[MD] subject / object logic

[Ham Priday]

Hi David --


> Ham said: Still, it suggests that Value is the source of intellection,
> which is my thesis, and once something is intellectualized (experienced)
> it is differentiated.

[DM]:
>Is there no experience before intellectualised experience? Of course
> our eyes/brains interpret and differentiate but we would not usually
> call this intellectual activity, would we?

I am no expert on this, although I majored in biology and have studied 
pedagogy.  I think the fetal organism is aware of isolated sensations, 
mostly of physiological origin, before its brain is capable of fully 
integrating this data.  But I am also of the opinion that the "proprietary 
nature" of awareness is primary to physiological development.  Whether such 
awareness can be called "experience" or not is a matter of semantics and 
interpretation.

For purposes of clarity, I prefer the term "sensibility" where the precise 
locus of awareness is questionable, the absolute case being that of no locus 
at all, such as the nature of the primary source (i.e, creator or God).  In 
my philosophy of Essence, existence is postulated as a duality in which 
sensibility (the negate) is separated from an insensible otherness (essent). 
To refer to the negate as "awareness" would be confusing and epistemological 
incorrect, since in its primary state it is not individuated as a cognizant 
organism.  When individuation of the self arises (and we understand it as a 
process in time) it becomes what I call "value-sensibility", which is always 
experienced differentially.
(Incidentally, so is Value, in my opinion.)

So, in answer to your question, I would say that all proprietary experience 
is an intellectual process.  However, I can understand the need for other 
interpretations where Value or Quality is considered the primary source.

Thanks for a thought-provoking question.

Best regards,
Ham