Interpretations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles



Message

starshineowned -> Interpretations (12/3/2009 7:11:57 AM)

Greetings..

Sorry I couldn't come of with a better thread name..hehe.

This is somewhat related to the constant discussions..not just of the Gor books but most everything really..as to how people intake the same information but the processing of that leads to such diverse interpretations of the meanings for them..I.E. what they walk away with and hold true.

It is also a look of mass subtleness quietly passed onto people that may have helped create this overdrive of equality of the sexes..not in the sense so much as capabilities but rather the almost disgust and rejection of it being okay for man and woman to be different, celebrate, and embrace those differences, and the subsequent actions that result.

Innocent enough. As kids most of us probably watched every year Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer, and saw nothing but good entertainment, and enjoyed the spirit and fantasies of Santa, elves and flying reindeer, and toys etc. etc.

As an adult..I've watched this show many times, and still never walked away with any other thoughts really than more obvious lessons I could point out to my own kids..Its okay to be different..Its not okay to be cruel to others because of their differences..etc. etc.

Last night however, Master and I watched this with my offspring, and of course we picked out those easy points and relayed them to him as the show aired...Until: The scene where Donner gets ready to go out and search for Rudolph in this horrid blizzard weather.

Donners wife wanted to go with him, and he turned to her and said: No!..This is mans work! Master and I looked at each other, and he said: And there it is. I understood exactly what he meant. Immediately as soon as Donner was setting out clarice came in, and her and Rudolphs mother decided to set out and search on their own. Master and I looked at one another again, and I said: And there it is with a sigh.

This show made its mass airing on t.v. starting in 1964. A time line of interest for Master and I as we continually ask ourselves and reflect back on things in history looking for that sweeping change. Its just something we do. :)


Okay so: For us..that scene interpretation was about Donner doing what (bucks/males/men) do..protect..take on the harder/harsher tasks in life that their physical capabilities are more suited for. More reasons but the jest. We saw good in his words to his mate, right and true....as it should be. Also to was that acceptance that Donner as the male stood out in the story in a definitive name but that his mate was referred to as Ruldolphs mother..to us stating that he was the lead..the starting point and responsible place to start, and she was an extension of him but never villanized the importance of both of their places though quite different.

Now I did a search on the net because I couldn't remember Donners exact words..weather he used..mans job/work/business, and wanted to be correct on that. I came across a womans blog written sometime this year close to now (Xmas time) who walked away with a completely opposite take of what Master and I did.

In her words of describing it I'll do better to just link as to not distort it: http://www.mjva.ca/thevavoice/coaches-corner/how-times-have-changed-merry-christmas/

So my interest is:

1. What (if any) is your interpretation/understanding of that scene.
2. What other mass airings of shows and times they came about can you reflect back on now and see things that may have lead to this over drive of equality and sameness in everything as we see a lot of today?

starshine





Naturallurker -> RE: Interpretations (12/3/2009 8:13:04 AM)

Hello Starshine,
firstly I have not seen the program you speak of (sound familiar?) so I am going to try and confine the bulk of  my comments to a slightly different aspect of your post, because it ties in with something I said earlier.

How you instinctively react to such a scene is often determined by so many other factors in your development. The same is true of all of us and is why some will read the Gorean books and see filth, abuse, blah blah blah while some will see a philosophy or nobility in the cultures.

All those other cultural elements that as individuals we feel comfortable with, the fact for example that the blogger you linked to witnessed dominant women in her family reacting one set way and so saw no reason not to emulate them and look with incredulity that others could react differently suggests to me that this is a woman who has accepted things are a certain way without analysing why things are that way.

Regarding your actual questions.

There is a good chance that my interpretation of the scene might be different to yours and your master, I might for example see paternalism and the masculine instinct to protect plus the maternal drive to be actively involved in the care and defence of one's offspring. My experiences as a mother colours my perception of events that involve figures representing children. I might then go on to rationalise that the scene therefore shows male and female to be different but each with strong instincts that are geared towards the successful rearing of the next generation. Of course like those who have not read the books I am guessing based on my own subjective understanding of what other people(you and the blogger) have described.

