She put away her philosophy
she closed the door and turned the key
she had a pain no thought could ease

no one noticed that she shut the door
no one knew her anymore
they all just walked past silently

I'm aching.

In High School English class, we read a story, I think written by an Englishman, about one of the traditions of the Natives and his observations. The story and the tradition, of course, to the cultured was quite outrageous or it created outrage in people.

The story was about how there were the tribes and the tribes had to keep moving, I would assume to stay alive, or so they felt. In the end it is a question of the survival of the fittest, and almost a might makes right philosophy, thought they may have been right, or they may have been wrong. Survival at all costs?

So the story was about how the tribes, when the aged could no longer carry themselves, they'd leave them alone in the wilderness to die. They couldn't, or so they felt, carry these ones around, the burden burdened and threatened, or so they felt, the whole community.

The questions always in my mind from such a story, have always been the might makes right philosophy, the survival at all costs, survival of the fittest, when death is murder, when suicide is martyrdom, when martyrdom is necessary, if it is ever necessary, was it necessary in this case?

Quite literally, to willingly stay behind in the wilderness alone when you need a community to survive, that's an act of suicide. But then, if your continued presense threatens the community, that's an act of martyrdom, yet if it is forced on you, that is an act of murder, no matter how the deed is done.

Morality, is it ever right to kill even just one, for the good of the community? My ethical code of course, says no.

My Church has a banner that's been up for at least fifteen years, whether near the altar or in the basement that says, "The welfare of the whole world is not worth the life of one child." I take "not worth" to mean, not equal. In other words, the life of every child, even just one child, is worth the suffering of every person. Something like that at least, we could discuss it.





In one of my favorite novels, or series of novels, the main character is a doctor, Claire Beauchamp. The first novel in the series is, "Outlander" by Diana Gabaldon.

In the story, third book I think, there is a man who's dying of a disease in which he will not survive, I think. Well, they are trying to save him, problem is, it's costing a fortune in the States, and so he asks her to end his life so that he isn't burdening his family with these exhorbiant medical costs.

In the end, everybody knew she did it, though it was never formally acknowledged. I can't recall whether they laid her off, and then she went back in time and it didn't matter, or if they put her in a position where she was not capable of doing that again. Either way, I feel outrage at such a thought.

Doctor-assisted suicide? Murder? Outrageous?

Random thoughts, my mind is working a mile a minute.


Hmmm, paradox:

"This paradox is the whole principle of courage; even of quite earthly or quite brutal courage. A man cut off by the sea may save his life if he will risk it on the precipice. He can only get away from death by continually stepping within an inch of it. A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward, and will not escape. He must not merely wait for death, for then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it; he must desire life like water and yet drink death like win. No philosopher, I fancy, has ever expressed this romantic riddle with adequate lucidity, and I certainly have not done so. But Chrisitanity has done more: it has marked the limits of it in the awful graves of the suicide and the hero, showing th distance between him who dies for the sake of living and him who dies for the sake of dying."

Chesterton - "Orthodoxy"

I am so bloody excited! I finally, after ten or fifteen years of searching, have found the basic idea behind the novel I want to write. It's an interesting and uncommon idea/conflict, it's interesting to think about, it would be, if I can pull it off, interesting to read. I now have some experience to draw from, and it could get very simply and very deeply psychological. It can be dramatic, it can be romantic, it can be philosophical, it can be psychological. It's perfect!

Ack, I'm so excited! I'm writing something and it's more of a romance/sex thing right now, but it was intended to get the "creative juices" flowing so to speak, and it worked!

Did I mention how excited I am yet?

I'm so anxious to get started, but I'm going to study and contemplate and review the ideas in question I want to work with first, so here I am, and we can discuss the ideas in question for awhile, if anybody is interested.

Key note:

Chesterton - "Orthodoxy"

"Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything otuside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the marty is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destoyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe."


Now, that's just a thought, but there is a thought more fascinating, beyond this one, where the suicide has no choice in his desire to die, and potentially when his death is to him an act of martyrdom (Muslims, for instance). "There is no greater love than this, that a man may offer his life for his friends." - Christ

I would love to get knee deep in the reasonings of the Romans in killing themselves on the battlefield, how that was a noble thing to do and into the idea behind how it is expected that a captain must sink with his ship, that that is a noble idea to some people. The difference between the Catholic Saint, and the Roman soldier. The Muslim, the nihilist, the Christian, the pagan, etc., etc., etc.

Oh man, there's so much to look at, so much to read, so much to study, so much to write!

So it begins.

Any thoughts on the subject?

You are beautiful and I am adoring, you are knowledge and I am knowing.

To have one foot in the past, and one foot in the future. What is that but an invitation to insanity? But shall we never look back, or never look forward? Shall we forever regret and appreciate the same thing and what motivates the change? Do we do it ourselves, or wait for someone else to push the fatal button. I shall wait. Why do I give so much power away?

to be secured yet so much adrift
so shifting, so fleeting, so nothing
like lightning in shadows
and wheels that are turning

like whispers and movement
and dreams without grasping
so haunting, so roving,
so completely, still nothing

waiting or gone away
they whisper my name and call to me
the aching of being
the ghosts no one's seeing
the silence, the knowing
the tumult is showing

so quietly

It's hard to write when you don't have much to say, you just know that you should be saying something. We need to be active in the world, do we not? Active in our minds at least.

So I'll say that I think they who try to nurture many, many friendships are ego maniacs. They seem friendly enough, but they have nothing really to give anybody, therefore the only person really benifiting is themselves. While it may seem selfish to put friendships in terms of who gets and who doesn't, that's really what they are about and I would further suggest that it's what all relationships are about. Or maybe I do have to cut it up finer and suggest that it's simply what everything is about.

So, I'm really bad about sabotaging friendships with people who don't have enough to offer. I know, I know, I could be accused of being the ego maniac, poor me, but what is a friendship? A give and take. To just give, well, that's just charity. It's great to be charitable, really, but it's not really a relationship. I'll give, and I'll give, but let's call a spade a spade, it's charity.

I don't know. I suppose I'll ask this question. How many men are capable of being wonderful husbands to three wives? How much time do we have for thirty friendships? We don't, why bother? Burn bridges, walk away.

In the Beginning

I haven't written anything in a long time, and I'm hoping to clear the cobwebs and stretch the fingers and get the creative juices flowing via this medium. So it begins. Be afraid, very afraid, hehe.