re: Pallavi's question/Bruce
- Bruce wrote:
Sandeep is also very canny
-- he's presenting this as
a guilt trip to ellicit
sympathy from materially
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
Oh Bruce....does there always have
to be an agenda behind everything?
I know and love Sandeepji far
to long and too well to see
it any other way, Freyja.>>
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.
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?
Sure. Do you know anyone who
harbors a belief that children
should be starved, maimed,
exploited, or otherwise
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.
What could be so bad?
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
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.
Everything in life has an opposite.
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
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'
Thank you for the rational discussion,