[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Joseph Maurer]

On Thursday 24 August 12:37 PM Ham writes to Joe, also SA, Case --

Hi Ham and all,

> Glad to hear from you.  It's been a long time.

Thank you! for your kind words!

> Back in the '80s, an acquaintance of mine, who was heavily into New Age
> philosophy, recommended that I read both Ouspensky and Gurdjieff.  I
> remember being fascinated with their imaginative approach to the universe,
> but could not buy into the multi-dimensional cosmology.

In a triad of essence, nothingness, existence for one element to stand alone 
the other two are in contradictory identity.  Existence is a multi 
dimensional cosmology, while essence and nothingness stand in CI.

> I think too much has been made of the so-called "discontinuity" of
> consciousness. While it is true that we infrequently focus in on our
> thoughts and feelings, this does not suggest that we are unaware of our
> "selfness" in our less introspective moments.  We don't lose our
> self-identity when engaged directly in tasks and interpersonal activities,
> and we certainly don't confuse our experience with that of someone else.
> Everything we think, feel and do is perceived as part of our proprietary
> being-in-the-world.  Therefore, I think Gurdjieff's assertion that "We 
> have
> only the possibilities of consciousness and rare flashes of it" is
> unfounded.

Sleep and awake require a relative "discontinuity" of consciousness. 
Possibility is not as aware as actuality, a relative "discontinuity in 
consciousness.  In porfessional baseball a batter's hitting average 
fluctuates from day to day.  It is easier to explain the fluctuation of the 
batting average in terms of attention, rather than ability.  As a man I 
don't expect to bear a child, but interpersonal activities add to my 
responsibilities.  'Proprietary being-in-the-world is not absolute. 
Existence in a family adds to consciousness.

'Rare flashes' of consciousness seems to be a workable explanation for 
political chasms.

> I agree with Pirsig that "Value is pre-intellectual", which gives it
> universality.  But the intellect that "objectifies" the values perceived 
> is
> proprietary to each individual.  And while I understand that neurons and
> nerve energy are the organic instruments of sensation, I strongly disagree
> that proprietary awareness is a byproduct of biological complexity.  The 
> New
> Age idea that technology will eventually develop microchips that will
> replace and upgrade cerebral functioning is absurd.  Man will never create
> himself, and no computer ever designed will possess conscious awareness.

If I change 'objectifies' to 'legislates', I also agree.

> Thanks for the quote.

You're welcome!

Thanks for your attention!