Her first hook is interesting to make us think along with her. Why do we grieve on something in our life? Is it just because we have lost someone or something? Or there is something lying under our grief and sorrow. Butler continues her article with the term “vulnerability that comes very often In the article. She says that our corporeal human life Is vulnerable, so the vulnerability of our bodies plays important role when we grieve on the loss.
However, the lack of concrete example makes this point a bit obscure to understand her real powerful intention I agree with her that the successful grieving does not imply that one has forgotten another person or that something else has come along to take It place, as if It can be fully substitutable or we have to fight to find something to replace what we have lost. Nothing can replace another perfectly in human life. That is why memory is the important part of brain functions.
We feel almost totally losing someone when that one has lost his memory, probably by accident or brain dysfunction, like Dementia or Alchemies. We, human, strongly possesses our own specific memories. “The transformation effect of loss” is another attractive point in Butler’s article. When we lose something, after a few times, we might feel we can cope with It. However, that feeling of loss Is maybe transformed by ourselves to another form of feeling, which we do not mention it as mourning or grieving. For example, if your beloved dog dies, at first you feel sad.
You mourn to the loss of your dog. Then after one year passes, you do not mourn for that loss anymore, but you might say you always misses it since its death. The feeling of mourning is changed to another feeling as you maybe call it “missing” Instead. However, lying under the feeling of missing Is the feeling of mourning that Is In your subconscious stage of mind. At the moment of missing, the feeling of mourning is brought back to you. Butler restates the idea of Freud that when we lose someone, we do not always know what is in that person that has been cost.
You will be in enigmatic state when you lose someone because you do not know what is the hidden thing behind the loss, something is lost within the recesses of loss. Butler says that if mourning involves knowing what one has lost, then mourning would also be maintained by It enigmatic dimension because we this Is the thing Butler seems to play too much over the “enigmatic” thing which is normally difficult to understand in itself. The use of reasoning, from Fraud’s idea, is a bit slippery and looks like circular argument that is complicating to find the sound conclusion.