Marsha, SA, Ron
after reading Marsha's new posts and SA's interepretation I am - like Ron trying to at least go halfway... so here we've got a male and a female looking at what you and SA are saying. It's not that I can't embrace some aspect of what you are talking about...that there is some larger issue about the yin/yang; male/female energies...Kali/Isis. I too, think it's important that both exist Kali/Isis - mother/father - creator/destroyer. But I'm still having trouble with what point it makes exactly. Like Ron I feel like it is always our perception that defines what we experience intellectually. from my point of view (my perception) - there are many statements that Marsha makes (i.e. the one about 'am I fluttering my eyelashes enough?') that sound personal and bitter; as if there is this group of men out here not listening to her because she's a woman and she's not 'behaving' properly. So Laotzu is addressing a group of men and telling them to "be humble, to be empty, to be low, to allow the subtle, invisible," and Marsha thinks it would be ridiculous to have him address a group of women in this way. I am like Ron - why would it be ridiculous? Because women already have these qualities? If that is what you think - I disagree. I've known some women who are much more calulating, manipulative, vain and ignorant of subtleties than men I know. I think women and men both benefit from this advice - it's universal. I too, like Ron, feel that there are yin energies in men, yang energies in women - they flow back and forth. I believe we all have some genderless characteristics and yet we are not going to ever going to not have the biological characteristics of having two basic genders (transsexuals, homosexuals and other variants not withstanding). Perhaps Marsha is meaning something along the lines of some of the arguments about african american people becoming successful in a white world. You can be successful only if you do it following the traits and the rules of the white man's world. I can see some of what she might mean if she is implying that it's ok for women to be 'something' as long as they do it in the context and rules of the male world. Still - I disagree with some of this as well. The race and gender issues have similarities but I do think there are many subtleties to this argument. I'm sorry I have a hard time sometimes expressing myself really clearly very quickly. I can't seem to do it in a few words and I have limited time to work with. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Kulp > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:40 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] Taoism > > > > > > > > > [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/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release > Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM > > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 - Release Date: 1/4/2008 12:05 PM 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/
