough job and in a game such as rugby you are never going to get every decision right. So, use the TMO where there is doubt and don’t show replays in the stadium (part of the fun is watching a replay at home after a match and seeing what happened at all the breakdowns.

Tribes

Human beings have always been tribal by nature. People exist as part of tribes that offer support and a sense of belonging. There has always been a balance between competition and cooperation between tribes. This phenomena exists in other animals, whilst there is some aggression between tribes, there is a respect, because  those in the neighbouring tribe are often cousins. For example males who go off to mate in a nearby tribe to avoid in-breeding. In modern society, we are still tribal, the system has developed so that often we are a member of many different tribes, from the family unit to ones that cross international boundaries.

I love team sports. Principally I love football and rugby. I enjoy being part of the team, when I play in a team I give everything I can to the team. I also support professional teams. Supporting professional teams provides two services to me as an individual. There is the tribal sense of belonging and desire for the team to do well. There is also the interest and awe of observing professionals demonstrate skills and tactics, beyond my own skill level.

Watching professional sport is also akin to attending music concerts. Again there is the sense of belonging to the tribe of people who venerate particular musicians and the shared joy of listening with like minded souls. The ability to be positive about a particular style without an overly critical response. Arguably this could also apply to religion, career paths or genres of books and films I particularly like.

People sometimes find it strange that I support three football clubs. I grew up in rural Wales, lacking professional football teams. There was no football tribe that I already belonged to, so I ended up supporting three different tribes. I am lucky in that all three of my teams play in blue and white. The three clubs are different sizes and play at different levels of the football pyramid, so each offers a different interest. In rugby, I am more conventional, i support my home town team and my national team. Being Welsh this is mandatory, unless you really dislike the sport. In this sense I was already part of the tribe before I understood the game of rugby.

Whilst fierce rivalries exist between my teams and others. The huge passions evoked during a match are quickly put aside to join the bigger tribe of people who appreciate rugby/ football.

What is perhaps interesting sociologically is that in football I chose the teams to support. I didn’t actively choose through some analysis of the game or the relevant merits of each team, the teams I chose happened somewhat passively, accidentally. However, I have written in this blog about my status as an outsider, yet I strongly identify with these team tribes. Perhaps because I used to have an unfulfilled need to feel a sense of belonging. It is also interesting in that the football teams I support, historically are the big underachievers, the sleeping giants, often overshadowed by bigger more successful local rivals. So, whilst I didn’t actively choose the football teams I support, something in my personality drew me to them, this sense of the outsider and the joy of being welcomed into a big tribe of outsiders.

20150104_152116

The Manchester City tribal home. “We all live in a sky blue stadium!”

The biggest football team I support, the one I have been the most passionate about is Manchester City. In recent years, something very odd has occurred. They became a rich and successful club, actually winning things like the FA cup and  English Premier league titles. To be honest, I find this a little strange and unworldly, yet am wonderfully pleased by the success. I remember being at a game and the bloke next to me was getting very stressed and vocal about the teams performance against a rival team for the Premier league title. A fellow fan quipped “Don’t worry mate, we’re still in the play-offs!” a reference to the clubs recent past struggling to get back into the higher divisions. To me finishing second for Manchester City still feels like a big achievement.

Supporting football and rugby teams, historically has been about community, specifically working class communities. Life was tough, though there was a sense of solidarity. The achievements of the communities representatives in the sporting arena, when the team won, would provide a sense of joy and pride that would fill the week with positivity until the next game. The success or failure of the team/tribe provides a roller-coaster ride of ups and downs quite separate from the individuals life. In everyone’s struggle to be positive and happy, it is sometimes very useful to have something outside the self to provide extended uplifts or short bursts of sorrow to help keep ones own moods in perspective.

The 50% Rule

Whilst attending a Q&A with Sir Steve Redgrave, the multiple Olympic gold medallist and thoroughly nice bloke, he discussed ‘the 50% rule’. He gave this discussion in response to the question of why put yourself through the sacrifice of training.

The answer is simple. He kept doing it because he enjoyed it at least 50% of the time and stated that he would give up rowing if he ever dipped below this level. Really any successful sportsperson or artist doesn’t undergo some huge personal sacrifice in order to achieve success, they do it because they enjoy the training 50% of the time. Of course he forced himself through many gruelling ERG session which he hated, nothing can be enjoyed everytime, but less than half of sessions were like this.

Really, the 50% rule can be applied to everything that we choose to get ourselves involved with as humans. It can also be applied to understand the difference between happy and unhappy people. Simply, unhappy people either persist in doing things they don’t enjoy, haven’t yet found something they really enjoy or are suffering some form of depression which prevents them enjoying life. Why 50%? why not 10% or 30%?

