SA, Having even found this much to say, I am exhausted. Thank you for meeting my words half-way. I really, really appreciate it.
Marsha At 12:34 PM 1/3/2008, you wrote: > [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/ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
