the girl that was saved?

I'm not really clear on the whole concept of renouncing the self, and I'm not sure the concept would help the suicidal person anyway, who is renouncing his entire being, which extends to the body.

When I use the word "self," I'm trying to point to the thing that keeps us separate from the world. Perhaps "ego" is a better word for what it is I'm trying to point to?

For instance, when I perceive a threat, I can feel my shoulders tensing up: that's my body's accustomed way to coping with a threat. However, perhaps a more effective way of dealing with a threat is to relax rather than tense up.

I don't know if you do martial arts or sports, but when you're tense, your body can't move as well: it has to release the tension, first, before you can move. That's why coaches are always yelling at athletes to relax: because they know that a relaxed athlete is a faster one, able to better cope with an incoming ball or puck.

Giving up your ego (or "the thing that is keeping you separate from the world") seems just as important as giving up muscular tension. Without being able to give up the ego, perhaps it's impossible for us to truly enjoy ourselves (and for our souls to move)?

More to the point: If a person is suicidal, is he able to think in such abstract terms?

If you'll pardon my saying so, a suicide may already be thinking in the most abstract terms possible.

I've always been fascinated by drug addicts. Or rather, the mental process that allows people to do things like stick needles in themselves which, let's face it, is hardly a pleasant thing to do under the most ideal circumstances.

It remained a mystery to me how such things could be until it was explained to me by a breathtakingly self-aware former addict that addicts don't view their bodies as part of themselves. That is, their bodies are viewed as "other," an alien thing, even if they don't consciously admit this to themselves. Once you start viewing your body as something "other than you," (or "separate from yourself") it would seem possible to do pretty much anything to it, including sticking needles in it and sending it on trips you know it won't come back from (like off a bridge).

If you are that rare person who is able to separate the self and the body, you are probably suicide-proof, or at least suicide-resistant.

From my own perspective, the rare person is the one who is truly at home in his body, not the one who feels as though his body and "himself" are separate.

If you feel at home in your body, you tend to want to take better care of it. However, as near as I can make out, being at home in your body may not be a widespread trait among people. [shrugs] I this because, as I move through the day, I'm always surprised at how many people (and I include myself here) seem to be ill at ease in their own bodies. That is, they don't take any real pleasure in moving around. Of course, it's impossible to take pleasure in moving around in a body you are not fully at home in.

Maybe it's a bit like driving a rental car vs. driving your own car. As near as I can tell, people tend to be more reckless when driving a rental car than when they are driving their own car because they know that, regardless of what they do to the car, they aren't going to be stuck with it. Once they return the car to the rental company, all the problems associated with that car are also going to go away.

In the case of suicides, they're just taking that rental car (or drug addict) mentality to the extreme. After all, why should I care what's going to happen to my body when I'm viewing it as something "other" than myself?

But are you happier as a result?

I don't know, am I? What happiness means seems to vary quite a bit from person to person.

In my own case, I've come to define it (as of five seconds ago) as a willingness to be connected to the world. That is, the more you are willing to take part in life, the happier you are.

The kicker is that this willingness to take part in life, in the world, is something that has to come from within. I don't know if it's possible to "make" someone be happy, or to what extent one human being can help another to be happy.

(I'm fairly new at this myself.)

I'm not sure such philosophical discussions would work on a suicidal person, but if it prevents one jumper, it's probably worth a try.

Can I be honest here? I think by the time someone has walked out onto the bridge, (or onto a window ledge) it may already be too late. Suicide could be a last-stage symptom of something, not a disease in and of itself as people seem to view it (there's that separateness thing again). This is just a guess on my part.

It reminds me a bit of Walgreens: Walgreens fascinates the hell out of me. Why? All those aisles of bottles and pills are about treating symptoms rather than the underlying causes that bring those symptoms to people. If everyone ate right, got enough sleep, and took care of themselves in general, Walgreens would probably be out of business (or, at least, be a much smaller store).

But people don't do that becuase, let's face it, taking care of yourself is a pain in the ass. Far better, instead, to take those shortcuts (cheat your body of sleep, eat food that is convenient to eat rather than healthy to eat, etc.) and then show up at Walgreens in order to buy that bottle or pill that will correct a problem that could have been avoided.

I think that's why I oppose a suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge: because installing a barrier is ignoring the larger problem. The problem: how do people get to the point where jumping off a bridge seems like to best alternative possible?

Installing a barrier is no different than popping a pill: once you've installed a barrier, (or popped a pill) you can pretend the problem has gone away. It's solely a feel-good measure that doesn't address the underlying problem.

To be clear: I can certainly understand why people agitate for a barrier. We are a feel-good society that is always looking for ways to feel good. However, I'm becoming convinced in my old age that there are ways that help us to feel good, to take part in the world, on an ongoing basis as opposed to the temporary, just-pop-a-pill way that we've come to accept as normal.

Whether those non-temporary, meaningful ways of taking part in the world can be transmitted from person to person is something I just don't know. Can one person help another to be happy? Or are they only able to point that other person to something that other person already has inside them all along?

I don't have an answer.

Of course, if it results in another jumper, then it's a really bad idea.

Is suicide always a bad idea?

The way I view it is that people actively contemplating suicide and I have a lot in common: we're both trying to approach the problem of how to attain happiness. In their case, they're seeking to attain it by killing themselves and, by doing so, forfeiting their ego, that feeling of separateness they can't shake, a feeling that has overwhelmed them. Killing themselves is the only way they know of to be rid of that feeling.

In my own case, I, too, am seeking to forfeit my ego, that thing that keeps me separate from the world. The only difference between myself and a suicide is that I want to stick around afterwards and be a part of the world.

We're not so different; there's a connection there. Perhaps the only difference between someone who steps out onto the Golden Gate Bridge merely to take in the awe-inspiring view versus someone who steps out onto the bridge with the avowed purpose of ending their lives is that the connection to life is there in one and absent in the other.

How to bring that connection to everyone? I don't know. As I said before, I'm fairly new at this myself.

reply share

add reply

formatting help