hello peeps, I am BAAACK (was Re: [tuning] IT'S ALL TOO MUCH! [reality and tuning])

In a message dated 2000/06/21 02:21:54 AM, Joseph Pehrson wrote:

>I would say you should try to read even the messages you consider
>"opaque." You will be surprised at what you will find. Eventually some
>of it... terms, etc. will seep in almost by osmosis! Then, parts of it
>will fall into place.
>
hear hear

>In fact, I believe that is part of the "seduction" of this list --
>things start coming together for people and there is a great personal
>satisfaction when that happens!
>
yepyep ::seduced back to this damn list & with some insistent nudgings
from John Chalmers::

>Certainly do not unsubscribe. There are many helpful people here who
>will come to the fore to assist... I see they already have.
>
yepyep, I unsubscribed awhile ago for reasons best not discussed amongst
near total strangers. . .

>Paul Erlich is certainly right about my own case. Although I know it
>has seemed like years to some, I actually have been on this list for
>little more than 6 months!! It's amazing the amount I have learned in
>that period of time... some of it TOTALLY transforming my music! You
>will regret leaving!
>
okay okay I regret I regret

>And Paul Erlich wrote in TD 683:
>
>> Judith, I'm glad you spoke up, I too am a musician and I believe
>> music should be the true focus of this list, and have offered more
>> than once to take the math-oriented discussions onto a separate list
>> to avoid scaring away musicians who are less math oriented.
>
>Oh... this is a terrible idea. Just horrible. Awful. And did I
>mention that it really is a bad idea??
>
>I would hate that. Part of the "fun" is reading through articles I
>can't understand... NB ADAM BUSHELL... sometimes I FINALLY DO understand
>them!! The stuff "seeps in" eventually... or some of it does.
>
>If I understand everything on the list and know totally what's going
>on... what's the point in reading it??
>
>I admit there should be a RANGE of articles... but I think many of us
>have been presenting those of late.
>
>And if people think the HEXANYS are just arcane math, get ye to
>Anaphoria and waft the airwaves there! These patterns are beautiful,
>visually and in sound. There is nothing "arcane" about any of this from
>an artistic standpoint, and one doesn't have to understand all the
>arithmetic behind it in order to enjoy the beauties!
>
>> So even if the math-oriented material were on a separate list, we'd
>> probably come back to this list often to report our findings,
>
>Did I ever say that this would be a terrible idea???
>
>______________ _____ ___ __ _
>

I agree with everything Joseph Pehrson has written in the above quote.

Thanks.

zHANg