Shezbeth wrote:Way to miss the point Pris...
... as usual....
So! For those who's undergarments aren't in a bunch, I'll continue. OBVIOUSLY, 'living flesh' is both a metaphorical reference, as well as a characteristic of 'artistically depicted' zombies.
The 'living flesh' in actuality (as in, with respect to the actual underlying MESSAGE) can be of any variety. Perhaps the 'flesh' is a resource; to a burglar, the 'flesh' is the property of another. Perhaps the flesh is an opportunity; to an apathetic/less-functional professional, the 'flesh' is the prevention of promotion or advancement of a qualified, suitable candidate. Even further, perhaps the flesh is literal; to a wild animal, my - or anyone's for that matter - flesh is dinner.
The world is rife with individuals, entities, organizations, etc. that are want to prey on others. A Zonbi Nin recognizes that the only thing that prevents them from engaging in the same sort of preying on is choice. And yes, that choice is STILL a dispositional motivator even to the Zonbi Nin. As I said, a Zonbi Nin recognizes that everything (biological) is a zombie, no exceptions.
Having said, a zonbi nin does NOT 'feed on' others, except those who attempt to feed on them. The phrase "Don't start none (trouble), won't BE none" is an apt summary.
But you still haven't clarified something that I think is pretty important here.
If I am to take your meaning from the posts above, anyone and everyone is a zombie at least *potentially*. So how can you, or anyone, be sure they're not behaving as a zombie as opposed to behaving as a non-zombie?
You spoke earlier about there being a constant state of dying and renewal at the cellular level. Does this mean that everyone is teetering on the edge between zombie and non-zombie?
What qualifies you as a determiner of zombie over non-zombie when you clearly can't (as of yet) provide an argument that shows that what a non-zombie may think is an ability to recognize that everything biological is a zombie, no exceptions, is not limited to the non-zombie.
What's propping this up besides saw dust?
And, dare I ask, how is this new from any other hundred dime store philosophers/prophets/new age gurus/self help mentors except that in this case, the non-zombie in question gets to be fed?
The image I have in my mind is that the difference between a non-zombie and a zombie in this point of view is a zombie has to go looking for sustenence, whereas a non-zombie is merely another term for a zombie who trains (attempts to train) zombies to bring sustenance to him.
This is basicly justification of using people for one's own needs. There's nothing new in that. Am I reading this incorrectly?
(Because if I am, it's the zombie calling the zombie black...in 20 different threads.)
)
