--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price <bobpriced@> wrote: > > > > Response II: Or how bout coming back as Tenzing, knowing full > > well you had to carry that lout the last half mile. I also > > wonder what exercises everyone uses to test their perceptions. > > I personally like to test the process rather than the content. > > One exercise I practise is staring at women from different > > distances. I've noticed that many women who are attractive > > close up are also attractive at a distance and that many > > women who are not so desirable close up can also look great > > far away. This could mean different things, although the > > wife's favourite is" maybe its time for a visit to the > > optometrist". > > I would propose -- as merely an alternative theory, > not in any way a challenge to the wife -- that another > explanation is that at our age, when we see women at a > distance, what we're really seeing is their auras. The > auras are often far more attractive than the women > themselves are up close.
BTW Bob, I'm actually fairly serious about this. The aura -- whether we consciously "see" it or not -- in my view encapsulates the full multi-incarnational profile of the person in question. The aura, to paraphrase Walt Whitman, "contains multitudes." The face and body, on the other hand, contain primarily only the successes and samskaras from This Time Around. Boring. I find myself these days far more interested in the full incarnational profile of women I find attractive than I am in just the latest model. To come back to my earlier mention of Isabelle Adjani, she has mentioned in interviews that her decision to portray Queen Margot and Camille Claudel was partially based on the suspicion that she might have actually been those women. In a less beautiful woman I'd write that off as self importance and ego, but with her, based on once having seen her aura at a distance on a Paris street, I'm willing to cut her a break. :-)