[MD] Virulent reality.

[MarshaV]

At 08:52 AM 9/12/2008, you wrote:
>[Marsha]
>There is no each!!!  'Each' is your fantasy, and I don't share it.
>
>[Arlo]
>They are fictions. You talk a talk you seem incapable of walking. None are any
>more my fantasy than they are yours. You want to say you believe selves are
>fictional, but you keep going on about "honesty". If selves are fictions,
>Marsha, what is it that they should be "honest" about?

You've never seen me walk.  What can you say about how I walk?



>[Marsha]
>You're just trying to justify your behavior, and that is one of deception.
>Where the rules are known only to you.
>
>[Arlo]
>I've never once deceived anyone. What "rules" are known only to me? What
>"behavior".

Okay, but I think I should leave your honesty open for further verification.


>[Marsha]
>Meanwhile I would want honesty to be part of the social transaction.  Are you
>stating that honesty means nothing to you?
>
>[Arlo]
>If selves are fictions, what is it that they should be "honest" about? You
>accept or reject any fiction based on its value to you. There is no "honesty"
>beyond that. Or, again, is this just a way of being able to say "selves are
>fiction" but clinging to the notion of a "real self one should be honest
>about"?

If I cannot see you because were using email, and you tell me you're 
blue, but you're really orange, you are being dishonest.  Maybe 
you'll say it doesn't matter.  But maybe I am planning on buying you 
a pretty dress to match your color, so it does matter.



>Let me ask this, again. Here is "SA". His maleness or femaleness in this forum
>is a fiction s/he offers and you accept. It is no more and no less honest than
>whether or not s/he is known as "Nick" or "Heather" in other contexts.
>
>And, "Arlo" is a fiction. "SA" is a fiction. They are separate fictions here.
>What difference does it make whether or not they share a body?

  See above.



>[Marsha]
>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.
>
>[Arlo]
>You said you'd feel deceived to find out "SA" exists in the body of a
>biological female. That if "he" didn't reveal that truth to you upfront, he'd
>be being deceptive.

Because I could make a mistake and buy him boxer shorts with hearts 
when he would be happier to receive bikini panties.

Yes, I would think he was deceptive.



>And yes, I know, its always convenient to want to say things but a pain in the
>ass to deal with questions that problematize those things. I ask these
>questions because everything you've been saying doesn't jive with what you say
>you believe. Everything you've written points to your believing that there is
>"a real self" with real characteristics that transcend time and 
>context, things
>which the self "should be honest about".
>
>What I've been saying all along, that the "Arlo" that is "real" is the "Arlo"
>that is right here right now, and there is no realness behind that. You either
>accept "Arlo" or you "reject" him. He either has value to you or he does not.
>But his existence is "here". The shape of his corporeal host, or the other
>selves that inhabit his gray matter are inconsequential.

This is a culture/language issue and you know it.  Both are 
structured for a self that is independent with a body and mind, and a 
gender association.  I admit I'm having trouble trying to explain 
myself.  But I think you are sounding very strange yourself.  You 
think all this talk about avatars, faces, fictions corporeal hosts 
and sex-change operations is crystal clear?   It is not clear to me.



>[Marsha]
>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?
>
>[Arlo]
>The difficulty seems to be your trying to have selves as fictions 
>but also have
>"truths" about them. I accept the fictional "SA" here without the 
>need for some
>"truth" you seem to need. As I've said all along, the only "truth" I 
>care about
>is the "reality" of the "SA" here.

No 'selves as fictions', only process.   No nouns, only 
verbs.   Communication with honesty.  Should I spell it out with 
magnetic letters on a refrigerator?  And yes, honesty is something I 
want in communication.




>Your harping about "honesty" points to a self that is not fictional, but
>"real". All fine and good, but stop pretending you think selves are fictional.

Selves are fictional.  And yes I want the process of honesty to be 
with the process of communication.



>[Marsha]
>No independent self, and no fictitious selves. Think process.  Part of the
>process of being a self should include honesty.
>
>[Arlo]
>Again, "honesty" about what? The self is always a fiction. What on earth does
>it have to be "honest" about as such? You either accept or reject other selves
>as they are presented to you, there is no "reality" behind the curtain.

Honesty about being orange rather than blue.



>And yes, the "self" is a process. Absolutely.

Praise the trees!!!!



>[Marsha]
>What precisely is your definition of avatar???
>
>[Arlo]
>The fictions we create as we engage in social worlds.

Hahahaha!  A punchline!  Thanks!





.
.

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