Hey Marsha, ... now who's avoiding the excluded middle :-) Ian
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:58 AM, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:40 AM 9/14/2008, you wrote: >> >> 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 > > Yes, no, and all of the above... - Marsha > > > > >> 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/ > > . > . > > 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/
