Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Indeed, but not always on target for everyone. For some of us to relegate something wholly to the past, one must first understand it.
Sure, but isn't that understood?
---------
Carl,
Nothing is ever "relegated wholly" to one's past, but, yeah, hindsight is 20/20 and one must know something in order to teach it (or preach it, as the case may be)
Very true. One can always forgive, but not necessarily forget.
I understood that as relinquishing the attachments, not the knowledge gained from it.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Indeed, but not always on target for everyone. For some of us to relegate something wholly to the past, one must first understand it.
Sure, but isn't that understood?
I'm detecting a language barrier issue, but I will explain what i believe may be unclear. Some people must emotionally get over the past before their mind is clear enough to understand what happened, but others must understand what happened before it is possible to let go of the emotions. Really, it is some of each. If one is too overwhelmed with emotion, one can not think clearly - but even with clear thinking one may have emotional attachment to the issue. To rid one's self of the emotional attachment entirely, one must understand the issue. Even then there will be what i consider emotions - but no emotional attachment.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Indeed, but not always on target for everyone. For some of us to relegate something wholly to the past, one must first understand it.
Sure, but isn't that understood?
I'm detecting a language barrier issue, but I will explain what i believe may be unclear. Some people must emotionally get over the past before their mind is clear enough to understand what happened, but others must understand what happened before it is possible to let go of the emotions. Really, it is some of each. If one is too overwhelmed with emotion, one can not think clearly - but even with clear thinking one may have emotional attachment to the issue. To rid one's self of the emotional attachment entirely, one must understand the issue. Even then there will be what i consider emotions - but no emotional attachment.
Well detected, but what do you think I meant in my response to Carl?
Sapius: I understood that (the quote in question) as relinquishing the attachments, not the knowledge gained from it.
In effect I mean the same think but not in so many words.
Perhaps you said the same thing in less words, but in your less words, it became unclear what the word "that" referred to. I expounded on the point because you had to ask "isn't that understood?" If it had been clear to begin with, you would not have had to ask. The point was clear to me, and it appears the point was clear to you - but the point was not clear to Carl. That is why I addressed it in the first place.
Perhaps you said the same thing in less words, but in your less words, it became unclear what the word "that" referred to. I expounded on the point because you had to ask "isn't that understood?" If it had been clear to begin with, you would not have had to ask. The point was clear to me, and it appears the point was clear to you - but the point was not clear to Carl. That is why I addressed it in the first place.
Please read my response in context again; you will notice that ‘isn’t that understood?’ is a rhetorical question; I was not asking for clarification. And it meant that isn’t “one must first understand it.â€â€¦ obvious.
Carl’s response tells me that he understands it perfectly well, since he makes a valid point. He needs no explanation in my opinion.
I did not say that Carl's point was invalid. The language barrier issue seems to be in the specifics of the definition of relegated. One does not have to forget an occurrence entirely to relegate it wholly to the past. Forgetting entirely is amnesia, not relegation.
Perhaps Carl did not need an explanation, but you did. And I am finding your attitude feisty, at least.
I did not say that Carl's point was invalid. The language barrier issue seems to be in the specifics of the definition of relegated. One does not have to forget an occurrence entirely to relegate it wholly to the past. Forgetting entirely is amnesia, not relegation.
Perhaps Carl did not need an explanation, but you did. And I am finding your attitude feisty, at least.
Laird wrote:Be yond maid virtuous beyond reproach - that our Prince doubts not. More doth our Prince wonder at the sacred bond - be it of such strength as to quell his wandering freedom-lust, and of what irresponsibility might he be accused to seek out this tryst knowing that in stamina he might be found wanting?
Oh, how the honey drips as poison from your tongue! Can you not taste it?
You would trade freedom for a woman? It makes me think you have never known it. Or perhaps your stamina is to be found wanting only in the knowledge that such a trade can never be made.
What folly is this then?
[Translation: surely you realise that with this you endorse the veracity of the much dreaded Woman philosophy?]
Leyla Shen wrote:Oh, how the honey drips as poison from your tongue! Can you not taste it?
You would trade freedom for a woman? It makes me think you have never known it. Or perhaps your stamina is to be found wanting only in the knowledge that such a trade can never be made.
