[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[Ham Priday]

Ahoy, Will --

> I would agree with what you state about intelligence. I have no
> concept of the divine as being just a larger human brain that
> thinks in the same way, but better. That for me smacks of
> anthropocentrism. But if one is to consider the attributes of
> intelligence in a reductionist manner (trying to create a definition
> that is), I find that there is so called intelligence all around us.
> From the inorganic to the organic. If evolution works through
> trial and error and learns in the process, I would call that intelligent.

So would I, and in that sense what we EXPERIENCE of reality is intelligently 
designed.

> The brain is made up of inorganic material arranged in a certain way.
> There is reinforcement of particular synapses that are used a lot
> though RNA synthesis and protein expression, through a feedback
> system. Thus our thoughts solidify. In the same way, a trail of ants
> solidifies through feedback once food is found. Try disrupting that
> trail, and it will form again in another way. For me their is no 
> difference
> between an anthill (and its trails) and the human brain. The anthill think
> in an analogous manner. What is different is that there is an "I" which
> I believe to be separate from the mechanics, which experiences those
> thoughts. Don't know if this is mystical or spiritual or what, it doesn't
> matter. It is the only conclusion I can come to with using logic.
> Using the analogy above, there could well be an experiencer of the 
> anthill.

The only experience of the anthill required is the human construct.  I would 
call your conscious "I" the subjective self, and it's the metaphysical 
contingency of existence.  If you read my thesis you'll see that I postulate 
the "awareness" (which gives rise to experience) as the sensible half of the 
Sensibility/ Otherness dichotomy.  Sensibility (or "selfness") is the 
capacity to realize Value in the "otherness" from which it was negated. 
Otherness actually represents Essence less (minus) Sensibility, but when we 
extract its value for ourselves it is experienced as insensible beingness. 
All sentient "beings" experience some form of existential reality in order 
to survive and flourish, although their "sensibility' is rudimentary below 
the primate level.  The evolution, appearance, social order, beauty, and 
qualitative attributes of these species are valuistically objectivized 
(reified) by human experience.

> By realizing that this is indeed the case (for me), I am suddenly aware
> of much more. In my opinion, we can be aware of Quality
> (for lack of a better word) outside of the objective self and other.
> Perhaps without negation of essence.

Just to set the record straight, Value (Quality) is experienced relationally 
but is never negated.  What is negated is "nothingness" (in the case of 
Essence) or "beingness" (in the case of experience).  Remember that the self 
is a negate, as is its primary sensibility.  Differentiated beingness is 
what is revealed to the negate when its own nothingness penetrates the 
otherness that engulphs it.  In simpler terms, experience is a 
"double-negation".

Value sensibility is the self-awareness that makes the human being a 
'being-aware'.  Thus, the realization of value is primary to all knowledge 
and experience.  This epistemology is much easier to grasp as a "value 
system" rather than a "quality system".  There are a number of reasons for 
this.  The term "quality" in common parlance typically infers "worthiness" 
or "excellence" in a marketed product or service, whereas Value can be 
either good or bad as well as any intermediate measure between.  For me, at 
least, this is how our world is sensed.  Also, the phrase "Quality of 
Essence" implies some physical distinction -- roughness or quietude, for 
example, while the "Value of Essence" is without moral, physical, or 
conceptual distinction.  Inasmuch as we cannot impute (nor should we assume) 
attributes in the primary source, and with all due respect to Mr. Pirsig, 
Value is the much preferred connotation in my opinion.

Thanks, again, for your views on cognition (with which I largely agree) and 
"Quality outside of self and other" (which is problematic for me).  I have 
enough difficulty trying to deal with two realities (physical and 
metaphysical -- Existence and Essence) which together pretty much says it 
all.  But, as always, I find your ideas insightful and a pleasure to read.

Essentially yours,
Ham