Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Thursday - Part 2, February 28, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    For some reason I included only a portion of Thursday s Highlights. Here are the rest! --Jerry SU GANDOLF Queer is a category that includes gay and
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      For some reason I included only a portion of Thursday's Highlights. Here are the rest!


      "Queer is a category that includes gay and
      unconventional hetero individuals." --Caio

      So many categories!

      More mutable than you give them credit for. That
      doesn't mean that anyone should change... What a
      silly thought.

      If there were no Caios, would we need them? Do we
      need them? As a counterpoint, maybe. But sitting
      alone in your room, "are" you essentially "hetero",
      "queer", "transgendered", or anything else? Funny,
      the other discussion about women touches on this
      too. Nina, maybe Melody, seem to be saying there
      *is* something essential about "womanhood". But if
      we have never had the chance to exist outside of a
      violently dualistic society in regards to sex,
      gender and sexuality, what are we really saying?
      Perhaps only that we've never truly been our
      *selves*? What is really the nature of the direct
      experience, without extrapolating out to what is
      "normal", what is "woman", what is "man"?

      I love you guys, I love these discussions, and I
      respect what has brought you here. This is a rich
      and complex area, and, thanks god, I don't have to
      have the answers. Caio's fear creates an energy
      here that I don't like, but this, too, shall pass.

      Su (who can be seen in the Madonna movie Truth or
      Dare holding up a Queer Nation banner at the gay
      pride parade. Hmmm...)




      Hi Listas,

      Well, that is a catchy subject line, eh? Too bad I
      can't go much further into the subject, but I would
      like to.

      Carl Jung showed (to those who look) that every man
      has inside, a woman, and every woman has inside, a
      man; and so, if you can follow this, the woman
      inside me, has a man inside her, and so on ad

      Taoist Shamans have said:

      "What has a front Has a back;

      The bigger the front The bigger the back."

      Thus, the man who is 'all man', who is 'purely a
      man', has inside, an equally 'pure' woman; and this
      polarity and the energy which it carries, makes the
      man seek the most obviously 'feminine' of women.

      This behaviour, carried on for millions of years,
      has led to a striking difference in the appearance
      of men and women. But interestingly, if we look
      closely at the pictures of the most popular and
      'beautiful' people, we can see that the difference
      is quite slight. Remember this Beatles lyric?

      "Have you seen polythene Pam? She's so good-looking
      that she looks like a man... "

      The external person (equals) cameo

      The internal person (equals) intaglio

      So somewhere deep inside, underneath or prior to
      any sexual gender assignments, is the Root-Being;
      and somehow, I seriously doubt that this Root-Being
      has 'sexual gender' as one of its characteristics.

      It may be, that samskara (strong tendencies due to
      unresolved 'issues') is what determines the
      'external' gender assignment, but in any case, that
      is as they say, a 'cameo performance' and one which
      is to say the least, the most superficial; it is
      indeed 'out front', yet it is the Root-Being who is
      really happening.

      "Who Am I?"


      Only in the social systems, does sexual gender
      matter; and the more we _identify_ as sexually
      gendered (it seems to me), the more superficial we
      become; and the less likely it becomes that we will
      ever know Root-Being.

      So whether or not sexual gender is actually The
      Last Duality (it seems that life/death may deserve
      that title), it is a powerful one.

      Identity (a collection of memories of events) is
      built over time in a social context. If sexual
      gender is questioned, identity is threatened, and
      when identity is threatened, all kinds of powerful
      defenses arise in defense.

      Knowing oneself as 'Root-Being' could possibly
      defuse those defenses.

      It is easy to confuse identity (a social
      impression) with Root-Being, until Root-Being
      displaces identity; at this point, Root-Being
      carries identity in its back pocket, like a
      driver's license.


      BOBBY G.

      Mental qualities can be categorized.

      The most obvious is thinking. One thought leads to
      another. When the chain stops before another
      starts, the individual magically appears for a
      short time.

      Memory seems to be thinking also but is really just
      the stimulus for thinking. A memory "package"
      occurs and a chain of thought begins. Perhaps it is
      mind reliving the content of the memory. Or perhaps
      the memory sparks another chain of thought.

      Logic and conclusion making, correlating data,
      sifting through options with accurate cognition,
      seem to validate thinking as admirable. The chain
      of thoughts (thinking) does not produce this
      quality of logic and is a discernible distraction.

      Imagining and dreaming produce art which is
      essential in our imperfect world. We must imagine
      how it can be better to make it better.

      Intuition is that quality which allows knowing what
      is occurring.

      Mind is a concept used to group these qualities.
      The truth is there is no thing called mind, only
      one or more of these qualities existing in real
      time. The idea of a tree exists while you think it.
      The idea of the mind exists while you think it.
      Likewise you exist only while thinking about
      yourself although "you" are always implied as the
      cornerstone of the structure in which every thought
      acquires its meaning.

      The quality of "I amness" does not originate in the
      mind. The present moment or Real Time itself is all
      there is, so the source of "I amness" must be here.
      Being doesn't require thought but thought requires



      A few days ago I heard that people spend 90%ish of
      their time defending their point of view.

      Holy moly, that's a heckuva lotta time and energy
      and creativity. Let me count the ways I have to
      defend my point of view! Uh! Well, no, that would
      be, once again, defending my point of view.

      Then I ask myself: what would I do instead?

      Just contemplating...



      I'm finding myself asking that very question these
      days - not about being gay, and how gays are
      regarded -

      but about being 'woman' and my issues with how
      women are treated.

      This insight about labeling people as "this, and
      not that" is really speaking to the core of
      'Melody' right now.


      Right on, Melody.

      (Disclaimer note: here's my point of view, which I
      will defend, perhaps a little bit, but since I
      don't hold much attachment to this particular view,
      if you push it, I might just drop the whole thing
      and ignore you, letting you keep your point of view
      while I go off and edit or delete my own.)

      Last time around, I worked in an office full of
      women. Being a woman was an issue there. Big
      (minority) business, you might say. Certainly, I
      found a lot of parallel experience in that group. A
      happy consensus, unwordedly accepting union of
      context. If you know what I mean, and you probably
      do. /big conspiratorial grin/

      This time around, I work in an office full of men
      who find my preferences, tendencies, diet,
      interests, activities and gender to be a something
      of a mystery, if not a set of categorical this or
      thats, and tasty fodder for all manner of joking. I
      find my identity under attack regularly, typically
      from missiles (uh!) that hit or graze areas
      associated with gender or sexuality. It is tempting
      to catch them on it, and whip them with an
      admittedly sharply witted tongue, but I am not
      comfortable fanning the flames in the direction of
      sexual harrassment. Ah, but what I have found is
      that I really don't have an opinion on this sort of
      exchange anymore.

      Jody brought up a good point (hehe, that word has
      the effect of a hot poker now!) a few posts back,
      though. A point that considered the potentially
      negative political repercussions (as we accept
      them, as we hold up a certain standard of human
      rights as a goal) of having, taking, or acting on
      'no personal opinion'.

      I don't know where this leaves or takes us.

      blank-faced, Nina

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.