No-one is happy or sad most of the time, generally most people spend most of their lives in a state of neutrality, neither being happy or sad. People have moments of being happy or sad, also these states can linger for a while. A healthy person will allow feelings of happiness to persist and unhappy thought to be forgotten quickly.

So, if the peturbations away from neutrality are mainly happy, then the memory of happiness will pervade the neutral state and the person can generally be described as happy and content with themselves. Even if the majority of peturbations are sad ones, this can be outweighed by the lingering happiness increasing the influence of happy. Conversely the unhappy person will have their neutrality burdened by the memory of sadness.

I think that this is particularly hard on the depressed person, who has insufficient experience of happy to understand what it is. To the depressed person, the moments of happiness are so rare, they seem artificial and instead of enjoying them they agonise over how this came about and whether it would be possible to find this state again soon. Of course the agonising only serves to dispel the happiness, it is lingering in sadness, which only makes things worse.

For example I like to read about the news, I like to know what is going on in the world, however most of this news tends to be very sad and often this sadness effects me after I have stopped reading. Really by the logic of this, I should stop reading the news! so sometimes I do stop. Stopping allows me to be free of cynicism with the world, I’ll be aware it’s there but have actively chosen to be free of it, at least for a short while. so to be happy,one has to break your own rules, some of the time, to be happy.

I would say, being someone who only discovered happiness relatively recently is that understanding happiness is important as you only truly experience happiness when you know what it is and how you got there, an analogy is knowing where the state of happines is on a map. Humans naturally, know what happiness is, but long periods of depression serve to make people forget where happiness is. It also required lateral thinking. One cannot simply arrive at happiness in a linear logical way, it has to be felt rather than thought.

Giant Leaps

Discovery of something wonderful gives one a sense of newness, feeling fresh and alive. The energy acquired makes one desire to share this discovery with the world. There is also a sadness, that you have changed as a person and will never quite be the same again. however you have grown and are a better person for it.

This desire to share does create problems. Problems because what you have discovered is something that only really has relevance or is new to yourself. It terms of society, it is not new, with very rare exceptions such as scientific discoveries. So it is problematic as it is unnecessary to force this discovery onto other people, particularly when these other people are not aware of what it is that you have discovered about yourself.

it is perhaps once again the outsider issue. I discovered a few years ago, what it is to be happy, to be able to relax and be myself, that feeling disconnected from the world wasn’t a part of me, but a symptom of not knowing exactly what happiness was. I did communicate this to people, who were disturbed by it. I think that the reason they were disturbed was that they had never made the transition of being sad to finding out what happy is, that these people had a sense of always knowing what happiness was, hence find the concept of it’s discovery somewhat baffling.

What I have found interesting is that there are people who have understood my discovery. These people have had similar barriers to being comfortable within themselves, people who have spent a lot of time thinking in deep dark places. Such people can relate to similar experiences more readily than those who haven’t dwelt in negativity.

This phenomena has many examples in a wider context:

Religion: There are the people who discover their faith, their spirituality later in life. Some of whom then wish to convince the rest of the world of this truth they have discovered in themselves. such street corner preachers make a lot of people uncomfortable, particularly those without a faith. Others, of faith, who have grown up in a particular tradition have never perhaps made a great leap, but whose understanding of their faith has unravelled incrementally, a sense of the faith  always having been there, a sense of never having denied it.

New music/art: Probably most people at some point have discovered a new artist, whom they make a connection with, which they find exciting and life affirming. Again there is the desire to tell the world and more particularly, their friends about. There are also people who may have grown up with the artist, or who have known about the artist  earlier in their career, to whom there is less a a great leap of connection.

Sport: A new convert to a particular sport, or a new fan of a particular team, tends to have a more intense fervour of commitment and interest than the long standing fan, at least for a period of time after the discovery. In this case, there is less alienation of the new convert. There is less alienation as here the new person is joining a community that is distinct from the wider world, there is knowing that never will everyone be a convert to this particular cause. The discovery is one that is not based on anything inherent in the self, so there is always a point for everyone at which they discovered this love.

It is sad, that most of the discoveries people make are only of relevance to themselves, so communication of it should be restricted to family and friends, even if others were influential in making the discovery. Though often people are appreciative of someone simply expressing joy, without needing the specific details. There is a disdain for the preacher who only discovered something recently, however a reflective preacher who has deepened their understanding of a discovery, who can express the discovery in a new way is always I believe important.