From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V5 #280 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Wednesday, December 10 2003 Volume 05 : Number 280 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] who is this "dad" anyway...?... [Christy Thomas ] [RS] One shot deal [Roxylee ] [RS] Guitar Workshop in the Berkshire Mountains... [Kerry Bernard ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:31:58 -0800 (PST) From: Christy Thomas Subject: [RS] who is this "dad" anyway...?... i haven't had enough sleep to be terribly coherent...but...thought i'd play a little with the following from Chris - (with apologies for the snipping) > and referred to himself in the > Gospels as the "Son of Man". > Here's a suggestion: what if the "dad" in "Be a > sport Mary, and don't tell Dad" > is God, not Jesus? God is the father of us all, and > since the singer views > Mary as a mother figure ("I adore thee, Mother > Mary"), it would make sense that > she would also refer to God as "dad". maybe dad is God...unless Mother Mary is Mary Magdalene, not the Virgin Mary > "Be a sport Mary, and don't tell Dad > He need never know how he's been had > And never you mind about those Seven Seals > 'cause daddy was a one-shot deal" > > Now, let's run with Smokey and Christy's > interpretation, with the one change I > suggested. Consider: what if Jesus was human > because his father was actually > Joseph and not God? Oooh. The "Dad" who has been > "had" in this case would be > God, who mistakenly thinks that Jesus is His Son, > and divine! OR...Joseph who thinks "his" son is not his...but divine... though in my originial take on this...this was Mary Magdalene and Jesus' daughter indicating that she feels the pull to be dedicated to the divine feminine...don't tell dad, Jesus, because i am sort of rebelling (?) against "his" way... > Doesn't the > singer seem to be referring to a kind of a secret > regarding Mary, something > that "Dad" (God) doesn't know about: that Mary > really isn't a virgin after all > and Jesus really isn't divine? It's kind of like a > conspiracy in which both > the singer and Mary are in the know, and the singer > is reminding Mary of the > shared secret. This is really cool: the singer then > would be reminding Mary > that hey, she isn't as virgin-white as the Church > (and God) believe, she > actually conceived Jesus with Joseph, "cheating" on > God so to speak...so why > should the singer not be given some leeway to go out > and be the same? i like that idea...as it certainly seems that the narrator and mary share a secret...and that the narrator is feeling the pull toward either the divine feminine OR the roots of the "story" of Christianity which puts a whole new spin on the living "in the arms of a sorry old elm" ... the arms of the tree that grew from the pagan (back to a witch) roots... (perhaps a little too loose, but was the thought i had) > The balance between the > singer's stark emotional desire and her irreverence, > even cockiness, is pretty > darn cool. indeed! and maybe it is also, in spite of the irreverence...a longing for the "truth" of religion...to believe in "all" of what is "real"... > Unfortunately, I'm having some trouble working in > the second two lines. If the > Dad in the first line is God (according to my > change), then it makes sense that > it would have to be God in the last line too. So > then the singer would be > saying that God was a one-shot deal, which doesn't > make a whole lot of sense. > Well...it kind of does, but it's pretty iffy: God > could be a one-shot deal in > that he made one attempt to have a Son, he had one > chance to bring divinity > into the mortal world, but it didn't work, since > Mary conceived Jesus with > Joseph instead. There was one attempt made, it > didn't work and Mary's child > wound up being human and not divine, so hey, no need > to worry about those Seven > Seals: Jesus ain't coming back. that is an interesting take...but this part, to me, suggests even more strongly that the narrator is talking about dad/Jesus...and therefore Mother Mary is literally her mother, mary magdalene > I know, I told you it's a stretch. i think any interpretation (except by the writer) is something of a stretch...i, for one, find this a sort of exercise fun...not unlike (over-)analyzing a poem and then talking to the author of it who says, "Oh, that's interesting...but the thing just came to