[MD] Virtually meaningful?

[MarshaV]

At 09:38 AM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>[Marsha]
>What is this ME,  and YOU?  Is it the body, the mind, both?   Neither?   When
>you write above, "The only real issue is that it is of value TO ME.", what
>exactly are you defending?
>
>[Arlo]
>I use the word as a convention, like everyone else. The "ME" I refer to is the
>"self-at-the-moment", which is indeed fluid and amorphous. As Pirsig said, the
>words do not need to be abandoned.
>
>"This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms: 'mankind', 'people', 'the public',
>and even such pronouns as 'I', 'he' and 'they'. Our language is so organized
>around them and they are so convenient to use, it is impossible to get rid of
>them. There is really no need to. Like 'substance', they can be used 
>as long as
>it is remembered that they're terms for collections of patterns and not some
>independent reality of their own." (Pirsig, Chapter 12, Lila)

Greetings Arlo,

It seems you are using these words as if the world had adopted a MOQ 
convention.  The world has not!

The meaning for me of a MOQ, collection of pattern self, would be a 
self empty of an independent existence, a self that is not 
"real".  Humans, in general, seems to take the self as it appears to 
them, which is an independent, self-existent entity.

Your convention may be a convention of one or a few dozen, but not 
the convention of most people or reflected in our language.



>[Marsha]
>You wrote to me about many faces, some more real than others.  Actually, what
>do you mean by the word real, and how is it determined.
>
>[Arlo]
>I said "none more real than others". "Real" I use almost exclusively in
>scarequotes, but it suggests an "objective reality", and that is 
>SOM. "Reality"
>is the pinpoint moment, and the "reality" of my self for you is what exists
>right-here, right-now between us.

I stand corrected, but the more important point was your definition 
of "real".  You seem to have your own convention when it comes to the 
use of "real" and "reality" too.  It's no wonder your explanation 
seems like sausage to me.  It's your own recipe.   I'm not faulting 
you, it does, though, point out a difficulty I'm having understanding 
your justification of multiple identities.




>[Marsha]
>There has never appeared before me an individual with more than one face.
>
>[Arlo]
>Even our biological faces change drastically over time. You think 
>"its the same
>face", but why? Even on the molecular level ever cell in your face 
>is different
>than 10 years ago. It looks different, is made up of entirely new 
>cells, so why
>is it "the same face"? Again, we seek continuity, but its convention, not
>reality.
>
>But of course I was not talking about physical faces at the time, and I used
>the word "face" as I do "mask" or "self". They are, like the word "me",
>conventions to point to a dynamically arising, socially-negotiated "identity"
>that is always contextually determined and never the same.

Again you are using language that you've adjusted to your own 
conventions.  Conventional use to me, again, would be common 
use.  Maybe it's because of your education that this confusion 
arises.  You're immersed in language in a way that most people are 
not.  I'm certainly not swinging with your conventions.   They are 
not a totally foreign use, but certainly not common.



>[Marsha]
>There is a lot of difference in your words, it may be that your "intertwined
>yarn-ball of patterns" has the consistency of Bologna,
>
>[Arlo]
>This is now the third little snide remark you've made. I appreciate 
>that others
>have to do this because they have nothing else they can do. Indeed, for how
>many posts now you have not offered any alternative, any reasoned opinion on
>why I am wrong, and what would be right. Just "you're wrong", unexplained and
>unexplored accompanied by some little mean jab.
>
>So what do YOU think? Let's start here, with a question I asked Ron yesterday.
>
>Over the weekend I saw a show on television about a boy who believed he was a
>girl inside. His legal name was "Mark" but the name he "felt" was "Julia" (or
>something, don't remember exactly, but you get the idea). What is the "real
>self" here? Is he really a boy? Or is she really a girl? Is it a girl trapped
>in a boy's body, or a boy pretending to be a girl?
>
>After you answered this, consider that this person was preparing to undergo
>sexual surgery for gender change. After the operation, does the "real self"
>change? Would you say "now she is really a girl, but before he was a boy"?
>Think about it, because the "self" that resides in that gray matter didn't
>change, did it? How did "Julia" suddenly become "real" when a day 
>prior she was
>"pretend"?
>
>Now let me complicate it a step further. Along the way none of 
>"Mark's" friends
>new about "Julia". He kept this identity "secret". They all new "Mark". Does
>this mean they new a "pretend" person? Or the "real" person? What about after
>the operation, what if they meet "Julia"? Who did they "know" before? Was
>"Mark" not real? Did he "die"?
>
>What do YOU think?


Arlo, unless it's my immediate family, I don't really give a "hoot" 
about sex-change operations.   Remember my understanding of the self 
is that it is an ever-changing, collection of overlapping, 
interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static 
patterns of value.  It doesn't really exist as an entity.  It is like 
a flowing river.  All the above is just so much gobblygook, 
nonsensical chatter with no way for me to grasp it.  Conventionally I 
don't much care.  I'd much rather chase squirrels around a tree.  I'm 
more a big-picture person.  I hope you don't mind.

But, when I am having a discussion, I expect the conventional person 
I'm talking with will use the best conventional truth they can 
muster.  In other words, if SA turned out to be a woman, I would 
think she deliberately lied.  That would make any discussion we had 
built on a platform of bullshit.  Not a major crime, but sad 
indeed.   And I would have to wonder what other lies were 
constructed.  Of course, there could be extraordinary circumstances 
making every word she wrote true to the letter, but, to me, it would 
still smell like deception.


Marsha








.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.