I mentioned my mostly stoic but sometimes incredibly over-emotional acquaintance in a previous post. We were going to move to another city together but that fell through for many reasons, not the least of which being that I realized that he was attempting to use me for emotional support that I am simply unwilling to give. Yes, I led him on regarding the move and I suppose I’ve led him on this past week in which I’ve kept quiet and left him with false hope that a move was still in the works. He’s the kind that threatens suicide whenever things do not go his way, but he also threatens suicide whenever he’s depressed. I bring all of this up, because when I break the news to him that we are not moving, I suspect that he will, once again, threaten suicide. Now, this does not concern me much other than it would violate my general principle (these days) of avoiding harm for others when possible. I brought all of this up to my therapist who relayed the following to me, the point of this post. “We can influence others, but they are the sole arbiters of control and choice in their lives.”
I’ve been quite sick the past few days and, as such, have been left to reading and video games – a rare and guilty treat – to pass the time. Video games, in particular, let me realize aggression in a more “healthy” way than merely going up to someone on the street and suckerpunching them. I can commit all kinds of acts of violence in the game’s digital world and never suffer any consequences.
A game that I’ve been playing as of late follows the traditional trope of saving the world from a great force of evil. You hack and slash your way through hordes of enemies and the blood flows like water. What I’ve noticed – this being the first game I’ve really played for more than thirty minutes in what seems like ages – is that no matter how violent the task, the morality of your actions are on rails: you can only choose that which benefits the greater good.