On Apr 17, 2011, at 6:43 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha: > Your denials are overheated and demonstrably false. Your conflation of the > Cartesian self and the MOQ's self is probably already in the archives and > anyone who cares to know can see for themselves. Anyone who's been following > this thread very likely remembers you saying that you, me and Robert Pirsig > are fictions and posting the quote about the Cartesian self as your evidence. > How is that NOT conflating the two?
Marsha: My concern is that it is too easy to repeat the words, with understanding only as deep as the ink on the page. You, RMP and me are "an impossible fiction" as specified in the quote. Of course it is an illusion, that was my point. My definition of self has for a very long time been: a flow of ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value, not any kind of inherently existing, independent self. Here's RMP's quote which I was pointing to: "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) > > The only that makes this exchange a comedy act is your ridiculous refusal to > concede such an obvious point. You've responded with nothing but hot air > about five times, carefully avoiding the substance of the matter each time. > In what world is that considered an honest way to reply? No, that's just you > being Lucy as usual. Marsha: The substance of the matter is your puffing up, Mr. Tetraodontidae, your status at the expense of someone else. I don't mind you calling me Lucy. Why should I, you do it because it represents a lack of actual argument. It makes me laugh. >> On Apr 17, 2011, at 10:56 AM, david buchanan wrote: >> >>> >>> Dan said to 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... >>> >>> dmb says: >>> Right. Marsha is conflating two completely different ideas of the self. The >>> MOQ rejects the Cartesian self as a ridiculous fiction and replaces that >>> concept of the self with the MOQ's concept of the self as a complex ecology >>> of static patterns. The Cartesian self is the problem and the MOQ's self is >>> the solution to that problem. But Marsha has confused and conflated these >>> two concepts so that she ends up rejecting the MOQ's solution. Then the >>> MOQ's solution, not to mention the author of the MOQ, is misconstrued as >>> the ridiculous fiction. She can't distinguish between the poison and the >>> antidote, between the wreckage and the repair job. >>> >>> It's a good thing that she is neither a doctor nor a mechanic, otherwise >>> somebody would almost certainly get injured, if not killed. >>> >>> If someone asserted that it's a shame to have dirty hands and offered soap >>> as a solution, Marsha would "interpret" that to mean that hands are dirt >>> and we ought not have them. Yep, she really knows how to take a problem and >>> make it much worse. Major talent there. >>> > > 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 ___ 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
