Arlo,
I'm going to have to interrupt this process for a little while. I'll
be back Sunday morning.
Marsha
At 02:39 PM 9/12/2008, you wrote:
[Marsha]
The self is an ever-changing, collection of overlapping,
interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static
patterns of value. It is not a thing. It is a process.
[Arlo]
Yeah, you keep saying "process", as if that contradicts "plurality".
Yes, the "self" is a process, but a process that is dependent on
context. Illusions of continuity across time and context with regard
to these processes are just illusions. No "one" process is more
"real" than any other. What part of this do you disagree with?
Process, illusion, fiction, mask, face, avatar, call it whatever you
want. There is "no one real Arlo" that sits behind them, they are
the only "reality" there is.
[Marsha]
Who is to say what is irrelevant?
[Arlo]
I am. You are. We each decide what is relevant in our activities. If
the shape of my body is relevant to you, so be it. But I say to try
to point to a "real Arlo" by pointing to a physical form is to not
point to "me" at all. I've asked you why this stuff is important to
you, and you've not answered.
I've said repeatedly, the form of your body has no relevance to me
as to whether "Marsha" is a woman. "Marsha" is, for me, a woman
regardless of the shape of the body she inhabits. That is, I suppose
our core disagreement here, you would feel "deceived" to learn my
body is shaped like a woman's if you thought "Arlo" was a man.
My question to you, over and over, has been "why?" Why does this
have value to you? Why could "Arlo" just be who "Arlo" is regardless
of his physical form? And you can substitute in any "thing I should
be honest about" in here to replace gender. Why could "Arlo" just be
who "Arlo" is here regardless of whether my body's legal documention
says my name is "Harvey" or "Jane"?
[Marsha]
Now you're being silly.
[Arlo]
Am I? Prove to everyone you are not a variation of me. Prove them in
a way that I could not deceive them with actors and reroutes and
allusions to other "variations" (such as Horse). But they buy the
illusion because it has value for them. As it should be.
[Marsha]
Right. You and Zeus are going to tell me what is a
mistake. There's not a bunny's butt chance that's going to happen.
[Arlo]
Yeah, much better you tell "Arlo" what color he is by looking at his
physiological body. There's not a bunny's butt chance that's going
to happen. The color of my skin has nothing whatsoever to do with
color of my self. And for you to say otherwise if quite arrogant, isn't it?
You see, if you told me that "Marsha is green", then that is what
Marsha would be. If I later found out the color of your
physiological host is purple, it wouldn't matter one whit to me.
"Marsha" would still be green.
Again, that's where we differ I suppose. I don't rely on physical
devices to pigeon-hole identities onto people. I rely on what they
say, what they tell me they are, who they present themselves to me as.
[Marsha]
An "average" person is a good-hearted, hard-working average citizen.
[Arlo]
Really? So when you said, "I don't know how many average people
would actually agree with what you described", what you MEANT was "I
don't know how many good-hearted, hard-working citizens would
actually agree with what you described".
Tell me, would they disagree because they are good-hearted or hard-working?
[Marsha]
I do not recognized your interpretation of my opening comment.
[Arlo]
Really? You see no disagreement between these two statements of yours?
(1) "Either way 'continuity across time' and 'continuity across
context' is illusion."
(2) To me a self is not one and not many
Now if (2) actually said, "I place great value on the illusions of
continuity across time and context", we may be in some agreement.
And I could see why you'd want to move away from considering selves
as a multiplicity, it threatens this illusion.
[Marsha]
Or maybe you mistake quantity of words for quality of thought.
[Arlo]
Maybe. Or maybe you mistake anti-intellectualism for wisdom. We
could go around like this for eternity, Marsha. Wouldn't it be
better for you to try to articulate an argument than pull plays from
Platt's Playbook?
[Marsha]
Huh! Want to untangle this paragraph? What exactly do you deny?
[Arlo]
Sure.
"Well this is my point. These things are not "real", just social
conventions. There is no "self" that exists across contexts. But we
structure our activity that way for social reasons. Culture sees
"body, mind and soul" as fixed, connected and continuous over time
and place...."
Culture tells us that "we" are "one body, one mind, one soul"
united. We have come to this view because we have learned to value
the rewards continuity brings.
"Seen this way, there is one real "Arlo", who's "honest" reality is
bound to his physiological form, and who may "pretend" to be other
people but is really the same old Arlo...."
Using the predominant glasses of this culture, we "see" that there
is "one Arlo", who is bound to his body, who is a "real self" behind
all the masks he may pretend to wear.
"I deny this view, and indeed I find it horribly problematic when
you really examine it."
This whole thread was examining questions that challenge this view.
But since you dismiss every question as one you don't care about, I
guess its impossible to argue with an ostrich. I think if you really
took the time to answer the questions I've asked, you'd see that
this view is grossly problematic.
So I restate. Consider this view as it would make us "see" Mark.
Culture would tell us there is "one person here", his name is Mark,
and he is a boy. Period. End of story. "Julia" is simply a "mask
Mark wears", a "pretend avatar" the real Mark uses to cope with
psychological problems.
I say, no. These glasses are no longer good. They no longer serve
us. The "real person" here is Julia. And she is a girl. A girl that
was given the name "Mark" by a culture that ties gender to bodily form.
Can you see the difference? Which do you agree with? If neither,
then what do your glasses see, Marsha?
I also say, if "Julia" has other selves in other contexts, maybe she
continues to be "Mark" in some contexts, then BOTH of these people
are equally real. Neither is more real, or less real, than the
other. Julia is still a girl, and Mark is still a boy, the gender of
these selves is NOT based on the body, but on the
social-presentation in the moment.
[Marsha]
I cling to many illusions. They keep me floating and out of a
sanitarium. Doesn't mean I believe them.
[Arlo]
Why anyone would cling to things they do not believe is beyond me.
But if you say this is how it is for you, I guess that's how it is.
[Marsha]
But I still, in conventional conversation, expect honesty.
[Arlo]
What you expect is for others to conform their behavior to your
illusions. If your illusion makes me a man because my body has male
parts, then I better act like a man and not a woman, isn't that
right? Or at the very least tell you "I'm really a man who is just
acting like a woman". That would be your definition of "honesty", no?
[Marsha]
And if I don't get it, I might think you are lacking arete.
[Arlo]
You wouldn't be the only one.
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.........
.
.
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/
