[MD] X = no-self

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Marsha, greetings,

NOT one more time... going forward... by baby steps :)



> > 
> > [Tim] 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.

[Tim]
At what?  At having you address an idea I hold, but which I am
struggling to present/ask in a way that brings you to see what I am
getting at.

I am rejecting your responses, and I do want to insist that you reflect
my understanding - but that is only here, where the exchange is about my
one idea and question.  If I have missed something that you are trying
to get from me, I'm sorry; I by no means intent to reject you in such a
way.

About my lectures and tolerance.  I can always use more sure, but I
think you have missed the mark here.  I will get to this further on, so
hold off judgment for now.

I don't want to accept paradox.  But perhaps I should not have said that
because 'paradox' is a confusing word and I think there are many views
out there...

  
> 
>[Marsha] I am answering you question with sincerity and as best I can.

[Tim]
I haven't doubted that.  On occasion I have doubted the effort --- but
this time is certainly not it!

   
> 
> 
> >>>>>>>> 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.  
> >>>>>>>> 
> > 

> > [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."   ???

[Tim]
If you heard that as tirade or lecture, that was all you.  I assure you.
 It was said in a very calm, very accepting, very tolerant, very
*resigned* manner.  If you care to put yourself in my shoes...  I think
this is a pretty honest assessment.  (btw, I try to put a '!' to express
any heat; there was none in the above.)
   
> 
> [Marsha] 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]
Again, I don't doubt your honesty.  yes, we see it differently.  I don't
doubt your honesty, but I do suspect that you do not want to see what I
am 'going on about'.  I think that, while I do a terrible job of putting
myself in your shoes, I kinda see what you are going on about, but that
- and I say this quite coolly, with no malice, etc. - it "is just an
impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it."  Now, I
keep this (at least I try to) conclusion quite open, tentative if you
will, but every time I walk away from you I do so with a confidence in
my position.  (btw, I think this is one reason why people like beating
on you.  Though, as I have suggest, the intelligence of your defense
leaves that opening wider than they are comfortable with.  Anyway, I am
baffled that your door to me seems to shut tight.  A confident position
is one that is happy to leave the door open.  So it seems to me.  I hope
this doesn't come off as tirade-y, but as an sincere attempt at opening
a door - which attempt I make because I have hopes that you will come to
prefer it --- and of course, that is a very selfish aim on my part.)
   
> 
> 
> > [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,

[Tim]
What was it, 'Matz'?  what's wrong with John being a woman named Sally? 
Is it all you, or is there more?
 
>[Marsha] like you could be a man named Arlo.

[Tim]
well, our Arlo might take offense. ...  I could be a robot.

> [Marsha]  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)

[Tim]
was that really from Chapter 15?  I thought it was earlier?  Anyway, I
have had to return 'Lila' to the library so I am out of luck here. 
Also, my memory is terrible, it fades real quick.  I am going to
struggle to find the context for this - I think this was when they were
on the boat with the monster with two backs.  Anyway, I am not trying to
bring you down to a cartesian 'I'!  RMP wrote in a very casual way, such
that normal people would enjoy reading it too.  I agree that there is a
program format, also called 'I', which refuses to see the entangled
nature of reality.  I think that 'cartesian' and 'autonomous' are key;
but again, at this point this is more me that RMP.  I'm going to suggest
that RMP would have us get past youthful cartesian, autonomous
conceptions of ourselves, to get to mature, mutually existing ones. 
That he doesn't intend to destroy the 'I', but to have it reborn, 'from
above' if you will.

Here I am susceptible to the charge of avoiding the evidence.  If you
(or anyone) should want to levy that charge, please suggest that I order
'Lila' from the library.  I am willing, just not readily in the position
to get into this thoroughly at the moment.
  
> [Marsha]
> "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)

[Tim]
I haven't read the textbook.  I know that my library didn't have 'Lila's
child', not in the whole system, so I am not hopeful.  Anyway, if a
'textbook' is an 'I' it is not the kind of 'I' into which I can even
start to put myself into.  I can start with animals.  I can take baby
steps with other humans.  Anyway, for me to really consider those quotes
I would have to have also the particular author of the words.  And I
would have to have context.

but, about the first, okay.  I can read it in a way that is perfectly
commensurate with my understanding.  But I don't like it much.  I really
have to fudge the 'real'.  But this fudging is suggested by the fact
that 'real' is reserved for DQ.  I am very glad that I am not that
'real'.  Still, I don't think that DQ could be real unless there were
'I's that are real-enough as well.

about the second: I mentioned yesterday to Jan-Anders that I think I
missed a good deal of the precision of RMP's handling of the static when
I read 'Lila'.  I really think I could use a re-reading with my current
perspective.  And again, I think 'Lila' was written for mass
consumption... and I think that there is yet stuff that RMP does not
know (and I think I could find a reference of his admitting so much:))
regarding the utter present.

together, I can even begin to imagine how an un-real SQ comes out of a
real DQ by pure ... poof!

