[MD] [Bulk] Re: the story of "me"

[MarshaV]

Hello Dan,


On Apr 17, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Seems to me of the debate the lately is predicated on there being a "Cartesian Me' to choose or have freedom.  What does it mean for a 'useful illusion' to possess such control over its experience?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "This Cartesian 'Me,' this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world, is just completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This Cartesian 'Me' is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This body on the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same program, the same 'Me,' which doesn't belong to either of them. The 'Me's' are simply a program format.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   (LILA, Chapter 15)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha
>>>>> 
>>>>> "In all sexual selection, Lila chooses, Dynamically, the individual
>>>>> she wants to project into the future. If he excites her sense of
>>>>> Quality she joins him to perpetuate him into another generation, and
>>>>> he lives on. But if he's unable to convince her of his Quality-if he's
>>>>> sick or deformed or unable to satisfy her in some way-she refuses to
>>>>> join him and his deformity is not carried on." [LILA}
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan comments:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here, RMP is saying that choosing is a Dynamic activity, one that
>>>>> cannot be defined in so many words. All sexual selection, or natural
>>>>> selection if you will, is determined by Lila and her Dynamic choice.
>>>>> Our bodies know this instinctively. Intellectually, "we" have only
>>>>> been around a short time compared to the cells that make up "our"
>>>>> bodies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Either the 'Cartesian self' is an illusion or it is not.   For me it is an
>>>> illusion.  Lila doesn't choose anything.  Preferences are there
>>>> reflecting her biological static patterns of value.  Does Lila
>>>> psychologically choose?  No.  SHE may build a story about such
>>>> and such an attraction and the results, but SHE is not in control.
>>>> At least as she is presented in the story-line.
>>> 
>>> Hi Marsha
>>> 
>>> "Lila" as presented in my quote above doesn't refer to the "Cartesian
>>> self." RMP has stated that is an illusion. Lila refers to the Dynamic
>>> choice which drives evolution... not to an individual. I thought that
>>> was clear but I guess not...
>>> 
>>> Dan
>> 
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> Then you changed the subject, because I was speaking of the illusion
>> of the ME, the "Cartesian Me"  having 'freewill" and making "choices."
> 
> Dan:
> 
> I didn't change the subject. The quote I offered is 7 paragraphs down
> from your own quote. RMP has already denied the existence of a
> "Cartesian Me" and is explaining how Lila is a collection of values.
> 
> Marsha:
>> I will expand my former statement, the preferences of the biological static
>> patterns of value are further shaped by social static patterns of value and
>> intellectual static patterns of value.  And with these preferences WE build
>> stories of how and why and when and where and with whom, which create
>> pleasure and pain.  Stories.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> Yes, I understand that.
> 
>> Marsha:
>> Why did you introduce "sexual selection" quote?  What kind of access do
>> we have to the biological preferences besides the obvious signals?
> 
> Dan:
> 
> As an example of choice being Dynamic and not static. I assume that is
> why RMP also introduced it. Again, I would have thought that clear.
> Not sure why you are objecting to this other than to have something to
> be objectionable about...

Marsha:
No I am not objecting just to have something to be objectionable about...  
It's a real concern.  So you get it, and I think you 'really' get it.  But I think 
it is extremely important, and I'm not sure everybody gets it.  It would be 
a better world if the emphasis was on our interconnectedness rather than 
struggling over choices.  I think no-self is the most important thing to 
understand, otherwise we'll be forever scrapping seagulls.  

Sorry to all that I cause such confusion.




> Marsha:
> We
>> have more control over the social and Intellectual patterns because they
>> are so often present through conceptualization and language.  Anyway,
>> it seems to me that most of the discussion is defending the type of choices
>> made by a "Cartesian Me", and that is story-telling, illusion.  But maybe I
>> am wrong, and that is causing the confusion.  And yes, understanding
>> these preferences intellectually is better than letting them run wild, but
>> let's make sure we understand that that "Cartesian Me" is illusion. And I
>> am not sure we've done that.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> It is good to know what one is talking about, I agree. We should all
> heed that advice.
> 
> 
> 
> Dan




___