[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham --

> > "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.

As I read Runes' definition as I struck by how close it is to Pirsig's 
description of Quality: "Quality is a direct experience independent of 
and prior to intellectual abstractions. Quality is indivisible, 
undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a 
known . . ." (Lila, 5) This is so close to Runes' idea as to be almost 
indistinguishable. 

> 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.

You will note in Pirsig's description above that he too eliminates 
subject/object from Quality -- "knower and known" come later.
 
> 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.

This too is Pirsig-like. His "value" is directly derived from Quality, 
In the MOQ, values are co-existent with pure experience prior to 
thought. I see no difference between Pirsig's and your views regarding  
"value-sensibility."

About the only difference I detect between Essence and Quality is in 
the terms "experience" and "awareness." You use the former to express 
the normal subject/object division in human perception whereas Pirsig 
uses "direct experience" to describe what you call "pure awareness." 

Perhaps in my eagerness to find compatibility between your philosophy 
and Pirsig's I have seen things that aren't there. I hope you will show 
me where I have gone astray.

One thing we are in total agreement about: "We cannot explain man's 
awareness on biological functions alone." Dawkins, Dennett, Wilson and 
their acolytes still have a long way to go to explain how consciousness 
emerges from a lump of meat.   

Best regards,
Platt