Subject: Re: suicide
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Sun Feb 27 2000 - 09:09:22 EST
In a message dated 2/27/00 5:02:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, shok@netcom.com
writes:
<< Now, assuming that Seymour is not completely psychotic (and perhaps
we're making a mistake by doing that), his Final Act was certainly not
that of a coward. Don't get me wrong - I don't mean to be nasty - but
to call it one, I think, displays a rather immature understanding of the
nature of suicide. Maybe it was parallel to Franny's breakdown, maybe
it was an escape from the world in reaction to its oppressive banality,
maybe it was ultimately an act of failure, but an act of
cowardice? To call it that is a gross oversimplification
to the point of being downright silly. No dictionary _I've_ ever
seen has a definition of cowardice that allows for shooting yourself in
the right temple with a large-calibre handgun. And I'm talking about
Seymour.
-robbie >>
Ok, I can see this. But I think there was a bit of a reponse to this even in
my last post. It was all the "path of least resistance" comments
interspersed in the potential reasons for suicide. I think Scottie's
reduction of possible motives for suicide to neurosis is an
oversimplification. First, because the neurosis is undefined, and next,
because there are "reasoned" reasons for doing so -- reasons reflective of a
value system, a belief system, or a personal set of values -- like the
Kamakazie pilots, the buddhist monks, or the person painfully dying of a
terminal illness.
The problem I have with eliminating cowardice as a motive for **anyone's**
suicide is that it assumes that the fear of death is the worst fear a person
can have. I don't think that's the case. I think each of us work within a
heirarchy of fears, as well as a heirarchy of values, and we work to protect
ourselves from our worst fears. Suppose the fear of death is only second
place? Suppose we confront our worst fear, and choose suicide to avoid that
confrontation? At this point cowardice as a motive for suicide become
plausible.
If we don't rule out cowardice as a possible motive for anyone, from that
point we'd have to see who it applies to and who it doesn't. I called
Seymour a coward because I saw him as running away -- running away from the
big old bad world that didn't understand or appreciate his spirituality,
running away from a shallow wife that didn't need (consciously) his spiritual
guidance (as his younger brothers and sisters did), running away from his own
happiness, for that matter, because it flew in the face of the person he had
built himself up to be over the years. So rather than staying and working
out the threat, he ran away. chicken :)
That's just my take at this point, though, and I agree that no explanation
will ever be completely satisfactory. I think the Glass family canon exists
to answer the unanswerable...
Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 19:30:24 EST