[MD] subject / object logic

[Ham Priday]

On 8/23 Joe said --

> I agree being brainwashed is unfortunate. As far as words go there
> doesn’t seem to be much difference between "levels" and "sources"
> as a beginning for thought.  As an amateur singer I have been exposed
> to the octave for a long time. I think it is unfortunate that you used the
> term "brain washed" to describe a long observed phenomenon.

Perhaps brainwashed is too harsh a word, but I don't know any other, with 
the possible exception of "habituated" or "conditioned" which only 
behavioral psychologists seem to understand.  We are all brainwashed in the 
sense that we think of our selves as beings of the physical world, like 
trees and houses.  But our beingness is borrowed from the objective other 
that is our perspective of Essence.  What constitutes our selfness is 
value-sensibility, but we are aware of value relationally due to the finite 
limitations of organic cognizance.

[Joe]:
> "Essence" is the ultimate source." You describe the movement from essence
> to "real self" in terms of "value sensibility" and "primary to 
> experience".
> Are you saying that "essence" is embodied in existence?  My understanding
> of your triad was that "essence, existence, nothing" are coequal 
> principles.

I have no "triad", unless Value is regarded as a third element of the 
self/other dichotomy.  And there is no equality between objective essence 
(essent) and nothing: in fact, nothingness is the antithesis of essence.  Of 
course Essence encompasses existence because Essence is the ultimate source 
of everything.  But the "quality" of existence (to use Pirsig's term) is 
proprietary to the individual.  Everything that we blithely refer to as 
"quality" is contained in our subjective awareness of an objective other.

> What, then, is "real self" in contrast to "essence"?
> It seems that "real self" being primary to experience and "essence"
> as the beginning and the end as ultimate source denies experience
> altogether. If I don’t experience "essence" and "real self" how do I know 
> them?

As I said above, the "real self" is value-sensibility individuated as a 
being-aware.  Self is not primary, however.  Pure value is primary because 
we draw upon it for our experience.  Individuation of pure value into 
proprietary (differentiated) awareness follows the sensibility.  We know 
Essence by the Value of our experience, just as we are the "knowers" of our 
selves.

(If you don't mind, I'll skip the rvolutionary reference to homo sapiens, 
mostly because evolution (temporal differentiation) is not critical to my 
thesis and adding dimensionality unnecessarily  complicates my ontology.)

 [Joe, later]:
> "Cognitive perception" is unclear without a "mind".
> IMO the movement from hominid to homo sapiens is a movement
> to the level of consciousness which evolves further to law,
> the intellectual level.

I never said there is no "mind"; I simply consider it the cognitive function 
of the intellect.  Since I'm not an evolutionist, but am dealing with fully 
cognizant human beings, the anthropology of man is of little concern to me. 
I'm more interested in the development of the intellect (and 
self-consciousness) with respect to the individual.  Like most pedagogists, 
I view it as a gradual process that can be traced from the embryonic stage 
of gestation to full development in the adult.

I'm sure my answers will evoke further questions, but it's difficult to deal 
with these concepts on a piecemeal basis.

Your continuing interest is appreciated, Joe.

Essentially yours,
Ham