'Belonging'? . . . No — Pianoconcerto Forum

Member

Posts: 860
City: Segrate

January 8, 2015, 22:27

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/4344-e-morto-pino-daniele/&do=findComment&comment=33553

What can I say to you, Luca?

Aparte the discussion about what is impossible, the fact remains that I think those who remain have the obligation to satisfy those who leave, since these people can no longer defend themselves. And so, bypassing the impossible things, I will focus only on example 3 and, on that, I think exactly the opposite of you.

As for the fact that someone like Pino Daniele belongs to everyone, belongs to all... even on this I naturally disagree. I think that ultimately, we belong only to ourselves: at least that!

Dear Daniele,

I have quoted your post above to leave that space solely for comments on Pino Daniele, and to continue this other discussion by correcting a word I used inappropriately: 'belong' (appartenere).

Usually, I pay close attention to the words I use. This time I wrote more quickly than usual and did not make an effort to find the right word (assuming there is one). And so I wrote "But a person of clear fame and merit, like Pino Daniele, does not belong (a bad word) only to his family".

Truly a bad word. A person does not belong to others: to no one. Ultimately, a person does not even belong to themselves. Simply 'to belong', in the sense of 'being property of', is not something applicable to a person.

I wanted to speak of affection, of empathy, of love.
Pino Daniele, in his songs, expressed this empathy for his city. And it is reciprocal. Therefore, not 'belonging' in the sense that 'I am your thing', but 'I am part of you'. The dimension is not that of having, but that of being.

It is in the spirit of this empathy – of the living and the dead – that I would have seen the Naples funeral and even more so the burial as the most natural thing in the world. If a person from my family, parents or children, in their life reached such a strong relationship of empathy with a community wider than that of the small family clan, to the point that this community comes to desire their closeness even after death, I could only be proud of how much that family member knew how to broaden the horizons of their own life, rather than feeling it as "my thing".

Tall of this I say regardless of what Pino Daniele's intentions or non-intentions were regarding his mortal remains (which, however, do not seem to be known to me; correct me if I am wrong).

That being said, which was the thing I most wanted to express better after having said it poorly, I ask you:

"aside from the discussion about what is impossible (...)"

Why 'impossible'?... the first two examples I made are not impossible things. Perhaps strange, but not impossible. When making a reasoning, it must be tested and retested in all possible aspects.

"I think those who remain have the obligation to satisfy those who leave"

Always?... People also leave who have grudges and unfulfilled vendettas against rival families. People also leave who have not realized projects that, even if well-intentioned, belonged only to them and, often unconsciously, they ask their children to complete things that their children do not care about at all (while still having due respect for the parent).

"since these people can no longer defend themselves"

Defend themselves?... It doesn't seem to me that he has ended up in bad hands. And besides, 'those who leave' have nothing to defend: they have either gained Everything, or lost Everything. The weakest, it seems to me, are those who remain. In uncertainty.

danielescarpetti

Member

Posts: 1,032
City: Castel San Pietro Terme

January 9, 2015, 13:41

There is no doubt that everything can be said about this discussion, except for the fact that it is not cheerful.

I do not know what Pino Daniele's wishes were but, I want to suppose and hope that the decision to be buried in Rome was his and not others', including first and foremost his family; and this because it is right that a person should have or not have the funeral they believe is best and be buried where they believe is best, if this is what they desire and if, naturally, it is possible.

In effect, the only two variables to take into consideration are these: the personal desire of the interested party and the possibility of realizing it. Everything else does not matter. If there are no objective impediments to these two conditions, I believe it would be absolutely unjust not to allow it to proceed. And this regardless of who you were or were not.

With this sentence, I think I have already answered all your perplexities, but I will try to be more precise.

If I - I am speaking in the first person to make it quicker - want Berliners to play Beethoven's Solemn Mass at my funeral and, as it happens, the money I earned in my life as an honest worker is exactly what is needed for this, - including extra expenses - it would be unjust on the part of those who remain and must shoulder the burden of satisfying me, not to do so.

It is different if I do not have that amount and demand such absurdities, obviously.

Divergent is if I talk about projects... but this has nothing to do with what we are talking about, Luca. I am speaking exclusively of the post-mortem, of how one is to be saluted - or not saluted -, buried or not buried. Everything else is part of our personal life and will not necessarily be shared by those who come after us. However, those who come after us, if they are gentlemen, must fulfill our last wishes regarding departure from this life, naturally, once again, if they are reasonable.

Piccinesco

Member

Posts: 1,231
City: Villanova di Guidonia

January 9, 2015, 14:21

I write the Requiem mass myself (the Dies Irae is already ready)

LucaCavaliere

Member

Posts: 860
City: Segrate

January 9, 2015, 16:12

danielescarpetti wrote:
I do not know what Pino Daniele's wishes were but, I want to suppose and hope that the decision to be buried in Rome was his and not others', including first and foremost his family; and this is because it is right that a person should have or not have the funeral they believe is best and be buried where they believe is best, if this is what they desire and if that is, naturally, possible.
( . . . )
You speak of projects... but this has nothing to do with what we are talking about, Luca. I am speaking exclusively of the post-mortem, of how one is being saluted - or not saluted -, buried or not buried. Everything else is part of our personal life and will not necessarily be shared by those who come after us. However, those who come after us, if they are gentlemen, must fulfill our last wishes regarding departure from this life, naturally, once again, if they are reasonable.

Neither do I know his wishes, but, if they are known to some, I too would like them to have been respected. In recent days I had read that the burial was planned in Talamone (in Tuscany). Now - before responding to this post - I checked the news on the web, and it seems that Talamone was indeed his desire. And so be it. To the good peace of what I had written regarding Naples (Not even Dante is buried in Florence).

it's true Daniele: speaking of unfinished projects, I broadened the discussion a bit compared to the immediate post-mortem (farewells and burial). But this comes to me from the fact that I have dear friends whose lives I see are being ruined in order to realize what was their parent's dream. And if 'ruined' is a strong word, let's say they are weighing them down greatly, even economically... this is why I find it dangerous - for those who remain - to idealize and sacralize the wishes of the dear deceased always and in any case.

I would like people I know to feel free from duties that they do not have.

@ Piccinesco . . . I am not a composer but... I could write my own funeral eulogy. I was thinking of centering it on my proverbial modesty :lol:

danielescarpetti

Member

Posts: 1,032
City: Castel San Pietro Terme

January 9, 2015, 22:13

LucaCavaliere wrote:
it's true Daniele: speaking of unfinished projects, I have broadened the discussion a bit compared to what is the immediate post-mortem (farewells and burial). But this comes to me from the fact that I have dear friends whose lives I see are being ruined in order to realize what was their parent's dream. And if 'ruining' is a strong word, let's say they are weighing them down significantly, even economically... this is why I find it dangerous - for those who remain - to idealize and sacralize the wishes of the deceased loved one always and in any case.
I would like people I know to feel free from duties that they do not have.
Obviously, I don't know exactly what you are referring to, and therefore mine is a discussion of a general nature: one of the greatest mistakes parents make is projecting their dreams onto their children, conditioning them for purposes that are theirs but which are not necessarily and, above all, by force, are or will be those of the children.
And on this, I return to what is one of the cornerstones of my thought: we are and belong only to ourselves and no one - absolutely no one - can condition our being.