[MD] is-ness

[MarshaV]

SA,

To be honest, if I get upset with anyone it would be myself.  I worry 
I don't make my point fully or coherently enough.  Thinking I sound 
like a fool, unless I'm in the mood to be the fool, that can deflate 
me.  Sometimes I want to tell all of you what a woman knows that you 
do not because men are too dumb.  The next minute I'm upset because I 
think I must sound like a woman.

Being challenged is good for me and my ideas.

Mostly I love the MOQ and like the challenge.

Marsha









At 04:15 PM 8/18/2008, you wrote:
>      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/
>
>
>
>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/

.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.