[MD] X = no-self

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha]
I do not insist.

[Arlo]
No? Because as far back as I can see in the archives there are posts 
by "Marsha". Tell me, do you have a driver's license? Does it say 
"Marsha" on it? What about your paycheck? I am certainly not talking 
about "nicknames", of course we are known by variations, but there is 
a striving towards continuity or perseverance, and my question to you 
is why? If "no self" is all there is, what is the value that drives this?

[Marsha]
I would prefer not to confuse you.

[Arlo]
I would think you'd find it a greater confusion to make people think 
there is a "Marsha", or any continuity there at all. Why do you think 
it would "confuse" me if you didn't insist on this continuity? Would 
it confuse you?

[Marsha]
Doesn't mean they are equally interconnected.  -   I never stated 
"mutually dependent."  Are you going to start playing sophistry?

[Arlo]
No, I am going to insist that if you say things you are able to 
handle the ramifications. So now we have patterns that are 
"disequally interconnected"?

If all patterns are interconnected (and I agree they are), then 
reflections brought by interaction are reflections on all involved. A 
dialogue is like a tapestry, any imperfections are constructed mutually.

You seem to be saying you can murder someone, but if I call you a 
"murderer" then that is a reflection just on me. (Or, conversely, 
that you can rescue a child from a burning car, but if I call you a 
"hero" that is just a reflection of me.) The negotiative aspect of 
discourse is aligning the two.