Solf J Kimblee (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
explosivecombat) wrote2014-05-13 09:23 am
explosivecombat) wrote2014-05-13 09:23 am
Entry tags:
- !ic,
- *text,
- @blu sniper,
- @carmen sandiego (here she is),
- @envy,
- @frank archer's utter lack of subtlety,
- @greed's poor life choices,
- @jimmy two-shoes,
- @walter,
- admittedly kind of asking for it,
- but is everyone mad about genocide,
- god is dead and my tl;dr has killed him,
- good ideas are clearly relative concepts,
- hell are you even,
- i used to be hardcore,
- just thought he'd ask,
- like a brick to the face,
- look at your life; look at your choices,
- my social skills are flawless,
- professor of fauxlosophy,
- slacking off like hell,
- texting into the void,
- this is really stupid,
- why we can't have nice things
033. [Text]
The standard example of existential anguish is said to be standing on the edge of a cliff or other high place; there inevitably comes a moment in most self-aware individuals where they experience the realization that not only do they fear falling to their death, but there's nothing stopping them from throwing themselves off. I've always found it strange that a moment of experiencing true freedom like that would be considered distressing rather than a relief; knowing that there's nothing holding me back - that I am in full control of my own choices, whether it's to stand perfectly still or throw myself off - and there is nothing pre-written into whatever it is that I am that will dictate what I do either way is something I've always found calming.
It begs the question, however - do we choose our fears, and more importantly, do we choose how we respond to them?
If nothing is predetermined and everything about our lives comes down to choice, it makes sense to me that our fears also have to come down to choice, whether consciously or not. The part I'm not entirely sure of is the response.
For example, if one is attacked by some sort of animal, it makes sense that one would fear that animal. However, the response to animal attacks tend to vary - some will try to minimize their contact with that sort of animal as much as they can, while others will immerse themselves in it and attempt to desensitize themselves. Is there a particular thing that predetermines what choice a person is going to make?
I'm curious about your thoughts on it; you don't have to detail what fears you have and how you handle them, though if you would like to that might be helpful. I'm more interested in whether you think this sort of thing comes down to ingrained personality - something more inherent, I suppose - or personal choice, and whether such a thing can be changed.
Answer me anonymously if you wish; as always, your response is of more interest to me than your identity, and quite frankly I'm not in the mood to judge either way.
(As for the existential anguish, I've found over the years that I get the greatest satisfaction from neither the thought of staying put, nor the thought of throwing myself off - I've always enjoyed the notion that if I stand on the edge long enough, perhaps someone will act on their compulsion to put their hands against my back and shove.)
It begs the question, however - do we choose our fears, and more importantly, do we choose how we respond to them?
If nothing is predetermined and everything about our lives comes down to choice, it makes sense to me that our fears also have to come down to choice, whether consciously or not. The part I'm not entirely sure of is the response.
For example, if one is attacked by some sort of animal, it makes sense that one would fear that animal. However, the response to animal attacks tend to vary - some will try to minimize their contact with that sort of animal as much as they can, while others will immerse themselves in it and attempt to desensitize themselves. Is there a particular thing that predetermines what choice a person is going to make?
I'm curious about your thoughts on it; you don't have to detail what fears you have and how you handle them, though if you would like to that might be helpful. I'm more interested in whether you think this sort of thing comes down to ingrained personality - something more inherent, I suppose - or personal choice, and whether such a thing can be changed.
Answer me anonymously if you wish; as always, your response is of more interest to me than your identity, and quite frankly I'm not in the mood to judge either way.
(As for the existential anguish, I've found over the years that I get the greatest satisfaction from neither the thought of staying put, nor the thought of throwing myself off - I've always enjoyed the notion that if I stand on the edge long enough, perhaps someone will act on their compulsion to put their hands against my back and shove.)
[text]
People have a personality that'd send them one way or the other, but that's the most predetermined it gets.