What folly is this then?
[Translation: surely you realise that with this you endorse the veracity of the much dreaded Woman philosophy?]
Oh how you revel in your role as perceptive inquisitor! But that the tables were turned and it were your strength of character under the test... how then might you fare? Later in my (begging your forgiveness, far longer than six sentences) response I will attempt to do exactly that. First, though, let me continue in my self-explicatory assignment lest I be accused of diversionary tactics.
The freedom that I know and lust after is that of detached potential, of knowing that at any point I can decide without negative consequence to Other to drop everything and move countries; to go travelling; to start studying at a university in a new city; to join a protest camp in a forest; to drop out and start begging on a street-corner.
Were I to enter Relationship, I would as you put it, "trade" some of this freedom for Responsibility. And yet of what value is potential-in-freedom if none of that potential is ever realised? One of those potentials is the fulfilling exploration of oneself and another through intimacy, romance and sexuality.
I have just read through the WOMAN/MAN section of Poison for the Heart and can affirm that it has some insight in it, but that overall I reject the thesis that woman is "barely human". I then do not recognise that I endorse its veracity. Pray tell how it might be so that I do.
To the table-turning: it seems that you are unaware of (or at least have not acknowledged to date in our dialogue) the delight that you take in infuriation. Perhaps this is the real reason that you have attracted "patronising" partners - they (subconsciously) recognised the (subconscious) sustenance that you draw from indignation: "how dare he think of me like that!" (but secretly pleased to be able to manifest such indignation). Infuriation is your joyous food; if I accused your partners of disrespect in their patronising attitude then likewise might your failure to acknowledge the role that you play in selecting, and privately enjoying, such behaviour be considered disrespectful to them. Perhaps the frustration that you fail to acknowledge this contributed to the (unjustifiable) physical abuse of being held up against a wall by your throat (utter speculation and I'm willing to be corrected here).
Likewise if I accused your partners of lack of sophistication of understanding I might accuse you of the selfsame thing - that what you most decry is what you most find fulfilment in. And yet when this process is brought to consciousness the only change that need occur is that the infuriation become more amusing, and both infuriated and infuriator more amused. Prince Charming and the Princess satirise one another, fully conscious of the roles that they are playing, knowing that the roles themselves provide sustenance, yet that they are each much more than the roles, and respecting that which lies beyond.
It is insights and dynamics of this nature, shared with and engaged between one another, such that the nature of the relationship becomes daily more textured, multi-layered, conscious and sustaining, that attract me to partnership. And yet is this alluring prospect enough to draw from me commitment, and to break my attachment to freedom-in-potential? Do I have the stamina to constantly drive forward our next potential? And do my potential partners even seek the same process? All I can say is that thus far I have not been tempted into it.
Laird wrote:Oh how you revel in your role as perceptive inquisitor! But that the tables were turned and it were your strength of character under the test... how then might you fare? Later in my (begging your forgiveness, far longer than six sentences) response I will attempt to do exactly that. First, though, let me continue in my self-explicatory assignment lest I be accused of diversionary tactics.
The freedom that I know and lust after is that of detached potential, of knowing that at any point I can decide without negative consequence to Other to drop everything and move countries; to go travelling; to start studying at a university in a new city; to join a protest camp in a forest; to drop out and start begging on a street-corner.
Were I to enter Relationship, I would as you put it, "trade" some of this freedom for Responsibility. And yet of what value is potential-in-freedom if none of that potential is ever realised? One of those potentials is the fulfilling exploration of oneself and another through intimacy, romance and sexuality.
I have just read through the WOMAN/MAN section of Poison for the Heart and can affirm that it has some insight in it, but that overall I reject the thesis that woman is "barely human". I then do not recognise that I endorse its veracity. Pray tell how it might be so that I do.
Leaving aside for a moment the nuts and bolts in realising the aforementioned potential in particular, it’s pretty straightforward, I think. When I read your comments preceding this last paragraph, I see beneath your words the very same recognition that woman is “barely human.†How could you conceive of such an unattainable potential if not as unattainable because it already exists within you but is lacking in the (potential!) Other? Really, Laird, I think the difference is simply that you do not want to be seen as offensive, even though the idea is fundamentally the same.
