Primary sense

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Tintner" wrote:
>
> Ralph: One of the gifts of shifting to just 7-10 degrees of central vision in one eye is the validation that tactile sense is primary, even though the power and speed of our vision sense normally blinds us to this reality.
>
> I wonder whether you or anyone else would like to expand on this? It’s probably not the tactile sense, but the spatial sense that is primary – our sense of our body in a surrounding space, which is both proprioceptive and exteroceptive.   Vision certainly was a relatively belated sense in evolutionary terms. Worms apparently are blind.
>
> I’m trying to think about the relationship between our spatial sense and our visual sense – but coming up with very little.
>

Mike,

First off, I should clarify that it is my feeling and strong trial theory that tactile sense is primary for all of us -- that that's the way, along with all of reality also  being nested structured~duality, that I am ~seeing reality.

Second,  my shift in vision, to me, was more like a confirmation or reminder that the tactile sense is primary.  The initial insight or impression developed decades ago when I developed and played around with (experienced) hand-held magnetic tetrahedra. --Structured one-half spins of attraction and repulsion via the analog math, all the way in through the direct entrance into our deep physical intuition.  

Losing most but not all of my sight in December of 2008 and since then relying
more upon *feel* and/or counting steps to get around gave me some more evidence and reminders of how the primary sense is tactile.

I actually consider that our electromagnetic vision sense IS also tactile at its functional root, but of course to point at that sort of tactile interaction I'd coin and invoke the term "molecular torquing" to hint at the subtle physicality of what we otherwise might have learned in ~chemistry as absorbance,resonance, etc.

Again, to further clarify, in the storyline I am advocating, our human un-sub-consciousness IS  definitely  "carbon- and water-based", or integrated within these sorts of structural codings, and I'm proposing that the root structural coding is happening in the 6^n analog math in the 10^20 water molecules per second forming in the respiration reaction sites.

I can empathize with folks who feel strongly about a disembodied or  "energy-only"  idealization, however,  as soon as they make a peep or express their impression, even to themselves, the hydrogen bonding and the protein-folding interfaces are active and engaged and the tactile/physical alterations persist.   So, pragmatically, "consciousness studies", for our kind, are nested and integrated within the ~physical/~tactile.

Obviously, we're made in very special ways where we're also nested within and appreciative of an enfolding less physical, more ephemeral world.  At least one Book with a very long publishing record  gives accounts of these usually unseen personal interactions.  But on the "consciousness studies" side of our fence, things and the description of things are obviously integrated and grounded in the ~physical.

Where you say you are coming up short on the relationship(s) between our spatial sense and our visual sense,  I think you are getting accurate results. There are obviously a lot of angle measurements and impressions,  but I'd encourage you to dial back and really try to locate how you/we adopted your/our strong fixation on "space".

YMMV, but my take on  the spatial assumption in the western spatial-temporal paradigm/trial theory is it basically originates directly  in the abstract Cartesian definition of ~space.   The dominant paradigm is built up from that abstract math assumption.  Pick a cubic  XYZ origin and think in terms of those abstract spatial coordinates out to infinity in the 3/6 orthogonal directions. Run that model out 370+ years or a hundred generations  and, like you say, there still aren't  clear relations between spatial and visual senses.  The union is an empty set.

Why?  Basically because "space" is a slightly erroneous assumption that is part of out paradigm, not part of our reality. Okay, it's a wonderful initial approximation, but  our reality  is actually  the analog enfolding nested structural-energetic thing, not the  spatial-temporal abstract ideal.    

Or, if you don't like it straight up like that, you can also consider that the visual sense IS also tactile first and foremost and that should get you to slide down to and clearly grasp the structural-energetic origin.

Either way, hopefully you can begin to notice that with the improved structural-energetic approximation we are existing within a deeply nested  solar-fusion flux system bobbling along in variable mass-density building somewhat persistent and somewhat functional high-rate structural codings within our nested water/carbon respiration reaction systems.


With the spatial-temporal model, if one studies for decades and masters many abstract math relationships, perhaps a few people may get some vague *feel* for such features.   Working the analog math within the enfolding  structural-energetic model, though, physical intuition of these features becomes available rather quickly to most participants, even to those who have vision difficulties.

 
Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3