> > [Marsha]
> > > I am not talking about mere sexual
> > > discrimination. It's not as personal as you
> seem to think.
> >
> >
> > [SA previously]
> > 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.
> Ron (previously):
> How does Marsha's statement exclaim the non-self?
[SA currently]
I read it as "it's not as personal", thus,
not-ego-self, in other words, non-self. Therefore,
what Marsha asked was more of an innocent question
than how people responded. They pinned Marsha's
response on Marsha alone, but Marsha is trying to talk
about something that is not just about Marsha and how
Marsha thinks, etc... If I'm off the mark Marsha,
then fill me in.
Ron currently:
o.k., interesting, hmmm, question: do situations and conditions exist
separate from ones perception of them? if it does then all we may know
about them is through our own perception. Either way, does it not depend
on how one views , well, just about anything?
[Ron]
> Her initial post:
> It seems that this book, and philosophy, is written
> from the man's
> perspective to men. While there is great wisdom,
> there is no advice for
> women. It is stated:
> "It's as if the Yang power must return into the Yin
> power, and the Yin
> must become the Yang power." (p.156)
> But it seems all the teaching is to help men return
> to and regain Yin power.
[SA currently]
Does the book mention in depth how yin returns to
yang? I don't know I haven't read the book.
Ron currently:
I did not read the book she is reading, I only have
What she posted of it.
[Ron]previously:
> I only see her attachment of yin and yang to literal
> conceptions of gender.
[SA currently]
I don't. It could, but then I don't see her
bringing this up as necessarily restricted to
biological female. Yin is female and yang is male.
The book, according to her statement, shows much about
yang returning to yin (male aspect returning to more
female connections, thus, balance), but what about a
yin returning to more yang connections and, thus,
balance that way?
Ron currently:
The statement was: "It's as if the Yang power must return into the Yin
> power, and the Yin
> must become the Yang power." (p.156)
I interpret equal becoming and returning from yang to yin
>From yin to yang, the propositions return and become
seem to be the focal point in discussion. I interpret
cyclical movement while others interpret possession.
Since the likely hood of this passage being translated
>From another language is more than probable I would
Tend to not take them too literally.
[Ron]
> It has been my understanding that yin and yang are
> active and passive
> Aspects of the whole, much like dynamic and static.
> [Marshas post]:
> "It is not enough just to connect Te back to Tao.
> You must also
> practice the power of weakness. This means to
> condition yourself to be
> humble, to be empty, to be low, to allow the subtle,
> invisible, yet ever
> almighty powerful Tao particle to flow into your
> body, to charge up your
> entire body as 'Tao body.'" (p. 158)
[SA currently]
Is this yang returning to yin? What about
practicing the power of strongness, etc...? Marsha
knows where Marsha was coming from more extensively
than I, but this is how I read it.
Ron currently:
I interpret practicing weakness is practicing strongness
The reed that bends does not break, empty your cup,
There is power in the subtle, height in the low.
> Ron:
> Te is the working of tao . As I understand this
> aspect, it is not
> typically applied as a gender relationship. Again it
> is about the
> passive and active.
[SA currently]
Agreed.
> Marsha previously:
> This does not seem to be advice for women to help
> them reconnect to Yang
> power. There is something vital missing.
> Ron:
> In this interpretation it would seem so. There is
> something very vital missing indeed.
[SA previously]
> 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?
> Ron:
> Is what true?
[SA currently]
The statement I made. I was respecting Marsha's
integrity. The same as when I say ask a chipmunk.
I'm respecting their integrity. Who are we to speak
for somebody else? I took what she said and then
asked her if it was true as how I saw what she wrote.
Ron currently:
Yes, it is a noble action, but, do we really hear the chipmunk?
Or do we hear the chipmunk through ourselves?
[Ron]
> The words regarding the tao? When flip
> flopping from
> Yin to yang, yang to yin as long as one holds only
> one perspective
> At a time, These words will not ring true.
[SA currently]
Uh?
Ron currently:
If looking at from one perspective, that's all one will see.
> > [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!
>
> Ron:
> What could a canvas or a pebble say that one would
> not Misinterpret or project onto it?
[SA currently]
"one would not misinterpret", thus, will
misinterpret. Yes, we can misinterpret each other,
so, the listening and trying to listen to another,
allow their own innocence to not be sabotaged by
consistently projecting. It's an effort. One that is
practiced ones whole life.
> [Marsha]
> > > To SA: See, I open up and dare to explore, and
> > what reaction do I get?
>
> Ron:
> This is no-self?
[SA currently]
Nop, you guys pointed out Marsha as coming from
this biological female versus male stuff. I didn't
read that in her post.
> [Marsha]
> > > I am not talking about mere sexual
> > > discrimination. It's not as personal as you
> seem to think.
> Ron:
> I think, as I stated before, that as long as one
> Projects themselves onto it's meaning all one
> Will see is it's reflection.
> it has been stated in the past the disdain of
> What is perceived as The male dominated world.
> Therefore When the words are read that is what
> Is perceived.
> Is this true?
> It is true to the one who perceives it.
[SA currently]
I don't know. It seems you and Margaret perceived
it this way.
[Ron]
> Is this the perception of one who is selfless?
> Can personal exist in the face of no-self?
[SA currently]
Personal is always here. I just thought Marsha
was talking about yin (the female) aspect was not
being discussed. The yang returning to yin, but not
how a yin returns to yang.
Ron currently:
Becoming, returning. Returning, becoming.
Which direction do they go?
Which is being favored?
Lost in words
Missing concept
I don't know,
SA
Ron currently:
Thanks SA, I'm just being provocative.
But, there is a point to the provocation.
Like the Rorschach test, what one interprets,
Tells more about the interpreter than what is being
Interpreted.
Thanks 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/
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/