Laird wrote:To the table-turning: it seems that you are unaware of (or at least have not acknowledged to date in our dialogue) the delight that you take in infuriation. Perhaps this is the real reason that you have attracted "patronising" partners - they (subconsciously) recognised the (subconscious) sustenance that you draw from indignation: "how dare he think of me like that!" (but secretly pleased to be able to manifest such indignation). Infuriation is your joyous food; if I accused your partners of disrespect in their patronising attitude then likewise might your failure to acknowledge the role that you play in selecting, and privately enjoying, such behaviour be considered disrespectful to them. Perhaps the frustration that you fail to acknowledge this contributed to the (unjustifiable) physical abuse of being held up against a wall by your throat (utter speculation and I'm willing to be corrected here).
As you will be (corrected, that is). That particular guy, as so good as he was in other ways, was a nut, unfortunately. However, I have never been one to cast ultimate responsibility into another’s quarters. When I speak of such incidents, though often with plenty of colour, I harbour absolutely no resentment. On that, you will just have to take my word -- but whether or not you do with regard to me personally is of no consequence to the significance of such an attitude. That incident is of great value to me, mostly because it was very much like closing a long chapter near the end of a good book. In that way, I have loved every man I have ever been with (except, maybe, the one I married who refused to leave before we were wed despite me -- by the way, none of these men were Muslims, in case anyone‘s wondering). But, you know what? It is true that, no matter how fine a woman might be seen to be, a man is never with the woman he is actually in love with--ever. She is nothing more than an ideal. That’s why he can be hurt and disappointed. That is why he can start wars in her name, and she will never be held accountable. And so it has been for me, with men. And, so it seems to be for you if all your musings are anything to go by. This is the frustration, Laird. And in saying that, I find little else that can be added in reply to your post except that any other consideration of the matter is folly and a compromise of character.
Leyla Shen wrote:When I read your comments preceding this last paragraph, I see beneath your words the very same recognition that woman is “barely human.†How could you conceive of such an unattainable potential if not as unattainable because it already exists within you but is lacking in the (potential!) Other?
Leyla, I really am baffled. I write about a practical matter - that in making a commitment to realise the potential of a particular course of action - in this case a relationship, but it might equally be a career, a degree, a trip - I trade my freedom to realise other potential courses of action. Somehow from this you get that I think that women are "barely human". The potential of which I speak is of combination - it is not something that exists separately in either of the participants.
Leyla Shen wrote:Really, Laird, I think the difference is simply that you do not want to be seen as offensive, even though the idea is fundamentally the same.
And I am coming to the opinion that you simply want to find my position offensive regardless of how I explain myself, although I don't understand why.
Laird wrote:It is true that, no matter how fine a woman might be seen to be, a man is never with the woman he is actually in love with--ever. She is nothing more than an ideal.
Oh, and what is this solid and firm "actual" identity with which he should instead be preoccupied (this ties in nicely with the what's-behind-all-the-layers question in the other thread, which I hope to respond to eventually)? Is it what she holds herself to be? Is it what her psychiatrist holds her out to be? And is there value in striving for ideals? Because I am of the opinion that identity, like satire, is a multi-layered affair, in which we focus at any particular point on the "relevant" layer. Some layers just happen to be more relevant more often, and those are what we point to as personality or character. And some layers correspond more with what we would ideally like to be - focusing on them can help to strengthen them into one's character.
Laird wrote:And, so it seems to be for you if all your musings are anything to go by. This is the frustration, Laird.
I think that the frustration is of your own creation. When I take to idealising a person, man or woman, I do it with the recognition that the ideal is only one facet of eir character.
The way to look at this whole debate about masculine and feminine, has been covered rather wonderfully in the following text written by Dan Lusthaus about the Tao Te Ching (from a book called Great Thinkers of the Eastern World)
The Emphasis on Yin
The terms Yin and Yang, considered to be fundamental Daoist concepts, occur only once in the Daode jing (chapter 42), but the ideas they encapsulate are in evidence throughout the text. Dividing everything in the world into polar complements, yin represents the dark, recessive, soft, feminine, low, contractive, centripedal, short, hollow, empty, and so forth, while yang represents the light, dominant, hard, masculine, high, expansive, centrifugal, long, full, solid. All things consist of varying proportions of these two polarities. For instance, a blackboard is yin because it is dark, and yang because it is hard. No thing is ever purely one of the other; rather all things are in flux between one pole and it’s opposite. When yin reaches its extreme it reverts to yang; when yang reaches its extreme it reverts to yin. Thus when water (yin) is compressed (yin), it can become a hydraulic lift strong enough (yang) to lift an automobile. If someone exerts (yang) themselves d for long time (yang), they tire and weaken (yin).
