Classroom Talk
Fall 2001 Archive
Re: A "Hummmm" to the wise . . . Posted by lou on November 21, 2001 at 17:49:38:
In Reply to: A "Hummmm" to the wise . . . posted by John on November 20, 2001 at 17:21:58:
John:
Yes Coach this was assuredly a sound a sleep move I made there by
missing, actually forgetting about Bruce’s ending. “Sally, take a chill
pill---all you need is Love!” I agree I had forgotten that closing,
where I had been responding to that one paragraph only, and closed
before going back and rereading that post of Bruce’s. And you know in
looking back on it I remember feeling a strange sense that I was
telling a lie (stating an untruth) there. Thanks for bringing my
attention to it. I sincerely see how this could sting Sally, which was
not at all or in anyway my intention to over look. Actually here right
now I’m vaguely remembering my having intended to point this obvious
stinger out. But as you have rightly perceived I allowed my overly
enthusiastic enter action with the newcomer to interfere with my aware
objectivity through time my constraints. In looking back now the time
constraints themselves could have been a sign to me to pause and wait
before posting, as has now been the case with this post. And with a
hint of rationalization and justifying here now I presume –I do recall
thinking that Bruce might not have caught on to your Mondays off yet.
{Oh my, this makes me consider another part of the “Wheel Work” I’m not
accustom to fitting myself into. Ouch!
But on a different point Coach are you sure your not bringing a bit of
unresolved personal issues into this “spontaneous new here-and-now
dynamic (play) that emerges before our very eyes in this class”, as you
have put it. Your putting it “just” that way is the “first” thing that
brings this question up in me. Can the o’l’ mindful-warrior have yet a
speck of baggage? Of course he can. But we’ve been here on this point
before and I honestly don’t expect a different response. Heh heh.
For the record, I am extremely happy being mated with my darling Wanda.
I say this for those that will inevitably try to read between the lines
of what I am about to say.
As to my contrition it was for the misspoken thus confused
understanding I left. And the blush was simply a touch of embarrassment
with Deirdre’s kind and gracious complement. Actually I never felt any
of this negative stuff you are expressing here in any part of Deirdre’s
post, really quite the opposite. I felt through her entire post the
feeling of gently caring, even kind teasing, that she knew what I had
meant but ask for clarification to be certain, and even this probably
more for others than herself. You seem to be stirring up a hornet’s
nest that neither Deirdre felt nor I intended. Though I do believe I
understand what I perceive to be you’re “dire” need to express this
sentiment.
>They don't want to be thought of as "women," either… Oh my John
Please, certainly not in any type of chauvinistic way. But most of the
women I know, (And you’ll just need to take my word for it I know some
very intelligent, sophisticated, professional, high caliber female
human beings.) wish to be treated like a woman not a man. Enough said I
could really go off on this one. But sufficient to say thank Goodness
for the beautiful differences inside and out. And to disregard
this “fact” would be anything but mindful as a practice or a training
IMO.
>I don't know if we will ever wipe this frailty out, or if we ought
to”< …thank you I pray not. We have enough mechanicalness with out
messing with femininity. But as I have stated I do believe I understand
your sentiment Coach. I just feel you’re taking it over board. In
trying to be fair, have gone way off balance. Which in my wishing to be
humble opinion has caused it’s own set of troubling complexities in
these regards in the world as a whole.
Sincerely
lou
P.S. I had no idea there was any thing wrong with the
expression “gals”? Just call me naive if it fits.
Continue with Fall 2001 Classroom Talk or
Post a new discussion in the current Classroom Talk
Archived 01/08/2002