Uh, wait, Zo. What? Wait! What? Listen! What? Shh. What's that noise? What noise, Joe? Don't you hear it? No. Listen! A rustling noise outside the tent! I can't hear it. Zoe! its right outside the tent!! It might be the Blair Witch!! No, it can't be her. Why not? She's with Liddy this week. What!? [Mulder to Scully: PLEASE TAKE NOTE!!! This clinches it!! --Mulder] I don't hear anything. Hey guys! What's happenin'? Erin?! --What the hell you doin' here? You scared us, sister! I couldn't sleep. I heard you were still up talking so I came over to visit. How's everything going? Are you Godot? Oh, this is great. I just get the guy paid off again and now you arrive to horn in. Besides everybody in the park can hear you talking and yelling. I expect state cops will be arriving any minute just like last week. Is Shantila asleep? Yah. She got tuckered out running through the woods with you. --Did you see what we glued together? Afraid I did. Now that is scary. Scary? What do you mean? Are you trying to teach her beauty indirectly through the exploration of ugliness? We did it blindfolded this time. Great. I was wondering how you managed to find two dead birds and a dead squirrel. And all in one day! Hmph… --Well, it was whatever we came across. I trust you are not expecting me to keep this one. Of course you have to keep it. [snoring sound] Oh great! Looks like you tuckered him out too. [snoring sound] Some gigolo! I am going to demand my words back! I always pay him but he never delivers. What? He's not from Mars by the way. You were wrong. Really? [snoring sound] Yah. Some other planet. But don't tell anyone, ok? Yah right. [snoring sound] He seems to be getting the hang of things around here, though.---- [snoring sound] Can't you shut him up? Oh, sure. Roll over, Joe! --Here, help me push-- [Pause] See? Pretty good. So why are you always connecting with guys who promise radical transcendence through intimacy-- Joe doesn't promise that-- Yes, that's my point. He couldn't even pronounce those words. There is only the image of it, I mean, the promise of it in that sense, but you obviously are not deeply compatible so nothing is really going to happen. Well. Interesting question. You sound exactly like Dr. Laura. That's an insult! Oh yah! You think that's an insult, then take this-- Oh yah? [slapping sound] [slapping sound] [crash] Ouch! Hey! Watch out for my head! That's not fair! Hey! Girls! What are you doing? Oh. Sorry. Are you getting it on without me? Mr. Carson, I want my money back. You are a complete and total fraud. This time was the last straw. You will be hearing from my lawyers about this, sir. Don't worry, Joe. You're not missing anything. Yah, go back to sleep. This time I definitely am going to sue you in small claims court. Do you girls know if you can drive in other states than where your driver's license is from? I was having a dream about this. That would be an affirmative, Joe. A what? Yes. But if you move there you should get it changed so you can register to vote and so on. Unless of course you are an alien. Oh. Are you planning to drive to some other state? No. What if you get recarnintiated? Do you have to renew it? Re-what? Are you planning to get recarnintiated? I don't know. It was like I was in California with a new body looking for J. Gordon and I got stopped by some cops and they asked me what I was doing driving in California with Washington license plates. I thought you had Nevada plates. Are you talking about your driver's license or your license plates? What is the difference? Look. If Liddy gets elected governor and hires me, I'll just be able to make my own licenses, right? That would be an affirmative, Joe. Of course you might get caught and have to go to jail. No, that won't be a problem. He's going to be put me in charge of the jails too. Apparently they are having some problems with illegal channelling. Good grief Charlie Brown! Would you please go back to sleep! [snorting sound] God, what an idiot! [Snoring sound] Zo, I think he's pulling your leg. I'm not so sure. You taught him well. The student often gets better than the teacher very quickly. That is the joy of teaching. Maybe. That's really funny then, what he just did. I'm not sure, actually. Zo, shouldn't that be healing by now. What? --I don't know. Yah. I think it's starting to get better. I'm not sure it is. It's been too long. Well, I'm going in again next week. I want to go with you again. Well, I'd appreciate that, Erin. Its on Thursday, 9 a.m. Ok. Thanks, I appreciate it. Its ok. Your daughter was full of ideas today. She was so fun. She asked when you are an artist can you make up your own name? Really? I said you don't like our name? She said yes I like it but I might want another one too. She's told me that too. Did she have a name? Shantila. Yah. She said I want to make art you feel with your hands. She wanted something she can still see when she goes blind. Did she say that or did you say that? Then she said I wonder if there could be an art not exactly dependent upon any particular sensations-- Liar. --or thoughts. She didn't say that, you did. Yes, I said, it is nonconceptual art. We don't have to make anything into anything. Liar. It is nearer than near. Then she said, is it like when my mother is holding me and we are singing? Did she say that? Then I said maybe that is possible and she said how could there be art without thought even while we are singing? Liar. And I said I don't know, that is the mystery. Right, Zo, you fuckin' liar. What is a mystery is where you get all your lies. We are holding the notes but not clinging to them. --like holding your daughter --holding but not clinging. Hmm. When I am with your daughter my heart is so open. Uh-huh. Nonclinging emptiness. Soft knowing, no object. That's pretty obscure. Then she started singing
Hmmm. Can I ask you something, Erin? What? Is that what mamas sing their babies nowadays? What? Why on earth were you singing that with her? I suppose I shouldn't if you listen to the words. But a lot of nursery rhymes are pretty cruel. Right. Well the song has survived, hasn't it? Right. It has been so difficulty recently, Zo. Is Tim coming back or not? I don't know. I have no idea at this point. Come over here, Erin. Huh? Let me hug you. Ok. Here. Well, that's nice. Uh-huh. You are hugging me-- --and Joe is hugging me. Who is hugging Joe? Joe's ok.-- He made some good points about Derek the other night. Yes, you told me. Fission isn't going to do what Derek wants it to. But maybe no abstract arguments will do it. Oh, sure they can. They can at least point the way. I don't know. It seems to me you always are just waving your arms around like Derek. Where are the arguments? I agree the propositional beliefs and arguments are secondary. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that. Ok. But I am. So having arguments doesn't matter? I'm not saying that, Erin. Like I said, they can point the way. They need to be there in some way. But? Basically we just need to see how freeing it can be not to cling to a solid sense of self. But without going nihilistic. Instead of protecting an ego we continually just find our place in the vast interconnected web of things. Oh, come on. Ok. Look. We can shift perspective away from the assumption of density. Once and for all? No, of course not. This is where renunciation is most practical. Not holding to the dense sense of self. I have in mind a way to explain this. What? Promise me first you won't laugh. I cannot promise you that, Zoe. Sometimes your stories are too ridiculous. Its about reincarnation. Great. Don't you mean recarnintiation?