Shrapnel, when removed, leaves scars.
Without the shrapnel there are no scars.
Without either shrapnel or scars there is no personality.
I prefer the company of people who's personality consists mainly of scars than those who seem predominantly composed of shrapnel.
:mittens:
Nice.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 03:25:41 PM
Without either shrapnel or scars there is no personality.
I'm not so sure.
I'm thinking of this kid I knew in high school who didn't have a TV in his house. He was certainly exposed to a lot less shrapnel than most. But it didn't seem to translate into having less personality.
Is there a way to live without being exposed to shrapnel? I mean, even if you're a monk who spends entire years copying the bible from inside your cell, (very few "scars") you still might have a sense of humor.
I think of poorly adjusted kids who spent their childhood in homeschool rather than socializing wiht peers... they weren't exposed to less shrapnel really, just
different shrapnel.
To me, the relevant part of the shrapnel meme is
-we're exposed to all this crazy input (shrapnel) every minute of every day
-we also output all this crazy media (explode shrapnel) every time we talk to someone or react to something or even as just a face in the crowd
-so then I guess your scars are the overall effect that the shrapnel has had on you. The Odyssey hit the greeks pretty hard, and it scarred a lot of them. And Star Wars hit a lot of Americans. The war on terror has left a scar shaped like your opinion on the matter.
see I'm not sure that scars are a good extension. It makes sense because in the material world, explosions injure people. But I think that leaves us with a rather victim-like relationship with culture - that it's just constantly injuring us and leaving us battered, and we have to overcome. But it's kind of fatalistic. The majority of the shrapnel we're exposed to is benign. And it seems weird to classify even the good effects of shrapnel as "scars".
The shrapnel image (to me) implies that your internal state at any given time is this explosive, rapidly evolving soup of memes and ideas, history and fiction... The image of a scar is something that is permanent, unchanging, remaining forever.
I think certain bits of shrapnel leave scars (cultural imprinting, important life events), but ultimately you can change those things, right?
Was thinking more along the lines of - scars are what's left when a wound has healed. Scars are the memory of the damage the shrapnel made.
But not all Shrapnel is bad. Perhaps "impact" is a better word than "damage".
RWHN,
thinking ahead to all of the complaints and criticisms about the negative imagery.
Scars, IMO, are what's left after you've removed a piece of Shrapnel (fucking DUH, but srsly, I'm going somewhere with this). You can never completely remove the effects of Shrapnel from yourself.
If you were raised in a hardcore Christian family, you may have removed that Shrapnel from yourself, but the memory will still affect you. Inevitably, regardless of what position you take on Christianity, you will always have something to say on the subject. If you could simply remove the Shrapnel without any lingering effects, it would be as if it never happened, and you would have nothing to say.
Also, we should probably remember that we're playing a rather elaborate mindfuck with ourselves by talking about "good" Shrapnel. This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, just an observation.
Quote from: Cainad on July 16, 2008, 04:25:59 PM
Also, we should probably remember that we're playing a rather elaborate mindfuck with ourselves by talking about "good" Shrapnel. This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, just an observation.
:mittens:
Bit like karma in that respect - no good and bad, just shrapnel
I would like to state for the record, my firm belief that there is
NO personality until the memes kick in. Don't believe me? Check out a newborn baby, maybe a week old or less, show me some personality traits that define it's character. Babies are pretty much just a clean slate on which the memeplex that becomes the person is scribbled. Once this starts it becomes self refining to a point but until you start giving a baby input it's nothing and it will grow up to be nothing until it gets input.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 04:35:33 PM
I would like to state for the record, my firm belief that there is NO personality until the memes kick in. Don't believe me? Check out a newborn baby, maybe a week old or less, show me some personality traits that define it's character. Babies are pretty much just a clean slate on which the memeplex that becomes the person is scribbled. Once this starts it becomes self refining to a point but until you start giving a baby input it's nothing and it will grow up to be nothing until it gets input.
you're talking about Agency
(see also: Art of Memetics (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2564638/The-Art-Of-Memetics) page 35)
and in general, I agree with you. At the core of a human being there's this sticky meme called "I Am", and there's just a bunch of garbage stuck to it. I don't subscribe to free will - I think people (read: a collection of shrapnel) do what their shrapnel tells them to do. If the bit of shrapnel which says "Be a good person" is lodged in my flesh, I'll act accordingly. but with no memes, there's no person. Which also means that you don't really have a will, just a bunch of influences and control mechanisms to choose from.