[text]
I don't think it falls under "choice," but I have to question what causes that, exactly, and predetermination is the only thing that I can think of that might explain it; I've never experienced it properly, but my own circumstances are a bit unusual in that I tend to not find certain things horrific when I presumably should, given everyone else's reaction to them.
[text]
Dolls is more interesting, I know from experience that humans are easily frightened by things that look like them but aren't quite right.
[text]
At the same time, not everyone experiences that to the same degree; I'm not afraid of them, though they definitely strike me as a bit strange.
[text]
...one that wasn't put there anyway. But there I've heard all sorts of stories about dolls or scarecrows or whatnot that come to life and start killing everyone, so that phobia could go either way. That there's a disturbing lack of anything there, or that there's something after all.
[text]
[text]
Well you can't just leave me with that now. I don't get to hear many new secrets about Central, what with being one of those secrets.
[text; private]
I think most in Amestris are familiar with the laws State Alchemists have to follow: obey the military, don't transmute gold, don't transmute humans.
Do you know why that last law is in place?
[text; private]
Well I know why it is in my world, but from what I've gathered there's probably a different reason in yours.
[text; private]
We're told that creating humans is meddling in God's domain - playing god is highly frowned upon, where I'm from, and it's considered highly taboo. There's also the problem of the soul, especially given that the most obvious reason people want to transmute humans is to bring the dead back to life; I've heard that one can call back the souls of the dead if they haven't returned to the world yet...but that's going against the laws of nature, it's more or less guaranteed to cause a rebound regardless of what you do, and at absolute best you're going to be left with a shrieking sack of organs that's going to die within a few minutes.
Basically, it's not something you want to subject people to.
However, that doesn't mean that it isn't possible - one would be fully capable of creating a functional human body if they know what they're doing and don't bother with the soul. Of course, any humans created that way will be more of a shell than a person, but it's likewise possible to implant that shell with a Philosopher's Stone - basically, putting someone else's soul into the body, which would serve as its container. (That's what the Homunculi are, where I'm from; they're alchemically created humans with powerful Philosopher's Stones containing a large number of souls providing power to the body.)
Central Command obviously doesn't want civilians creating their own personal army, which would be theoretically possible using that method, so they put a ban on human transmutation overall.
Of course, Central Command also doesn't like playing by their own rules very much, so you can just imagine what's beneath Headquarters.
[text; private]
[Also wow he is so glad they didn't involve outside humans in their plans to that extent, because that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen and they had plenty of those already thank you.]
An army of soul-attached fake homunculi, I'm assuming. And how well did that work out for them?
[text; private]
At all.
[KIMBLEE...]
[text; private]
Brutally murdered?
[text; private]
The information I have on the actual incident is incredibly blurry; I was a bit distracted at the time.
[text; private]
Should I ask with what, or just leave it alone?
[text; private]
[text; private]
Still, it's funny. There's a secret underneath my version of Central too. Not an army of the vicious undead, but still.
[text; private]
But yours...that's the country that disappeared in one night, isn't it? I've spoken to Greed.
[text; private]
I'd wondered if you'd met the others who've shown up lately.
[He doesn't actually mind if Greed told Kimblee about the city, seeing as how he was about to tell Kimblee about it himself. But still...ugh, Greed. Telling people stuff.]
[text; private]
[text; private]
She's the one from my world. And you already know that Greed is too, if he was telling you about the city.
[text; private]
Are there any of the others present that I should know about?
[text; private]
There's someone else from my version of things, Scar. I don't think he's any threat to you, he sure didn't knock my head off my shoulders for giving him details about our group to his face, so he might have given up on that whole state alchemist business too.
[Guess who has no idea about Scar and Kimbley. This guy.]
[text; private]
That last part, however, is striking him all kinds of wrong, and it's likely obvious from how quickly he fires a text back.]
You're absolutely certain that Scar is from your Amestris and not mine?
[text; private]
Why?
[text; private]