tumbltapr

From prehistory to history, and thence onwards towards speculative futures.

1: Fossilized Amargasaurus cazaui skeleton, Prague National Museum, Czech Republic

2-3: Ancient Egyptian harp, c. 1390-1295 B.C., Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC

4-6: Silicon organism creche guardian, Tsutomu Nihei's BLAME!, Vol. 1

Gracile variable floatplane of the kind I see in my dreams.

Deeply personal iconic conflation of imagery and music circa 1990—Emperor Sea Strider skull from Barlowe's EXPEDITION + Andy LaRocque's "Insanity" instrumental from King Diamond's The Eye.

Your mileage may vary, but mine never will.

Another potentially reified game enemy.

LEFT: The biomechanical bird statue guarding the gateway between Stages 1 and 2 in Sunsoft's 1988 NES classic Blaster Master

I MUST REBOOT RYGAR

ENDORPHIN WITHDRAWAL:  When humans and other animals are around their close companions, their brains secrete endorphins that ease anxiety and produce happiness. When they feel separation from those companions, the brain stops producing endorphins, leading to a kind of chemical withdrawal. Some call this "love withdrawal."

Alita learns of Ido's death in BATTLE ANGEL ALITA Chapter 26, "Collapse." [Read right to left, top to bottom, manga-stylee]

I read an analogy once likening our sense of security and well-being to a fuel tank replenished largely by positive interactions with our friends and loved ones. Abundant nurturance, support, affection, and validation results in a healthy "fuel" level; in the absence of such affirmation and nurturance, the tank may very well be depleted or even empty. This in itself may seem obvious, but the secondary implication is that if we suffer rejection or loss on a sufficiently full tank, the loss may hurt, but it won't destroy us. On the other hand, if our "tank" is fueled ONLY by the nurturance of a single person or a small group of people, the loss can be devastating when that energy is withdrawn.

[Probably more accurately characterized as “oxytocin withdrawal” in this case, but I think the basic principle is sound and beautifully illustrated here.]

Please see also

Most all of us run at a deficit of positive energy and seek a "higher power," what psychiatrist Donald Wilbert defined as "whatever facilitates a connection to positive energy." In traditional religious practices this role is filled by a saint, savior, or sacred text, but in a socially and spiritually fragmented society we turn in our desperation to other sources--food, sex, drugs, media, and of course those around us (most of whom are equally depleted and unable to satisfy their own needs, let alone ours). This process is unsustainable because, as Dr. Wilbert pointed out, we CONSUME our higher power--the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of the Eucharist, for example. When we elevate those around us to the status of "higher power," depending on them wholly to replenish our energy, a cannibalistic and ultimately self/destructive cycle ensues, as per "energetic transaction" Types 4-6 defined here:

thomastapir.tumblr.com/post/639176005686362112/something-ive-been-thinking-about-for-a-long-time

Equally damaging is the tendency to seek "power" in what Dr. Wilbert deemed "counterfeit energy"--chemicals affecting the metabolism and nervous system. We CONSUME the drink, the drug, even prescription medication when abused, in the attempt to achieve communion with that boundless font of universal divine energy, and yet the "energy" thus derived is synthetic and temporary, and ultimately leaves us more depleted than we were initially. Ideally we seek "higher power(s)" in inexhaustible sources--nature, meditation (or prayer, if you prefer), exercise, art, music, productive creative work, positive and mutually beneficial energy exchanges with others (Type 1 interactions as per above).

Something I've been thinking about for a long time now--the nature of energy transfer in social transactions twixt individuals. Here I'm working from the premise that most of us are analogous to a "battery with half a charge" and that we can be either enriched ("recharged") or depleted ("sucked dry") through our interactions with others, at the two extremes of the spectrum. This chart attempts to define some of these potential interactions across a range of possible outcomes from a "win-win" scenario through "neutral" interactions to a "lose-lose" scenario in which both individuals are depleted and neither benefits.

This chart is necessarily a simplification, and I think it goes without saying that there are many other ways the equation can "balance"--not everybody is "half a battery," and some people are such an overwhelming reservoir of positive energy that they effortlessly nourish and nurture others without themselves being depleted (in my experience such people are very rare). Conversely, it is almost impossible for two "empty batteries" to replenish each other, and such interactions are unfortunately all too common. I attempted here to illustrate what I see as the most likely scenario, where partially "charged" individuals interact. Any transaction where one or both parties benefit by coming away with a surplus of energy without victimizing or parasitizing each other is a positive outcome in this model.

All credit for this paradigm lies with my old psychiatrist Dr. Donald E. Wilbert, the coolest shrink I ever had. To even further simplify things, he had a beautifully concise equation governing choices in social energy exchange:

positive connection > no connection > negative connection

Seek mutually beneficial relationships, and avoid those that deplete you.

And then there’s whatever’s going on here, of course:

Makoto Kobayashi's organicized reinterpretation of the classic '80s IDEON mecha.