The Prophet Wears a Dress

[gruntal]

Attending my latest " group therapy " session after a hiatus of three summer months I was chagrined the turnout was nothing short of pathetic. I was told some will sign up only to realize they were not yet ready. Maybe next time - or another life time. All the more for me! I am grabbing it up for now!

But another aspect seems more perennial. I am often one of the few participants there that is a boy; this time I was surrounded by all females!

If I was going to create that perfect reality - which I would not because I'd rather sit down with a machine and have some mechanical fun - but if I did I would try very hard to create a society with a balance of power. The girls would instigate the spiritual stuff and the boys would do the power trips and defense. The two would compliment each other. Even as intuitiveness would be allowed to flourish in the feminine mode while relinquishing the "dirty work" to the masculine.

Alas throughout civilized history males did both governing and religious stuff. The relationship between the church and the monarchy was too cozy! I thought G*d reached out to mankind and not the other way around. So if the girls were better at listening to the voice of G*d what could be wrong with that?

As it is now anything spiritual coming from a woman seems sissified. And you wonder why religion brought on wars and persecution when the men were running it. Oh I don't believe for a fraction of a second we would be better off if all the world's leaders were women. Nor do I believe men are inherently unable to be anything beyond boorish uncouth beings.

I do believe some things just don't respond to force and intimidation and the girls seem to be naturals at being sensitive. Indeed at some level I question why the men - including me now writing this - seem unable to preach without indulging in the egotistical power trips men are good at. We already practically rule the world. Am I to believe the women can't even be trusted to be the spiritual advisers ?

[donq]

Hi Gruntal,

Hmm…it’s about a glamour?

I’ve just read this somewhere (by Dr. Robert Beard):

Glamour is a good word for conveying the enchanting quality of truly beautiful women, "Marigold is a woman as wears glamour nonchalantly, as though she were completely unaware of it." While this word is NOT used to describe men, it can be used to depict things other than women: "The glamour of Hollywood (otherwise known as Tinseltown) is of a kind that attracts the purely superficial from around the world."
Word History: You have probably long noticed that truly glamorous women always speak grammatically. Today's word explains why that is: glamour is the result of the Scots' mispronouncing the word grammar! Believe it or not, glamorous women were originally "grammarous", at least they were in Scotland. In the Middle Ages grammar came to be the name of a witch's manual for casting spells, eventually called a gramery, which held spelling rules of a different sort. Later on, the Scots changed the pronunciation to glomery and soon were using it to refer to the magic spell itself. Since things of beauty are enchanting and spellbinding, it is no surprise that the meaning slipped over to that kind of beauty. Finally, the most Scottish Scot of all, Sir Walter Scott, spelling this word simply as glamour, brought it down from the Highlands in novels so compelling the rest of the English-speaking world had to accept it. Glamorous women and places today cast spells on us only figuratively.

And I “came across” another good word, serendipity:

It is not serendipitous that the cookbook you ordered arrives the day of the big dinner to which you invited your boss. This is just good luck. However, if you spoil the sauce for your cutlets and your boss's wife turns out to be a gourmet chef at a French restaurant who would just love to help out, you are then dipping into the serendipity. "What serendipity! I was looking for my car keys and stumbled across a pair of glasses I lost last year."

[markings]

I question the female/male assumptions made by gruntal. Whatever is in the fore is imo just a matter of social habit, running on autopilot. There is no reason whatsoever why men can be as sensitive as women, and I have noticed that woman can be just as brutish as men.

We see what we expect to see and want to see, and that is why gruntal sees sissified spirituality from woman. We need confirmation of what we belief in and we chose to see the things which confirm this.

Through social upbringing men and woman relate differently to all things. That will be reflected in everything and everything affects that in reverse. We can see that woman in positions where they achieve power directly or indirectly can be as bad as men.

[donq]

Hi Markings,

There was a quote from (old) romantic novel in my country, almost 80 years ago:

I’ll die without anyone who loves me.
But I’m glad that I still have someone to love.

The point is it’s said by a female protagonist but the author of this novel was a man.
So it really made everything more complicated. 

[gruntal]

I am not allowed to reveal the advanced teachings but I do have a silly harmless allegory.

