At 12:58 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
[Marsha]
It seems you are using these words as if the world had adopted a MOQ
convention. The world has not!
[Arlo]
When I am speaking with an audience where I don't assume people to
"know" I am speaking as best I can using MOQ understands, then I
certainly re-prose my language to make my points using other words.
I've come to see a convention commonly used here is to "scarequote"
words when they are meant to refer to "non-MOQ" or "SOM" views.
I've never assumed more than scarequotes require extra analysis. I
never assumed they referred to non-MOQ and SOM exclusively.
So when I say, for example, that is the only "me" you will ever
know, I am highlighting that I am using the word outside the MOQ
context. When I say, that is not real to me, I am assuming the _me_
in this sentence is understood in a MOQ way.
I'm not in the mood to change my conventions to yours.
What is "me", you ask? I agree with you. A collection of
ever-changing, fluid patterns. But I go further. I say this
ever-changing, fluid ball of patterns has a plurality of "faces",
and that these "faces" are (1) contextually dependent and (2)
processes of social negotiation and NOT some fixed "thing".
Conventionally most people hold that there is an independent,
self-contained entity that is made up of, at least, mind and
body. Some might include something like a soul that would be
different than both mind and body.
I say that this collection of ever-changing interrelated patterns has
no consistency at all. From nano-second to the next nano-second
there is absolutely no consistency. Any consistency is illusion.
What is "real", you ask? I'd say, what I believe it to be at the
moment you ask the question, while knowing that this too is in flux
(sometimes greatly and sometimes not so much).
"Sometimes greatly and sometimes not so much" means nothing. There's
no consistency. Real is a moving target. Kind of like going to a
river and picking up the water with your hands. It can't be had.
We certainly seek "external corroboration" or "continuity" as
markers of "reality", but these are conventions, nothing more.
They are sought to make communication possible. Right. But then are
nominal and conceptual conventions and nothing more.
Right now, right here, the "real Marsha" for me the Marsha that
exists between us at this singular point in time. It may be
different than the "real Marsha" I knew last year, and it will
likely be different from the "real Marsha" I will know a year from
now. Maybe external things will change my vision of the "real
Marsha", maybe you'll convince me of something that will change
this, or maybe I'll just start to see you in a way "Marsha" does
not intend. The point is, I use "real" here in scare quotes,
because there is (in my MOQish opinion) no real Marsha that exists
independently of the active social process of this context, just as
for your daughter there is no real Marsha that exists independently
of her context.
There are more than one pattern interacting at any given
nano-second. No Marsha. Just an name. I do not know context to be
singular. It's all illusion, Baby, all illusion. I am comfortable
with this most of the time. I've thought it through and determined
the only concept worth holding onto is compassion. Unfortunately I
lose it all too often.
[Marsha]
Remember my understanding of the self is that it is an
ever-changing, collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic,
biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value. It
doesn't really exist as an entity. It is like a flowing river...
[Arlo]
Which is exactly my point. Asking whether "Mark" or "Juliet" is
"real" and which is "pretend" is a question missing the mark (pun
intended). The "reality" would be the identity negotiated socially
between those involved in that context. And so both are "real", but
both are also "pretend" in as much as they are both faces and not
independent realities of their own.
There is no real for me. But of course I must interact in a
conventional world and I try to do the best I can.
Negotiated socially? I think not. I'm dead meat already. All I can
do is my best. Screw people's opinion. Do you think I would
challenge you if I cared what people think. My debating skill is
close to zero. You can easily make a fool of me. But you seem to
have a head the size of a house, and you really over complicate,,,
and I don't give a shit.
[Marsha]
But, when I am having a discussion, I expect the conventional person
I'm talking with will use the best conventional truth they can
muster. In other words, if SA turned out to be a woman, I would
think she deliberately lied.
[Arlo]
See here, let me ask you this. What if SA turned out to have the
biological body of a male, but truly, truly felt she was a woman
trapped in a male body.
Than SA can explain this complicated predicament. But besides, SA is
NOT this or that. She/He is an an ever-changing, collection of
overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual, static patterns of value.
What if "Heather" is the person she truly, truly identifies with.
What if here in cyberspace she is allowed and able to interact
socially AS SHE FEELS SHE IS, without the encumberence or stigma or
burden of feeling unconnected with her biological form. Would you
still feel as if Heather lied?
Yes.
Why should she feel as if her biological body is important to you?
Indeed, what difference does it make to you?
I don't care a wit about his/her biological body. I care that if
when we communicate she/he does not deceive. There would be also
many deceptive details in the communication.
So let me ask further. What if you found out that Heather was at one
time a biological male but several years ago underwent a sex change
operation. Would you still feel lied to? If not, then I can really
only see how you are saying that the reality of Heather's gender is
based on the current biological state of her body, and NOT on the
gender she really, really feels she is.
To clarify, if she feels like a woman but has not yet had the
operation, she would be lying. But once she has the operation she
would be telling the truth. Is that correct? But throughout this
transition, the "Heather" that exists as a "self" has not changed
one bit, has it? Or does altering the body also alter the self?
I already told you this is line of thought is not interesting to
me. I don't give a shit.
[Marsha]
And I would have to wonder what other lies were constructed. Of
course, there could be extraordinary circumstances making every word
she wrote true to the letter, but, to me, it would still smell like deception.
[Arlo]
We disagree here. For me, the biological reality of her corporeal
host means nothing. The SA I know, whether male or female in body,
is the SA I care about and respect. And her/his words to me are not
impacted by the constraints of her/his bodily form. Unless, as I
said, my goal was mating. Then this would have consequential value
to me. But otherwise, I accept the "Heather" or "Nick" or "SA" as
s/her presents her/hiselft here.
Honesty is important to me.
You handle SA any way you want. Should it matter to me? Why? Are
you wanting to mate?
Marsha
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
