[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --

> Thanks for your further explications of "negation." I was taken by a
> sudden flash of illumination of your meaning of the term when you
> described it as "rejection" and "filtering out." Thus, negation means
> "ignore,"disregard," "overlook", "tune out," "pay no attention to,"
> etc. Is that correct? Also, you explication reminded me of what little
> I know of Gestalt Theory which in essence :-) rests on the figure-
> ground phenomenon, i.e. that the same outline can be perceived as
> different alternate figures, with very different shapes. Are you
> conversant with Gestalt Theory?

I don't know how you've found the time to read my posts while
single-handedly waging the battle over "certainty".  But it looks like your
opponents may be  surrendering.  Of course I can't be certain ;-).

Flashes of illumination are welcome signs.  Ideally, I'd like every
statement I write to induce an epiphany of some sort.  Yes, I am acquainted
with Gestalt Theory (and therapy), but wouldn't say that I'm really familiar
with it.  But, thanks for the tip; it may be worth looking into with regard
to this topic.

I think the cerebro-nervous system is a natural "filter" in that it is only
receptive to information that can be integrated into a finite conception of
reality.  Any other perspective would be chaotic and disorienting to the
individual.  We cannot have access to reliable knowledge (certitude) beyond
the single-point perspective of proprietary awareness.  Psychics and
fortune-tellers push the edge of human sensibility, whether purposely or by
some anomaly of their neurological makeup, but then so do the quantum
physicists.

If "filtering" or "tuning out" helps you understand the concept of
negational experience, by all means use these metaphors.  I tend to see
proprietary awareness vs. otherness as a black & white scenario.  For
example, awareness can exist only as a "being-aware"; the essence of
awareness resides in the otherness of the self/other dichotomy.  It is the
value of this otherness that draws us into awareness so that we can
differentiate its essence into finitely recognizable phenomena.  If we were
not so divided, we could not experience the proprietary perspective of
Essence, which I maintain is the purpose of our existence.

> At least this time I think I got a glimmer of understanding
> of your views. It's still tough sledding for me, though.

Indeed, it's tough sledding for me too.  And I am certainly not arguing for
any kind of certainty here.  To be perfectly candid, I once entertained the
notion that it was Value which was negated to create existence.  Then I
tried to work it out as Sensibility.  Nothingness was my last resort, and it
seemed to defy common sense until I began to understand Cusan logic.

The fact that Nothing can function as an "active agent" is preposterous,
until you realize that only Nothing can appear as an "other", and then
disappear from existence, without diminishing the Absolute and with nothing
lost in the process.  I do believe something is gained by this "becoming of
Value", however.  Whether it "refreshes" Essence, or "perfects" it in some
way, I can't say.  This is one of the speculative "absolutes" whose truth is
denied to us so that we can be autonomous in our free choice of values.

Does that make sense to you, Platt?

Glad to be making some progress, and I'm always looking for other theories
that point in this direction -- even those of Mr. Pirsig.

Essentially yours,
Ham