[MD] Virulent reality.

[MarshaV]

At 10:41 AM 9/12/2008, you wrote:
>[Marsha]
>You've never seen me walk.  What can you say about how I walk?
>
>[Arlo]
>I'm basing this on what I see here. What else could I base it on? You are
>saying on one hand you believe selves are fictions, then on the other you are
>saying "selves" should be "honest" about things. You can't have it both ways.
>Either the "self" is a fiction, and you accept it as such, or their are "real
>things" about it.

To me a self is not one and not many.  Self is a process.  Being 
honest is also a process.


>[Marsha]
>Okay, but I think I should leave your honesty open for further verification.
>
>[Arlo]
>Anytime you can point out where I've been dishonest, please feel 
>free to do so.

I don't think I need to point it out.  At the moment I'm in the 
process of being suspicious.  And I have explained to you why.  What 
would be the odds of such a coincidence?



>[Marsha]
>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.
>
>[Arlo]
>What if I believe I am orange, but trapped in a blue body? Which is more
>important? Honesty to how one feels? Or honesty to some 
>physiological form? Why
>is one even related to the other?

Orange and blue are colors dependent on eyes, seeing and a visual 
object.  How one feels is something else.  One could easily say "I'm 
the color blue, but feeling orange?"  That would be the process of 
being honest.



>[Marsha]
>But maybe I am planning on buying you a pretty dress to match your 
>color, so it
>does matter.
>
>[Arlo]
>In this context, physiological form does have value. Until then, 
>whatever color
>I am is whatever color you accept me to be. But whatever color dress 
>you end up
>buying my physiological form has no bearing, or should have no bearing, on the
>nature of the identity you interact with here. This is why I said to you, the
>"Marsha" that I know and has value to me and that I accept as a "woman" will
>continue to exist as such to me even if I found out your 
>physiological form had
>male parts.

Whatever...



>[Marsha]
>This is a culture/language issue and you know it.
>
>[Arlo]
>Absolutely. From day one I've said that these things we are talking about,
>continuity across time and continuity across contexts, are cultural-social
>patterns of value.

Yes, they are patterns.  So was thinking the world was flat a 
cultural pattern.   I don't know how many average people would 
actually agree with what you described.  I think it is far too 
abstract.  Either way 'continuity across time' and 'continuity across 
context' is illusion.  Cultural glasses.


>They have real meaning for us socially, and so we mostly
>willingly adopt them (I keep the same name) and sometimes enforce them with
>electro-shock (as what happened to the "old Bob").

What? If you are talking about 'continuity across time' and 
'continuity across context', very few would be aware of these 
patterns.   Nobody knowingly adopts them as cultural patterns.  Get 
with the program.  You may be at the University too long.



>[Marsha]
>Both are structured for a self that is independent with a body and mind, and a
>gender association.
>
>[Arlo]
>I disagree. I think our cultural contexts are structured for a self that is
>wholly dependent on "body" and a singular gender association. "One body, one
>mind, one soul" as it were.

Let me first restate to a more exact meaning:  Culture and language 
are structured for a self that is independent with a body and mind, 
and a gender association.  Okay, add soul.    "One body, one mind and 
one soul", yet thought to be one independent agent.




>[Marsha]
>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.
>
>[Arlo]
>I've never claimed I present my thoughts clearly. If I did, I'd never have to
>write a second post.

This is work.



>[Marsha]
>Honesty about being orange rather than blue.
>
>[Arlo]
>Both are fictions. To base one's "realness" on physiology is a mistake. The
>color I am is the color I present and you accept. There is no other reality
>behind that. The pigment of my skin has nothing whatsoever to do 
>with the color
>of my self. You either accept "Arlo" as orange or you do not. But if 
>he says he
>is, and you point the blue pigment of his skin as evidence of dishonesty, you
>are tying identity to body, a mistake in my opinion.


I do not know how you got to this place, and where "realness" came 
from.  I'm defending 'wanting honesty in communication'.  This last 
paragraph makes absolutely no sense to the flow of the 
conversation.  I see the words orange, blue and physiology, but rest 
seem to have arrived from one of Jupiter's moons.


>"Marsha" is a woman...

[Chorus:]
I'm a bitch, I'm a lover
I'm a child, I'm a mother
I'm a sinner, I'm a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I'm your hell, I'm your dream
I'm nothing in between
You know you wouldn't want it any other way





.
.

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