posted on Feb, 17 2020 @ 10:10 AM
My first thought was, this is a bad thing. People need to grieve and get on with their life. This is just a computer-generated 3D image, not real,
only a trick of light to make us believe we're seeing reality.
But then I thought... is it really so bad?
We've all experienced loss... my latest was a short couple of years ago. It hurt, terribly. It was supposed to. It had to. If it hadn't hurt so badly,
it would have meant I didn't care. I can still see her at times, when something strikes those memories and she is sitting in her chair smiling up at
I can still sometimes walk out back and see Dad playing on the home-made tractor he built from scrap iron (which I still have). I can hear his voice
on the wind. It's been 40 years, but those memories remain.
Is this so different?
Dad's leather hat he used to wear still hangs on my wall, from a hook on the wall mirror I made Mom one year. A clock I bought Dad after he became
ill, one of the first talking clocks made, just announced that "it is now ten AM" while I was typing. I have photo albums on top of photo albums with
photos of long-deceased friends and relatives. All those things are tricks to trigger the pleasant memories and ensure that these people are not
really gone because I remember them.
The loss of a child is horrible beyond imagination. I literally cannot imagine how I might react if something happened to one of my kids. So if this
poor woman gets some relief from seeing her daughter again, where's the harm? Sure, it could be used to avoid grief and suspend one's future... but so
can a photo. And it's just not my place, nor is it anyone's place, to dictate how one might grieve such a loss. May God bless and comfort this poor
woman (and you as well, Schuyler).
Blessings upon those who found a way to ease someone's sufferings. The statement I noticed is accurate: technology need not be cold and impersonal.