-- I take it you've been talking to Joe about this. You got him worried. No. By the way, will he have to renew his driver's license? It is about how Derek's discussion of reductionism in real life should connect up with some points from the buddhists about reincarnation. Oh, great. Relax,-- I'm not going to make an argument for reincarnation. In fact I'm going to criticize the way the buddhists use the idea. The whole idea-- But still Derek could benefit by looking more closely. Zoe, the whole idea of reincarnation is so absurd. Derek shows that if we had evidence for reincarnation, then we also would have evidence for the existence of substantial Cartesian souls. From this it follows that if we have no reason to believe in souls, reincarnation is very implausible. Mulder: Scully, this is on page 227 in Reasons and Persons, “How a Non-reductionist View Might Have Been True.” -- Mulder: Scully, hello?? Erin, I can't believe you are repeating this. Relax. No, really. Pardon me, but this is atrocious reasoning. His lapse at that point was breathtaking as is yours right now, if you seriously are agreeing with him. The typical buddhist view is that there simply is a stream of some sort of psychological continuity of mind going through various lives --but of course no souls. They may be wrong but at least it is a coherent idea. Ok. Ok. But then you should say the buddhist view is rebirth, not reincarnation. I think the term reincarnation implies a soul. I don't think so. Even the teletransportation thought experiment like in Star Trek beaming is just a form of reincarnation. So it should've been obvious to Derek that there at least could be reincarnation via continuity of mind even in a new organism on Mars. Listen, Zo, maybe you've got a good point to make. But how interesting could it be given there really is not any good evidence at all for anything like real reincarnation or rebirth or anything like that? Well the general point I want to make is totally independent of whether or not we should believe in such things as fact. Ok, well, let's hear it. I will. But first since you got us off on this-- It wasn't me. You brought up the whole topic! -- Ok. But I think you should know that you've got your head in the sand about the evidence if you think the very idea is ridiculous or incoherent. I'm not saying there is compelling evidence, and in fact I don't believe in rebirth. But there is scholarly research about this question, especially Ian Stevenson's work at UVa. I have looked at some of it and there are some interesting stories. There are actually some very interesting stories. Actually I have heard about them, Zo. Most recently there was a boy in Portugal who claimed to be Gretchen Weirob. The philosopher John Perry tape-recorded? Yes. On her deathbed. When this Portuguese boy was 6 years old, he basically reiterated all of Weirob's work on rigid designation. You mean the stuff that challenged Kripke? Yah. The boy was born two years after the motorcycle wreck killed Weirob. He's 20 now. Apparently he keeps harrassing John Perry out at Stanford and then it got so bad that Perry had to get a restraining order. No. I don't believe you. You are one total complete fuckin' liar. The kid violated the restraining order 7 times so Perry got her thrown into prison. She's in San Quentin now. Liar. You mean him. Whoever. I'm not sure what to think. Anyway Stevenson has collected a bunch of stories like that but it wasn't my intention here at all to address the empirical evidence. Ok. Maybe I'll read that some day despite the fact that you are lying through your teeth about Wierob.
Are you accusing me-- [inaudible] [inaudible] ------------[cut 00:35:45.33]--------------------- [inaudible] [inaudible]
So anyway, Erin, that's one of the stories he investigated. In any case, what I wanted to say is completely independent of any purported evidence like that. But one also hears some horrible argument for believing in reincarnation that are supposed to be independent of the evidence and certainly I hope this is not where you were planning to go. Like what? One idea is that we need some explanation why people are born into such differing circumstances, some rich, some poor. It is difficult to look at these inequalities without any explanation; but the idea that reincarnation explains it is crazy. I agree. But simply dismissing the question is crazy too. You have an explanation? No, I have no explanation. There is no explanation --I mean, it is something that arises out of nature in each case, but there's no reason to expect some general explanation. Right. But nonetheless, Erin, when we look at the terrible facts, there certainly is a question of how we are going to respond to them. But any sort of reincarnation explanation is completely bankrupt, because it leads to nihilism. Why do you say that? Well, as an explanation it depends entirely on the idea of oneself as a separate entity-- But that isn't necessarily nihilism; one still has reasons for action but they are reasons based on one's own predicament. Ok, nihilism, schmilism. Anyways, I think I'm going to get some sleep. Ok, Erin, wait. Right. I totally agree that a problem with the rebirth idea is it leads to excessive focus on just one's own predicament --trying, for example, to make sure that one gets reborn in good or promising circumstances. And true, the bodhisattva ideal abandons the self-centered orientation--one vows to be reborn for the benefit of others. Compassion rather than nihilism in light of the awful facts. Yah. But I think it is better just to abandon the idea of rebirth altogether. Well, I agree with you about that-- So why did you bring it up? Like I said, I think the idea can be used. Zoe, quit playing games. Nietzsche nailed this one. The idea of other future lives simply devalues this real life, no matter what your motivation. And given this devaluation of the real life we know are living, it is very unlikely that the idea of rebirth has any redeeming serious use --except of course for entertainment, for making movies. The focus on rebirth is simply life-denying, it is a form of what Nietzsche describes as the No-saying attitude towards this world and this life in which we find ourselves. Even when the religious ideas and practices help people find meaning in life, and I will grant you there can be good results sometimes, still they are doing it by tremendously devaluing their actual situations; and generally I fear this sort of preoccupation skews everything we really value. I totally agree. A preoccupation with the idea of rebirth or resurrection works for both buddhist and christians in precisely the way uncle Fred described, and as you saying-- it is a No-saying attitude to the world, for the sake of some future situation--in heaven or in a future rebirth in some realm. Actually it seems to me that this attitude tends to undercut the deepest values of those religions-- Jesus, Zoe--that is what I have been saying all along. I thought you were going to add something new! I was going to-- I am going to -- but you keep interrupting. I would say Nietzsche's alternative myth of eternal recurrence actually is way better, than any of the other rebirth myths, at pointing to what is of value: live now every moment as if you were going to get reincarnated endlessly into the very same life, as if you were going to be doing it exactly this way again and again and again! Erin, I'm not sure Uncle Fred's myth is all that much better. That is exactly where I was going with all this. I wanted to compare it to the religious rebirth ideas of resurrection and reincarnation and so on. You don't like his myth? I think it is sort of inspiring. True, it could be inspiring in a way, but I have an even better myth, or rather it is not a myth at all, but just looking at the facts with a certain frame of mind. It is why Derek should take the idea of reincarnation seriously. He can do it so as to develop a story based on facts that is even better than Uncle Fred's myth. I'm not saying Derek should believe in any type of reincarnation, but the idea can be used to help him spell out the