ona li kipisi e pan suwi la, ona li jo ala e pan e suwi.

These are the words as recovered from the awoken well:

jan Musepu li tawa jan Sipi lon tenpo pimeja.
ona li toki e ni: sitelen mun sina li seme?
jan Sipi li toki e ni: ala.
jan Musepu li pana lukin e mun lon sewi tawa jan Sipi.
ona li toki e ni:

jan ale li open e lon lon sitelen mun.

jan Sipi li toki e ni:

tan ni la, mi toki e ni: ale.

Here follows a relaxed translation:

Musepu visits Tipi in the night. She asks Tipi: “What star sign are you?” Tipi answers: “None.” Musepu points to the sky. “Everyone is born under a star sign.” Tipi thinks about it. Then he says: “Then, all of them.”

Associative musings:

The tendency for pigeonholing people into categories is as old as the tendency to reject any form of labelling. The observation you can exhibit both tendencies indicates that defining proper typologies is precarious. The truthfulness of a typology is often questioned while it is more beneficial to inspect their usefullness. Or even more specific since nothing has an inherit use or should for any matter, we can measure the alignment between their intended use and their ability.

This is helped if, first of all, the typology is complete. Since pigeonholing is a form of dimension reduction, we require every possible higher dimension phenomenon to fit in one of the lower dimensional holes. If you can’t prove this then you should probably at least add an extra ‘other’ category to be sure. A second consideration is on how volatile the reduction scheme is. If the category or label you fall in changes depending on the time of day, mood, or any other rapidly changing circumstance, you are probably not dealing with a typology but with a state. Your type my change, because you are not who you were a second ago, but it should only drift relatively slowly. If the type changes depending on who does the reductioning, you are dealing with either an ill-defined or first perspective model that is only useful for that person alone and you should not be sharing it as an objective third person typology.

The most important fallacy to be aware of is that since we are complex conglomerates of perspectives, there will practically be very little cases where one person fits one category and it could better be seen as a swarm of pigeons itself that nest in a large case where each category consists of multiple pigeon holes.

Read a newer koan (A key is more interesting when you do not know what it opens.)

Read an older koan (You have to earn simplicity.)