There are many many many books films events that will resonate with us (we who are human) it is a function of our brains to pick up on those things that confirm what we think we know, and be virtually blind to those things that do not concern or alarm us. This sifting process is to one extent biological/neurological and happens without conscious thought on our part. If we look for evidence of sameness we will find it everywhere, if we choose to look for evidence of difference we will see that everywhere. I believe it is up to us as individuals to ask, what are we being told by this(work of art,literature,newspaper article) what is the writers intent, does this fit with what I know of the world, do I need to know more to make an informed judgement on what I am being told.

.



starshineowned -> RE: Interpretations (12/3/2009 8:55:55 AM)

quote:

How you instinctively react to such a scene is often determined by so many other factors in your development. The same is true of all of us and is why some will read the Gorean books and see filth, abuse, blah blah blah while some will see a philosophy or nobility in the cultures.

All those other cultural elements that as individuals we feel comfortable with, the fact for example that the blogger you linked to witnessed dominant women in her family reacting one set way and so saw no reason not to emulate them and look with incredulity that others could react differently suggests to me that this is a woman who has accepted things are a certain way without analysing why things are that way.


Greetings Mistress

This is something I take note of ..Things that helped shape and develop ones thoughts or generalized acceptance of other things around them as they encounter them. Meaning while I can understand if that was the framework of a particular point in life..it is understandable to consider that normal (whatever that happens to be at the time), and never go beyond that indoctrination..however;

On the flip side of that is: my mother in my formative years was also a strong willed woman, basically leader of the family in making things happen and work, and the father figures were..well just sort of there...but yet..my own view of things is extremely counter to what I was brought up in and surrounded by. So on one hand I can see and understand what your saying but at the same time it doesn't always hold true. Maybe its the whys. Meaning why did I ( really understanding more of my personal direction needed) basically do a 360* in view of how the world should be versus what the reality of it was? Just using myself as an example because I don't know of any other people really to reference this illustration.

Okay add on because I'm thinking on this...My mother on her 3rd husband did finally take the more traditional seat, and it was my step dad that was recognized as head even by me..but by then I was already well into my own direction. Interestingly though is that my mother for the first time that I can recall really was the happiest she had ever been in this new found position. Where as her mother had been in that position all along..grandpa was the head..period, and grandma held that more submissive presence with him..yet even my own mother did exactly what I did in comparison to what shaped her world early on..a 360*

I don't expect this thread to stay focused and am hoping it doesn't because like interpretations..the directions are endless..but hope that makes sense none the less.

starshine



Naturallurker -> RE: Interpretations (12/3/2009 9:59:26 AM)

Hi Starshine,

your 360degree turn, is the application of choice, something I mentioned earlier. It is not so much that what I said does or doesn't always hold true, so much as what happens next. At some point we make a choice to accept a thing is as it appears or we make a choice not to or not to without exploring why first. I would hazard a guess that you recognised the bloggers stance, realised it was something you had at some point rejected as your own truth. Something resonates in the back of your mind and from there you make a determination as to which fork in the road you take next. You didn't just appear out of no where with the converse approach to men, at some point you made a choice based on your experiences.

If, for instance you grow up witnessing father beating mum, or mum beating up dad, up on a regular basis you will either choose to accept this is the way things are, or you will ask what makes this happen, how does what I see fit with what I have learnt from other things I have read witnessed etc. The point I keep banging on about is that there is a difference between acceptance and embracing.

What philosophy does is ask us to think, in JNs words
(..) Philosophy, from the beginning, has been something that people have cared deeply for, and we know, too, that it has something to do with knowing--not knowing in the sense of merely being cognizant of large accumulations of facts, but knowing in the sense of "making sense of," in the sense of "understanding," the sense which draws a distinction between an individual who is content to be merely learned and one who seeks, beyond this, comprehension.(...) The human being is a philosophizing animal.