practical ramifications when we accept nondensity about ourselves. You mean that stuff Liddy calls the practical Rams. Yah, right. Liddy. He was talking about it at the conference. He stole that right out of my thesis--did you know that? No! Yes. What a fuckhead. Ok. Whether or not rebirth occurs, we know there will be causal continuities between me now and other people who will continue to exist. This is true even if there is no continuation of my current mind. And so my point is that the difference between Yes vs. No views about the question about rebirth is not nearly as extreme as it would be if it were true that we are dense souls. Either way we're just talking about causal series of events? Exactly! Duh. This is supposed to be earth-shattering? Aren't you sort of taking the obvious and making it like way too abstract? No. Ok. Jeesh, Zo! That is all you were getting at?! Erin, listen. What is radical is that we are not dense; and this point about rebirth is just another way to illustrate this point. To make vivid what not being dense means. It means the difference between rebirth and no-rebirth is not as great as we had assumed. Ok. Well I see your point, but I was expecting something more melodramatic, given how you built it up. Well, I'm not quite done yet. But the point here is like where Derek says that when he came to believe in reductionism about himself, he found himself caring less about his own death and caring more about the lives of other people. The fact that he will die just means that at some point in the future there will be not be any events taking place that are R-related to him now, that is, no events will be happening then so as to continue his mind at that time--none are connected in the right ways to the events taking place now that constitute him now. But still there will be some events, maybe many events, happening later that he will have played a causal role in making happen. That is an interesting point, Zo. I will agree with you that it is interesting. But it is pretty abstract. Do you think people actually could live in terms of that idea? I don't know. Why not? Do you remember what Derek said about how he thinks about his own death? What did he say? The prospect of one's own anticipated death varies with how one conceptualizes it. If we use thoughts that eliminate any assumption of density, then it doesn't seem so awful. Compare the thought “I am going to die” with the thought “There will be a time in the future when no experiences will be R-related to this thought.” Do you see the difference? Yes. Of course Derek is assuming no rebirth here when he makes that claim. But, Zo, I don't see-- Erin, yes. My point is similar to Derek's point about his own death, but it is about the idea of rebirth itself. Actually it is not related so much to caring less about one's own death as to caring more about the lives of others. He emphasized the increased disconnectedness in the life of a person who comes to believe reductionism. That's the A train. Oh God, not that horrible train stuff again! Wait! --but there also is the B train --feeling less disconnected from others. You have to be careful, by the way --if you get on the B train, otherwise you can end up lost in Queens somewhere. Funny. It happened to me once. My first point was an A train point: one might begin to care less about whether any form of rebirth is true -- because we become less concerned in general about our own futures. Big deal, I don't think that's-- Right. But that isn't particularly important for you, since you already don't believe in heaven or hell or rebirth of any type. No, I do not. Or if you do it is just a regulative idea like in Nietzsche's myth. So you already are living fully in this world. I am trying to do that. Reflection on the idea of rebirth can be useful to you here even if rebirth as a matter of fact does not happen and even though you do not believe in it. Why? If one is stuck with both the commonsense assumption of density of self, plus contemptuous of the idea of rebirth, then I claim there is a sense of self ISOLATED from the history of the world that is very misleading. Straightforward belief in rebrith actually is more accurate because it ties our existence into the history of things! That is the point I had in mind to try to make and I'm sorry for spelling it out so clumsily and I hope you can see it now. Actually, now I'm not so sure-- There is a direct application to your work on Nietzsche: he appreciated non-density in some of his writings, but generally it seems to me he totally presupposes density of self. In fact he presupposes it in his myth of eternal recurrence too and his influence persisted in all the various forms of existential alienation expressed by Sartre, Camus, those guys--they all depended so blindly upon a sort of unquestioned presupposition of the isolated, separate, dense self-- just exactly the same thing, in fact, that you have being assumed in the religions that focus on the afterlife. Well, yes. Ok. That is true. That's a good point, Zo. Even though officially he rejected the cartesian soul, he develops a persona in his writing that magnifies the dense self, and that combined with megalomania and conceit (titling stuff like “Why I Write Such Good Books”) plus his idea of the will to power results in a persona who is self-centered in an extremely powerful --and often not very attractive or inspiring-- way. As Dense, his Zarathustra is determinate, separate, the image of him is substantial, willfully exercising control. I wrote about this. Right. He is ranting and raving by himself with no friends and even though he is provocative and entertaining for awhile, there really is very little to inspire us. Wait! He had friends! --there were quite a few animals hanging out in the cave with him. And we certainly to admire his refusal to say No to life, to try to live without ressentiment, to muster a willingness to act so as to be willing to repeat it infinitely. Ok. Yet his is an image of a dense self willing, doing, repeating-- and in a way it is an image of a dense self preoccupied with image of self--even if the image is doggedly--and very bravely--for self alone. A sort of posing for oneself, even if for oneself alone. In fact Uncle Fred's myth of eternal recurrence probably REQUIRES density of self-- The myth requires a substance or soul of some sort. He can't rely on psychological continuity since if you had memories of doing it before it would not be the same as doing it before. But the mechanism of the myth certainly was not his central point. True. I agree with that. It is the idea of recurrence itself, to motivate attention to how one is living here and now. To take responsibility for oneself in a serious way and not to defer values to some other life or realm. But, nonetheless, Erin, the fact that the myth itself presupposes density of self makes it natural to operate in terms of density for anyone who were to adopt the myth as regulative in some way. That's what I'm getting at. Hmm. Ok. That is a good point, Zo. You are right. Nietzsche's persona assumes density of self. Without a soul or something like that in the picture there is no reason to say that you would repeat. There might be somebody just like you having a conversation with somebody just like me, a conversation just like this one --but there's no reason to say they'd be us. They'd just be like xerox copies of us. Right, they're not us. That was my point. He has to assume something like a soul for his eternal recurrence myth to make sense. Uncle Fred has to assume density of self to get that myth off the ground, and that was suppposed to be one of Zarathustra's main ideas. Ok, good point, Zo. But it was just a myth. Erin, there are alternative pictures to be drawn. I am saying there's a better picture of things to use and it is based on non-density and is not a myth. What?
