[MD] X = no-self

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Marsha,

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 08:54:28 -0500, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said:
> 
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> I'm just going to delete away all the sections where the questions are 
> rhetorical or where there is no question at all.

[Tim]
woo hoo!  we went from 27k down to 8k!  I think that signifies some
progress.


> > 
> > [Tim]
> > What was it, 'Matz'?
> 
> Marsha:
> Motz.  I don't know where the spelling came from.  
> 
> 
> >  what's wrong with John being a woman named Sally? 
> 
> Marsha:
> Nothing is wrong with wrong with John being a woman named 
> Sally.  I didn't say there was. 

This was the only part where I think your deletion took out something
essential to the ongoing conversation.  My question was asked in light
of this prior question:

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

so, the above meant, if you were to entertain the idea that John = a
woman named Sally, what was wrong with the original question:

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

I would still like an answer to this.

$$$$

> > [Tim] Is it all you, or is there more?
> 
> Marsha:
> I don't know what I don't know.

[Tim]
okay.  but, pffffffff.  Quality is undefinable.  Right?  Still, in life,
we come to a perspective.  Elsewhere I have mentioned faithe, here we I
have been asking about 'belief'.  Whether you admit it or not.  And
whether you think you choose or not.  There is a perspective.  Is your
perspective one implying it is all Marsha - the Metaphysics of Marsha,
or is your perspective one implying that there is more that Marsha?


> > [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.
> 
> Marsha:
> I agree with this.

[Tim]
:)

> 
> 
> > [Tim] 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?
> 
> Marsha:
> Do not compute...

[Tim]

I think I can restate this in a way that works - [x] was just me
shortening your definition of yourself.  So, using your definition,

Marsha 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.  Where is John?  John is also [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 - you have agreed.  There aren't too many
options.  one: John = Marsha.  Two, John is a sub-part of the 'flow
of...' that is Marsha.  OR, Marsha and John are distinct 'flows', but
both are entangled within a single DQ.  Or else, Marsha and John are
each independent, with their own DQ.  Which do you choose?  Or is there
and option I have missed?

> > 
> > [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:
> I don't know.

[Tim]
:(

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:
> Believe?  Sure.

[Tim]
:) !!!

What restricts you?

And: Do you believe that there are patterns to which you *are* not
exposed?

> 
 
> 
> --- 
> 
> [Marsha] I've agree with the Buddhist concept of anatta.  That the self is a
> composite 
> of aggregates: form (the body), feelings, perception, mental formations
> (volition, desire,
> emotions), and consciousness - patterns.  None of these patterns
> independently 
> exist.  That's why I meditate; to see for myself.

[Tim]
huh, 'volition', I will have to ruminate on that.  Well, is it something
you watch, or something you do/choose?

I think that there is something missing in this, and it is related to a
typo I found from our previous exchange.  RElated to the two quotes you
gave from the MoQ textbook, I had said: "together, I can even begin to
imagine how an un-real SQ comes out of a real DQ by pure ... poof!", but
'can' should have been "can't".  Mark also posted to this thread
yesterday, with the notion of a 'handle', as I recall.  I too suspect
that DQ must have a way to have a handle on us, because we have a handle
in DQ.  Elsewhere, a long while back, I had mentioned that there might
be a need for an 'I-as-idea'.  This would be the 'real' part of Marsha,
to which the 'real-enough' parts would attach.

> 
> [Marsha] If I've missed any of your questions please let me know.

[Tim]
it was just the one.  And I did let you know.  Thanks for editing!

> 
> [Marsha] And if you'd like to present your "one idea and question" I will surely
> give it some consideration?

[Tim]
Everything we have been doing in this thread is aimed at this one
question.  Not that this is my only one question. in general.  But here,
about the self, it just this one.  You posed it.  I have a differing
sense.  I have been trying to lead you to mine all along, without
deviation.  It is no easy thing.  That is the nature of the problem
though.

I believe in some r... rather, I choose to believe in some real,
proprietary self.  I don't think that I am thinking of a cartesiona,
autonomous homunculous, conventional self.  I think that I am thinking
of a quality self.

You have suffered the accusation that you always evade reason.  I have
not bought into this.  When conversation has broken down, and such
charges levied, I say the accuser make a leap of faith in the middle
that you refused to take.  This seemed reasonable!  However, at the same
time, I think that you are resting on the poorer choice.  So, while an
accuser might rest on a richer choice, ultimately, this choice made in
the middle of the argument was intellectually weak.  Anyway, I think,
due to your highly intellectual defense, we have come very close to the
wall!

Here is what I mean.  A while back I gave an analogy, which I think you
can recall seeing, in which I described teh intertwining of 'I' and DQ. 
It looked like this symbolically: >+--+< .  I had used the word door,
and threshold.  So, I can say now that I think that by the arguments you
have been backing away from the door that others were putting in front
of you.  This was very reasonable because there was another door behind
you; and how does one choose?!

BUt, there is a wall.  So we all believe.  for instance, I have referred
to the 'impossible'.  And that 'something is' is true absolutely because
'nothing' makes no sense.  Anyway, if we haven't backed into the wall in
this discussion, it at least seems to me that we are very close:

Do you believe that there are patterns to which you *are* not exposed?

If we have backed you (your intellectual position) to the wall, then
there is only the door in front of you.  Still, it is hard to say
anything about reason and reasonable.  Why would it more reasonable to
leave the door open rather than to close it?  What is the standard?  I
think that the open door is richer, as opposed to poorer, but...  I
think RMP has said that the one thing repugnant to DQ is to try to hem
it in, to take away freedom.  So, I think the open door is richer
because it is more free.  Either way, it seems like a choice.  Whether
you believe in your ability to choose...  whether you believe that you
just watch...  either way, it seems that there is, inherently, in any
perspective, a position taken regarding the above question. 
  
> 
> I hope additional progress has been made.  
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 


it seems like it!  What do you think though?
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be