The choice, you see, ultimately, is not between philosophy and something other than philosophy, but between good philosophy and bad philosophy, between inquiry, criticality and concern, and complacency, superficiality, ignorance and naivety. J.F.Lange



AnnaOfAramis -> RE: Interpretations (12/3/2009 1:32:17 PM)

quote:

Donners wife wanted to go with him, and he turned to her and said: No!..This is mans work! Master and I looked at each other, and he said: And there it is. I understood exactly what he meant. Immediately as soon as Donner was setting out clarice came in, and her and Rudolphs mother decided to set out and search on their own. Master and I looked at one another again, and I said: And there it is with a sigh.


Greetings starshine,

I'm laughing because my Master and I sat down with his little one the other day and watched this show too (we have it on dvd) and we got to that part and grinned and looked at each other too. I said, "wow, Gorean reindeer" lol.

As to the blogger's response, sigh, sigh, and sigh. This attitude is all too prevalent nowadays. We once had some people over from a non-profit organization that Master is involved with. And the way the women treated the men was... well I found it sad. I don't think they even realize how it sounds. I sat there listening to women publicly denigrating their men. And when Master at some point looked over at me and called across "anna who is the Master in this house?" and I replied "definitely you" their mouths dropped open and they were busy telling me "honey you've gotta change your outlook." Well, anyway, I'm sure they would also be the ones who "would have simply taken off her shoe and whipped it at his head, like she’s done…let’s just say more than once when he’s crossed that line" as the blogger wrote. A lot of people will never be able to wrap their head around the idea that it can be a wonderful thing to have a man in charge. /shrugs/ they think I'm missing out, and I think they're missing out.

Well wishes,
anna



kisshou -> RE: Interpretations (12/5/2009 4:22:57 PM)

Greetings,

I always think it started with MASH. Why did they have Hawkeye be so "sensitive" and it was acceptable for him to have a breakdown. The actual tough character was the blonde nurse.

Why was John Wayne whose characters were tough and would put a woman over his knee all of the sudden out of fasion and we had the kinder, gentler , in touch with their feminine side ones that were in.

well wishes
kisshou




Dinnardin -> RE: Interpretations (12/5/2009 4:50:31 PM)

I was ruminating the other day about some of the lessons which can be gleaned from listening to Christmas carols...

A child, listening to "Frosty The Snowman", will learn that, if a police officer tells you to stop, you should run away.
Is this the right message to send our youth?

Even better, and much older, is the message of the song "We Wish You a Merry Christmas"...
Consider the following verse...
"Now bring us some figgy pudding, now bring us some figgy pudding, now bring us some figgy pudding, and bring it out now"
Which is followed by
"We won't go until we get some, we won't go until we get some, we won't go until we get some, so bring it out now"

What a wonderful message we send the children in this happiest of seasons...

Food for thought...

John, AKA Dinnardin



starshineowned -> RE: Interpretations (12/5/2009 4:52:45 PM)

Greetings..

Hey I know you!

That is a good example and long running show kiss. What is funny though is that isn't what I picked up with Hawkeye. What stuck out for me with him was that he was a womanizer but also a rebel..non conformist..essentially despite what the popular view was around him ..he did the opposite...but that he had a great pride and passion for the work he did.

Margaret reminds me of a FW they speak about needing to be chained at the foot of the bed a few nights or simply one that chose the wrong counterpart, and was never able to achieve all the facets within her. Hmm..a frustrated woman? I mean come on..Frank? What a weasel...hehe.

starshine



zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Interpretations (12/5/2009 5:29:14 PM)

Greetings kisshou,

quote:

I always think it started with MASH. Why did they have Hawkeye be so "sensitive" and it was acceptable for him to have a breakdown. The actual tough character was the blonde nurse.


