Hi y'all - I'm surprised - even shocked by your response: "Again, while in many ways we are in fact dependent upon others, this codependent notion you present of “take the time beforehand to satisfy everyone’s needs” is viewed by most within the psychological community as an illness."
Perhaps you are not suffering from the same illness that I am. My view is, that explaining to others the reason for a suicide, and helping them understand that they are in no way responsible and that there is no other viable alternative, is satisfying their needs in a proper way. It is taking the only way out with dignity and humility. My definition of a selfish suicide would be a guy who jumps off a cliff after having a few beers and losing a bunch of money at the racetrack with no thought for his family or friends, or the fact that his problems could easily be resolved with a little willpower and help. You post "to survive, we must be selfish." Humanity is the only species with the ability to rebel against our selfish genes. The altruism we practice is also starting to slowly evolve in our ape relatives. Altruism is now humanity's way to survive. We have learned via memes and passed on via genes over millenia, that altruism works better for humanity than war. Of course, there are those that have not yet evolved to this stage. All humans are not on a level playing field - perhaps your statement referred to some leaders etc. who are way down the evolutionary scale. Osama Bin Laden, Kim Il Sung and son etc. I am interested by your insight into Buddhism. From your response I believe my statement that suicide commands little karma and results in repeated lives (eternal torture) and thus no advancement to Nirvana is close to their belief. I don't have life insurance either! On Oct 3, 9:41 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the response Clog. And, of course, circumstances differ. > > This said, friends and relatives will mourn and grieve regardless. > Further, the rather codependent view that we should do or not do > something based upon what someone else might wish they could have done > is clearly not only convoluted, but an actual psychological confusion > and illness. > > As to insurance, many of use, me included, can not afford insurance so > it is not applicable. Also, anyone who ‘survives’ a family member’s > death will need to be self reliant regardless of hopes for insurance > monies. > > Of course, the main topic as I understood it was about death with > dignity, thus having to do with irreversible illness. (Regardless of > family size!) > > Again, while in many ways we are in fact dependent upon others, this > codependent notion you present of “take the time beforehand to satisfy > everyone’s needs” is viewed by most within the psychological community > as an illness. > > Now when it comes to the idea of ‘selfish suicide’, a strange notion > to me, what the heck would this be? In fact, to survive we all must be > selfish. We must address whether to be or not to be. This is our > responsibility and ours alone. To, in a very real sense, blame the > ‘victim’ (the one hurting so much that the only solution seen is > death) is the height of lack of empathy and sympathy. I won’t attempt > to guess what motivates you here, but I do ask you to look deeply > about this topic. > > I don’t know Clarence. > > As to Buddhism, since there are even more sects (schools/beliefs) > within the large umbrella of Buddhism than there are found within > Christianity, there is no one answer. There may not even be 100 > answers. Having said this, I will share what little I have learned > about the topic. > > I will preface this with “as I understand it” since you may find other > views to be the case too and/or inaccuracies within my view. > As I understand it, most schools of Buddhism are against suicide. > Views range from fundamentalist views predicting a very low birth next > time to more enlightened views about it depending upon one’s > motivation as to the severity of said action. So far, I have not > noticed any school that readily accepts suicide as being just fine. > Having said this, I think I know of specific and unique cases where > doctor assisted suicide have taken place within this tradition. > Most Buddhist traditions do not reflect the more Christian view of > ‘endless torture’ (hell). In almost every schema of reincarnation, one > can move up and/or down the scale, from the hell realms up to the god > realms with full enlightenment as the final goal. > > Not asked, but as I understand it some Christian sects (cults?) > believe that if a foetus dies, it goes directly to heaven. I have > debated some of these believers about how, in such a case, abortion > would be the best thing possible for the potential child. Few see the > contraction. > > On Oct 3, 7:16 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - there are many ways our lives (or loss of) affect those of > > others. If we choose suicide, the circmumstances are so varied that I > > can't address every issue. Our closest friends and relatives ( even if > > they are religious, owing to the sin factor) will mourn our deaths and > > wish they could have helped, perhaps. Our insurance policies will > > become null and void unless we fake the suicide. I suppose it is > > possible in a small family situation with an incurable disease, to > > take the time beforehand to satisfy everyone's needs, but I submit > > that this is a much rarer event than a simple "I've had enough" > > selfish suicide. > > Perhaps you overlooked my signature on an earlier post. I'm not a > > movie goer but I signed it "Clarence" from Miracle on some street or > > other. I'm sure you've been unable to avoid seeing it some christmas. > > I wonder what the Buddhist position is? If they commit suicide in > > every life, do they get to Nirvana quicker or is the bad karma from > > the suicide reflected in an endless tortured existance? > > > On Oct 3, 8:44 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Perhaps someone would like to expand upon the notion of "their > > > obligations to others"? What is meant is not clear. Also, the basis > > > for such an ethos is not clear either. > > > > On Oct 3, 6:29 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > "Hope they consider their obligations to others.." I agree with this > > > > and it's one of the things I hoped would come up. In a moral (and > > > > sometimes legal) sense, our lives are not totally our own. > > > > > On Oct 2, 5:01 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi y'all - all humans have the right to choose to die. Hope they > > > > > consider their obligations to others first though, whenever relevant. > > > > > Clog aka Clarence > > > > > > On Oct 2, 4:49 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > What about perfectly healthy people who want to end their lives? > > > > > > Should suicide of any kind be illegal? > > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 10:39 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - just in > > > > > > > case:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/02/law.health1-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
