[MD] Fictitious self

Sun Sep 14 06:58:12 PDT 2008

At 08:40 AM 9/14/2008, you wrote:
>Yes I think it it does Marsha,
>... and maybe it illustrates that a period in this "fictitious self"
>was and is beneficial ... to the more immediate breathing self ?
>Ian

Yes, no, and all of the above...   - Marsha

>On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:52 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Hmmmm.  How to make the point.
> >
> > I have, for the past 30-hours-plus, been walking the 
> 'fictitious-self' talk.
> >  All associated analogy and opinion regarding this discussion have long ago
> > moved out to sea and lost relevance.  We may now breathe fresh air.  Being
> > is again filled with joy at rediscovering this simple truth: arising,
> > falling, arising, falling, arising, falling, ...
> >
> > Does this explain?
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 02:54 PM 9/12/2008, eye wrote:
> >
> >> 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.........
> >> .
> >> .
> >> 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.........
> > .
> > .
> > 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/
> >
>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.........
.
. 