On Jun 29, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > Marsha processes all kinds of patterns. She processes millions of patterns > in a single day, some intellectual, some not. I am not an intellectual; I > am not a single definition of anything. I'm not even a grandmother. Can you > even consider what it is not to attach to such superficial > self-identification. I'm this. I'm that. What utter ridiculousness! > > [Arlo] > This is quite a tangent from my point, but... > > If you are not attached to "superficial self-identification", why do you sign > all your posts "Marsha"?
Convention. > > I'd never say you are "one thing" and forever trapped in that definition. > Even as a "son" or "father", that role changes over the course of a lifetime. > But to claim that you are totally free from being "this" or "that" is utter > ridiculousness. When you daughter calls you, do you tell her "I don't have a > daughter, and I am not a mother"? I may mother (verb), but I'm not a mother. > What would the point of that be? I am not sure if your mother is still with > you, but if she is or when she was, did you tell her "you are not my mother > because I am not a daughter"? I may receive mothering or behave as a daughter, but I am neither mother nor daughter, and I realized if I use those labels they are used by convention in a temporary situation. > Do you tell your grandchildren you are not their grandmother because you are > not this and not that? If they are not your grandchildren, why do you treat > them differently than any other child that age you come across? I don't have such conversations with my grandchildren, and I tend to like all little children. I hope the one I am interacting with gets my attention. Of your daughter was living in my home, I would hope I act towards her in a loving way. > When you sign all your posts "Marsha", there is a stable pattern of > identification, a desire to thread consistency through your posts, that is > the pointer "Marsha". Any consistency is imagined. And I bet if you went through all my posts you would find mostly inconsistency. > You are not an intellectual because you've been assigned that label, you are > an intellectual because you enjoy the activity of philosophy, of thinking > about metaphysical issues, of playing with patterns of thinking. I do enjoy such mental activity, but I am not an intellectual. > It is not more derogatory a label than "mother", which you affirm every time > you nurture and console and teach and support and raise and advise and love > and provide for your child. "Grandmother" is not an artificial trap of some > kind, it is a testament to your activity. These are short-lived activities. I am not attached to them as a label. I am not this and not that. Scratching my nose is an activity. Walking. Reading. Painting. Cooking. Peeing. The list is endless. Which are important enough to categorize me? Well I don't want that kind of importance. I am as much non-intellectual as an intellectual, more even. Do you remember the last scene in LILA? I am swirling with the delight of not being anything. - Well, at least working towards it as best I can. Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