me..." > Whew! I hope this isn't tortuous for others here. > I really enjoy this sort of > picky analysis, especially when a coherent meaning > can be brought out of it > all, as I believe is true in this case. me, too, Chris! i have absolutely no idea what, if anything, Richard INTENDED this to mean...from his comments about the song, however, it seem "it just came to him" ...so we are attempting to find meaning (as we humans seem to do)... by the way, i like the longing for a child interpretation...the blue eggs of eternity - in no time you'd have your own sea seems to me to be talking about decendents in general...particularly those who are "in the know" about the "secret"... oh...there's more floating around in my head...but, i'd better not be late for work... thanks for the fun way to start the day, Chris... christy __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:15:51 -0500 From: Roxylee Subject: [RS] One shot deal Chris said: "Unfortunately, I'm having some trouble working in the second two lines. If the Dad in the first line is God (according to my change), then it makes sense that it would have to be God in the last line too. So then the singer would be saying that God was a one-shot deal, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. " Maybe these lines are referring to the judgements. God did a "one shot deal" with the flood, and the 7 seal judgements occur over time. That's my 2 cents. Roxy, amused at the thought of God being fooled by anything ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:22:19 -0500 From: Kerry Bernard Subject: [RS] Guitar Workshop in the Berkshire Mountains... My last off-topic post of the year, I promise... ;) From January 22 - 25, 2004 Peter Mulvey and David Goodrich will return to a beautiful 100-year old farmhouse in the Berkshire Mountains for another weekend Guitar Workshop. Topics include: * Alternate Tunings * Songwriting * Playing Real Music Together * Secrets of the Unitar * Approaching Other People's Songs There will also be time for one-on-one sessions with both instructors, and, if last year was any indication, plenty of interplay with fellow workshop attendees. Class is limited to 12 students, and registration includes all home-cooked meals and inn accomodations (couples welcome - a perfect Christmas gift, Valentine's gift, or weekend getaway!). From now until Dec 25, get $100 OFF the registration fee at: http://www.younghunter.com/pmstore.html Also, check out photos and video clips from last year's workshop at: http://www.petermulvey.com/workshop.html Kerry :) Kerry Bernard Young/Hunter Management 350 Mass Ave, #230 Arlington, MA 02474 781.643.2773 ph 781.643.0416 fax http://www.younghunter.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:01:32 -0500 From: rfoxwell@wso.williams.edu Subject: Re: [RS] who is this "dad" anyway...?... Quoting Christy Thomas : > that is an interesting take...but this part, to me, > suggests even more strongly that the narrator is > talking about dad/Jesus...and therefore Mother Mary is > literally her mother, mary magdalene Oops! I'm sorry Christy, somehow I missed where you said that the Mary from "Fleur-de-lis" is Mary Magdelen and not the Virgin Mary. I got where you said that the stanza in question concerned Jesus having a child, but I didn't pick up on the Magdelen implication. Far be it from me to impose any sort of right/wrong judgement on the analyses we do here, but...I can't see how the Mary from "Fleur-de-lis" can be Magdelen, regardless of whether or not Jesus's child enters the picture. The very title of the song refers to the Fleur-de-lis, and the Fleur-de-lis is referenced in each variation of the song's refrain. Given that the Fleur-de-lis as a symbol is explicitly and specifically tied to the Virgin Mary (as discussed here earlier), and given that the term "Mother Mary" refers to the Virgin, I don't see how there can be any question that "Mary" in the song is the Virgin. I don't think that this rules out the possiblility of subtle references to Magdelen in the song, and it definitely leaves open alternate interpretations of who "daddy" is, but the identification of Fleur-de-lis with the Virgin Mary is pretty indisputable. (Hope you weren't late for work, Christy!) Quoting Roxylee : > Maybe these lines are referring to the judgements. God did a "one > shot deal" with the flood, and the 7 seal judgements occur over time. > That's my 2 cents. Do