> 
> 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]
I think that RMP was not trying to obliterate the conventional, but just
to state that we can't close the door that tight!  I think that you have
closed the door tight, and that you would be happier if you opened it a
crack.

but, what you really think - which I did want to know (Thanks!): "John
exists as a ... [x]" - A.  B: Marsha exists as a ... [x].  So, I ask: is
there only just one 'x'?  I though it was DQ that was one.  Is it that x
= x?  or is it that x not-= x?  (Or a fourth option?)  Is it that there
is x1 = John, and x2 = Marsha?

> 
> 
> > [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]
yes!  Exactly!  I am leading the witness!  If I cannot lead you to the
idea I am trying to ask you, then conversation is pretty useless. 
"Can't say": this is a very wise option.  It is a fine answer in my
book!  Thanks.  Sincerely.
  
> 
> 
> > [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]
but not here.  'believe' is the key difference.  If you don't understand
what 'believe' means, that would be a fine admittal.  But to say I don't
know is to admit of a sufficient enough understanding that you can't say
'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]
Marsha, there is a boundary there, I am just trying to see where it is.


> 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]
this seems very worth while.  My questions barely make sense to me when
I ask them.  That is, I ask what I think makes sense, and I wait to see
if you tell me whether it did or not.  When they come back as they have
- and when I trust your sincerity and honesty, which I do - I conclude
that they did not make sense!  Then I integrate your response and try,
again, to find one that does.  This is what I mean when I say I try to
see things from your perspective.  'insertion' might work too.  I have a
perspective that is my perspective.  words don't quite do it justice. 
but when I read my words they do seem to lead right up to the door.  I
do my best to put together the words that I think will be best for you,
if you are to try to put yourself in my shoes, to see the door that I
see.  I do this by trying to put myself in your shoes.  but I do this
terrible so the combination may be real ugly.  I wondering how you go
about this.  if you do try to put yourself in my shoes, then I wonder
why insist that the door is shut.  if you don't, I wonder why you refuse
to.  anyway, I think putting oneself in others' shoes is a valuable
practice.  but I think to do so does show a belief that there is
another.  and a belief in the other is essential to trying to put
oneself in another's shoes. 

> > 
> > [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.

[Tim]
'have' was your word.  And I don't see how it relates to my question: do
you believe that there is pattern outside of Marsha?
  


> 
> 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.

[Tim]
well, this was what I was looking for...  but it doesn't satisfy...  Do
you believe that there are patterns to which you cannot be exposed?! 
I'm really happy with that question!
  

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

[Tim]
the only time I was confident before you! ;)


> 
> 
> > [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]
Marsha, I'm bummed that I come off as conventional.  Not because I find
it too derogatory or anything...  I think that the conventional is
conventional for good reason; I think it is very close.  Quality is
powerful, but subtle.  If this were not the case the power and weirdness
would probably be overpowering.  If we didn't have childhood, and the
conventional background we supplied to it then, perhaps would not be
able to find quality in the entanglement at all.  Perhaps there is room
for a proprietary self who is real-enough, but falls short of the
reality that is reserved only for DQ.  (And perhaps that is not
conventional.  convention is just convention, perhaps one day the MoM
perspective will be conventional.  if it is so weird that it cannot
become conventional, it is probably to weird to entertain.)

> 
> > [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]
thanks for your honesty.  I think I have expressed myself above in a way
that might make it comprehensible:

Do you believe that there are patterns to which you cannot be exposed?!
  
> 
> > [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]
really?  ahhh,  I see, you don't believe the entities exist, but you
recognize a pattern that such entities exist. ... maybe I understand
that?
 
> 
> Have I only made my explanation more confusing?  I am trying to be clear. 
> 
> 
> Marsha 
>  

No, I think we finally made a little progress.  Thanks.
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
  http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html