Actually there are many alternatives. One alternative is a myth in which one person is reborn plus time travels again and again and again so that all human beings past and present are just one person, namely, you! That's funny. Say it again. Only one person exists, who is reborn plus time travels again and again so that all human beings past and present are just one person, namely, you! And me! And Joe! That's ridiculous! I'm assuming you could have causation backwards in time -- so that an experience in twenty years could really be the cause of a genuine memory now. That's a great idea, Zo! That could be a good movie. I mean its ridiculous, of course, but it is really funny. Why do you say ridiculous? Because it assumes the psychological-based theory of a person to make it work. But really we are simply human animals. --And in your story you are not having the animals themselves time travel. True. Wait. --Why not? Why couldn't the physical organism? I mean, it could. But I don't need to say that, as long as there are the right sots of causal relations between events. Ok. I didn't meant it is incoherent --just pure fantasy that is based on a theory of persons that is fantasy. Well, I agree the story is fantasy. But the theory of persons isn't. Yes, it is. It assumes this Cartesian division between animal life and continuity of consciousness, and identifies the person with the latter so-- That's right. But that theory is true. Ok. We disagree about that. I think as persons we are a particular type of animal. But anyway I already said I agree it is a coherent view, and you could make a movie. To keep it simpler maybe just have all the central characters in a movie be just one person because of the looping continuity of mind-- Without assuming everybody is. Right. Good idea. Then later we could do the sequel when everybody discovers they all share one life. Yah, soften them up first, by just having Nicole Kidman continue Tom Cruise's life --even though they are married to each other, having sex-- --fighting and so on. Right. So Tom lives his life and then at the end time travels back and is reborn as Nicole-- Can she remember being Tom when he was an old man? No. Not at first, anyway. I mean, she could remember--that'd is necessary to have the continuity of mind. But let's gradually let it dawn on her as the movie proceeds. Yah, she gradually realizes that she has been in all the situations before, even when they are together, but only experiencing it from his point of view.
Ok, Zo, but that is ridiculous if anybody meant to be serious about it. I agree it might be a good movie though. I'm not proposing anybody buy it. I just wanted to list some possibilities right now. That's not my main alternative, but I think as a myth it is better than Uncle Fred's. Another myth would be one that some buddhists actually do accept, I think, that everybody you're dealing with now in your life has been in a special relationship with you in previous lives, for example, as a parent or child. So lives run in parallel to some extent. Right. Great. So Tim was my mother in a previous life? Yes. Something like that. Hmph… There is a long process working itself out. Ridiculous. Ok, but as a myth, that one could be more inspiring than Nietzsche's. Maybe. I'm not sure why. Because it encourages a sense of connectedness with others rather than a sense of alienation. I'm not sure the good effects of adopting such a myth would outweigh the bad. Besides it is too abstract. Erin, please remember I was just listing some myths as alternatives to Nietzsche's. But my alternative picture is not a myth at all. No? No, it is not fantasy. It is based on the obvious boring facts --facts about interdependence. I'm getting kinda' tired, Zo. Wait. I'm almost done. A future incarnation of me, beyond this life, would just mean that there would be the psychological causal continuities from me now into the future, even after my present body has decomposed. And what is quite certain --and this is the boring obvious fact -- is that there are going to be many causal relations connecting me now with events in the future, and some of these causal relations are in any case not all that different from the special relations that constitute personal identity. For example, the influence we have on Zo, that you have on your students at the university, that I have on people who see my art. Duh. Wait. Ok, I realize these ideas seem trivial, but when we re-focus on the fact that we are not dense-- when we really appreciate this fact --they become much less trivial! That is my point. They become much more like the idea of my own survival would be if rebirth were true. So we survive by virtue of the worms who will eat our bodies, and then of course there are the worms' children and the worms' childrens' children and so on! No, you idiot! That is really completely different; that is nothing at all like survival. That is not what I am saying. I am not presenting a survival myth at all. I am saying that because the self is not dense, the effects we do have on other people are very much like what rebirth of the self would be were it to happen. Say that again? If somebody two hundred years from now will be recalling this conversation, in just the way I can remember now what I did yesterday, then perhaps that person will be me --but even if so, she will be me only by virtue of causal relationships between the events that constitute me now and events that will be happening for her two hundred years from now. So you are saying that given nondensity, survival of death really does or should not matter in the way that people have tended to assume it does matter. Yes. Exactly. Because people don't really think about what it would mean, they don't realize that they really would not value it very much compared with the simple matter of fact ways in which our thoughts and actions do have real causal effects in the world even if, or even though, we don't survive death. Well-- Moreover, people who reject all the religious myths easily go to another extreme: they implicitly assume density of self, but not survival, and so the image with which they live is a self quite disconnected-- Zoe, aren't you in danger of going off the deep end here-- just like Parfit did when he began proclaiming that identity doesn't matter? I don't think so. I think you are. Obviously he paved the way for what I am saying. But if you look at his arguments that identity doesn't matter they are all based on the “no survival” interpretation of fission. That wasn't a good idea; that's not what I'm doing. The fission arguments were a weak foundation for discussing the RAMs --this actually is what Joe saw the other night-- --that his argument that identity doesn't matter was based completely on fission-- Yes. By the way, weren't there any other arguments for that? Not really. Well, wait. Ray Martin offered another argument for it, yes. He asks if we'd be willing to change so drastically in order to become the type of people we'd like to be-- even if it meant losing identity. He said, yes we would be willing to transform in certain ways, even if it meant not having identity with the later person. This is closer to what I'm saying. But it seems to me that Ray's argument still doesn't work for the “identity doesn't matter” conclusion because I might simply be willing to give up my life for the sake of there being a better person to take my place. I might be willing to sacrifice myself for that other person or more generally for the world as a whole. So Martin's argument doesn't show that identity doesn't matter to us in ordinary life any more than does my willingness to sacrifice my life to save your daughter's in some emergency situation. And I certainly hope I'd be willing to do that. Actually I obviously would be willing to that.