[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --



> "Absolute Sensibility" sounds much like
> "Unitary Consciousness" that Edwin Schrodinger,
> a father of quantum mechanics, speculated pervaded
> the universe with individual consciousness simply
> a manifestation. He has been quoted as saying, "The
> external world and consciousness are one and the
> same thing." Would you say his idea comes close
> to your idea of "Essence?"

I haven't read Schrodinger, but the idea of Consciousness as the primary
source was Donald Hoffman's thesis, as you know, and Franklin Merrell-Wolf
theorized pure consciousness as "The One, nonderivative Reality" which he
called Root Consciousness.

The fact that you raise this point is encouraging to me, because it
demonstrates that you've been doing some serious thinking.  Back in the
'70s, when I began to write on my philosophy, I looked for a term that would
describe pure awareness.  What I came up with was "esthesis", which Runes
defines as "a state of pure feeling characterized by the absence of
conceptual and interpretational elements."  It is my theory that Essence
must possess this capacity, since, as you astutely observe, we cannot
explain man's awareness on biological functions alone.

My first thought was to regard Essence as totally "subjective", but this
logically presupposed some kind of "objectiveness".  What I have since
concluded is that subjectivity is the wrong word, and that a more proper
synonym for Essence is "esthesia".  That is to say, Essence is not only
"sentient" but sentience itself -- the perfect embodiment of sensibility.  I
now use the term "sensibility" to distinguish esthesia (i.e., absolute
undifferentiated awareness) from finite human awareness which IS subjective
because it always has objective content.

There is one exception to this rule.  I talk about human "sensibility" in
reference to Value perception.  My reasoning here is that Value (like
Pirsig's Quality) cannot be considered an objective attribute.  Value, even
though experienced differentially, is directly derived from Essence, and MAY
fill the void of nothingness that I call the awareness potential of
"selfness" without requiring an objective referent.  This is why I use the
expression "value-sensibility" or "value "realization" rather than "value
experience", since experience is commonly regarded as the perception or
cognizance of (external) objects and events.

As you see, we are at the outer fringe -- or, to use Pirsig's expression.
the "knife edge" -- of reality when we try to describe Essence and its
primary divisions in finite terms.  I feel safe in using Cusa's "not-other"
as a logical expression for Essence; I am not that secure in defining the
metaphysical nature of proprietary awareness and the primary
(undifferentiated) object of that awareness.  My tendency is to use "negate"
to connote the sentient subject and "essent" to identify any other
actualized (created) entity.

I hope that summation stimulates your thinking.  If you're ready to discuss
the nature of Essence hypothetically, we could have a very constructive
dialogue.

I'll not attempt to dissuade you fom the notion that Pirsig's LILA is a
testament to individualism.  Obviously you're closer to it intellectually,
and my perspective is (as DMB notes) "at odds" with the author.  So I may
not have caught what you have read into this novel.

Thanks for bringig up this significant philosophical point, and let's
discuss it at your convenience.

Essentially yours,
(not so de-)Pressed Ham