[MD] X = no-self

[MarshaV]

Greetings Tim,

On Jan 6, 2011, at 3:10 AM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:

> Marsha,
> 
> one more try,

At what?  It seems to me you are rejecting my responses, and want to insist 
that I reflect your understanding.  You seem to want to lecture others about 
tolerance, but seem far less ready to practice it.  Or like that guy who wants 
to accept paradox as long as he finds it reasonable.  

I am answering you question with sincerity and as best I can.   


>>>>>>>> Marsha: [updated] 
>>>>>>>> I am [a flow of bits and pieces of] ever-changing, interdependent, inorganic,
>>>>>>>> biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value entangled
>>>>>>>> within [a field of] DQ.  
>>>>>>>> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> The collection isn't laid out in front of me like a bucket of legos. 
>> Maybe the 
>> missing word is flow.  So back to "I am a flow of ever-changing..."  or
>> better 
>> yet "I am a flow of bits and pieces of ever-changing..."  There are bits
>> and 
>> pieces of pattern that are associated with the name John (for pragmatic  
>> purposes,) but... they are not John.   I have never seen, smelled, heard, 
>> tasted or touched John.  All I know of John has been conceptually 
>> constructed with bits and pieces of pattern in reaction to reading his
>> words. 
> 
> [Tim]
> okay.  When I am not precise with my language, you get me for
> imprecision.  When I am precise, you tell me that you are no nobel prize
> worthy intellectual.  Perhaps there is no overlap between precise enough
> and comprehensible.  Perhaps there is no hope for agreement.  

Marsha:
And what is this little personal tirade about?  Aren't you the one who wrote 
"So again, it is one of those: I care, but I don't care."   ???   

Again, I am answering as honestly as I can.  If you want to offer your own 
interpretation, do that, but I haven't the slightest idea what you are going on 
about...  I called it as I see it.   Call it differently if you see it differently.   


> [Tim]
> But you have an expectation - or give me the language you prefer - that
> there is a John - out there somewhere - right?  

Marsha:
No!  But I am responding as if he exist in accordance with the patterns 
on which he's been constructed him.   He could be a woman named Sally, 
like you could be a man named Arlo.  But even if his identity has been legally 
established, my answer doesn't change.  And by dropping your prior 
comment, you left of the "within you" that I was objecting to.  Here: 

"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 i
s 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.

Talk about aliens from another planet. This program based on 'Me's' and 'We's' is 
the alien. 'We' has only been here for a few thousand years or so. But these bodies 
that 'We' has taken over were around for ten times that long before 'We' came along. 
And the cells - my God, the cells have been around for thousands of times that long."
  (LILA, Chapter 15)  

"Pirsig follows the Buddha’s teachings about the ‘self’ which doesn’t recognise 
that it has any real existence and that only ‘nothingness’ (i.e. Dynamic Quality) is 
thought to be real."
  (MoQ Textbook, p.103)

"As far as the MOQ conceptualises the self, it’s seen as a combination of the 
four static levels (inorganic, biological, social and intellectual)." 
    (MoQ Textbook, p.104)

Marsha:
Based on my experience, they (RMP and Buddha) are correct.  Within this forum 
it is the convention to accept a poster as they identify themselves.  I can be a very 
conventional girl, but if you want to know what I really think: John exists as 
a flow of bits and pieces of ever-changing, interdependent, inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual static patterns of value entangled with a field of DQ.


> [Tim]
> And whatever John is, he cannot
> be fully contained within the flow of bits and pieces of ... patterns
> that is Marsha, right?  

Marsha:
Are you leading the witness?  My answer would be:  can't say...  


> [Tim]
> You do believe that there is more to what is
> than just you, right?  

Marsha:
Same as last response:  I do not know.


> [Tim]
> This is all I have been after in this exchange. 
> I have tried to map the internal of your definition of self, now I am
> trying to map the boundary - to be very lax in language.

Marsha:
Map and create boundaries for whatever you like, but do expect 
that I agree.  


>>> [Tim] The point of this is, another way, you
>>> recognize the pattern you have called 'John' as internal to you, in line
>>> with your admittal that you are not aware of any pattern that is not
>>> included in this collection - which collection we call Marsha for
>>> pragmatic reasons (or whatnot).
>> 
>> [Marsha] I guess?
> 
> [Tim]
> 
> from the above I now think that there was a problem about 'aware' - my
> bad; and that about this you would rather answer, I guess not.

Marsha:
Sometimes your questions do not make sense to me.  I understand that 
they make sense to you, but they don't make sense to me.  I seem to be an 
insertion in an inner dialogue you are having with your own understanding.  
I'm bewildered as to how to respond in this situation.   


>>>>>>> [Tim] Question 1: are you / can you be, aware of anything that is not included
>>>>>>> in this 'collection'?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>> Aware?  My answer is no.
> 
> [Tim]
> from the above: "[Marsha] they are not John.   I have never seen,
> smelled, heard, tasted or touched John."  So, again, Do you believe that
> there is pattern outside of Marsha:"I am [a flow of bits and pieces of]
> ever-changing, interdependent, inorganic, biological, social and
> intellectual static patterns of value entangled within [a field of] DQ."

Marsha:
There is only Quality, patterned and unpatterned.  There is not an independent 
existing Marsha that has or doesn't have.  

To be fair, most of my understanding has come from direct experience, with the 
perspective made clear and speakable from reading RMP and Buddhist texts.  
Same with reification, it was experienced long before I discovered a word that 
so adeptly describes it.   