It sounds like it diminishes free will, but I don't see that as a threat to personal freedom. The AoM says that Freedom is just the ability to
move within a network,
even an internal one. And I can get behind that.
I like the idea of Scars similar to Cainad, in thinking about shrapnel as errent ideas. Some you want to take with you, some you don't. But you can't "un-ring the bell". Even if you don't like an idea, you now know it exists, and you will take it into account from now on.
So, scars would be the ideas you've learned and disagreed with. Which makes p3nt's OP accurate, in that I'd like to meet someone who has encountered a lot of ideas but has not necessarily subscribed to any of them.
Why do the scars have to be the ideas you have disagreed with?
Why not just the ones you learned from?
Does that also mean that scars can disappear with age and knowledge? What I once disagreed with vehemently as a 20 something makes a lot of sense as a 40 something? So does that make me boring because some of my scars have faded away?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 04:35:33 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 16, 2008, 04:25:59 PM
Also, we should probably remember that we're playing a rather elaborate mindfuck with ourselves by talking about "good" Shrapnel. This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, just an observation.
:mittens:
Bit like karma in that respect - no good and bad, just shrapnel
I would like to state for the record, my firm belief that there is NO personality until the memes kick in. Don't believe me? Check out a newborn baby, maybe a week old or less, show me some personality traits that define it's character. Babies are pretty much just a clean slate on which the memeplex that becomes the person is scribbled. Once this starts it becomes self refining to a point but until you start giving a baby input it's nothing and it will grow up to be nothing until it gets input.
Dunno... it seems to me that some aspects of personality might be genetic, so perhaps 'mosbunal' of the personality comes from colliding with memes?
Quote from: Evil Bitch Khara on July 16, 2008, 05:05:08 PM
Why do the scars have to be the ideas you have disagreed with?
Why not just the ones you learned from?
Does that also mean that scars can disappear with age and knowledge? What I once disagreed with vehemently as a 20 something makes a lot of sense as a 40 something? So does that make me boring because some of my scars have faded away?
LOL - excellent point. I suppose this opens a whole can of worms, along the lines of scabs and not healing due to the picking thereof :lulz:
Quote from: Evil Bitch Khara on July 16, 2008, 05:05:08 PM
Why do the scars have to be the ideas you have disagreed with?
Why not just the ones you learned from?
Does that also mean that scars can disappear with age and knowledge? What I once disagreed with vehemently as a 20 something makes a lot of sense as a 40 something? So does that make me boring because some of my scars have faded away?
Not if vehement disagreement can be thought of as a kind of Shrapnel.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 16, 2008, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 04:35:33 PM
Quote from: Cainad on July 16, 2008, 04:25:59 PM
Also, we should probably remember that we're playing a rather elaborate mindfuck with ourselves by talking about "good" Shrapnel. This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, just an observation.
:mittens:
Bit like karma in that respect - no good and bad, just shrapnel
I would like to state for the record, my firm belief that there is NO personality until the memes kick in. Don't believe me? Check out a newborn baby, maybe a week old or less, show me some personality traits that define it's character. Babies are pretty much just a clean slate on which the memeplex that becomes the person is scribbled. Once this starts it becomes self refining to a point but until you start giving a baby input it's nothing and it will grow up to be nothing until it gets input.
Dunno... it seems to me that some aspects of personality might be genetic...
example?
BUT, see I see shrapnel as the idea, scars as the result. Those wo keep shrapnel inside of them either
A. Can't grasp the idea.
B. Refuse to.
C. Want to keep the shrapnel as a crutch.
People who keep their shrapnel as anything other than spoils of war tend to me to be whinyassed attention whores who play the poor pity me I have shrapnel type.
So I don't see disagreement as shrapnel, I see it as the reaction to shrapnel. Those I had to ponder on are the scabs Ipicked and picked until I made myself have a scar, whereas if I had just accepted it and left it alone, maybe ignored it, or turned away, I might not have a scar from it.
Theres a thought with the scabs. It's those we have to come to terms with that leave the little scars because we pick at them?
Quote from: Evil Bitch Khara on July 16, 2008, 05:05:08 PM
Why do the scars have to be the ideas you have disagreed with?
Why not just the ones you learned from?
