[Ian]
We agree "identity" is important, (because
trust is important ?), but VERY important.
[Arlo]
I'd go one step further. I'd say that "identity"
IS "value". It is not "important", it is
"importance". If that makes sense. And, I'd say,
this "importance" derives from the value we hold
in social relationships. "Identity" only has
meaning in a social context, and this context
includes the broad cultural milieu into which
"we" emerge, as well as the micro-genetic context
of "this situation, right here and right now".
[Ian]
(Some) people are confusing identity
(patterns) with names (symbolic identifiers) IMHO.
[Arlo]
I think this is very true, and goes way back to
the start of this conversation when said that a
"name" is only what we agree to call me, nothing
more. If I propose the name "Bill" and you accept
"Bill", then "Bill" is my name. Society gives us,
for purposes of law, a "legal" name (which we can
change, of course) by which to track our
movements and hold "the ball" accountable for any
act perpetrated by a "piece of string". But that
convention has nothing to do with the emergent
nature of value-relations in social contexts. I
am "Arlo" here, and "Jim" with my biker friends,
and "Aenea" in Warcraft, and ALL are "my real
names" within those contexts. No context has,
ultimately, reality or precedence or primary-ness
over another. The "names" are negotiated, not
"real". They are "real" within those context
because they have "meaning" within those
contexts. It is the meaning, within the social
world, that gives the identity its "realness".
And I think this holds true for other
characteristics we've learned to lump onto the
"self". One such characteristic is "gender", but
I'd say it holds true for all physiological
characteristics of the body. The cliche "you are
only as old as you feel" touches on that. Of
course our physiological body ages, and of course
the maturity of the self is a function (to a
large degree) of the experiential time-span bound
this body, but ultimately who "we" are is not
determined by the age of our bones or the sex
organs of our body. This I think is an S/O view
that can only see the "self" as inherently
nothing more than a function of the body. It
confuses, to use Pirsig's analogy, the hardware
and the software as being one-in-the-same (or at
the least have a direct, deterministic relationship).
There is a statement I have hanging on my door
from a 1997 web-article out of Western Buddhist
Review. "Buddhist ethics and soteriology do
indeed require a significant integrity or
coherence of personal identity, yet that identity
or individuality of the self is seen as a dynamic
karmic continuity rather than as an essential
ontological substantiality—as an ongoing process
rather than an underlying thing." (Sponberg, 1997).
I'd like to think that captures the core of what
I am saying. From this same article
(http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/ecological_self.html),
the author goes on to say that the Buddha
rejected "the notion of an essential, enduring,
and immutable "self" (aatman or jiiva) lying at
the core of personal identity". This is all I am
really saying here as well. There is no "real
self", no "aatman", that wears masks and pretends
to be something while "really" being something else.
This article (since I am rereading it now)
mentions the Buddha's notion of "karmic
continuity" in response to his critics who argued
(interestingly, as Ron does) that without this
core "aatman", the individual could not be held
accountable in this world or karmically in the
next for his actions, "And not only was any
theory of ethical justice, of karmic reward and
retribution, at stake- without a secure basis for
karma, the whole soteric enterprise would be meaningless as well."
The Campbellian in me loves how we replicate the
dialogues of the past, how our voices sing the
same songs sung by generations past, as if we are
the first to sing those beautiful notes. But I digress. Moving on.
The Buddha rejected this and as described by the
author professed that "the integrity of personal
identity and of ethical efficacy, required not
some substantial permanence, he asserted, but
only the continuity of the karmic conditioning
itself." "What then constitutes "personal
identity," if not some essential self or aatman?
In the Buddhist view, the self is nothing more or
less than the dynamic aggregation of a bundle of
interrelated causal processes."
Way back I stressed the value of long-term social
relationships that leads us to create threads of
continuity both temporally (over time) and
spatially (across contexts). The article mentions
this as "the latent or unconscious tendencies
(biija or vaasanaa) laid down as patterns of
habituation through the performance of action
(karman), actions not just of the body, but of speech and mind as well."
So this is where I start from in my view on the
selfs. There is "no self", no aatman, only
"patterns of habituation" we reproduce as have
value to us within those contexts. Our western
world, I argue, continues to cause us to be blind
to this, to need to give the "self" or "aatman"
some primary reality apart from the patterns of
habituation our social activity reveals. There is
much more in this article, I'd encourage anyone
interested in Buddhist notions of "self" to read.
[Ian]
Try this - How do you get a "handle" on the
"value" of what someone is saying ? Discuss. (A
very common problem everywhere BTW. Chill folks.)
[Arlo]
I am chilled, Ian, if a little tired of dealing
with repeated, unfounded accusations of what I
"seem to be saying" (despite what I actually do
say), or insinuations of dishonesty, deceit and
deception, or perpetrating an multiple-identity
hoax on the list, or of saying "identity is
meaningless" (which has been from day one the
opposite of everything I've said, thanks for
reading). And I'm tired of the snide remarks and
name calling that replace offering anything of
value in return. I'm tired of saying "Arlo is not
SA or Krimel". I'm tired of saying "yes, Ron, for
the umpteenth bajillion time, I agree that social
law must hold the ball accountable" only to get
yet another "you seem to be saying anything goes"
bullshit post. And I'm miffed at bringing up the
Bradford thing on-list, being open and genuine in
discussing it off-list (even passing on Loggins'
website, for fuck's sake), only to be told that I
get "pissy" when its mentioned? What the fuck is
that? And yes I'm a little miffed at being told
that because I've only seen a person I was in
love with raped, only dealt with that and her
pain and her suffering and her recovery, only
watched in abject horror at the torment eating
away at someone I loved, that I am a cocksucker
and blowhard for having an opinion about that
very experience, and opinion rooted in the
healing process I was a part of. Yeah, Ron, you
suffered. I get it. And I'm sorry. But you're not
the only one. So grow the fuck up.
And while I am unfortunately moved to anger..
Marsha.. listen carefully... I AM NOT KRIMEL OR
SA. I HAVE NO OTHER IDENTITIES IN THIS FORUM, NOR
HAVE I EVER HAD OTHER IDENTITIES IN THIS FORUM.
NONE. ZERO. GO ASK HORSE IF YOU FIND THAT SO
FUCKING HARD TO BELIEVE. That is the last time I am going to say it. Period.
Sigh. And now where to from here? Hell, apparently.
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/
