I've been thinking about what stopped me. I've been approaching it as a problem, as something to be trouble-shot so that I can find a way around it next time around.

She said, "Taking my own life, sure, I've thought about. But the concept of suicide, not so much". I, on the other hand, have been more about the concept of suicide, and not so much taking my own life. Theory and practice, theory and practice, theory and practice.

Even my methodology, which I now believe would have a very high success rate, is high on concept, but impractical on execution. I have insisted on that to make sure it wasn't an impulse thing, but lordy, I think I've proven and argued several lifetimes over that this is not impulse.

Then what is it? And what stopped me? What's going to be different next time around? If I figure out what stopped me in optimal conditions, would that preclude a next time? "Preclude", interesting word. It was used a lot in law school, it had meaning in arguments, it was a linchpin in logic, signaling a conclusion.

Does my background preclude execution of the theory? Is that what stopped me? Thinking about taking one's own life is a practical consideration. You're in a perceived unbearable situation, and you tunnel your vision into one thing to the exclusion of alternatives.

Thinking too much about suicide as concept, or high concept, might actually make it impossible to do. Might actually make it impossible to do? Maybe my construction of the whole thing includes an inherent fail-safe against it. It includes a contemplation of life and its value. How much would that suck? What have I been doing all these years?

Fuck it. Fuck it, fuck it, fuck it. Fuck theory, it comes down to either I do it, or I don't, and I'm gonna keep going out there every night until I get a definitive yes or a no. Otherwise this is all stupid. Even for me.