For Laozi balance between the poles does not mean static parity, but a dynamic reversion that perpetually counterbalances all propensities toward one extreme or the other. Unfortunately the world tends to privilege the yang while ignoring or denigrating the yin. The Daode jing aims to rebalance things by emphasizing yin over yang. Feminine images are repeatedly given positions of honour (in chapters 1, 6, 42, 52, and others), and yin values are consistently promoted. When men want someone to comply with their will, they resort to force; but a woman only has to lie still to seduce a man (chapter 61). This is wuwei*, not because it is inaction, but because it is effortless, effective action. Similarly we tend to think that what makes things useful is their solidity, their concreteness. Laozi reminds us that a wheel’s hub is “emptyâ€, a jars usefulness lies in its openness to being filled, a rooms usefulness derives from its open space as well its doors and windows; it is the “openness†or emptiness of things that give them usefulness (chapter 11). Further “the softest thing overcomes the hardest†(chapters 43, 78) just as the Grand Canyon was carved out of hard rock by soft water. East asian martial arts, from judo to Moa Zedong’s military strategy have recognised and implemented this principle.
The emphasis on yin aims at more than a theory of physics or mechanics:
The living are soft and yielding;
the dead are rigid and stiff.
Living plants are flexible and tender;
the dead are brittle and dry.
Those who are stiff and rigid
are the disciple of death.
Those who are soft and yielding
are the disciples of life.
The rigid and stiff will be broken.
The soft and yielding will overcome.
Yin and yang perpetually displace each other; life and death subsist on each other. Seeds return to their roots, summer turns to winter, but from death (yin) life perpetually springs up anew. Recognising that cycle is enlightenment; ignoring it leads to disaster (chapter 16).
Laozi argues that while a child is soft (yin) infants can cry all day and never grow hoarse (a yang power); though their bones are soft and pliable, their grip is powerful. As human beings grow and learn, they become habituated and complicated, losing their openness and flexibility. Hence Laozi recommends we “return to infancy†and become “uncarved†blocks. Uncarved blocks are capable of becoming anything; once they are carved, their options have been foreclosed. Returning to open possibilities is empowering De. Nothing is deeper or more effective than simplicity.
*Chapter 38 says that “The best De ("virtue" or "power") is wuwei and without deliberate actionsâ€. Wuwei is impossible to translate accurately, and the common quietist term “no-action†by which it is frequently rendered does the notion of wuwei great violence. Loazi’s full phrase, occurring several times in the Daode jing, is wuwei er wu bu wei, which means “no action, yet nothing isn’t doneâ€. Wei means not only to act, but also to consider or deem, to do something deliberately without effort. Wu is used in this phrase as a negation prefix; the point is not to desist from acting, but to do things effortlessly, without friction or contention, without the ulterior motives of gain or loss, praise or blame, reward or punishment. Putting such considerations aside, there is nothing one cannot do.
Last edited by Jamesh on Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
Laird wrote:I write about a practical matter - that in making a commitment to realise the potential of a particular course of action - in this case a relationship, but it might equally be a career, a degree, a trip - I trade my freedom to realise other potential courses of action.
Really, what exactly are you saying here?
You lament over your knowledge of and lust for detached potential, which you have apparently at the same time defined as freedom, and the prophetic paradox such a freedom brings with knowing that should you even attempt to realise any potential at all, you have already relinquished freedom itself and quite possibly all for naught.
Who can take that alone seriously!
Laird wrote:Somehow from this you get that I think that women are "barely human". The potential of which I speak is of combination - it is not something that exists separately in either of the participants.
And the fact that you have not yet been so tempted as to relinquish your detached potential for such a commitment tells us what beyond this apparently lofty piece of wisdom?
Go on, have a shot at it!
