[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,

On Oct 21, 2009, at 11:05:30 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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.
I understand that Quality is experienced relationally, for me that
is intrinsic in the word itself.  I also understand what you say about
nothingness and its negation.  I would assume, then, that which is not negated
is nothingness.  This is where I cannot get to where you are.
It would seem to me you are describing not a double negation, but simply
an appearance.

By the way, I am in the process of gaining an understanding of the
Mechanical Garden of Essentialism, following the introduction,
I have begun to concentrate.  Reading a thesis is by no means as
effective as a verbal discussion, but this posting will help me.

Your first paragraph above gives me the sense of two circles
overlapping to create a common shared area.  The overlapping
of two nothingnesses creates beingness.  I understand that it is
a bit different, which brings me back to a metaphor I used in a 
previous post: that of a bubble in a fish tank.  The bubble only
exists when it is in the water.  Because it it defined by the water.
This negation, if you will, makes the air aware of its own
sensibility.

I would postulate that what you state as self-awareness is a
reflective positioning which is by no means the entirety of
being aware.  In a previous post you dismiss the use of certain
neurologically different individuals.  However, you would concede
that much of what we know about the physiological compartmentalization
of things such as memory, emotion, and cognitive thought are
understood from studying those who are diseased or become
impaired (such as surviving a stake through the head).  Perhaps
a similar understanding of the awareness paradigm is possible,
through such study.

It is through the study of autism, for which I have a tendency for
personal reasons of love and necessity, that I arrive at some of the
conclusions I do about the nature of our awareness.  Bypassing discussion on
the actual condition and its spectrum of behavioral manifestations, one
can study the writings of brilliant intelligences imparting a personal description 
of such thought.  A place where there is no self/other relationship.

You may ask, what does this have to do with us?  By paying attention
through diligent techniques of mindfullness, I can experience the
lack of this self/other awareness throughout the day. I Believe that we
all do, but do not pay attention to it, partly because we do not remember
it, but believe we live in a constant stream of thought and self-awareness.  

As I have expressed before, this stream of thought and reflection on
sensibility (a word which I use to impart that which is psycho-emotional, here)
is only a small part of our daily experience.  So, imo, we go through 
the day with interspersed moments of autism and rational thought.

This awareness, that has no intellectual positioning to it, can be
experienced in a way that can be remembered.  This was
brought to a science in Buddhism.  In my opinion it goes
beyond negation, because nothing is negated.  If this is indeed
the case, it is not a result of the physical brain (here is probably 
where skepticism makes you unwilling to continue understanding).
It is quite possible that thoughts are more a result of electromagnetism
than chemistry.  Is it possible for electromagnetism to negate itself?
Again I suppose you would state that EM is something and essence
is nothing.  But if one experiences no otherness, where is nothingness?
Nothingness is a word to describe something, and so 
we get into the limits of language to impart the psycho-emotional...

But I am rambling.  I will continue to study your thesis, because I 
learn a lot from it.  I appreciate the time you have put into it for those
of us interested.

By the way, I am perfectly happy to continue this under another
heading.  I'll pick up what you post.

Cheers,
Willblake2