you mean that the lines are drawing a contrast between the "one-shot deal" Flood and the over-time Seven Judgements? Could be, that's an interesting comparison. I don't see how this would have much to do with the rest of the song, though, unless I'm missing an implication or a reference (definitely possible, and even likely...). - --Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:05:13 -0800 (PST) From: Christy Thomas Subject: [RS] Fleur de Lis REPLYING IN CAPS FOR CLARITY ONLY - I'M NOT SHOUTING...I VERY, VERY RARELY, (in fact hardly ever)EVEN RAISE MY VOICE :) Quoting Roxylee : Oops! I'm sorry Christy, somehow I missed where you said that the Mary from "Fleur-de-lis" is Mary Magdelen and not the Virgin Mary. I got where you said that the stanza in question concerned Jesus having a child, but I didn't pick up on the Magdelen implication. I DON'T THINK I WAS VERY CLEAR ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST E-MAIL...IN FACT, I DON'T THINK I WAS VERY CLEAR ABOUT MUCH OF ANYTHING... BUT IN MY LOOSE INTERPRETATION OF THE SONG...IT IS MARY MAGDELEN WHO IS "MOTHER MARY" Far be it from me to impose any sort of right/wrong judgement on the analyses we do here, but...I can't see how the Mary from "Fleur-de-lis" can be Magdelen, regardless of whether or not Jesus's child enters the picture. The very title of the song refers to the Fleur-de-lis, and the Fleur-de-lis is referenced in each variation of the song's refrain. Given that the Fleur-de-lis as a symbol is explicitly and specifically tied to the Virgin Mary (as discussed here earlier), I APOLOGIZE FOR JUMPING INTO THE DISCUSSION MID-STREAM...I TYPICALLY ONLY SKIM THE DIGESTS AND MISSED THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION (AS WELL AS SMOKEY'S COMMENT THAT WAS SIMILAR TO MINE)...HOWEVER, THE FLEUR-DE-LIS HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN EXPLICITLY TIED TO THE VIRGIN MARY. IF YOU WANT TO STAY WITHIN THE REALM OF CHRISTIAN MEANINGS, THE SYMBOL IS SOMETIMES USED TO REPRESENT THE TRINITY...BUT, IT HAS BEEN AROUND A LOT LONGER THAN THAT...SEE REFERENCES BELOW...ONE OF WHICH INCLUDES A VERY ITNERESTING (AND _VERY_ OLD) "TREE OF LIFE" REFERENCE... and given that the term "Mother Mary" refers to the Virgin, I don't see how there can be any question that "Mary" in the song is the Virgin. I don't think that this rules out the possiblility of subtle references to Magdelen in the song, and it definitely leaves open alternate interpretations of who "daddy" is, but the identification of Fleur-de-lis with the Virgin Mary is pretty indisputable. AS YOU SAID EARLIER, I DON'T SEE ANY RIGHT OR WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO SONG INTERPRETATION...ONLY RS KNOWS WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WAS INTENDED BY THE BEAUTIFUL IMAGERY OF THIS SONG... ISN'T IT WONDERFUL THAT IN SPITE OF OUR DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS, WE ALL FIND MEANING OF SOME SORT HERE...AND, I AGREE WITH WHOMEVER SAID MOST INTERPRETATIONS OF SUCH THINGS SAY MORE ABOUT THE INTERPRETER THAN THE MEANING THAT WAS INTENDED BY THE AUTHOR...BUT I am A PSYCHOLOGIST, SO - OF COURSE I DO... (Hope you weren't late for work, Christy!) I WASN'T, THANKS...TRAFFIC WAS MERCIFULLY NOT TERRIBLE. i found some stuff about the meaning of the "Fleur de lis" at the following sites. http://www.heraldica.org/topics/fdl.htm and the following from http://ancientegypt.hypermart.net/treeoflife/ "The Ancient Egyptian symbol for "plant" meaning "Tree of Life" was three sacred lotus lilies. They have tree stems curving to the left as though blown into Life by the breath of Hu, the Celestial Sphinx. On top of each stem is the Lotus flower which was used in Ancient Egypt to represent Life and Resurrection. It is from this hieroglyph that the "fleur de lis" which is frequently found in Ancient Egyptian Art traces its origin. The "fleur de lis" represents the Tree of Life. The glyph which denotes the sacred knowledge associated with Hu is also formed by the three stems of the three sacred lotus lilies. The Osiris Crown can be similarly considered in these terms. Following the role model of Osiris, in 1346AD Edward the Black Prince won three feathers at Crecy which he adopted as his emblem. If the three feathers are gathered at the stems a fleur de lis is created." __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V5 #280 ***********************************