[MD] Virulent reality.

[MarshaV]

Arlo,

I'm going to have to interrupt this process for a little while.  I'll 
be back Sunday morning.

Marsha





At 02:39 PM 9/12/2008, you wrote:
>[Marsha]
>The self is an ever-changing, collection of overlapping, 
>interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static 
>patterns of value.  It is not a thing.  It is a process.
>
>[Arlo]
>Yeah, you keep saying "process", as if that contradicts "plurality". 
>Yes, the "self" is a process, but a process that is dependent on 
>context. Illusions of continuity across time and context with regard 
>to these processes are just illusions. No "one" process is more 
>"real" than any other. What part of this do you disagree with? 
>Process, illusion, fiction, mask, face, avatar, call it whatever you 
>want. There is "no one real Arlo" that sits behind them, they are 
>the only "reality" there is.
>
>[Marsha]
>Who is to say what is irrelevant?
>
>[Arlo]
>I am. You are. We each decide what is relevant in our activities. If 
>the shape of my body is relevant to you, so be it. But I say to try 
>to point to a "real Arlo" by pointing to a physical form is to not 
>point to "me" at all. I've asked you why this stuff is important to 
>you, and you've not answered.
>
>I've said repeatedly, the form of your body has no relevance to me 
>as to whether "Marsha" is a woman. "Marsha" is, for me, a woman 
>regardless of the shape of the body she inhabits. That is, I suppose 
>our core disagreement here, you would feel "deceived" to learn my 
>body is shaped like a woman's if you thought "Arlo" was a man.
>
>My question to you, over and over, has been "why?" Why does this 
>have value to you? Why could "Arlo" just be who "Arlo" is regardless 
>of his physical form? And you can substitute in any "thing I should 
>be honest about" in here to replace gender. Why could "Arlo" just be 
>who "Arlo" is here regardless of whether my body's legal documention 
>says my name is "Harvey" or "Jane"?
>
>[Marsha]
>Now you're being silly.
>
>[Arlo]
>Am I? Prove to everyone you are not a variation of me. Prove them in 
>a way that I could not deceive them with actors and reroutes and 
>allusions to other "variations" (such as Horse). But they buy the 
>illusion because it has value for them. As it should be.
>
>[Marsha]
>Right.  You and Zeus are going to tell me what is a 
>mistake.  There's not a bunny's butt chance that's going to happen.
>
>[Arlo]
>Yeah, much better you tell "Arlo" what color he is by looking at his 
>physiological body. There's not a bunny's butt chance that's going 
>to happen. The color of my skin has nothing whatsoever to do with 
>color of my self. And for you to say otherwise if quite arrogant, isn't it?
>
>You see, if you told me that "Marsha is green", then that is what 
>Marsha would be. If I later found out the color of your 
>physiological host is purple, it wouldn't matter one whit to me. 
>"Marsha" would still be green.
>
>Again, that's where we differ I suppose. I don't rely on physical 
>devices to pigeon-hole identities onto people. I rely on what they 
>say, what they tell me they are, who they present themselves to me as.
>
>[Marsha]
>An "average" person is a good-hearted, hard-working average citizen.
>
>[Arlo]
>Really? So when you said, "I don't know how many average people 
>would actually agree with what you described", what you MEANT was "I 
>don't know how many good-hearted, hard-working citizens would 
>actually agree with what you described".
>
>Tell me, would they disagree because they are good-hearted or hard-working?
>
>[Marsha]
>I do not recognized your interpretation of my opening comment.
>
>[Arlo]
>Really? You see no disagreement between these two statements of yours?
>
>(1) "Either way 'continuity across time' and 'continuity across 
>context' is illusion."
>
>(2) To me a self is not one and not many
>
>Now if (2) actually said, "I place great value on the illusions of 
>continuity across time and context", we may be in some agreement. 
>And I could see why you'd want to move away from considering selves 
>as a multiplicity, it threatens this illusion.
>
>[Marsha]
>Or maybe you mistake quantity of words for quality of thought.
>
>[Arlo]
>Maybe. Or maybe you mistake anti-intellectualism for wisdom. We 
>could go around like this for eternity, Marsha. Wouldn't it be 
>better for you to try to articulate an argument than pull plays from 
>Platt's Playbook?
>
>[Marsha]
>Huh!  Want to untangle this paragraph?  What exactly do you deny?
>
>[Arlo]
>Sure.
>
>"Well this is my point. These things are not "real", just social 
>conventions. There is no "self" that exists across contexts. But we 
>structure our activity that way for social reasons. Culture sees 
>"body, mind and soul" as fixed, connected and continuous over time 
>and place...."
>
>Culture tells us that "we" are "one body, one mind, one soul" 
>united. We have come to this view because we have learned to value 
>the rewards continuity brings.
>
>"Seen this way, there is one real "Arlo", who's "honest" reality is 
>bound to his physiological form, and who may "pretend" to be other 
>people but is really the same old Arlo...."
>
>Using the predominant glasses of this culture, we "see" that there 
>is "one Arlo", who is bound to his body, who is a "real self" behind 
>all the masks he may pretend to wear.
>
>"I deny this view, and indeed I find it horribly problematic when 
>you really examine it."
>
>This whole thread was examining questions that challenge this view. 
>But since you dismiss every question as one you don't care about, I 
>guess its impossible to argue with an ostrich. I think if you really 
>took the time to answer the questions I've asked, you'd see that 
>this view is grossly problematic.
>
>So I restate. Consider this view as it would make us "see" Mark. 
>Culture would tell us there is "one person here", his name is Mark, 
>and he is a boy. Period. End of story. "Julia" is simply a "mask 
>Mark wears", a "pretend avatar" the real Mark uses to cope with 
>psychological problems.
>
>I say, no. These glasses are no longer good. They no longer serve 
>us. The "real person" here is Julia. And she is a girl. A girl that 
>was given the name "Mark" by a culture that ties gender to bodily form.
>
>Can you see the difference? Which do you agree with? If neither, 
>then what do your glasses see, Marsha?
>
>I also say, if "Julia" has other selves in other contexts, maybe she 
>continues to be "Mark" in some contexts, then BOTH of these people 
>are equally real. Neither is more real, or less real, than the 
>other. Julia is still a girl, and Mark is still a boy, the gender of 
>these selves is NOT based on the body, but on the 
>social-presentation in the moment.
>
>[Marsha]
>I cling to many illusions.  They keep me floating and out of a 
>sanitarium.  Doesn't mean I believe them.
>
>[Arlo]
>Why anyone would cling to things they do not believe is beyond me. 
>But if you say this is how it is for you, I guess that's how it is.
>
>[Marsha]
>But I still, in conventional conversation, expect honesty.
>
>[Arlo]
>What you expect is for others to conform their behavior to your 
>illusions. If your illusion makes me a man because my body has male 
>parts, then I better act like a man and not a woman, isn't that 
>right? Or at the very least tell you "I'm really a man who is just 
>acting like a woman". That would be your definition of "honesty", no?
>
>[Marsha]
>And if I don't get it, I might think you are lacking arete.
>
>[Arlo]
>You wouldn't be the only one.
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

.
.

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