For T & L
Today remains Thursday, 19 April 2007.
I don't like doing this "In Memory" stuff, since it means someone is departed.
T, a fine history prof who taught me much.
L, his son, a comrade in the good fight.
I don't like doing this "In Memory" stuff, since it means someone is departed.
T, a fine history prof who taught me much.
L, his son, a comrade in the good fight.
posted by HH at 10:33 PM
6 Comments:
Publish "In Memory" pieces if it is cathartic. If it is for any other reason, do not do it.
"Anonymous": Thank you, but, please, clarify your remark. Am I dense? Certainly, there is an element of catharsis for me, but I'm also trying to honor the dead and sometimes point out something that the lives of those departed gave us. If you think this is inappropriate, please instruct me why.
Dear Anonymous,
How about this: You publish "In Memory" pieces on your own blog if you find it cathartic. If HH wishes to honor the memory of someone important to him, he can do so on his blog.
Works for me.
HH said: Archie, a bit reserved as far as the Internet goes, told me to say, "Lily, you go girl!"
HH's original statement on 4/19/07 was "I don't like doing this "In Memory" stuff, since it means someone is departed." He then wrote his tributes.
My comment was that doing it for cathartic reasons is the only reason you should do it on your personal blog. You should not do it if you feel you are under obligation to anyone to do so. You are no under no obligation to anyone other than yourself. You should not feel obligated, even to yourself, to profess honor to anyone in public. That can be done privately, in any way you see fit. Because HH specifically states that he does not like to do it, then he should not do it.
Clarification.
I meant "I don't like to do it" in the sense that "I regret that someone worthy of honor has departed, giving occasion to the obligation I choose for myself to render them honor." I should prefer those worthy of honor would live forever, so I could continue to honor them while they live.
To me, ethics is not matter of obedience to a deity which demands obedience, no matter what, but the free choice of that which is Right, taken upon oneself as an obligation to others, oneself, and the Good.
Sorry my lack of verbal and philosophical accuracy gave rise to all this.
Thanks to all while I got my head and expression straight.
Particularly sorry to "Anonymous", for absolutely misunderstanding you. Mea culpa.
Post a Comment
<< Home