Posted by Timne on July 7, 2009, at 3:38:40
You saw the warning. Let's just say I'm talking about a close friend.
Are people always sad, despondent and vegged out when they schedule their own dirt-nap? This person has long contemplated the individual prerogative to schedule their own exit. It seems though, that the prerogative isn't related to emotional condition - - it's more economic. Like when there's no food to eat, why bother maintaining the eater? Then scheduling that thing becomes just another chore, like washing the dishes or taking out the recycling.
I know some the pharmacological treatments that have recently been required to include warnings to this effect seemed to have something like that going on. They would motivate people to get up off the couch, but the newfound motivation sometimes turned out to be terminal; they acted on ideas they only contemplated in other circumstances.
So this friend quit some jobs in an effort to improve the social milieu that was contributing to despair. Seems to have worked. The person is healthier looking than ever, but broke and not particularly interested in pushing any harder to make a place in the economy. And it's not like the person doesn't work hard - I think the complaint is that others in the workplace don't care to keep up, and tend to openly resent the person's hard work, even when it is an obvious public service.
Whatever's behind that is probably beyond this post. It's basically a talented individual who is disappointed with seeing talent misused. That's probably part of the terminal trend - if nobody else cares for the best, the person isn't interested in delivering the mediocre. This person has some strong talents, creatively and rhetorically, and harbors very altruistic ideals and hopes, but there's really no place for that, and the economy doesn't reward that particular set of aspirations.
So, question - if the person is talking about how surprised others will be because the person is so much better, emotionally, having cleared the plate of stressful work situations then improved the diet and physical condition, then checked out, is that an indicator the person might decide to do that before consulting anyone else? I recall the person tendered several warnings to the former employers, who ignored them because they liked the person's work and did not believe the person could possibly be serious about leaving such a good job that the person did so well. Pattern was, offer to leave on notice, company refuses to accept, leave without notice. Could that turn into another class and scale of leaving without notice?
The person I discuss - hypothetically, if you must - isn't one who can easily be captured, detained and reprogrammed, nor one likely to self-admit for psychological care when the person is quite confident their problems are social and economic. My take is that any effort to forcefully intervene or any effort too far afield from simple social services or economic cooperation in some income-producing venture, might push the person toward the brink if not over. The question is really just one of when to pull the switch, and this person quite confidently says nobody has any use for the life, it's been longer than average on a world-wide scale, though not by Western life-expectancy, and that some day might be the time to fade away.
Reason I ask about the happy-and-well thing, that's really how the person is. It's not like mania at all -- just solid, grounded day to day living -- making friends, socializing, mingling -- but snubbing economic participation when it requires social performance the person disdains, and the person is probably not interested in doing another go-round in squatters camps. When people check out, do others always see it coming, or are the ones who do it successfully sometimes the ones who are able to succeed at other things, as well, but apply their skills to that terminal task?
poster:Timne
thread:905409
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20090624/msgs/905409.html