But you're possibly right on one count: that it has less to do with you trying not to be offensive than it does with you being thoughtless and in love with paradox rather than truth.
Laird: I write about a practical matter - that in making a commitment to realise the potential of a particular course of action - in this case a relationship, but it might equally be a career, a degree, a trip - I trade my freedom to realise other potential courses of action.
Leyla: Really, what exactly are you saying here?
It's not so much what I'm trying to say as who I'm trying to explain - namely, myself, but more explicitly a facet of my nature/personality. I'm not, for example, claiming that (as you seem to suggest I am) this perspective should be taken "seriously" or is a "lofty piece of wisdom", nor that anyone else should adopt it nor even contemplate adopting it, nor that I don't, in some instances, transcend it (for example I voluntarily half-completed a degree, so clearly I am capable of some level of commitment and loss of freedom-potential). It's simply a longstanding part of me and one reason why I've never taken up opportunities to get involved in romantic relationships. There are others, and to really understand how this fits into my personality you'd need to know a whole lot more about me, but I'm wary of turning this into a "psychoanalysis of Laird's romantic demons" thread. In any event...
Leyla Shen wrote:Go on, have a shot at it!
...thanks for the encouragement.
Leyla Shen wrote:...you being ... in love with paradox rather than truth.
But you see I don't hold that the two are incompatible.
Laird wrote:There are others, and to really understand how this fits into my personality you'd need to know a whole lot more about me, but I'm wary of turning this into a "psychoanalysis of Laird's romantic demons" thread.
Why? That's what we do here - sniff out people's demons and banish the evils.
Laird: There are others, and to really understand how this fits into my personality you'd need to know a whole lot more about me, but I'm wary of turning this into a "psychoanalysis of Laird's romantic demons" thread.
Elizabeth: Why? That's what we do here - sniff out people's demons and banish the evils.
Partly because I've already been admonished in another thread for being too off-topic, and I suspect that this would likewise be viewed by the same person as egotistical "garbage". Partly because I'm a pretty private and sensitive person who's not sure whether he really wants to have his neuroses, fantasies, desires and failings indexed by Google. But as you guys see fit and as you have an interest - if things get too personal I'll pull out with apologies.
Is smiling feminine or masculine? I can't decide. Some sages smile, in fact, make a point of it, but women smile, too, so is it wise to smile?
Women use smiling all the time to attract men; they probably don't even know they're doing it, so this would be unconscious smiling. On the other hand, women are well aware of what they can achieve with a smile, and so it is very conscious smiling, but perhaps for unconscious reasons. Then again, women can be very conscious in their pursuit of things, which is why men's consciousness is apparently not conscious enough to stand up to women's conscious smiling.
Women also use smiles to placate, to be pleasing before others, to look mysterious or to look knowing, to beckon-with, to intrigue, to put forth the representation of an inner surety that may or may not be there, to get what they want, etc. Some might even smile as a goal in itself, just to reside there peaceably, restfully, in a smile, above, beyond, or untouched by the world affairs. The rest of the smiling is just pleasure, pure pleasure - as a sign of the pleasure or the pleasure itself,
The sage's smile, however, is one of knowing. He uses the smile to attract others or to express his inner harmonious state, or to placate the misdirected excitement of his grasshopper. It is inviting to the viewer for its evidence of placidity and inner surety of one's relationship with the world. It beckons others with its purity and speaks of things beneath the surface of this smile (which in some cases are called mystery, in the stage before it's known). The sage's smile is transcendent and untouched by the world affairs. He smiles for his own pure pleasure, unless he smiles unconsciously.
It's perfectly clear, these differences. It is possible to judge their contrasting contents as masculine or feminine, and hence conscious or unconscious. All you have to do is peek under its robes; there's the Ultimate Answer.
Laird wrote:But you see I don't hold that the two are incompatible.
Incompatible? They are two completely different things. Jeeez, Laird. Must everything be so complicated?!
PS: I have something to say on your other paragraph, but not tonight.
PPS: I have a question for you. What is the difference between these ideas, 1) it's true that paradox is paradox, 2) it's paradoxical that paradox is paradox, 3) it's paradoxical that truth is truth, and 4) it's true that truth is truth. (I could get a few more out of it, too!)
