[MD] is-ness

[Heather Perella]

     Now that I've thought about it for a moment, I guess what I wrote lead into a lingering question for us.  Is it negative to disagree, argue against, and outrightly say somebody's got it confused or mixed up on a certain point?  Is that negative?  I would say no, but it seems to turn some people off.  Surely right and wrong are not as good - as good, for right and wrong are not what I'm inquiring into, it the act of disagreeing, not the underlying wrong-right issues, but disagreeing itself.  I'm talking about, for instance Ian comes to mind on this one, Ian thinks he or we all should, hold out until dialogue finally has us understand each other and disagreement exists only because we haven't dialogued long enough, but I find this to be uncreative.  Ian, it would help if you explained yourself further on this, and I'm not trying to pin-point you out only, you just happened to pop into my mind for you explicitly bring this up as a core issue - the
 middle way and all.  But my question is does anybody find it offending, wrong, or even an arousal of anger to have somebody disagree with you?  Is disagreeing negative?  I know some people will quickly stop talking with you on this forum if you disagree with them, which nothing wrong with that, but why do they disagree with you or is it only about getting your point of view across - forget about everybody else?  


woods,
SA 


--- On Mon, 8/18/08, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] is-ness
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Monday, August 18, 2008, 7:02 AM
> > 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 
> 
> 
>       
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/