[MD] is-ness

[MarshaV]

At 02:21 PM 8/21/2008, you wrote:

>Hi Marsha and SA [Ron, Bo, DMB mentioned]--
>
>
>[Marsha writes]:
>>I should have written 'Marsha detached from strong, social, static 
>>patterns of value, and withdrew into the woods to re-evaluate and 
>>live her personal philosophy.'  I might have added, 'There Marsha 
>>lived (mostly) happily ever after'.  She paints.  She loves.  She 
>>thinks about philosophical issues, and discusses them with others.
>>
>>Is this really anti-philosophy?  Why?
>
>I didn't say that reading poetry and living a romantic life is 
>"anti-philosophy".  Nor did I say that analogy and metaphor are not 
>useful in making philosophical points.  You've just demonstrated how 
>words and phrases can be taken out of context and misconstrued, 
>which is exactly why I stress the consistent use of defined terms to 
>explain a theory.

Greetings Ham,

Below is exactly what you wrote.


===========================================
Marsha writes about a lost love:
>I left job, city, friends, coven and boytoy ...
>This was very dishonest and unfair.  He was a sweetheart,
>and I cared for him, but he was way too young.

I wonder how many others here are using writing as a kind of 
autotherapy for despondency, loneliness, or anger.  A lot of New Age 
spiritualism caters to this psychological need.  I see this as 
distractive not only to the intent of the MoQ but to alternative 
views expressed in this forum.
===========================================

What I wrote was personal.  True.  You will interpret, evaluate and 
make judgements based on your own particular patterns, which has 
nothing to do with me.  So if it puffs you up, go ahead and look down 
your essential nose.

Marsha





.
.

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