[MD] Virtually meaningful?

[MarshaV]

At 12:58 PM 9/10/2008, you wrote:
>[Marsha]
>It seems you are using these words as if the world had adopted a MOQ 
>convention.  The world has not!
>
>[Arlo]
>When I am speaking with an audience where I don't assume people to 
>"know" I am speaking as best I can using MOQ understands, then I 
>certainly re-prose my language to make my points using other words. 
>I've come to see a convention commonly used here is to "scarequote" 
>words when they are meant to refer to "non-MOQ" or "SOM" views.

I've never assumed more than scarequotes require extra analysis.  I 
never assumed they referred to non-MOQ and SOM exclusively.



>So when I say, for example, that is the only "me" you will ever 
>know, I am highlighting that I am using the word outside the MOQ 
>context. When I say, that is not real to me, I am assuming the _me_ 
>in this sentence is understood in a MOQ way.

I'm not in the mood to change my conventions to yours.



>What is "me", you ask? I agree with you. A collection of 
>ever-changing, fluid patterns. But I go further. I say this 
>ever-changing, fluid ball of patterns has a plurality of "faces", 
>and that these "faces" are (1) contextually dependent and (2) 
>processes of social negotiation and NOT some fixed "thing".

Conventionally most people hold that there is an independent, 
self-contained entity that is made up of, at least, mind and 
body.  Some might include something like a soul that would be 
different than both mind and body.

I say that this collection of ever-changing interrelated patterns has 
no consistency at all.  From nano-second to the next nano-second 
there is absolutely no consistency.  Any consistency is illusion.



>What is "real", you ask? I'd say, what I believe it to be at the 
>moment you ask the question, while knowing that this too is in flux 
>(sometimes greatly and sometimes not so much).

"Sometimes greatly and sometimes not so much" means nothing.  There's 
no consistency.  Real is a moving target.  Kind of like going to a 
river and picking up the water with your hands.  It can't be had.



>We certainly seek "external corroboration" or "continuity" as 
>markers of "reality", but these are conventions, nothing more.

They are sought to make communication possible.  Right.  But then are 
nominal and conceptual conventions and nothing more.



>  Right now, right here, the "real Marsha" for me the Marsha that 
> exists between us at this singular point in time. It may be 
> different than the "real Marsha" I knew last year, and it will 
> likely be different from the "real Marsha" I will know a year from 
> now. Maybe external things will change my vision of the "real 
> Marsha", maybe you'll convince me of something that will change 
> this, or maybe I'll just start to see you in a way "Marsha" does 
> not intend. The point is, I use "real" here in scare quotes, 
> because there is (in my MOQish opinion) no real Marsha that exists 
> independently of the active social process of this context, just as 
> for your daughter there is no real Marsha that exists independently 
> of her context.

There are more than one pattern interacting at any given 
nano-second.  No Marsha.  Just an name.  I do not know context to be 
singular.   It's all illusion, Baby, all illusion.   I am comfortable 
with this most of the time.  I've thought it through and determined 
the only concept worth holding onto is compassion.  Unfortunately I 
lose it all too often.




>[Marsha]
>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...
>
>[Arlo]
>Which is exactly my point. Asking whether "Mark" or "Juliet" is 
>"real" and which is "pretend" is a question missing the mark (pun 
>intended). The "reality" would be the identity negotiated socially 
>between those involved in that context. And so both are "real", but 
>both are also "pretend" in as much as they are both faces and not 
>independent realities of their own.

There is no real for me.  But of course I must interact in a 
conventional world and I try to do the best I can.

Negotiated socially?  I think not.  I'm dead meat already.  All I can 
do is my best.  Screw people's opinion.  Do you think I would 
challenge you if I cared what people think.  My debating skill is 
close to zero.  You can easily make a fool of me.  But you seem to 
have a head the size of a house, and you really over complicate,,, 
and I don't give a shit.



>[Marsha]
>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.
>
>[Arlo]
>See here, let me ask you this. What if SA turned out to have the 
>biological body of a male, but truly, truly felt she was a woman 
>trapped in a male body.

Than SA can explain this complicated predicament.  But besides, SA is 
NOT this or that.  She/He is an an ever-changing, collection of 
overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and 
intellectual, static patterns of value.



>What if "Heather" is the person she truly, truly identifies with. 
>What if here in cyberspace she is allowed and able to interact 
>socially AS SHE FEELS SHE IS, without the encumberence or stigma or 
>burden of feeling unconnected with her biological form. Would you 
>still feel as if Heather lied?

Yes.

>Why should she feel as if her biological body is important to you? 
>Indeed, what difference does it make to you?

I don't care a wit about his/her biological body.  I care that if 
when we communicate she/he does not deceive.  There would be also 
many deceptive details in the communication.




>So let me ask further. What if you found out that Heather was at one 
>time a biological male but several years ago underwent a sex change 
>operation. Would you still feel lied to? If not, then I can really 
>only see how you are saying that the reality of Heather's gender is 
>based on the current biological state of her body, and NOT on the 
>gender she really, really feels she is.
>
>To clarify, if she feels like a woman but has not yet had the 
>operation, she would be lying. But once she has the operation she 
>would be telling the truth. Is that correct? But throughout this 
>transition, the "Heather" that exists as a "self" has not changed 
>one bit, has it? Or does altering the body also alter the self?

I already told you this is line of thought is not interesting to 
me.  I don't give a shit.



>[Marsha]
>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.
>
>[Arlo]
>We disagree here. For me, the biological reality of her corporeal 
>host means nothing. The SA I know, whether male or female in body, 
>is the SA I care about and respect. And her/his words to me are not 
>impacted by the constraints of her/his bodily form. Unless, as I 
>said, my goal was mating. Then this would have consequential value 
>to me. But otherwise, I accept the "Heather" or "Nick" or "SA" as 
>s/her presents her/hiselft here.

Honesty is important to me.

You handle SA any way you want.  Should it matter to me?  Why?  Are 
you wanting to mate?


Marsha



.
.

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