[MD] Trance state

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Joe --


> Pirsig certainly proposed an order in evolution.  At the social level
> he proposed a level which adds something to the capability of an
> individual at an organic level without destroying the individual.
> Evolution is addition, not subtraction or displacement.  As addition
> to [?] I accept the distinction between levels.  You don¹t accept 
> evolution
> yet a hummingbird reproduces as capably as a human.  Evolution
> describes some differences in capabilities better than mind/matter.

To work backwards through this paragraph, I'm not describing differences in 
terms of "mind/matter".  I'm saying that existence is differentiated because 
we experience it that way.  It's our fragmented glimpse of the Absolute 
intellectualized as finitude.  Difference starts with a single division: the 
"splitting" of Sensibility from the whole of Otherness.  Sensibility is not 
"mind", it's the perception of value which defines the human psyche.  Only 
Essence senses Essence.  Humans are not Essence but value-sensibility, and 
it is our  separation from Essence that differentiates our experience.

I accept evolution as an observed principle of nature (process in time) 
which, in turn, is our intellectual construct of value.  This is how we make 
sense of experiential (organic) sensibility.  A "level" doesn't add 
sociability or intellect to an individual; the individual develops these 
capabilities himself in his relations with an objectivized world.  And the 
neuro-physiological integration of sensory value is not an "added" 
capability of the individual but a finite "reduction" of absolute 
sensibility.

> The Absolute is a metaphor.  No one has experienced an absolute.

True.  But, as value-sensible beings, we do experience finitude as a 
construct of its value.

> Only evolution explains change by addition not syllogisms.

Evolution is what we call process in time, especially when that process is 
observed as a development toward an assumed end or goal, such as in the 
evolution of the species.

> For myself as a singer, I am familiar with an 8 level octave where 1 and 8
> are doubled in intensity.   I model evolution on an octave of seven 
> levels,
> the last two being indefinable S only. I don¹t accept an "absolute" in
> rational conversation. Lack of motion does not deny form.  This forum has
> no provision for discussing matters of faith like absolute.

As a music lover I can appreciate the value of tonality and the resonance of 
the octave, although I believe
the doubling effect you speak of is a factor of frequency rather than 
"intensity".  There is no absolute in music or in the finite world.  For 
human beings, the absolute is an abstract concept.  When conceptualized as 
the metaphysical reality, it is no more a "matter of faith" than conceiving 
Quality as reality or the universe as a moral system.

Thanks, Joe,

Essentially yours,
Ham