Tourniquet

I tried to kill my pain
But only brought more
So much more
I lay dying
And I'm pouring crimson regret and betrayal
I'm dying, praying, bleeding and screaming
Am I too lost to be saved
Am I too lost?

Recently I’ve been thinking of suicide – not thinking of suicide as in “suicidal thoughts” but just thinking about the concept of suicide and its implications. Specifically religious implications. Probably because I've been listening to Tourniquet a lot lately - hence the title.

Okay, while not all religions were against suicide – for instance in ancient Japan it was believed to be more honourable kill oneself than to surrender and some mythologies were similar – those descended from Judaism were vehement on the matter: it was forbidden.

In the original versions of the Seven Deadly Sins that Despair was originally a mortal sin because it symbolized a loss of faith and hope – no longer trusting in God. Suicide is taking God’s most precious gift and getting rid of it. Those who take their own life cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is where my musing actually starts – what about drugs? So many medications out there, especially anti-depressants, include suicidal thoughts as a side-effect.

Also, take into account mental illness - it's estimated that 87%-98% of suicides had a mental disorder. The obvious ones are Depression and Bipolar Disorder, but there are others. Of suicides, mood disorders are present in 30%, substance abuse in 18%, schizophrenia in 14%, and personality disorders in 13% of suicides. These are all chemical imbalances - either caused by the illness, causes the illness, or by the medication for the illness. (In Swing a Little More I mention that while Lithium is the most effective medication in regards to suppressing suicidal impulses/thoughts, the medication to stop the kidney damage from lithium increases such thoughts.)

Even without looking to specific mental disorders, it's been found that those who attempt suicide have low seratonin levels (mood modulator and neurotransmitter), and those who complete it have the lowest levels.

Is a chemical imbalance someone willingly throwing their life away? Or would it be considered differently? Are there exceptions, a rule, a second chance?

My next question is this: what about those who willingly endanger their lives?
Just to clarify – I am not saying that my following examples should be considered the same as suicide-by-free-will. My thoughts are... odd on this matter so I’m trying to properly categorize them. How is saying “Hey, I don’t care if I die” different to saying “I don’t want to live”?
If those who are chemically imbalanced towards hurting themselves in a fatal way get penalized (forgive the word), what happens to those who are mentally healthy but through themselves off cliffs attached to a chord, or diving into the rift, or other “thrill seeking” activities. I mean, I know we all take risks with our lives just by leaving the house but we don’t run in front of the cars! These guys sign contracts that explicitly state that if they die then it’s not the company’s problem!

Ok, I know that may be irrational but I don’t see why if someone who is supposedly in full possession of their faculties could care so little about their lives that they may as well throw them away...
I know that they probably don’t think that it’s possible that they may die – at least it’s not in the forefront of their mind. Like for surfers – they don’t have to sign a contract to go in the ocean.

Not on the “thrill seeker” side of things there are soldiers – men who willingly risk their lives for what they perceive is a worthy cause. They know full well that they could die. I know they aren’t happy with the idea and they aren’t seeking to die but they know it’s a risk.

I guess it’s that a suicide intends to die, while the soldier accepts that it’s a possibility but doesn’t want to, and the thrill seeker doesn’t really consider it. It is intention.

I’m not saying that stupidity or honour is on par with actually taking one’s life – what I am saying is that since suicide could be the result of mental illnesses and drug side-effects can they really be considered to be taking their life of their own volition? I mean real free-will? I know some can resist these impulses – but what if the imbalance is that bad or the illness that far progressed?

I’ve never read an exclusion clause. I’d like to think that there’s something to help but I don’t believe in reincarnation or past-lives despite the romanticism behind them – mainly because I don’t like the idea that my personality as it is has nothing to do with my soul and I could have just as easily been a male born in 1955. However, I know that Judaism has explicit mention of past-lives, and that Christianity isn't mutually exclusive with the idea. Hell, a younger me thought that it was a good explanation as to why Heaven wouldn't be overcrowded.