I agree with you about Margaret but I always thought Frank Burns was the weak one.  To me there is nothing weak about having a breakdown, it happens to the strongest of us under the right circumstances.

I wish you well,

Zeph



XaviersXian -> RE: Interpretations (12/6/2009 12:15:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnnaOfAramis

And when Master at some point looked over at me and called across "anna who is the Master in this house?" and I replied "definitely you" their mouths dropped open and they were busy telling me "honey you've gotta change your outlook."



Hello everyone,

Hi Anna,

Recently, my husband and I were in the supermarket.  He publicly announced that I'd forgotten a grocery item (as he does, with a normal tone of voice, talking to me over his shoulder) and I agreed to go and get it for him.  The woman lined up behind us came closer to me and told me that my husband was "bossy" and that I should "stand up to him" (in full earshot of my husband).  I replied that it was my fault I'd forgotten the item, and played it down as best I could, telling her that I was just extra forgetful today.  It was an embarrassing moment for me.  Not only did she make me look like a child, she made him look like an ogre.

I wish that people would realise that their way is not always another person's way; I feel that society has a lot to answer for!.

I wish you well.



allyC -> RE: Interpretations (12/6/2009 12:57:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

I agree with you about Margaret but I always thought Frank Burns was the weak one.  To me there is nothing weak about having a breakdown, it happens to the strongest of us under the right circumstances.
 I agree with you completely.  I didn't see Hawkeye as weak at all.  Sensitivity doesn't make a man weak in my eyes - a lack of integrity does.  Hawkeye even though he was full of mischief, he seemed to be a strong man to me. Frank Burns was a weenie and sometimes so was Winchester sometimes too.   Well wishes,
Cav's ally



Maahsatti -> RE: Interpretations (12/6/2009 1:26:53 AM)

quote:

so was Winchester sometimes too.


I seen Winchester not so much a weenie at times, but rather just a spoiled stuffed blue blood who hated the situation he was in, feeling he was too superior to be placed on the front lines with the grunts...so to speak. However, I watched Winchester' character change slowly within the series and grow in a positive way.


He learned to come down to earth and appreciate the truly more important things in life and that while the people around him he once seen as peasants, he came to admire and cherish.
My favorite Winchester scene was a Christmas time show and he had given the orphanage children chocolate bars....then when finding out the head of the orphanage sold it on the black market, he became enraged, ending up calling the man out harshly.

I sat and watched how much Winchester had learned that night, finding out the reason was for the kids to have real food for a month and I seen the humbled expression on his face and heard it in his tone.
Unlike Burns, Winchester, though prideful and snobbish,could and would learn and grow, admitting when he is wrong and taking accountability for his words and deeds.

Margaret was indeed a strong self sufficient woman, but I often times find myself thinking she was too FemDom a lot of the times...dunno, she is a tough nut to crack cuz other times, she was all femeninity and craved for a strong man to sweep her off her feet and take care of her.

HawkEye was definately awsome BUT the biggest womanizer...lol His character as well grew throughout the series and ate humble pie as well.

I wish all well,
Maahsatti



zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Interpretations (12/6/2009 4:37:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: allyC

quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

I agree with you about Margaret but I always thought Frank Burns was the weak one.  To me there is nothing weak about having a breakdown, it happens to the strongest of us under the right circumstances.
 I agree with you completely.  I didn't see Hawkeye as weak at all.  Sensitivity doesn't make a man weak in my eyes - a lack of integrity does.  Hawkeye even though he was full of mischief, he seemed to be a strong man to me. Frank Burns was a weenie and sometimes so was Winchester sometimes too.   Well wishes,
Cav's ally


Greetings ally

Winchester, really? I just saw him as a pompous ass. Frank, on the other hand I kept wanting to shout "oh for God's sakes have some self respect" lol. Hawkeye (and his cronies) always struck me as having principles and being strong men who made sure that the right thing was done, however a sneaky manner it had to be done.

I wish you well,

Zeph



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2012
Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.140625