Hello everyone On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> >>>>> Seems to me of the debate the lately is predicated on there being a >>>>> "Cartesian Me' to choose or have freedom. What does it mean for a >>>>> 'useful illusion' to possess such control over its experience? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "This Cartesian 'Me,' this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind >>>>> our eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the >>>>> affairs of the world, is just completely ridiculous. This self-appointed >>>>> little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the >>>>> moment one examines it. This Cartesian 'Me' is a software reality, not a >>>>> hardware reality. This body on the left and this body on the right are >>>>> running variations of the same program, the same 'Me,' which doesn't >>>>> belong to either of them. The 'Me's' are simply a program format. >>>>> >>>>> (LILA, Chapter 15) >>>> >>>> Hi Marsha >>>> >>>> "In all sexual selection, Lila chooses, Dynamically, the individual >>>> she wants to project into the future. If he excites her sense of >>>> Quality she joins him to perpetuate him into another generation, and >>>> he lives on. But if he's unable to convince her of his Quality-if he's >>>> sick or deformed or unable to satisfy her in some way-she refuses to >>>> join him and his deformity is not carried on." [LILA} >>>> >>>> Dan comments: >>>> >>>> Here, RMP is saying that choosing is a Dynamic activity, one that >>>> cannot be defined in so many words. All sexual selection, or natural >>>> selection if you will, is determined by Lila and her Dynamic choice. >>>> Our bodies know this instinctively. Intellectually, "we" have only >>>> been around a short time compared to the cells that make up "our" >>>> bodies. >>>> >>>> Dan >>> >>> >>> Hi Dan, >>> >>> >>> Either the 'Cartesian self' is an illusion or it is not. For me it is an >>> illusion. Lila doesn't choose anything. Preferences are there >>> reflecting her biological static patterns of value. Does Lila >>> psychologically choose? No. SHE may build a story about such >>> and such an attraction and the results, but SHE is not in control. >>> At least as she is presented in the story-line. >> >> Hi Marsha >> >> "Lila" as presented in my quote above doesn't refer to the "Cartesian >> self." RMP has stated that is an illusion. Lila refers to the Dynamic >> choice which drives evolution... not to an individual. I thought that >> was clear but I guess not... >> >> Dan > > Hi Dan, > > Then you changed the subject, because I was speaking of the illusion > of the ME, the "Cartesian Me" having 'freewill" and making "choices."
Dan: I didn't change the subject. The quote I offered is 7 paragraphs down from your own quote. RMP has already denied the existence of a "Cartesian Me" and is explaining how Lila is a collection of values. Marsha: > I will expand my former statement, the preferences of the biological static > patterns of value are further shaped by social static patterns of value and > intellectual static patterns of value. And with these preferences WE build > stories of how and why and when and where and with whom, which create > pleasure and pain. Stories. Dan: Yes, I understand that. >Marsha: > Why did you introduce "sexual selection" quote? What kind of access do > we have to the biological preferences besides the obvious signals? Dan: As an example of choice being Dynamic and not static. I assume that is why RMP also introduced it. Again, I would have thought that clear. Not sure why you are objecting to this other than to have something to be objectionable about... Marsha: We > have more control over the social and Intellectual patterns because they > are so often present through conceptualization and language. Anyway, > it seems to me that most of the discussion is defending the type of choices > made by a "Cartesian Me", and that is story-telling, illusion. But maybe I > am wrong, and that is causing the confusion. And yes, understanding > these preferences intellectually is better than letting them run wild, but > let's make sure we understand that that "Cartesian Me" is illusion. And I > am not sure we've done that. Dan: It is good to know what one is talking about, I agree. We should all heed that advice. Dan 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
