[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[Ham Priday]

Hi Will --



> Ham,
> The self evident truth that all experience is differentiated and 
> relational
> is a flawed assumption, IMHO.  It only becomes differentiated when
> it is conceptualized. Before that, it is Essence or Quality or what we
> exist in day to day, an undifferentiated spectrum of noise, that is,
> everything.

How can a self-evident truth be a "flawed assumption"?   Either you deny the 
evidence or you conceptualize it in your own way, which is an intellectual 
fabrication.  Also, "a spectrum" of noise or color is differentiated by 
definition.  We live in a relational world of differentiated phenomena which 
we experientially construct as discrete objects and events.  If that is not 
what you are experiencing, I suggest that you lay off the marijuana for a 
spell ;-).

> My point (as with Pirsig, I believe) is that we live with Essence or
> non-differentiated stuff at every moment. It is only a small amount
> of such existence that translates into the intellectual (and I don't mean
> smart), or self relational existence.

The "stuff" of the universe is the value of Essence which we objectify as 
Being differentiated by nothingness.  The fact that existence is experienced 
incrementally "in small amounts" does not change this ontology.

> The negation of not other, in my opinion, states that there is no such 
> thing
> as other.  However, when we communicate experiences in a reflective way,
> other is born.  Now, it may be difficult to imagine a sense of existence
> where other does not exist, but that is the way we were born. At the 
> moment
> of birth there was only Will. No self, no other. Then that became all 
> self,
> no other. Then the intellectual relational mind began to develop.

Logically, that's a correct metaphysical assumption. That is, the negation 
of not-other actualizes an illusory other, e.g., "things" that are not 
"real" from the perspective of Essence.  However, I disagree that experience 
must be "communicated" in order to be conceptualized or made aware.  (That 
semiotic theory creeps into this forum periodically for reasons I don't 
understand.)   I also believe the distinction between (reification of?) 
Desire and Will has been exaggerated; both are the emotive drive of 
value-sensibility, even when realized prior to self-awareness or intellect .

> A good description of this can be found in the works of Donna Williams.
> Donna is an autistic person who is able to communicate with us. She is 
> able,
> however, to transcend worlds between our differentiated world and that of
> her past undifferentiated world. The book Autism and Sensing: The Unlost
> Instinct covers this well.

I'm not acquainted with this book, but tend to be skeptical of claims made 
by neurologically impaired individuals.  The normal functioning brain is 
wired to screen out information that would otherwise disorient our 
perception of existence.

> The opinions expressed in my posts are mine alone, and may or may not
> have any relation to reality as seen by others.

Aye, Will.  It is to be assumed that I respect and abide by this caveat as 
well.

Again, your conclusions are interesting, if somewhat off the beaten track. 
I will admit, however, that the epistemology you've outlined is much closer 
to my own than to the Pirsigians'.  And that, of course, is encouraging to 
me.

Essentially yours,
Ham