Does that also mean that scars can disappear with age and knowledge? What I once disagreed with vehemently as a 20 something makes a lot of sense as a 40 something? So does that make me boring because some of my scars have faded away?
Because in my conception of it, the ideas (shrapnel) I agreed with are still in me.
And i suppose, like any knowledge, some things learned can be forgotten.
Also, no one's saying you can't get hit with the same shrapney at many different points in your life.
For example, I read
Goedel Escher Bach when I was 17. I then read it 17 years later, and it was a completely different book for me.
EBK, I guess that I don't take the metaphor as far as you do.
I don't try to relate Shrapnel™ with actual bomb fragments that kill soldiers and asian kids playing in rice paddys.
So, your view is valid, but I can't personally build off of them.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 05:14:12 PM
Dunno... it seems to me that some aspects of personality might be genetic...
example?
[/quote]
Asperger's Syndrome & Schizophrenia
Can't help thinking those things are more a result of faulty hardware than actual personality traits.
Perhaps it's more that certain aspects of personality are informed/shaped by genetics. But there are enough environmental variables at play, that they don't end up alike.
Quote from: Reverend Whats His Name on July 16, 2008, 05:38:23 PM
Perhaps it's more that certain aspects of personality are informed/shaped by genetics. But there are enough environmental variables at play, that they don't end up alike.
I like that description.
Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 05:20:20 PM
EBK, I guess that I don't take the metaphor as far as you do.
I don't try to relate Shrapnel™ with actual bomb fragments that kill soldiers and asian kids playing in rice paddys.
So, your view is valid, but I can't personally build off of them.
You lost me. I thought we were looking at shrapnel for this discussion as ideas. The comment was made that we only get scars from that shrapnel or idea which we disagree with.
I don't relate shrapnel to bomb fragments. I never meant it that way. If you are refering to the "spoils of war" I only meant that the shrapnel/idea was kept as a reminder or trophy from the internal battle of acceptance or whatever, not a crutch or used as an excuse.
Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:59:20 PM
I like the idea of Scars similar to Cainad, in thinking about shrapnel as errent ideas. Some you want to take with you, some you don't. But you can't "un-ring the bell". Even if you don't like an idea, you now know it exists, and you will take it into account from now on.
So, scars would be the ideas you've learned and disagreed with. Which makes p3nt's OP accurate, in that I'd like to meet someone who has encountered a lot of ideas but has not necessarily subscribed to any of them.
Well this kind of sounds like an idea I keep coming back to, the "Sunlight" metaphor in the original Shrapnel thread. Which I still haven't really worked through to my own satisfaction.
You need the sun to see ("good"), too much sun will burn you ("bad"), sometimes you see things you don't WANT to see ("bad"), but a little too much sun will give you a tan ("good").
These are all subjective terms, personal to each and everyone of us (one mans meat is another poison, and all that), so you might change the "Goods" and the "Bads" for each experience around to whatever you like, or make up new concepts, like a bad "good".
The thing is no matter how you
interpret it, the experience is there, you can't undo the experience, you can't un-see the sun.
Quote from: Payne on July 16, 2008, 10:25:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:59:20 PM
I like the idea of Scars similar to Cainad, in thinking about shrapnel as errent ideas. Some you want to take with you, some you don't. But you can't "un-ring the bell". Even if you don't like an idea, you now know it exists, and you will take it into account from now on.
So, scars would be the ideas you've learned and disagreed with. Which makes p3nt's OP accurate, in that I'd like to meet someone who has encountered a lot of ideas but has not necessarily subscribed to any of them.
Well this kind of sounds like an idea I keep coming back to, the "Sunlight" metaphor in the original Shrapnel thread. Which I still haven't really worked through to my own satisfaction.
You need the sun to see ("good"), too much sun will burn you ("bad"), sometimes you see things you don't WANT to see ("bad"), but a little too much sun will give you a tan ("good").
These are all subjective terms, personal to each and everyone of us (one mans meat is another poison, and all that), so you might change the "Goods" and the "Bads" for each experience around to whatever you like, or make up new concepts, like a bad "good".
The thing is no matter how you interpret it, the experience is there, you can't undo the experience, you can't un-see the sun.
Maybe "useful" and "not useful" to the individual rather than good or bad?
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 16, 2008, 10:47:25 PM
Quote from: Payne on July 16, 2008, 10:25:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 16, 2008, 04:59:20 PM
I like the idea of Scars similar to Cainad, in thinking about shrapnel as errent ideas. Some you want to take with you, some you don't. But you can't "un-ring the bell". Even if you don't like an idea, you now know it exists, and you will take it into account from now on.
