She just looked at me, paused, and said: "I really can't believe you two found each other."

Oh. My. God. Bartleby and I are exactly the same, in this regard. Our temperaments could not be more similar.

He loves to greet his human 'friends' but then is quickly done with the small talk portion of the program. He would rather sit still...and wishes I would too. He seems to appreciate the little moments of his life. And he's all about food.

Yep. Match made in heaven.

A good friend called recently to say that she wants me to get another dog soon. Not because I need more stuff to do, but because she fears for me when it is time for Bartleby to go. She's right to be concerned. I honestly don't know how I'll react. But getting another dog now doesn't seem the right solution. We've got a crazy good thing going on and I'm not going to tamper with that out of fear.

As for live music, I think there are a million little components to that that make it different from a recording that I wouldn't even make it to darshan in terms of explaining why it's richer and more rewarding. And, note, I'm still caught up in the idea of darshan as something depleting, AND the idea that the person on the other side is holy.

But it's not the difference between live and recorded, or even between being there and hearing but not being there, it's the difference between being there and seeing the music happen and being there and not being able to see. And it's not a matter of being able to see what they are doing technically, because I can't see that well and wouldn't be able to follow the fingers, etc., anyway. I don't know what the difference is but there is one. And I don't know what makes someone holy, either, but it might be a similar sort of unknown thing. I can't distinguish the unknowns.

The object of the darshan, I would think, doesn't really have to have any particulra qualities or even be aware of the effect. People can invest anyone or anything with sacredness for no good reason, or for a good reason, but I doubt the reason has much to do with the strength of the effect.

The part where that takes away from the object, well, I can't see that being inherent in the process, at least, not anymore than any other kind of objectification.

I don't really have anything but generic woman-on-the-street sympathy.

That is as much as you owe her, erika. And from what you say, the fact that you are not rejoicing in her pain, or gleeful at the thought of her potential demise says a lot for you not being a psychopath.

A good friend called recently to say that she wants me to get another dog soon. Not because I need more stuff to do, but because she fears for me when it is time for Bartleby to go. She's right to be concerned. I honestly don't know how I'll react. But getting another dog now doesn't seem the right solution. We've got a crazy good thing going on and I'm not going to tamper with that out of fear.

It will hurt like hell, bonny. You will need your friends' love and care. And you know that you will have a ton of it from here. And when the time is right for another dog to come into your life, you will know - be it before or soon after, or long after.

She's right to be concerned. I honestly don't know how I'll react. But getting another dog now doesn't seem the right solution.

Losing Lucy wrecked me. I'm still wrecked. It was 18 months (to the day, coincidentally) between her and Darb and it took me that long to just be ready to make a connection again.

One of my coworkers lost a beloved dog not long after Lucy, after a similarly long period of intense care, and she got a new puppy within a week.

I don't think you'll know or have any way of knowing where you'll be ahead of time, so I'd say do what's best for B and you now, and follow your gut when the time comes.

The object of the darshan, I would think, doesn't really have to have any particulra qualities or even be aware of the effect.

Then I don't think it's darshan anymore, because that's not how the article defined it--it said holy, and it referred to an exchange. It would be some other ineffable charge of shared experience.

Which I have no beef with. It's precisely the idolisation and the transfer/depletion with a celebrity that bother me, especially if the celebrity buys into the pedestal. They're famous, not special.

In "I Am Not Spock" Leonard Nimoy related the story of a woman who asked him to touch her sick child so the kid's illness would be healed. She wasn't asking Spock, she was asking Nimoy. Nimoy didn't believe in his darshan, but that woman sure did. I love the concept, by the way. That;s how I felt about the chance to meet the Dalai Lama (which I ended up not getting to do). I just wanted to catch his glance and find out if it felt the way I imagined it would. But that's the Dalai Lama, who is arguably holy, not a celebrity. I think if darshan is something everyone has or could have, if one were holy, darshan would be a nigh-unlimited resource, but if one were not holy, one's darshan could be depleted and one would have to rest. Or take some darshan from a holy person. I think I'm getting the plot of a novel here.

That's a fair reading. I can't really sign off on the depletion aspect, so if that's part of the definition, I guess I don't have much use for the concept. I like having a word to attach to that desire for presence and sight, though.

Maybe darshan is like blood. You give some away, and then you grow it back.

Erika, as others have said, being "woman on the street" sympathetic to someone who treated you as badly as she did is more than enough. Many quite decent people would not feel that much sympathy.

NoiseDesign, one of the refs at this bout is skating in a Utilikilt.