Hi Charles, Panpanpan, Jenny, David, et al,
I agree with you, Charles, that a translation of a wise old saying must leave room for all the meanings, and not focus it down into just one. Therefore, I like your translation best. Pan's gives one clear explanation of the saying. That is fine if you are using it to illustrate that one situation.
As you rightly point out, good art is usually intriguing because it is a little ambiguous and leaves room for many meanings, or it contains a mystery that intrigues. I like such a nut to crack. I like to consider what various meanings there may be, and tease them out. That is one of the reasons I like Greek myths, some kinds of visual art, some poems, certain stories from the Bible that are not literal, but metaphorical, and also the Baha'i Writings. Every time I read the Writings I learn something I hadn't seen in what I had read already before and thought I understood quite well. I think this is true of the Koran, the Bhagavadgita, all this kind of revealed writing. It is always meaningful, and always reveals itself according to the growth of the person reading, or conditions. That's why it is such a poor thing to do to give such writing a final, accepted interpretation as priests often do. It stifles its creative power.
I try to make my own art pieces and poems things in which you find surprises youdidn't notice before. Some people find things in my work that I hadn't seen myself, or consciously intended, but which make sense when they show me. Also, I often later find meanings myself, that came from my sub-conscious mind and which I myself, find later. Lots of people don't understand this kind of work which is all or somewhat non-representational. So they don't like it. People like what they can make sense of, and after training, they often like things that are more difficult or ambiguous. So the situation exists in many fields including 2d art, plays, works of fiction, sayings, scripture, music, and so on.
Now, Charles, you have moved us to a different focus in our discussion. You would like to go on to discuss the morality of Jenny's story. You think that the woman should stay with her present husband who abuses her physically when he is drunk. Unless you think that the marriage with the first one who was poor, and sometimes thoughtless, still exists. I didn't understand which you meant.
Now that she is married to the second one. I certainly say she should leave such an alcoholic, angry and dangerous person.
As for going back to the first one, I wonder if he would accept her now? She has been in the bed of this Tom, and her first husband may no longer care for her. If he does, will he throw it up to her from time to time? If so, that could destroy their marriage again. So her friend's advice to move on is probably best. That is, unless she is sure that Jim would accept her fully, without ever any recriminations.
I wonder if Jenny's word "silly" is strong enough for the decisions of this womam. Anyway, it sounds as if she may have learned from her mistakes and she could do better in any future stable marriage.
Sometimes people repeat their mistakes for hidden inner reasons they don't evem know they have. I met a woman once who had repeatedly married alcoholics. She told me that the problem was hers. She knew she was not ready to marry again until she had cured her own problem. Her problem was that she was drawn to men with alcohol problems. Maybe she had a martyr complex and needed to suffer, or wished to be their saviour and remake them. Who know? But she had a psychological problem of her own that made men with such a weakness attractive to her.
Some women, and the one in Jenny's story could be one of them, are drawn to men who appear strong, yet are exploitive, angry or cruel. In movies and novels the attractive romantic heroes are often dangerous men. Think of the descriptions of the men in the love stories you have read in romances. Isn't it often some kind of a moody, hawk-faced man. Someone she can't quite understand,who is mysterious, yet seems strong. Usually he is handsome in a saturnine way. He is wounded in some way, and needy, too.
Think of Mr. Rochester in "Jane Eyre". Think of Rhett Butler in "Gone With the Wind". Wasn't he a gun-runner who went to prostitutes? Didn't he make money from the other side, by selling them guns? He was clearly a rebel, and not an honourable one. The guns he sold were responsible for all those fellow southerner who lay wounded and dying in rows in the sun down by the railway tracks, where the old doctor was completely discouraged because he could do nothing, as more and more continued to pour in.
Rhett was a powerful, handsome, intriguing, bold, man with little conscience. Of course, Scarlet wasn't much better. She could handle him. Until he changed into a better man and then he couldn't take her any more.
It is Ashley who has better qualities. But Scarlet and Ashley both were immoral, because Ashley was married to Mellie. That makes for the intrigue, of course. Otherwise he would have seemed to be a milk-sop, when portrayed in print. If Ashley had been single, and available to Scarlet, he would have been a far better husband choice. But maybe not for a she-tiger like Scarlet, who would have destroyed him. Then you would have to ask why HE wanted her.Maybe to make up for his own gentleness he wanted a tough, pragmatic, unprincipled woman to balance himself? He would not let himself ever see the truthof Scarlet. Nor would Melanie, his cousin/wife. They could not see clearly into situations or people. They both thought Scarlet was strong and brave and wonderful (which she was), but they refused to see her dark side at all. Therefore they were not realistic. They could have seen her dark side, and loved her anyway. But they didn't allow themselves to see it. Ashley didn't appreciate Melanie until she died. Then he could have had Scarlet, but only wanted Melanie. He realized her strength in their marriage, and his own weakness. Scarlet missed Melanie, too, and suddenly realized Ashley's weakness and didn't want him any more.
In the case of Jane, She certainly should escape from Tom, who was brutalizing her and be careful of trying to return to Jim. Jenny, the situation you set up was well thought out.
Anyway, that is my analysis of what I think you are talking about now, Jenny, 3Pan and Charles, and also of the content of Jenny's story. Do you agree? Or can you prove why I am wrong? Or have I missed your points altogether? Tell me and I'll try again if I have.
Friendly greetings to you all, Mary.