-- Of course you would. At least I hope so. So how does your alternative story differ? I'm not trying at all to challenge the commonsense idea that we care about ordinary survival or that we should care about it, where by ordinary survival I just mean what we normally mean, that is, continued identity through time by virtue of the various types of physical and psychological continuities that ordinarily make it happen for us. So you don't think shifting to the nondensity idea changes that? No. If there is an effect on our attitudes about our ordinary futures, we might come to think of our future selves as more like those of others. But still I have a special relation to any future self who will be me, I have a special concern for her well-being, and so on. And so? But the thing is, when we start thinking about survival of death, and what that would mean-- that is very different. There we certainly are not thinking about ordinary circumstances. And whatever story you might tell to make the idea coherent, you are going to have some extremely weird things happening. It is for instance going to require a different body. Why not the same body put back together? --I mean, after the worms and the worms' children have eaten it, you get all the atoms back and so forth etcetera. Well, that's pretty weird. Actually that proves my point. Like I said, whatever your story, it is going to be weird. Even if you imagine your somehow having the same body, still it is a very different situation from the ordinary physical and psychological continuities that make for our ordinary survival through time. And so? And so what I have been trying to say is that the types of causal relations that would make for survival of death, if somehow I were to survive, are not all that different from the types of causal relations that we know that we will have. After death? Yes. After I die, there will be events taking place that are to some extent causally conditioned by my actions-- by what I did today. Things I did today certainly might have an effect on your daughter, and suppose that she has children and grandchildren, and two hundred years from now her grandchildren's grandchildren might be doing something that is in some small way causally connected with things I did today. Right. I can seem them now. They will be walking blindfolded through the woods picking up garbage. “It is a family tradition,” they will be saying, as they glue dead yellow finches onto big sheets of cardboard. hmph… -- moreover, I claim now that if we look into it, we see that we don't really care which type it is! Which type which is? Which type of causal relations --whether they happen to make for my identity or not. We don't really care whether the person two hundred years from now who is influenced by me in some way will also be psychologically connected to me now. Why should I care, for example, if she is actually remembering this conversation. Why should I care about that? If I care at all about the causal relations behind my mind and hers --well, what do I care about? What I hope is that if there are such relations that they are good ones. I mainly just hope that what I think and do has a good effect for her. I mean, I'd hate to think that people will be worse off thanks to me. What about tomorrow? What about it? Do you feel the same detached way about how you will be related to people existing tomorrow? No. About tomorrow I want somebody to be me, genuinely to be remembering this conversation, or at least capable of genuinely remembering it, and I want it to be me. I want to still be alive. I want to go swimming. I think its too cold. We don't care. Zo, listen. Maybe its just lack of imagination which is why you don't care much about whether you'd exist two hundred years from now. --So you can go swimming then too. Maybe. Possibly so. Ok. What I care about is dependent upon how I define myself; and so you are suggesting I might be defining myself in a too limited way? Yah. Ok. I suppose that if surviving two hundred years becomes possible for normal human beings, then I would want that too.--maybe there could be mind state transfers to new bodies or something like that. Or the same body just being constantly maintained and improved. Cloning makes this possible --I mean, it even makes it possible to clone your own replacement organs to make it smoother. But just change the story then --imagine somebody two hundred thousand years from now. Zoe, it might be possible simply to keep going even that long, or longer, maybe there is no limit. Well, ok. But in that case I wonder if it really would be me --even if there is continuity of one and the same human body over a vast period of time -- could it really be the same person over that long a period of time? Well, good question. given long life spans, like Methusaleh's in the Bible, there might still be limits on what it makes sense to think of as mine-- since after two or three hundred years I'd might have totally forgetten everything during the first 30. Right. You might need at least the capacity to have some direct psychological connections. But, Erin, I think you are missing my main point. It doesn't really matter whether it is me or not. Even if we imagine physical immortality, I am saying, it doesn't really matter compared to the facts with which we are familiar about interconnectedness. Suppose indeed I could have some direct psychological connections --the types of relations that make for my own identity over time -- even two hundred years or a thousand years from now with somebody, and on the other hand, suppose I could do something today that for some odd reason would have a good effect on some people in two hundred or a thousand years-- what sort of effect? I don't know, uh, there is somebody in a really good situation because of what I do today. Does it really matter to me that there are the direct sorts of connections that make for my survival? Well, Zo, I think people do care. That is why they want to go to some heaven and they want their loved ones to go there too. Well, that is why I am telling this story. I think poeple need to look at the ideas more closely then. I mean, it'd be fascinating to know about future direct connections beyond this life. Of course. But what I am saying is that there just wouldn't be that big a difference between its being me way down the line, in heaven or wherever, and on the other hand its being somebody else who was there in that situation because of me. The same points hold about people existing in the real world in two hundred years or in twenty years. Given the unusual forms of physical and psychological continuities that'd be required under any realistic way of imagining survival of death, the difference between its being me and its being somebody else causally connected to (but not identical with) me isn't all that big. That's the main point. Ok. I see what you are trying to get at, but I don't think I buy it. Your alternative story is going to look like a pretty thin substitute for survival, for what people really want-- But that's my point! Look at it the other way: If you are hankering now for something more than your current states' having a causal influence in the world in the future, then you want something that you cannot get --and you would not get it even if you were to survive death!! Because your surviving just means there being the causal relations between your states now and future ones. Yes! Actual