Hello Dan,
On Apr 17, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > 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: No I am not objecting just to have something to be objectionable about... It's a real concern. So you get it, and I think you 'really' get it. But I think it is extremely important, and I'm not sure everybody gets it. It would be a better world if the emphasis was on our interconnectedness rather than struggling over choices. I think no-self is the most important thing to understand, otherwise we'll be forever scrapping seagulls. Sorry to all that I cause such confusion. > 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
