[MD] Virulent reality.

[MarshaV]

At 07:08 AM 9/12/2008, you wrote:
>[Marsha]
>The operative word is 'fictitious'.
>
>[Arlo]
>If you believe this, you wouldn't be schizophrenic over whether or not SA,
>Krimel are Arlo are variations of a theme. You'd judge each fiction on their
>own merit, according to the value each present.

There is no each!!!  'Each' is your fantasy, and I don't share 
it.  You're just trying to justify your behavior, and that is one of 
deception.  Where the rules are known only to you.


>  They'd all be fictitious, and
>worrying about "honesty" and this and that would disappear, as "honesty"
>relates to some "realness" that transcends the fiction.

And as soon as I become a Buddha, I shall do just that.  Meanwhile I 
would want honesty to part of the social transaction.  Are you 
stating that honesty means nothing to you?


>You wouldn't feel
>"deceived" if SA's body turned out to have female parts since both "SA" and
>whatever "in real life" personae that shares her/his brain are both 
>"fictions".
>How could there be "one real gender" they should have?

Why are you hung up on this sexual gender thing?  As far as I know SA 
is a man.  'What if he isn't?' isn't a game I'm interested in playing.



>Unless you're now gonna say "there's one real fictitious self" one should "be
>honest in a conventional way" about?

I'm going to say when you open your mouth you speak the truth as best 
you can.  Seems that concept is difficult for you.  Why?


>Its easy to say you think "selves" are fictitious, Marsha, but so
>far everything you've posted points to the opposite view.

No independent self, and no fictitious selves. Think process.  Part 
of the process of being a self should include honesty.


>The "fiction" includes the ideas of continuity over time and continuity
>across contexts, or its hardly a fiction, is it?

It would be a fiction.


>  The separateness of "Marsha" and "Arlo" is a fiction, and whether
>or not they share a bodily host wouldn't matter to you.

So you are on the Buddha track.  On a broader sense than the 
conventional, this is true.  This does not dismiss the requirement to 
speak with honesty.


>Each would be valued as the only reality they can ever have,
>as avatars in a social world.

What precisely is your definition of avatar???




.
.

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