survival given nondensity would be a pretty thin substitute for what people tend to assume survival means. And so if my story seems too thin then I would wager you are assuming that the self is dense. But that is a mistake! The self is not dense! But still, Zo, the causal continuities that make for personal identity are special. I agree-- of course--memory, intentional action, specifically identifying with a past person as oneself --these are special relations. That is true. But when we consider the extravagant circumstances that would be required to maintain these continuities into the future, the difference between memory of an action of mine, for instance, and that action have a significant effect in the life of somebody else --well, I just do not see that much of importance to me hinges on the former. Do you see this? Yes. Ok. I see your point. But the fact you are trying to wring meaning out of life with these causal relations may drive some people simply to embrace the idea of souls even more enthusiastically. You say we should find meaning in causal interconnectedness, which exists as a matter of fact, and since we are not dense, we are not substantial souls, that is all our surviving would mean if there were rebirth. So we can know we already have pretty much what we'd get with survival, even if there is no survival of death whatsoever. Yes. You understood. Instead of getting depressed we can use these ideas to cultivate compassion. Exactly. Ok. But those ideas will lead some people to dig in their heals and say--well, if that is all you could get out of life without density of self, then that shows we should assume density.--Or at least cling to hopes for it. But it is just fantasy, Erin. Of course you can make your movies so they come out that way. But it is make-believe. It is pretty abstract, Zo. I think you need to bring it down to earth. Ok, maybe. My point is that if I were to have to choose between having the continuities that make for identity or simply having good effects on the lives of others in the future-- there does not seem to be much to choose between. A lot would depend on the values each alternative realized; that'd be a lot more important than strictly speaking whether I survived or not.-- And look, we already KNOW that we are having effects on people and will continue to have effects on people who living long after we are dead. People on earth. Like my great-great-great grandchildren gluing garbage together thanks to you. Exactly. even if not in a heaven or hell or whatever. So you are saying identity matters in this life-- you disagree with Parfit and Martin about that. But it is identity across lives, after death, you are saying, that would not matter all that much, even if we had it. Right. Exactly. Identity in this life matters, but identity across lives does not. I mean it wouldn't even matter to us, and shouldn't matter, even if we knew survival of death somehow was going to happen -- it just wouldn't matter much in comparison with the real causal relations with which we are familiar, which we know will connect our lives with others through our families and friends and associates and who knows who else --just by the everyday actions we do. But, Zo, here's where you are making the obvious too abstract. People already do find meaning in life because of how they affect their children and so on in the midst of normal human life. True. I know it. Remember I am still not claiming there is something here that has melodramatic consequences for ordinary life. Nonetheless I think there are times when it could be relevant for somebody, perhaps in an extreme situation, when there is a question about whether life is meaningful. It might actually help one act with compassion rather than going nihilistic. One can find meaning in one's life because of the causal interconnections even without leaping to otherlife fantasies. Just make the shift from “my life is meaningless” to “my actions have real effects in the world.” Hmm. ok. Look. I don't want to begin making extravagant claims like Derek. Yet if we appreciate our nondensity then I think it is more likely we are going to be willing to sacrifice to avoid hurting or to sacrifice in order to help others. And it might make us more able to do it too, since even when we are willing to do it, it can be difficult to do. So these points are related to where Derek points out that the shift to reductionism means he feels less separated from other people. Other peoples' lives seem closer when we reflect on ourselves as not dense. It is like what Martin says about Stevenson's anecdotes about reincarnation-- Let's not get back on that-- wait a second, its just a small point. Even if the stories are taken at face value as nonfraudulent and so on, Martin says we shouldn't think that the ESP explanations and reincarnation explanations of the stories are all that different. He says--ok; suppose for the sake of the argument that the kids in the stories Stevenson recounts really do have genuine information by means of their apparent memories of other lives-- well if it is a form of ESP then, given reductionism, you just have the sort of psychological connection that makes for identity, by virtue of the causal tie to the other person's life. I agree with Martin about that point: an ESP connection would be form of direct psychological connection of relevance to identity. Right. So when Joseph Epstein was channelling through you, to some extent it was just him taking over your body simply by events in his mind causing events in yours. Yah right. It was Goldstein, not Epstein-- Sorry. I mean, it wasn't anybody.--it was only a joke! But right, if channelling really happens, it is quite coherent to say that the mind of the person being channelled is truly realized in the channeller's body --at least a portion of the mind, simply by virtue of the causal relations between mental events --since that is all that continuity of mind involves-- and on a psychological version of personal identity that is precisely what is relevant to whether or not that other person exists there. God how did we get off onto this channelling nonsense? You're the one who brought up channelling. Sure but you're the one who started talking about ESP. Erin, I'm saying something totally different. Just forget about channelling, ESP, reincarnation. Just forget about all that. Assume it is all fantasy just like stories about Mulder discovering alien-abductions. Ok. I forgot. But still the ideas are useful to make the point. They are useful to make vivid what I am trying to say. What? Say it again. Suppose somebody after my death is going to be channelling me --I mean channelling my current mind right now, maybe there is just some form of backwards ESP relative to my current thoughts--and suppose it involves some causal relation between me exactly now and somebody down the road. Do I survive by virtue of that happening? Well, I am saying this would be interesting to know about, that is for sure, but still it really isn't an important question, and we can see that it is not all that important by seeing that even though nobody really is going to be channelling me or doing the backwards ESP to me now, back to this day in 1999, still what I am doing right now could have some effects on minds down the road. I mean it will have effects. That is why this is not a myth. Ok. I see. Suppose for instance the FBI is taping this conversation and some agent fifty years from now is cleaning out the old files and he is listening to it. Right. So we have an impact on him. Yah, right, maybe its Mulder. Hey Mulder you getting all this straight?