Actually, I’d be likely to believe such a theory if said second chance took the form of them being reborn without said illness or imbalance thus giving them a chance to relive their life over... however that would be unfair to those who don't get a second chance unless everything except said imbalance/illness was the same but that would go against the concept of free-will which is something I believe in thus I couldn't believe that theory anyway...
Not to mention that it would seem to imply that I either I monumentally frakked up my past life attempts and am on my nth chance with God, or that I haven't frakked up but am still supposed to live all this out again and risk on of my future lives frakking up the afterlife for all of "me". On top of that I have no small amount of distaste for the idea that if I could have married multiple people already at that once I die whatever vows I made/make ultimately mean nothing. But that's getting into my personal weirdness.

And then we look to those who were dying and then committed suicide. For instance, a person dying of a particularly painful disease. They have days, weeks, maybe months to live but all in complete agony. Is it so bad that maybe they don't want to wither away like that? By that same token, would a person refusing further medical help be considered suicide if said treatment could extend their life? Personally, I don't know - I'd imagine my thoughts may change if a relative/friend chose such a route.
I so love chasing myself in a circle... not.
This post doesn’t involve me coming to some sort of brilliant conclusion, a minor epiphany, or even some weird little decision. It’s just me wondering what is going on here.

My wounds cry for the grave:
My soul cries for deliverance.
Will I be denied?
Christ!
Tourniquet!
My suicide...

Pygmalion

An unscheduled update for the purpose of venting a little.

Have you ever been chatting with a friend, having fun and all, and then they go and make some joke or reference that you don't get or misinterpret?
Anyway, when people don't just laugh it off and behave in a sociable fashion there's that awkward silence that follows. I hate that awkward silence - it is extremely effective of killing all the fun you were having. Especially if said conversation is online and then they disappear after the awkward silence - note that, while difficult, I do know people who can disappear almost as effecively in face-to-face conversations.

The thing is, the very act of disappearing can make the other person feel like they did something wrong. Now, let's face it - no-one was wrong here, just crossed wires... not even that. And maybe they feel like an idiot (who knows) but the fact is I don't know and if we had just continued chatting it's possible that we both could have left in a good mood. I don't know, maybe they did leave in a good mood - the point is that the disappearing is annoying.
Well, maybe annoying isn't the right word - I tend to feel really tired and irritated in a I-need-rest way when people annoy me unintentionally.

(Of course said friend won't see this seeing as you don't know about this blog and if you do see this it will probably be so far in the future that you will have forgotten.
Stupid boy.
[Note: The friend is not stupid because he is a boy - he is a friend who is at this current moment stupid and just happens to be a boy. Just clearing that up - most of my friends are boys. Actually for the most part this friend is awesome - I've just had too many people pull this to not have a small tantrum at my computer screen.])

(And no, I don't know what could have been said afterwards... just not disappearing. ._.)

Funnily enough this friend doesn't seem to think I have a temper - probably because they've never seen me mad at people and disappear when I'm mad at them before they are alerted to that fact. -_-

In my opinion one should never assume that someone is happy all the time or never gets mad - it will only lead to trouble. Think about it: if you honestly think that someone hasn't got a temper then your behaviour will be different. Hell, even if you think so jokingly - these things still have a subtle effect on your mind. You become less careful - I mean, you know what annoys your friends, yes? So you don't approach those subjects for the most part. If you act as though said friend doesn't have a temper then you don't have any reason to not approach the subjects. Eventually they won't take it anymore.
Society discourages showing your temper, and a lot of people have reasons to hide it. For instance I have a very bad temper - when I'm mad stuff flies. So, naturally, I don't want people to see that side of me. I don't want to accidentally hurt my friends or scare them off. So, it's hidden beneath a goodly amount of smiles and snark. I'd imagine that a few other people do this. It's like... poking at a pet cat - yeah, for the most part she'll ignore you and try to sleep but one day she'll turn around and try to scratch your face off. Also, it's bloody insensitive to your friend. I'm not saying "thread on eggshells", just that when you do know a person's hang-ups don't press them. You may see this as logical but I know plenty of people who cannot grasp this simple comment.

On a similar note (related to the "don't assume a person doesn't have a temper" thought), just don't put people up on pedestals. A human is a human - they have their good points, and they have their flaws. It makes them... them.

