westy, the topic of emotions / emotional connections is inherently subjective.

Quoting vclxrr: "Without that thanks, and without the understanding that comes with genuine gratitude for the sacrifice of another life for your own, a person begins to devalue the life of the creature they killed. The devaluation continues and grows in its own way, until eventually that person (and all people) come to believe themselves to be above less intelligent forms of life."

Quoting westy: "THIS IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE what if you have a neutral understanding and appreciation for everything not a hierarchical one?"

Perhaps not always. But too often true, nonetheless. The truth of it is apparent from my observation of Earth's civilization as a whole. How many world cultures live as one with the land? How many world cultures live in united harmony with each other? When was the last time some group of people wasn't at war with another? Were you aware that some of the people of China are finally dealing with one of the greatest ecological crises this world has ever known? A crisis brought about by their own lineage's lack of proper respect for the environment. Now, because of that lack of respect, China is running low on fresh drinking water. But the issue of fresh drinking water is an issue that affects many countries. A portion of California, USA, for example is low on clean water because of over-consumption. And when something like that affects one region of the world, it has a significant impact on the whole world.

We are all interconnected. There are layers of unity that humans share with each other, and layers of unity that all things share with all other things. Art is (among other things) a way of making us immediately aware of these layers of unity.

So, to quote you, westy:

"no i don't [misunderstand the nature of the situation] and nowhere in your response have you actually pointed to any misunderstanding of the situation on my behalf."

Your very first comment, and subsequent comments, indicate your misunderstanding.

Quoting westy: "If you cried At his death then you are seriously imbalanced person."

I'm being generous by saying that you misunderstand. Perhaps you understand perfectly, but choose to devalue other peoples' need to place emotional significance on social icons who mean something to them. Perhaps the feelings of others are meaningless to you, westy. I don't know you, so i don't know. But the attitude you have been demonstrating exhibits a lack of respect.


To KamikazeCricket - I care. I don't know the names of my city sanitation workers (aka: garbage men). I don't know the names of the people who keep my city water clean. I don't even know who planted the trees (as part of our urban beautification initiative) that have helped make my city a nicer place to live. I don't know them, but i most certainly acknowledge their sacrifice. I thank them in my own way, by trying to respect the work they do. By trying to be a better person each day. And by challenging apathy wherever i see it.

To roughy, and squeak - Right on! I too will miss George Carlin. He said a lot of things that made a lot of sense to me. He was able to say important things that people needed to be reminded of, but say them with a unique brand of caustic humor.

I will miss our 'Modern Man'.

"I'm hangin' in, there ain't no doubt; and I'm hangin' tough.
Over and out."

Westy and gwiz665, you both make a good point. What you're speaking of could be called "emotional economy". It's the idea that we only place emotional investment in those close to us - those whom we expect will in return invest emotionally in us. This is the natural way of human civilization, and it is an important psychological defense mechanism. For instance, as i write this, someone somewhere in the world just died. If all people could feel the death of all other people (or creatures in general), we would all be overwhelmed by the constant flood of pain and emotion.

However, you fail to understand the nature of the situation. And while it is important to have a rational outlook on the subject of celebrities, it is also important to understand this next concept:

When you kill an animal for food (or buy a packaged, pre-killed, animal product) it is healthy to thank that animal for giving its life to sustain your own. Too many people thank God, or some other thing, but thanking the animal - so that you understand your own place in the natural order - is the true purpose of saying grace before eating.

Without that thanks, and without the understanding that comes with genuine gratitude for the sacrifice of another life for your own, a person begins to devalue the life of the creature they killed. The devaluation continues and grows in its own way, until eventually that person (and all people) come to believe themselves to be above less intelligent forms of life. Understand: Just because humans are higher on the food chain doesn't mean you are any more significant than a deer - or a bee. Or even a virus.

It is not possible to understand the meaning of this overnight. It is a kind of insight that must grow in you until the meaning becomes clear on its own. It is the same as when your parents push you to say "please" and "thank you" and to show respect in general and have good manners. As a very young child, you don't understand the necessity. But as you grow older and gain experience with other people and social situations, you begin to understand that the words "please", "thank you", "excuse me", "i'm sorry", and so on, have a deeper purpose that goes beyond mere manners.

And so it is with emotional expression. People form attachments to artists and performers. These attachments are, in truth, almost always made to the image that the artist is projecting of him- or herself. But even that projected image is a part of the person. Just as importantly however, it should be understood that celebrities /become/ celebrities not just because of the link between their image and their fans, but also because of the links between people who share a love or interest in what that famous person is doing. People tend to congregate around ideas (and ideals). That's why going to church is so popular. People could worship in the privacy of their own homes, yet many choose to go to a church (or temple, etc). Why? Because of the social aspect. Because of the shared links, not just between the congregation and the topic at hand, but also between all the people present! It is this way with all things.

Understand further that a person's emotional investment itself is so often times tied directly to some event in their life. Perhaps someone experienced her first kiss while Elvis was playing on the radio in the background. Perhaps a close family member died 20 or 30 years ago, and at that time, that person heard a song that echoed the same feelings he or she was feeling at that moment. There was a sense that "Yes, someone else out there /knows/ what i'm going through. Their lyrics comfort me. Their melody is a catharsis of my very soul." There's a gratitude there. And now that the musician has died, it is as if the person has lost a piece of themselves.

It may not seem rational, but it is most certainly logical.

Understand finally that this emotional connection to a person's outward persona is a fine and necessary substitution for having a direct emotional connection to them. (Regardless of whether they're a so-called "celebrity" or not.) The problem isn't that we have too much of that, it's that we don't have enough of it going around to more people. And what we do have is too often abused by unscrupulous journalism (ie: "The Media"). Perhaps you would find it interesting to know that i personally have more emotional resonance with Tori Amos than i do with any one of my blood kin. She and i don't know each other personally, but her actions (her music) have helped me through situations that none of them would or could have (and in fact, some of those situations were caused by them).

There's so much more that could be said on this subject, though i will simply close with this: All things in moderation. Balance.