As a matter of fact there isn't going to be any channelling connection any more than the tape connection with Mulder the old man; but there are obvious mental connections between people all the time. What I've been trying to say is that just like Martin shows the difference between ESP and reincarnation is less, given reductionism, I think the difference between psychological and social relations is diminished as well. Just making a causal impact is something like channelling; and we cannot really avoid making an impact of some sort or other. These ideas illuminate our basic natural altruism. Martin got stuck on the A Train shift away from souls, just like Parfit did --that is, on how it can tend to create a sense of increased distance between parts of one's own life. But the B Train shift increases our sense of connectedness with others. One can go on both trains, of course, but if I had to choose I'd choose B -- it tends to generate compassion whereas A alone may tend to generate nihilism. Oh, god, Zoe. It probably is a good thing you went into art. That train stuff always makes me dizzy. Listen, Erin. Have you heard the stories about the Buddha on the night he got enlightened? What about it? When he was sitting all night under a tree in Bodh Gaya in India--according to the traditional accounts, he had a vision of his past lives. Yah, right. According to Jack Kornfield, actually I have it right here --hand me the flashlight -- this is on page 276 of A Path with Heart--”The Buddha told of a vision on the night of his enlightenment in which he saw thousands of his own past lives, as well as those of many other beings, all dying and being reborn according to the lawful karmic results of their past actions.” so? Listen. I want to ask a question about this. Imagine a vision like that, the lives passing before him--what did he see? Consider what he might have seen when he saw one life passing before him as his own and another as NOT his own. What was the difference as he would've perceived them? Jesus Christ, Zoe. How am I supposed to know? It couldn't have been because of the awareness of the endurance of some separate soul, even assuming what is unlikely, that there could be such awareness, since the Buddha doesn't have anything like that in the picture. Memories then? Maybe so. For some of the lives he has memories --those are the lives he sees as his own. For other lives, he has information, but not memories--those are the lives of others. But imagine all this flashing before you, Erin. Try it. What is the difference, really, between remembering, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, only have images and thoughts? Suppose that all of the images are veridical --they give accurate information about the lives lived before in thousands of different situations. But what is the difference between a genuine memory and just having accurate information? Ok, I am trying --yes, yes! I am getting a flash of kissing the Queen of Sheba. Whoa! How does she kiss? Not bad. Ok, supposing it is veridical, how do you distinguish it being a memory from simply a vivid accurate image? Uh. Because my information is "from the inside" -- the first personal point of view. Ok, but why isn't that simply information what it was like to kiss the Queen of Shebal? -- I think the answer is you would have to trace the causal chain between you now and the kiss. If you are really remembering, then maybe you are one of her lovers and you have been reborn. Yes, I think I might be King Solomon. But, on the other hand, if you are only imagining, but somehow based on facts, then perhaps you might just have some special ESP about Solomon's experience of kissing the Queen of Sheba. Hmm, very nice, I must say. The point, Erin, is that whether you just are Solomon or not by virtue of your vivid apparent memory --that depends on things other than the image and the apparent memory --it depends on how many connections of that type you might have back to him. So what? So go back again to the Buddha on that night in Bodh Gaya. It seems to me the key thing is it doesn't matter whether a life was his or not. The key thing is the causal interconnectedness. I wish I could make this vivid for you, Erin. Don't you see it? I see it. But it is hocus-pocus talk. Look. Suppose I say, “remember the year you were 17.” ok? What do you remember? Not very much. I smoked too much pot, Zo , thanks to you, actually. I can't remember anything. Funny. Be serious. My point is that in ordinary memory over long periods we could ordinarily come up only with a general environment where we lived, a house maybe, a room, some people, etc, and a few events too --but really we cannot remember very many specific events. It is kind of weird. Perhaps we could remember it all if stimulated in the right way. Indeed, maybe the Buddha could do it. I don't know. Maybe so. Right. But it doesn't matter to me; it is not relevant-- why not? This is my point all along. The point is to look at your own experience, not stay lost in fantasies. When I look at my own experience, I can't really pull that much together, even from just ten years ago. So? The point is that the memories I have now of ten years ago might not even be enough by themselves to get me directly psychologically connected to me back then. Yet there is continuity between me-now and me-then because of the wider context, the intervening stages being interconnected with each other and so forth. Ok. Yes. But the direct tie between me now and me at 17 is pretty slim. Right. And when I do vividly recall a certain experience --like a certain date, or when we played for the state high school basketball championship -- I certainly can identify it as my experience. How? Well, basically I can trace back to it in a general way, with other memories, how I got from there to here. So even if an image is vivid, I can't really say it is mine unless I have some idea how to trace the connection between the experiences then and now. Maybe the Buddha could trace all of them. Right, Erin. I'm not trying to say I know he couldn't do it. I literally have no idea about that. But whether he could or not is irrelevant --that is my main point. Maybe he could remember kissing the Queen of Sheba too. If he could trace it, fine-- then it'd be evidence he's recalling an experience in an earlier life. If he can't trace it, ok, it isn't him maybe, but assuming he had a veridical image of some experience the point would be that he is connected in some way to all of those lives, whether he can trace the causal series as his or not. By the way, since it was central to the Buddha's teachings not to perpetuate attitudes of possession, identification with, claiming stuff as one's own, I'd assume this goes for lives too. --Right? Probably so. Exactly. In any case, whether a certain life was his or not would be dependent on the wider context, that is, the context wider than simply seeming to remember something. So the main point is that he is interconnected with all of the lives he seems to remember; and it doesn't matter much whether it is interpersonal or intrapersonal connectedness. It really doesn't matter whether they were his or not. Hmm. So I'm in a chat room and talk with some guy. Suppose he tells me the truth about something, I don't know-- --about stealing cars, let's say --just to take a hypothetical example. Yah, ok. Well, that's interesting. I get a real connection. And since as a person I am not dense, that real connection is comparable to what makes for my own existence through time. Comparable. Yah. Ok. Maybe not all that similar. But since there are no souls in the picture-- Ok. But suppose it is a lie, just a made up story. Suppose the images flashing for the Buddha that night were not veridical, Zo. Given everything you're saying, would that even matter? You've been saying it didn't really matter whether the lives were his or not, due to the nature of interconnectedness either way being pretty similar at least at an abstract level, --but you kept “veridical” in the story. Suppose they were just stories? Ok. Good question. Suppose he did see thousands of whole lives flashing before him, the way people report their lives flashing before them in a life-threatening moment. But they were just stories. Would it matter? Right. Would it? An experience of seeing vividly what human life can be like in thousands of different ways. Is that what you mean? Yes. And seeing oneself as not separate or special or exempt from all the things that might happen. That's right, Erin. Maybe that's why we like to watch tv and movies and read stories. Maybe so. That's a good point. So proliferation of stories in popular culture might do something similar. Maybe so. But, Erin, I would say that instead of opening our minds they also can just reinforce certain patterns. --Especially patterns grounded in the assumption of our own separation, isolation, density. So I'd want to say we actually see it best in silence, in the solitude of the undivided heart. I know that sounds odd, but without that we can just get stuck with the images, where interconnectedness also is only an abstract image. Well. What can I say? I don't know what you are talking about. Actually I'm not very interested in any of the exotic stuff. In fact that is almost entirely my whole point all along. Our basic day to day interconnectedness is where the action is. Period. But religious people still remain preoccuppied with fantasies about other worlds and other lives, which I claim reflects an enamorment with density. Enamorment? Whatever. And the relevant nondense connectedness is not only with those people co-existing with us now, of course, with whom we talk and work and dance and make love and play basketball and so on, but it is with other people too, perhaps over vast periods of time both past and future. If we really see this, then it can make a huge difference to how we approach our lives. Because there is more ompassion rather than self-centeredness. Yes. And not only people, but other animals and the enviroment around us. So you are talking about worms! Well, sure, they are in the picture. You asshole. But I'm not saying that we do survive by virtue of these relations with other beings. Erin, if you assume density, like even Uncle Fred did--if you assume a sort of separation from history, that there is some solid center to me --then you are overlooking the fact that my identity through time is constituted by relations. You will just overlook it and zap! --you will write your twenty books before noticing it. It is subtle. But when we focus on the fact that my identity is constituted by relations between events, it becomes sort of trivial whether or not any form of rebirth takes place. Thats my point. That's what I wanted to say. It really doesn't matter compared with facts we know about for sure. Like our influence on your daughter, and on indirectly on her children and their friends, and so on. That's what I was driving at. The thing is just to see that appreciation of our nondensity can dissolve preoccupation with one's having other lives.
