[MD] is-ness

[Heather Perella]

> Marsha:
> > The idea of this bread and these pancakes is so
> > wonderful..., so amazing.... 
> > It seems that it should be the most common experience
> to
> > make these recipes, 
> > but it is like a special secret.
> 
> 
> SA previously:  Acorns are everywhere around here, yes seems "it
> should be the most
> common experience", the simple beauties, the easy
> walks to the trees
> impeded and made into something secret and seemingly
> "holy grail", but
> this is what the separations over the centuries can do to
> popular
> culture.
> 
> 
> Ron:
> SA, I really enjoyed your series of posts. The theme of
> them is still resonating....

SA:  Thank you Ron.  It's nice to hear something like this every once in a while.  I've definitely enjoyed your logical arguments for the past weeks while I've read some posts from time to time, while I've lurked in and out of the forum.  It's good to hear your logic played up against those that really don't understand much outside of their logic.  With you throwing out Greek names and logical discourse backed by traditional logic, yet, in a way that shines moq-style, your able to help those that think philosophy has to have a Greek word or some kind of symbolic logic pop up somewhere in the thread.  I don't have the ability to do this.  I like it.  It's funny, but around when I first joined this forum I used to discuss with Ham quite a bit in order to understand him, yet, once I started to use my own thoughts he would say, no your wrong and so forth.  I argued with him about his nothingness and how it made no sense and at least he has finally admitted
 it doesn't, but it took him years to get that far.  Also, this whole separation in his analytics, which he has turned to now say he doesn't want his philosophy to show separation.  I for many posts when I first joined tried to explain to him how separation is a false logic (to use a concept you've mentioned), but I didn't talk Aristotle enough and he would just say I'm a poet and don't know what I'm talking about.  Well, it would seem Ham knew not what he was saying and he should have listened to the poet years ago, for you've recently convinced him that his philosophy doesn't make sense by emphasizing separation and he has begun to incline in agreement with you.  Well, anyways, you get my point.  I think much of this has to do with pigeon-holing where thoughtful positions exist and has much to do with why philosophy departments can't find students or something of interest to say that applies to everyday life.  Look at the moq, it's probably poetry to
 many philosophy departments.  Philosophy over the years has developed an ego and strangle hold on what is considered intellectual, and that not only leads into Ham, but definitely Bo.  Yet, I saw this over a year ago, and it would seem only you see the danger in Bo's hijacking of the moq, Marsha senses it, and dmb recently posted something about Bo's deliverance of confusion.  Why so many get on Platt, but not Bo is weird to say the least.  I guess in the directions on how to chat in this forum, found in the moq forum webpage, horse does mention to get somebody talking with you, you need to be controversial.  People like this biological impulsive stuff.  Sex, drugs, and controversy sells.  Did you hear the lastest about such and such celebrity... anyways.  I know I have my set-backs and its' always difficult to ramble on about how negative somebody is for an intellectual discourse on the moq, nobody likes the dirty work.  Bo's blank arguments have
 always been his style, same for Ham, actually Ham will just quit talkin' to ya when he's stumped.  I do see dmb's point about Ian.  It has taken me some time to realize this, but Ian really doesn't say much.  If everybody's happy, then Ian's happy.  He doesn't like disagreement, but hey this is a democracy and people are goina' be their own art.  And then there's me, with all this woods talk, don't I have anything else to talk about then these dang birds.


SA