[MD] X = no-self

[MarshaV]

On Jan 4, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [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 do not insist. 


> [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?

It's a conventional label for pragmatic purposes.  


> [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"?

Marsha:
I would say that not all interconnections are of equal value.   


> 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.

Marsha:
You seem to be jumping to conclusion that make no sense to me.  


 
___