Ok. Actually, I get it, Zo. Its not a bad point. Indeed what I was trying to do in my book was to develop a persona that contrasts with Nietzsche's --that incorporates his good insights but isn't so self-centered. really!? Actually I was meaning to tell you something. What? I actually went ahead and used your term for it. What term? Not dense. Wow! Thank you, Erin! That is so cool. She finds meaning in life but not exactly by building and promoting an ego. Who does? Zorathustra. Zarathustra? No. Zorathustra. She is sort of the hero of my book. Wow. I thought it was a philosophy book--about Uncle Fred. Yes, but I found myself writing mainly about her instead. Or rather, writing about her seemed the best way to say what I wanted to say. She became a model for what is possible in the development of certain virtues; not all the virtues, of course, but some of them, and she came to life in a way so that I began to believe that there were things I myself could do. Really? So it was about yourself? partly. And I saw things as possible that beforehand I'd not even considered. wow. Besides why would one want to write about personal identity from an impersonal point of view. Wouldn't that miss the point? Right. My book is sort of getting beat up for that. Actually I am sort of beating myself up about it. I wasn't clear enough about what I was doing. Erin, you didn't need to be clear about everything. In fact, insofar as your own persona is interwoven into Zorathustra's and what she is saying, it probably is better it has flaws because obviously you do too and more importantly you weren't trying to create a perfect persona but one who could inspire even in the real world in which we live. Thank you, Zo. You're welcome. Like what flaws? Getting so wrapped up in this thing with Tim. You are hanging on to something that is over. Besides, you don't have to define yourself in terms of romantic relationships. I'm not sure you are much of an expert on intimacy. For example, you won't even talk about why you are willing to live with nothing more than the promise of intimacy-- Maybe not then. Ok. Ok. Erin, I never said I was a complete expert about any of this. Right, I realize that-- so maybe you are just stuck with some alternative myth that now just completely prevents you from really falling in love. Maybe so. Ok. Its not a myth. Even if not, you might be focussing on it in a certain mythical way. Maybe so. Maybe you are correct, Erin. Maybe next year I'll agree with you. Ok then. Ok. Ok. Ok. Ok, Zo. I'll bite. How do you see it? See what? About Tim and me? How I see it is I am not going to coddle you for an instant on this. I will hug you but not coddle you. What does coddle mean exactly? Baby-sit. Change your diaper. There is just no reason to be lonely; we just do not have to be stuck in loneliness. It just is a remarkable fact. It is because of the nonclinging open-ness of mind. There are even meditation techniques to practice this. I'm not saying it's just obvious. It can be cultivated and it needs to be cultivated. It doesn't seem to just happen, at least not for most of us. Still, the fact remains, I am saying, that the loss of a person like Tim does not create the void. And no person ever is going to fill the void. The void --the great abyss--is whom we most are. It is deep, fathomless, like the sea. That's what the Buddha said. Plato recognized it and the beauty of it and its importance but perhaps he didn't look into it closely enough --he didn't have the meditation techniques from India, perhaps, and so he leapt to the idea of a substantial soul. On the other hand, the Buddha is talking about it, but when it came to philosophy perhaps in his context there wasn't the tradition of precision and analysis of the Greeks and in the subsequent texts it got mucked up with the denial of self, stuff like that, and then buddhist philosophy got sidetracked by the two truths jargon. It is a space-- Whoa, girl. --What about Hegel-- what? --and Mao? What? -- hmph… --so it is a space free from clinging. It is amazing but it is quite definitely real. Not holding to anything yet it is not simply nothingness either. The void is not void. I claim I am talking about something real and knowable, even though I would acknowledge I am only gesturing somewhat stupidly. Good Lord!--
--Zo! -- is that grammatical what you just said? The loVe we were just talking about is a gift appearing in the Void, in nonclinging lucid emptiness. This is an aspect of human consciousness. As an analytic philosopher you might appreciate more a term like, let us say, pure formal intentionality. A gift of giVing, of not holding on. It is not something that somebody else giVes to you or that somebody makes happen for you or that somebody can take away from you in any sense whatsoever. You can say what you want about how little I know about intimacy, and possibly you are correct, but I am not going to compromise on this point that what you say is superficial if you are assuming that what we are seeking depends on some form of behaVior or not. Zoe, I think you need to get some sleep. Sorry, Erin. Didn't mean to make a speech. Despite the words I am not assuming it needs some mystical gloss. It's ok. Even if I understood you that doesn't change how I feel. Of course not. I am not talking about escapism or denial. Let me remind you, Mr. Sariputra, if I may do so, that form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses-- He wants to list everything, right? Yah. With loVe we know it best. You don't have to stop loVing him just because he's leaVing you. Do you realize that? You are plum crazy. Maybe I shouldn't've shown any enthusiasm for the alternative myth you told. hmph… --Thanks for trying. It was kinda' encouragin' though, Zo. I admit that. It wasn't a myth. It was totally based on facts. Do you realize that you shouldn't stop loVing him and don't need to? Zoe, do you hear something? What? Like someone laughing. Yes--I think its coming from the green Van parked in the next site. Let's go check it out. There was a woman there. I think she was alone. Actually she was up here last weekend too-- She might know some good jokes. Yah, its more like a shrieking. Let's go look. I need to take a pee anyway. Do you see my cut-offs? maybe its the Blair Witch! No, she's with Liddy this week. What?! Listen! The Van just started up. She's leaVing. Well, that's too bad. Let's take a walk anyway. Yes, how about up the hill. Ok. Let's check out the stars. Ok. I'll bring a blanket. [file end] |
Use web browser to go back<<
return to homepage The Z-Files