Radical Opinions Welcome...
Okay ..how do I say this...
Melissa and I have been talking (post-packing) tonight on regrett, and she asked me if there was anything in my life I really regretted, to which I replied....
not really...
the ensuing discussion led us to, of all topics, the ability to deduce something based on what we know from not experiencing it.... and in this case, we choose the topic of paralyzation.
My argument is thus:[typed by me]
Without knowing the intricate nature of being paralized, I cannot judge that it would be a complete negative experience. I am willing to admit that lack of mobaility might be unpleasant ...but I won't rule out paralyzation as a potentially enlightening situation because I do not know what it entails... thus, I could not regrett being paralized without first having knowledge of that situation, even if I already know what living in an un-paralized state entails.
Melissa's argument it thus: [typed by her]
We can logically assume that being paralized is worse than not being paralized even though we don't know the intimate nature of paralization because we do know what it is like to be mobile. And mobility being a positive attribute we can therefore logically assume that immobility is a negative one. I'm not saying that paralization couldn't be an enlightening situation, I don't know. However, I am saying that paralized or not, your brain capacity is unaltered....so as far as enlightment goes, I can't argue that one state is better than the other, but paralization carries the obvious drawback of immobility ....so logically I'm assuming that not being paralized is better than being so.
The illustration I used was that we can logically assume that being hit by a train is worse than not being hit by a train (even without first hand experience) because we know that living is a good thing therefore the absence of life, otherwise known as death, or in this case known as spilling your intestines and other body matter onto the grille of a speeding train, is a bad thing.....
By the way, my girlfriend is the coolest fucking person I know. She's way cooler than I am. I can only hope everyday that she will allow me to bask in the rays of the glory that is Mel. She is a goddess. A sex goddess. No, the sex goddess.
I've wrestled the keyboard back.....
So, as our debate rages on, I have suggested a little experiment..
Here is what I propose we do. Sometime next month, after I'm moved, each of us will spend a day being paralized (from the waist down for practical reasons...ie...the bathroom) and blind. Basically, each of us will spend a day blindfolded from morning until bed while living in a wheelchair. Melissa assures me Alex and Nala will probably think us mad (or way too kinky, knowing us) ....but it is an experiment I am willing to engage in to settle this debate (and even then, it probably won't).
What do all of you think? Your thoughts and comments are very welcome....
I bid you all a wonderful night.
~Jaye
PS....really depnds on how fast that train is going, doesn't it....
;)
Melissa and I have been talking (post-packing) tonight on regrett, and she asked me if there was anything in my life I really regretted, to which I replied....
not really...
the ensuing discussion led us to, of all topics, the ability to deduce something based on what we know from not experiencing it.... and in this case, we choose the topic of paralyzation.
My argument is thus:[typed by me]
Without knowing the intricate nature of being paralized, I cannot judge that it would be a complete negative experience. I am willing to admit that lack of mobaility might be unpleasant ...but I won't rule out paralyzation as a potentially enlightening situation because I do not know what it entails... thus, I could not regrett being paralized without first having knowledge of that situation, even if I already know what living in an un-paralized state entails.
Melissa's argument it thus: [typed by her]
We can logically assume that being paralized is worse than not being paralized even though we don't know the intimate nature of paralization because we do know what it is like to be mobile. And mobility being a positive attribute we can therefore logically assume that immobility is a negative one. I'm not saying that paralization couldn't be an enlightening situation, I don't know. However, I am saying that paralized or not, your brain capacity is unaltered....so as far as enlightment goes, I can't argue that one state is better than the other, but paralization carries the obvious drawback of immobility ....so logically I'm assuming that not being paralized is better than being so.
The illustration I used was that we can logically assume that being hit by a train is worse than not being hit by a train (even without first hand experience) because we know that living is a good thing therefore the absence of life, otherwise known as death, or in this case known as spilling your intestines and other body matter onto the grille of a speeding train, is a bad thing.....
By the way, my girlfriend is the coolest fucking person I know. She's way cooler than I am. I can only hope everyday that she will allow me to bask in the rays of the glory that is Mel. She is a goddess. A sex goddess. No, the sex goddess.
I've wrestled the keyboard back.....
So, as our debate rages on, I have suggested a little experiment..
Here is what I propose we do. Sometime next month, after I'm moved, each of us will spend a day being paralized (from the waist down for practical reasons...ie...the bathroom) and blind. Basically, each of us will spend a day blindfolded from morning until bed while living in a wheelchair. Melissa assures me Alex and Nala will probably think us mad (or way too kinky, knowing us) ....but it is an experiment I am willing to engage in to settle this debate (and even then, it probably won't).
What do all of you think? Your thoughts and comments are very welcome....
I bid you all a wonderful night.
~Jaye
PS....really depnds on how fast that train is going, doesn't it....
;)