There was some dispute in the past as to who could play the most authentic jazz. The idea was it a BLACK music. People like Duke Ellington were the true innovators while the nice jewish kids like Benny Goodman just copied and cleaned it up and made jazz presentable to the white masses. Of course as time went on everyone innovated so that didn't matter.

But undisputedly , at least in the beginning, you had to think and experience like a Black person to do it right. You did not need to actually BE Black to appreciate this: one of the most beloved jazz critics in the colonies was an White Englishman Leonard Feather! Buy yes there was a difference in the music and suspiciously it oft came out some what "filtered" when the white musicians did it!

[markings]

Sept 27, 2014 20:46:35 GMT gruntal said:

I am not allowed to reveal the advanced teachings but I do have a silly harmless allegory.

There was some dispute in the past as to who could play the most authentic jazz. The idea was it a BLACK music. People like Duke Ellington were the true innovators while the nice jewish kids like Benny Goodman just copied and cleaned it up and made jazz presentable to the white masses. Of course as time went on everyone innovated so that didn't matter.

But undisputedly , at least in the beginning, you had to think and experience like a Black person to do it right. You did not need to actually BE Black to appreciate this: one of the most beloved jazz critics in the colonies was an White Englishman Leonard Feather! Buy yes there was a difference in the music and suspiciously it oft came out some what "filtered" when the white musicians did it!

(sarcasm on) I always love this 'not allowed' thing (sarcasm off)
Not allowed by whom, and why?
To protect us? You mean we are incapable of understanding whatever mysteries this rule claims to preserve? Thank you for your low confidence in us.
Or is it to protect, let's call it the teaching, from being examined properly and rationally? Thank your teacher for the low confidence he has in it.

Your allegory falls down falls down on the word 'right'. You make black jazz superior to any other kind of jazz. Maybe black jazz was first, it may be a historical fact. That doesn't make it the only authentic or 'right' jazz.
The most inauthentic thing for a white man would be to try to play like a black man by trying to feel like black man. Naturally the music will sound different and there may be a preference for one or the other. So what? Take what speaks and resonates with you.

[donq]

Hi Markings,

Hmmm....so, Elvis really got that dancing style from Forrest Gump?



But what we hear
is not measured on a hearing test.
Beethoven heard things in his mind
that his ears could no longer hear,
and many animals can hear sounds,
that human ear cannot,
and all we ever need to hear
is that there is nothing else we need to do,
except hear the beauty of what is.

(from Hypnotherapy Scripts by Ronald A. Havens, Catherine Walters)

History tells that:
Although Beethoven attended the premiere of his 9th Symphony - on May 7, 1824 – he heard not a note. Sitting on a stage for the first time in twelve years - with his back to the audience - his gaze was on the orchestra, choir and soloists.
As he was beating time to the conductor’s movements, and did not know how the people responded to his Ninth Symphony. Taking his arm, the alto soloist (Caroline Unger) turned him round to face the crowd.
Although he could not hear their roaring approval, Beethoven saw their clapping hands and smiling faces. Bowing deeply to the premiere's concert-goers, he began to cry.

P.S. When I knew for sure (I mean, not only false alarm or my paranoia) that my wife cheated on me, the only thing I should do was getting divorce. But I chose another way; I tried to “reason” with her. I didn’t ask why but what she was going to do next. She said she didn’t know as her new boyfriend could not accept her anymore after he knew that she was my wife. So, I didn’t know what to say except asking her if she wanted to start all over again with me. She said yes. After that, she even told me that she wanted to have our baby (I had no kids before), so we went to consult a doctor about this (my health was not so good) and doctor said no problem. A few months after that she cheated on me again, with another man!?!
What I’m trying to say is there’s something more than mere words. Always. Sometimes, it’s not about words we heard/read but our interpretation of those words, too.
Even I had lived with my wife for more than 12 years, my interpretation when I heard what she said was still wrong. I might project something I wanted to hear onto it. Or she might be a very good liar (for more than 12 years?). And whenever I tried to figure this out, it almost drove me crazy. If she didn’t want to live with me any more, why she said that? Why didn’t just she she wanted a divorce? She was afraid that I might hurt (or even killed) here? etc. etc.
Well, maybe I should try to imitate Beethoven?