So, scars would be the ideas you've learned and disagreed with. Which makes p3nt's OP accurate, in that I'd like to meet someone who has encountered a lot of ideas but has not necessarily subscribed to any of them.
Well this kind of sounds like an idea I keep coming back to, the "Sunlight" metaphor in the original Shrapnel thread. Which I still haven't really worked through to my own satisfaction.
You need the sun to see ("good"), too much sun will burn you ("bad"), sometimes you see things you don't WANT to see ("bad"), but a little too much sun will give you a tan ("good").
These are all subjective terms, personal to each and everyone of us (one mans meat is another poison, and all that), so you might change the "Goods" and the "Bads" for each experience around to whatever you like, or make up new concepts, like a bad "good".
The thing is no matter how you interpret it, the experience is there, you can't undo the experience, you can't un-see the sun.
Maybe "useful" and "not useful" to the individual rather than good or bad?
Whatever works for you.
Positive/Negative
Good/Bad
Useful/Not Useful
any of these, and more, and everything in between.
I was just trying to illustrate an incomplete idea I have.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 16, 2008, 04:00:48 PM
see I'm not sure that scars are a good extension. It makes sense because in the material world, explosions injure people. But I think that leaves us with a rather victim-like relationship with culture - that it's just constantly injuring us and leaving us battered, and we have to overcome. But it's kind of fatalistic. The majority of the shrapnel we're exposed to is benign. And it seems weird to classify even the good effects of shrapnel as "scars".
I think that depends how you look at it, Cram. I have a ton of scars, and I don't see them as bad things; I don't see myself as a victim. I'm actually of the opinion that scars are cool. They're indications of a life lived, of stories that you have to tell. Many of my scars I look at and laugh, because the experiences that caused them are funny when I look back on them now, or they were good times. Not that all of my scars are like that. They didn't all come from 'good' experiences. But I took something away from those 'bad' experiences, and my scars are a reminder of the lessons I've learned from those experiences.
I think it's all in how you perceive things. You can be a victim, or you can be a survivor. You'll have the scars regardless of how you perceive those experiences.
I'm with Val on this, kind of.
Mostly because I look at it in this case as a "scar" being a mostly-permanent Change that happens to your body. It doesn't translate too well into the actual world because IRL, the reaction to any shrapnel would be Pain, where as in the metaphor, shrapnel could cause great Joy, as well (I have a jagged, twisted Scar® running up most of my body thanks to Musical Shrapnel®).
To Khara:
When I relate Shrapnel to Ideas, I want to take with me the concept that there are certain Ideas I want to keep, and certain Ideas I want to leave behind.
If Idea = Shrapnel, then I want to keep some shrapnel inside me, and I want to pull some out.
So, the idea of Scars is that even if I leave some Idea behind, the very act of encountering the Idea has changed me.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 03:25:41 PMShrapnel, when removed, leaves scars.
Without the shrapnel there are no scars.
Without either shrapnel or scars there is no personality.
I prefer the company of people who's personality consists mainly of scars than those who seem predominantly composed of shrapnel.
i like this a lot.
it's a short concise way of metaphorically describing something i really agree with.
it's about people
taking control as opposed to thinking "oh well..."
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 16, 2008, 03:25:41 PM
Shrapnel, when removed, leaves scars.
Without the shrapnel there are no scars.
Without either shrapnel or scars there is no personality.
I prefer the company of people who's personality consists mainly of scars than those who seem predominantly composed of shrapnel.
Gotta be careful of the freaks with too many scars. In any sense of the word, it could just mean a clumsy person, be it clumsy with a knife or clumsy with thought. And those are the type of people you have to watch out for. They might take you down one day, and it won't even be on purpose.
Or, at least, that sounds like I was trying to be meaningful.
Scars are often better than Shrapnel because they are your own flesh.
Cainad,
Stretching these metaphors till they scream
BUMP
Since the Intermittens tomfoolery has everyone back in a thoughtful, excited mode, I thought I'd push this one up for consideration.