I have been put on at least pedestal twice that I can think of - people aren't meant to be on them. We can't balance.
The first example is a guy who had a crush on me - he was really sweet but he didn't know me very well and he refused the idea that I could have flaws. No matter what I said or did, it was taken as Gospel or in the most flattering light. His self-esteem suffered because he was comparing everything he did to this fantasy girl he had built up. Occasionally it'd become obvious that I didn't measure up, even in a couple of simple things - like not knowing about a famous failed acquisition. He was quite disappointed that I didn't know.
The second example is an old friend of mine because I was one of their nicer friends. It got to the point that any mistake I made, no matter how small, was a great betrayal. No matter how many promises I kept or favours I did, it wouldn't measure up to the few I forgot. This is because my failings proved that I didn't fit the role they had chosen for me. And because of how mad and sad they'd get I'd try to change - not just small things, like remembering they don't like some meme, but the bigger things too. You can only change so much before you lose you.

"I'm a snapshot of the person that you think I ought to be."

Putting people on pedestals does quite a few things: it can damage your self-esteem (as in the first example), it sets you up for disappointment, it puts undeserved pressure on the other person, and, most importantly, it doesn't make them a person anymore. It makes them a statue, a painting, a snapshot, some other appropriate metaphor. You're no longer dealing with a person whom you could be friends or lovers with - you're dealing with a fantasy.
You're Pygmalion and you've fallen in love with your statue - the person in front of you is just something you're trying to carve to fit it.

Actually, that metaphor is quite a good one - it shows how wrong the situation is. The person should be the model on which you base your statue - not the other way around. Even in real life cases of art, where the masterpiece is more aesthetically pleasing than the model is, the artist never tries to make the model live up to the statue - he found a model to suit his idea. In terms of people, you don't find just anyone and try to fit them to what you want them to be - you find a person who fills that need just the way they are. And sometimes you find someone a person who fills a place you didn't know needed filling. I like it when that happens. :)

Anyway, I think when you meet people you shouldn't look at them through rose-tinted glasses. When you do so, you're just looking at an illusion. I'm not saying actively look for their flaws, but just... keep an eye out for them. A person's flaws explains their personality and behaviour as much as their strengths do and it is only by getting to know both that you will get to know the person. Assumption of anything means that you're not looking at something anymore.

"People should be doubted. Trust is giving up on trying to understand others."

This quote comes from the Liar Game - it was told to me by the friend I was mad at when I started this post... who, incidentally, I'm not mad at anymore. Realizing that I may have put them on a small pedestal... at least for the day - it was a pretty annoying day. And yeah, I was probably a bit irrational at the beginning - but I'm lucid now and that's good. Funny how venting does that - much better than bottling it up until it becomes an actual problem.

Also, just because you acknowledge the flaws it doesn't mean you have to like them - just that you have friends with flaws you don't mind or can at least tolerate. No-one's perfect.

Huh... this post actually ended up kinda informative after all.

... I don't have to give my friend indirect credit for the part of this post that was actually useful, do I? :P

Fear versus Actuality

I just thought this was funny and sad at the same time - it's a list of fears and the realistic chance of them eventuating. Found in a book published in 2006.

Deadly shark attack: 1 in 280 million
Deadly antrax attack: 1 in 57 million
Deadly airplane accident: 3 million
Shot by a sniper: 1 in 517,000
Losing your job: 1 in 252 (this is pre-GFC though)
Home burglary at night: 1 in 181
Developing cancer: 1 in 7
Catching foodborne illness this year: 1 in 4
Cathing a sexually transmitted disease: 1 in 4
Developing heart disease: 1 in 4
Dying five to ten years earlier if you're overweight: 1 in 4
Death from tobacco-related illnesses: 1 in 2

Funny: Not only are you more likely to catch a deadly case of anthrax than get killed by a shark, even more likely to get shot by a sniper than die in an airplane crash. It's amusing to think that we should all be more worried about little red lights being directed at our heads over giant fish with multiple teeth.

Sad: Why do people spend so much time worrying about the improbabilities in life, when there are real things to be afraid of that can actually be prevented by healthier living and regular medical check-ups?
Instead we're hearing the Jaws soundtrack play in our heads everytime we go to the beach.