[MD] Food for Thought

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, David --


> Ham
>
> Can you define sensibility and how it relates to
> consciousness and what consciousness is conscious of (i.e. things)?
> (Beware this question is loaded).

I realize the trap you've set for me: Sensibility must have a referent
object.  Of course, that's true by the logic of subject/object dualism.  And
since we can't extrapolate to "pure" Sensibility in an absolute sense, I
won't jump into your trap by trying to define it.

As for sensibility in the organic world -- I do not subscribe to the notion
of inorganic sensibility -- I think we can say that it exists to some degree
in all living organisms, from single-celled microbes to plants and fungi,
where it maintains organic stasis, to the animal species where it is primary
to conscious experience; that is, the ability to distinguish proprioceptive
or homeostatic sensations from those having to do with "externalized"
stimuli.  Man is unique, I believe, in the capacity to sense Value as the
primary (pre-somatic, pre-intellectual, pre-experiential) referent.

To avoid confusion, I've defined proprietary (i.e., subjective) awareness as
the 'umbrella term' covering primary sensibility, self-consciousness,
intellectual and recollected cognizance, and intra-relational (external)
experience.  So, when I talk about proprietary awareness (PA, as coined by
Laramie), I mean the total subjective side of the S/O dichotomy.  When I
speak of "consciousness" I include experiential, intuitive, homeostatic, and
psycho-emotional knowledge, except for sensibility.  I reserve human
sensibility for "value-sense" -- pre-conscious awareness of the Value of
other.

Although I will not define "pure" sensibility, except to identify it with
the absolute Essence, in my epistemology "pure" awareness is empty of
content -- nothingness.  Thus, to "be aware" presupposes "beingness" -- a
thing or event objectivized by one's value-sense.  That referent is either
the subject's body or an externalized object or person.

I also maintain that for any living organism to possess sensibility, it must
be derived from a sensible source.  That source cannot be Nature, the
physical world, or even the functioning brain, inasmuch as these are
entities are not sentient by their own power.  I've concluded, therefore,
that Sensibility is the non-contradictory identity of Essence, and that it
is reduced to its differentiated or "actualized" state by the negation of
Essence.  Again, as for a metaphysical description or definition of Absolute
Sensibility, it is beyond the reach of human reason.

Has this explanation successfully evaded your "loaded question"?   Or do you
need further elaboration?

Cheers,
Ham