*practices the foulest rituals of thread necromancy to rouse this horrid bubble of stink-filth to the surface*
Well, if you didn't read already, it's, erm, gone. It was ballsy, fun to write, inconsiderate to anyone here, and it was written while blasted (good enough reason to get rid of it in my book, and if it isn't in your book yet, it damned well should be), which, I'm still blasted... But after actually eating something (and countless hot peppers, you'd be surprised how many you have to eat once you get out of Texas to get that REAL spicy kick), it struck me as a terribly bad idea... Ya'll seem too sensitive at times, you're not ready to handle this sort of garbage...
And I can understand that, I can be sensitive at times too. We just don't know each-other well enough for this, though.
Call me a bad sport if you must, but the whole vibe has been rather tense and uneasy since I got here, so, it's all your fault... :P
Maybe some day down the road.
What the hell are you babbling on about? I think you have some Shrapnel stuck in your head.
I think that he just can't concentrate. Like he has all these "great" ideas in his head but he has to say them all at the same time, all the time.
Or he is trolling. :)
Likely a bit of shrapnel lodged somewhere. My bad, it seemed good at the time, but... It had to go. Sorry about that.
I was kind of being a turd, though. I'll come back some time when I've got my crap together better.
I don't really have any ideas that could be called "great" (well no shit, Sherlock), or even "that could be good under the right circumstances."... Sorry if I worded things poorly. I have a lot to think about now...
I did like the thread, though. My reply sucked, took me a little while to realize it. Might not seem like that by the way I edited it, but I ate for the first time in about 48 hours today, after I'd had a little bit to drink, and came back and said "Nope, that's totally stupid, and I don't hardly know any of these people at all.".
Sorry about rambling about peppers too... Aw screw it, I need some sleep. Perhaps next time I'll have something better to say.
EDIT: Even overusing the word "though"... Yeah, sleep is probably the best thing atm.
I half-read your reply and I didn't dislike it. Now that I'm awake, I'm disappointed to come back and find it gone.
I actually liked the original too.
I'm so sorry, ya'll... It's just, I unfairly bashed left-brain dominant people, and found some shrapnel within myself. I was so afraid someone would read it that instead of editing it I quickly deleted it. I really didn't want to get picked apart for my ideas (actually, other people's ideas, chopped up and mutilated, then reassembled into some shambling Frankenstein's monster), which always seems to happen, because of a lack of documented evidence to support my outlandish claims.
I have spent the past three hours searching for material to help explain my unfair assessment of the left side of the brain, and how I came to such a flawed perspective (all things considered, there are too many chaotic factors to actually call any of the "split brain" experiments scientific)... The ONE article I was looking for, I can't find anywhere, I did, however, find the names of the researchers responsible for the experiments: Roger W. Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga. The gist of it that I got when I read it, I think, a number of years ago, I don't remember how long ago, was that the left hand side of the brain is better with linear reasoning, but also with retroactive rationalizing...
That is to say, the left side of the brain will go to great lengths to excuse the seemingly irrational actions that the right side of the brain undertakes (pointing to a chicken claw) due to visual stimulus the left side of the brain has no access to, while the right side of the brain simply indicates that it has no idea what is going on. This can certainly be a useful quality, but the implications of such kinds of behavior, and the consideration that we live in a world made by, and for left brain dominants, are a little disturbing. I did find the experiment mentioned on the following link, though the subject matter is a little different.
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/04/confabulations.php
In truth, I am a bit jealous of left brain dominants, such is the source of my unintended outbursts at times, and shrapnel I have yet to remove, but I'm working on it. This is not the first time it has come to my attention. At an early age, I had a kind of nasty head injury, and it damaged the left side of my brain a little bit. I was left handed, and I was forced to use my right hand. Now that all the myellin sheathing has taken place, I'm not so sure I'd be able to learn to use my left hand anywhere near as effectively as my right hand, and my handwriting with my right hand stopped developing around the 3rd grade... Not to mention, I have to use my right hand to draw, and it's a painstaking process, sometimes with good results, but often frustrating. So yeah, jealousy, anger at living in a world that's constructed for the most common denominator (which, it makes sense if you think about it, but it really upsets me sometimes), and having to argue with people who constantly want facts and proof of everything without just taking my word for it (which is entirely sensible, but I like to just say my piece and move on to something else, not spend hours verifying what I've already looked into, though I should do so more often)... But really, coming to understand this gives me another opportunity to grow as a person.
