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

re: Pallavi's question/Bruce

Expand Messages
  • freyjartist@aol.com
    ... Bruce responds: I know and love Sandeepji far to long and too well to see it any other way, Freyja. Freyja responds: Alright, fine, we get that out of
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 2, 2004
      Bruce wrote:    

      Sandeep is also very canny
      -- he's presenting this as
      a guilt trip to ellicit
      sympathy from materially
      comfortable middle-class
      folks who, by dint of
      cultural and/or hormonal
      conditioning, are attracted
      to little children.  There
      is a big difference between
      sentiment and true compassion,
      which isn't in the least bit
      sentimental and is never the
      result of deft emotional

      Freyja wrote:
      Oh Bruce....does there always have
      to be an agenda behind everything?

      Bruce responds:
      I know and love Sandeepji far
      to long and too well to see
      it any other way, Freyja.>>

      Freyja responds:
      Alright, fine, we get that out of the way.

      Then, I disagree with your
      judgment that he is necessarily
      presenting this as a guilt trip,
      as you say above.  It does not matter
      to me what "his" motive is, only
      how I react.  It also does not matter if
      he is getting a laugh or not, wants
      to see people dance or not.

      The only thing I see, from the piece alone, is that
      this piece is geared to viewers
      that are more familiar with the
      first type of children shown.

      Freyja wrote:
      Cannot any kind of 'world in opposites'
      situation simply be taken as another
      opportunity to see what arises, to
      question our own deeply embedded, deeply
      invested in beliefs?

      Bruce writes:
      Sure.  Do you know anyone who
      harbors a belief that children
      should be starved, maimed,
      exploited, or otherwise

      Freyja responds:
      Sure, probably due to
      conditioning which they
      are unconscious to.

      If guilt arises, it does.
      Look into that.

      By all means!

      If the impulse to curse Dubya Bush
      arises, look into that.

      Ah, an impulse that I'm quite
      familiar with myself!

      If the impulse arises to look at
      what one is doing in their own life,
      look into that.


      Freyja wrote:

      What could be so bad?

      Bruce writes:
      Nothing is bad, but presenting
      the carefully crafted work of
      an obviously savvy young
      adolescent as arising from a
      "perplexed" mindset is quite
      clearly manipulative and

      Freyja responds:

      It could be manipulative and artificial depending on who
      is looking at it.  Did you
      feel manipulated?  I did not.
      I did not imagine from the slide
      show alone, that the 12 year old
      girl was perplexed or bewildered.
      That is what Sandeep responded
      to Nina.  It said nothing about
      that in the slide show.  I put very
      little relevance on what was said
      about 'who' put this slide
      show together.  My reactions came
      from the pictures and the words only.

      Just because I hear that supposedly
      some 12 year old
      girl is perplexed at the state of the
      world doesn't have to affect how I
      respond to this presentation.
      I have had enough experience with
      advertising to override this.

      So, not everyone reacts the same.

      Freyja wrote:

      Everything in life has an opposite.

      Bruce responds:
      My point exactly, that is the
      nature of incarnate existence!
      Some children prosper and
      play, others sicken and die. 
      These are opposites that have
      been with us since long before
      Abraham, opposites that anyone
      with a modicum of perceptual
      clarity is quite well aware of. 
      Wine, old, bottle, novel but
      contrived.            :-)>>

      Freyja writes:

      And that, Bruce, is all I saw
      when I watched it:

      Some children's lives are more focused
      on just staying alive than other children.

      And that I am more familiar with
      those that do not have to focus
      on just staying alive.

      I am questioning all
      the other focus/comments on
      the'intent'as perhaps having more to do
      with those commenting on the intent
      than the one who supposedly 'has'
      the intent.

      Thank you for the rational discussion,


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