Subject: Re: suicide
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Wed Mar 01 2000 - 08:03:16 EST
In a message dated 3/1/00 1:23:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, shok@netcom.com
writes:
<< Just like people
don't kill themselves when all systems are functioning normally. If you
like, re-read my post and replace "suicidal frenzy" with "suicidal
trance" or any other word you can come up with to that end. But the
point remains, something big has to go wrong upstairs before you become
capable of effectively spitting in the face of millions of years of
evolution for survival.
-robbie >>
Please observe that you're repeating your definition of coward only because
you haven't read my response to your last post yet :) I think I responded
well enough there, though, so I'll wait till you read it.
I still disagree with the idea that "something HAD TO HAVE gone wrong
upstairs." That was the point of my "neurosis/psychosis" gaffe with Scottie.
Whatever you call it (and I am willing to concede that there is a
substantial diff between a N and a P, but in both cases something is wrong),
I don't think it's the ONLY POSSIBLE motive for suicide. "Something going
wrong" may be the Most Popular motive, or the Most Likely motive, but not the
Only Possible motive.
The problem with your reasoning is that it's self-limiting. Because you see
only one group of motives possible, you see only something within that group
of motives as driving the act no matter who is doing it or under what
circumstances they are doing it.
Which means I think a "reasoned" suicide is possible. We can stick with the
monk example, if you like. I think a Buddhist monk is nuts for burning
himself to death in war protest. But that's only because we have completely
different views of the world. I don't "literally" think the monk is
suffering from a psychosis (to use Scottie's term) by choosing to do this
act. My point is that the act, in this case, is a choice, has been thought
out, is consistent with a belief system, so is probably not the product of
some kind of psychosis. Yes, the monk has to overcome some very deep seated
biological instincts, but you know what?
Being a monk, he's devoted his life to overcoming biological instincts.
That's part of what the yogas are all about. All that "walking on coals"
stuff and "sleeping on beds of nails" aren't supposed to be for show, but are
the product of one specific yoga that's intended to give the participant
completely control over his body. The detachment from the world is directed
specifically toward detachment from the participant's physical body. Burning
oneself to death would just be an extreme practice of this discipline.
So you can still say the buddhist monk has something wrong with him for
killing himself, but that's basically no more than saying, "You must be crazy
if you think differently than me." It's still, at heart, a very limited
position.
Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Apr 01 2000 - 10:11:38 EST