More links I found on my unholy quest for the information I was looking for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/01/asymmetric_architecture_in_the.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handed
Should you choose to read them... The truth is, a left brain dominant individual without a split brain has access to the right side of the brain, which is actually better with statistical analysis and intuition, and so one cannot assume that they are so unbalanced as I, at times, assume them to be... The wording of my previous post, as well, was atrocious, and lacked any sort of humility in its expression.
I'll try to relate my views of the subject matter a in bit, having read all those links and searched for all that stuff strained my attention span and sort of blew the post I'd been thinking of making right out of my brain, which is why I don't like to go to such lengths often.
For someone who damaged the language-oriented side of their brain, you seem to be pretty good at putting your thoughts into words. :wink: When you're not wasted, that is.
Left brain-Right brain is a pretty interesting subject, but as you seem to be already aware, it's a pretty big piece of Shrapnel for you, it seems. Based on what you've written, it seems like you tend to fit nearly everything into the Left brain-Right brain dichotomy. This is probably something of a distortion to your perspective; not everything people do can (or should) be categorized as Left-brained or Right-brained.
Looking forward to reading more of what you have to say!
Cainad,
Left-handed, Left-brained
This is true, however, the damage occurred at an early age, giving plenty of time for process usually found on the left hand side of the brain to either be shifted to the right hand side, or to be accessed via a neuron reach around (LOL) of the damaged tissue... I still suck with math, though. Thanks for the compliment! Yeah, I had learned quite a bit for a child of that age, then WHAM, and there were all sorts of holes in my memories and abilities. Kind of set me back a little bit. I must admit that I was fortunate to have it happen earlier, rather than later in life, although, I could be wrong there.
I do mention that my assumptions were wildly out of control (though, perhaps I didn't expand upon it enough for it to be noticed in that soulless slog of a post), as just taking the left hand side of the brain's functions alone and attributing them to left brained people is incorrect, as they still retain the functions of the right side of the brain, and the whole working together is what really makes the brain function... It was kind of a stereotype, which I've held on to for way too long. I've been bitter for quite some time. Extreme left brain types don't always seem to appreciate my strengths, and this can be troublesome when I'm working a job and there's a management shift... If I must mention, my personality type is INFP, though I do shift to INTP from time to time. Still not ready to write up my thoughts on the shrapnel concept, as my brain is still a little nuked from the alternating tedium and overload of looking up those articles. I would have gone to other sources, but I just couldn't find anything in all the soup, and I also kept getting articles on Terry Schiavo.
EDIT: But yeah, I get the whole thing you said about trying to fit everything into a left-brain right-brain dichotomy... I also consider personality types, but, it's hard for me to figure out what personality type some people are... I know I sometimes have problems with SJs (sensory judgmentals, guardian types) as they seem to get hung up on rules without (in my opinion) being able to consider the concept behind the rules in the first place sometimes... Not to mention, my dad is an SJ, a Christian (more spiritual than religious), a major asshole, a socialist (I'm libertarian) and a probation officer, although when we sit down and drink a few beers and talk about things, we usually have a good time, and talk about all kinds of taboo subjects, like religion and politics. He has his good moments... In fact, talking to him has kind of made it easier for me to relate to socialists and liberals.
If you consider that for all intents and purposes, in five years time, you won't be here, the issue of scars isn't nearly so relevant. In five years time, you will be no more. You will have been slowly, but inexorably chipped away, and whittled down, and killed, little bit by little bit, until what you think of as you, will be no more. Instead, there will be a completely different person walking around in your body, using your identity as their own, and living your life however they want to. They will not even remember you. Your family and friends won't notice. They, also will be this new persons people. Everything that you call yours, will now be seamlessly grafted to this new person, with no scars, or pain or memory of the event. There is not a single thing you can do about it. You can't make any contingency plans. There is no defence. You will be erased from existence, as completely, as if you had never been here at all.
If you are finding this a little disturbing, there is a small, but significant fact, that may comfort you, in the 5 years existence which you now have left. In 10 years time, this imposter, this usurping interloper, this eraser of all things you, will suffer the same Fate themselves. They will be deleted from existence, just as thoroughly as you will be. Every bit as thoroughly as the person you have just this very second, evicted from this meat life you now have complete authority over. It really is just a ride.
And you've been worrying about a few little scars. Welcome to the future!
This all said.
Mightn't masochist be an entirely different psychological species than harm avoiders.
I mean, visualize the difference with your artistic visualization machine. It's awesome. (I threw in a little hindu person as an energy matrix into to the starter and the bread was SO prettty.
Ob