[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Hello Ham. I could not help butting in - i am attracted by your  
arguments.
May i ask a couple of questions of you please?
Are the following synonyms:
1. Consciousness as the primary source.
2. The One, nonderivative Reality.
3. Root Consciousness.
4. The Undifferentiated.
(The MoQ calls the undifferentiated Dynamic Quality.)
So, Quality, Value and DQ are synonyms:
5. DQ.
6. Quality.
7. Value.

Ham: The fact that you raise this point is encouraging to  me, because it
demonstrates that you've (Platt) 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."
 
Mark: This expands our list of synonyms:
1. Consciousness as the primary source.
2. The One, nonderivative Reality.
3. Root Consciousness.
4. The Undifferentiated.
5. DQ.
 
6. Quality.
7. Value.

8. esthesia.
9. a state of pure feeling characterized by the absence of conceptual and  
interpretational elements.
If these are not synonymous, which term is better and why?
(This question is answered when you introduce esthesia below.)*
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: You theorise that x.
a. Is x a component of the theory or
b. Is x outside the theory?
Ham from below: 'we are at the outer fringe of reality when we try to  
describe Essence and its primary divisions in finite terms.'
If x is outside the theory, it is unconceptual and therefore a synonym to  be 
included with 1-9:
 
1. Consciousness as the primary source.
2. The One, nonderivative Reality.
3. Root Consciousness.
4. The Undifferentiated.
5. DQ.
 
6. Quality.
7. Value.

8. esthesia.
9. a state of pure feeling characterized by the absence of conceptual and  
interpretational elements.
10. Essence. (This is supported below) **

 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark:
1-9 above are synonyms of esthesia.
(This answers my above question.)*
 
1. Consciousness as the primary source.
2. The One, nonderivative Reality.
3. Root Consciousness.
4. The Undifferentiated.
5. DQ.
 
6. Quality.
7. Value.

8. Essence. (replacing esthesia)
9. a state of pure feeling characterized by the absence of conceptual and  
interpretational elements.
Esthesia divides into Human experience: Sensibility - subjectivity which  has 
an objective content.

 
Subjectivity is privileged over the objective:
Ham from below: 'the awareness potential of "selfness" may  not require an 
objective referent.'
Thus, selfness can differentiate without an objective referent.
Therefore, selfness is a differentiation of 1-9 without subject or  object.
This is very close to the MoQ position which replaces som with a DQ/sq  
division.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Quality and Value are synonyms Ham.
Therefore, esthesia and value are synonyms.
This is going to become important:
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: This can be unpacked as following:
Sensibility distinguishes (undifferentiated) value  from (differentiated) 
value.
The MoQ has 2 terms: DQ and sq.
You have 3 terms: That which is sensible, The undifferentiated, The  
differentiated.
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Yes i see.
There is something, as yet unaccounted for, but which is denoted as,  
'Nothingness' or 'the awareness potential of selfness' which:
a. Is sensible of differentiation's.
b. Realises differentiation's.
(At this point i wish to emphasise that, 'Nothingness' is a synonym for 1-9  
+ esthesia.)
Were does the, 'Potential' stand in relation to the undifferentiated and  the 
differentiated Ham?
I am reading this as follows: The potential realises and is sensible of  
differentiation's.
We seem to be dealing with causation here?
The MoQ replaces cause with Value:
'In the Metaphysics of Quality "causation" is a metaphysical term that  can
be replaced by "value".  To say that "A causes B" or to say that "B  values
precondition A" is to say the same thing.  The difference is one  of words
only.' (Lila. Chapter 8.)
 
Ham: As you see, we (Platt and Ham) 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.
 
Mark: I think this clearly places Essence in the list of synonyms Ham.  **
 
Ham: I feel safe in using Cusa's "not-other"
as a logical expression for  Essence;
 
Mark: But Logic is conceptual Ham. The only logical system i know which may  
express, 'not other' is the tetralemma.
 
Ham: I am not that secure in defining the
metaphysical nature of  proprietary awareness and the primary
(undifferentiated) object of that  awareness.
 
Mark: But you've give it a good go? You should be applauded for that.
 
Ham: My tendency is to use "negate"
to connote the sentient subject and  "essent" to identify any other
actualized (created) entity.
 
Mark: This accords with my analysis:
 
There is something, as yet unaccounted for, but which is denoted as,  
'Nothingness' or 'the awareness potential of selfness' which:
a. Is sensible of differentiation's.
b. Realises differentiation's.
I'm not sure you can get away with this Ham, but it's a bold try.
I wonder if you are aware of the existential ramifications?

Ham: 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 (Platt) fom the  notion that Pirsig's LILA 
is a
testament to individualism.

 
Mark: I am wondering how the individual is constructed from your own  
philosophy Ham?
If i have unpacked your philosophy, then the self: Realises and is sensible  
of values, and values emerge from esthesia.
You are saying the self creates values which emerge from esthesia.
The MoQ says something very similar, but in the MoQ case the self is a  
preference from remnants of evolution, (a vast repertoire of sq patterns)  and this 
can look almost the same.
This vast repertiore of sq patterns can almost seem like another level  
between Dq and sq:
DQ - Vast repertoire dead patterns - prefered sq construct of  'me'.
I too, will not attempt to dissuade Platt fom the notion that Pirsig's LILA  
is a testament to individualism at this time because i am trying to understand 
 Ham's philosophy.
 
Ham: Obviously you're (Platt) closer to it intellectually,
and my  perspective is (as DMB notes) "at odds" with the author.  So I may
not  have caught what you (Platt) have read into this novel.

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

Essentially yours,
(not so de-)Pressed  Ham
 
Mark: I have butted into an established conversation and apologise for my  
rudeness. I was attracted by your arguments.
Love,
Mark