[Marsha]
> I understand what you are saying, and I agree.
> BUT, I ask my patterned-self if this book was
> written with the gender
> of all the characters reversed, would it still be
> considered
> wisdom? I think not.
[SA currently]
Maybe it's this general notion that you seem to
be portraying, Marsha, where the female gender were to
write this same book and "considered wisdom" - "not".
Maybe the book might be considered wisdom... I don't
know. But I believe I now see your effort here. The
next comment you make seems to explain much more than
I recently was able to shatter from my mind and
understand deeper than I was before.
[Marsha]
> Not even acceptable science fiction. I
> understand the universality of the Tao, but it is
> not enough to have
> yang address yang. I won't be told not to trouble
> my silly little
> head with such trivial matters.
[SA currently]
Ah, I see you have real questions and concerns
Marsha. They are not trivial, as your comment I
referred to above is coming up.
[Marsha]
> I am not talking about mere sexual
> discrimination. It's not as personal as you seem to
> think.
[SA currently]
And BAM! BINGO! "It's not as personal as you
seem to think." As Dwai tried to say to me,
"something personal between the chipmunk and me".
It's a bit more than that. I'm glad Dwai mentioned
"something" which hints at something dynamic for who
knows what "something" really is. This statement by
you Marsha exclaims the non-self. I like this very
much. This truly is "not as personal", which how I
see this statement of yours, your removing any
stereotypes that may come along with your inquiry and
your asking a simple innocent question. Is this true?
[Marsha]
> My canvases don't at all care if a woman or a man
> places paint upon
> them.
[SA currently]
Lovely, simple, innocent canvas - non-self. I
would say this is what I was referring to Dwai about
when I mentioned "rounded sandstone pebble". What
else might a rock be 'thought' to be? Maybe the
pebble has a say in this!
[Marsha]
> Gender is a division more INSIDIOUS than
> subject/object. And
> I think it was you who suggested that the subtext in
> LILA was a sexual one.
> To SA: See, I open up and dare to explore, and what
> reaction do I
> get? Have I forgotten to flutter my eyelashes?
[SA currently]
Have I forgotten to mention that this world is
the spirit world when the chipmunk can speak for
chipmunks best for I am just a tiny skull after all.
eyelashes... funny!
blue, blue, blue,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
