Yes I think it it does Marsha, ... and maybe it illustrates that a period in this "fictitious self" was and is beneficial ... to the more immediate breathing self ? Ian
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:52 AM, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Greetings, > > Hmmmm. How to make the point. > > I have, for the past 30-hours-plus, been walking the 'fictitious-self' talk. > All associated analogy and opinion regarding this discussion have long ago > moved out to sea and lost relevance. We may now breathe fresh air. Being > is again filled with joy at rediscovering this simple truth: arising, > falling, arising, falling, arising, falling, ... > > Does this explain? > > Marsha > > > > > > > At 02:54 PM 9/12/2008, eye wrote: > >> 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/ > > . > . > > 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/ > 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/