>>> [Tim] part a: you can account for the word 'expectation' in some intellectual
>>> way, right?  
>> 
>> [Marsha] Only in a abstracted, reified intellectual way divorced from all other
>> relative, interdependent processes.    
>> 
>> 
>> Within the confines of "intellectual," does the above explain this?  Or
>> are  you asking if I have also imagined inorganic, biological and social
>> patterns associated with the label John? 
> 
> [Tim]
> Honestly, the 'above' is complete gibberish to me.  I don't understand
> how you can divorce an expectation (or an idea for that matter) from all
> other relative, interdependent processes.  I know you turn a nob in your
> shower with the expectation that water will come out of the shower head.

Marsha:
For now this will have to exist as an unresolvable difference between our 
understanding.  It is my EXPERIENCE that there is no way to intellectually 
explain any concept without objectifying it.  I think it best to let it rest for a while.  


>>> [Tim]  then, assuming yes, part b: Amidst the collection of patterns that is
>>> Marsha, is there now (or has there been from time to time) an
>>> intellectual (or other classification if you prefer) pattern of value,
>>> of expectation, which expectation is that there is, or should be, some
>>> pattern of value that is not included *within* the collection you/we
>>> call Marsha?
>> 
>> [Marsha] I don't see how I can imagine a pattern outside past experience.
> 
> [Tim]
> you require such precision of others, and then you imagine words into
> what other people say to you that aren't there!  Or...

Marsha:
Maybe it is a mu thing, but your statements don't resonate with my experience. 
There are only static patterns of value and DQ.  There is no independent 
Marsha; she's a mere convention.  I suppose conventionally she is whatever 
you think her to be.   


>> [Marsha] Maybe I can discover a dynamic re-combination, or maybe I'll be hit by a original 
>> dynamic event.
> 
> [Tim]
> I'll be casual.  Do you think/believe that there is more than Marsha? 
> Or, do you think/believe that anything about which you may be conscious
> is a bit or piece that is a bit or piece in your definition of Marsha? 
> Or is there something else?

Marsha:
If you are asking if I believe there are patterns other than the ones I've 
been exposed to, the answer is yes.  But to believe that they exist would 
be just another pattern.  

Again I can only repeat:  Marsha is a convention, she does not ultimately exist.  



>> [Marsha] Please, Tim,  don't ask me to explain how consciousness works unless you 
>> are prepared to see that I win a Nobel prize.  In other words, you are
>> asking me to speculate.  I can watch patterns flow through consciousness; what
>> happens before and after I haven't a clue.  I'm a bug, not a genius or
>> accomplished yogi.
> 
> [Tim]
> first, you're winning a noble prize would be fine by me.  I can imagine:
> "this years winner is '[a flow of bits and pieces of] ever-changing,
> interdependent, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static
> patterns of value entangled within [a field of] DQ.'"

Marsha:
Hey, now you've got it...  

---  

The rest of your questions I cannot properly answer.  They seem asked from 
a point-of-view that makes no sense to me.  You seem to be wanting an answer 
from a god's-eye-view about a processing that is beyond my perspective.


> [Tim]
> second, this turn towards the explanation of how consciousness works was
> never my intent.  I don't know how this came across.  Is this some
> repercussion of entanglement and a desire to not-reify 'expectation'? 
> Can you tell me why you thought that was what I was getting at?  Marsha,

Marsha:
I am a flow of bits and pieces...  I can watch the patterns moving through 
consciousness, but I cannot explain how, or why or what else is happening 
while I am watching.


> [Tim]
> I give you credit for understanding that I cannot attain.  

Marsha:
I've made the effort to pay attention and explore, and have had experiences 
doing so.  I'd share the experience if I could, but I cannot, and I have no wish 
to embellish for anybody's sake.   I am trying to explain my point-of-view as 
best I can.  I will continue to look for better words.   


> [Tim]
> This is not
> to say that I think your ideas are better than mine, if I did I would
> switch, but I do think that I need to put myself into Marsha's shoes
> when I speak with you - and I know that I will do this only terribly.  I
> think this is the power of my belief in real, proprietary individuals. 

Marsha:
I accept a conventional individual, but not an inherently-existing self, and 
I expect in a forum dedicated to a metaphysics to be able to explore beyond 
the conventional, especially in light of the quotes I supplied at the beginning 
of this post.  


> [Tim]
> IF you don't believe in proprietary individuals you will have to think
> that you can attain another's perspective - or if not you, at least it
> is not theoretically impossible for someone.

Marsha:
I don't understand this statement.  

> [Tim]
> Third: to be sure, the idea of an accomplished yogi or genius is not
> fantastical to you, right?

Marsha:
There does seem to be patterns that such entities exist.  They're static 
patterns of value.  


> [Tim]
> fourth: you say, "I can watch patterns flow through consciousness; what
> happens before and after I haven't a clue.", but what about at the same
> time?  At the same time you are watching your patterns flow through your
> consciousness, do you believe that that is all there is, or do you
> believe that there patterns which you do not see?

Marsha:
Watching is watching.  Creating an explanation for the experience 
is a separate event.   


>> What do you think?
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
> 
> I think only a minute amount of what I might be thinking ;)
> 
> Tim
> -- 
> 

Have I only made my explanation more confusing?  I am trying to be clear.   


Marsha 
 
___