I woke early this morning, 1/11/2013 around 5am listening to a rapid fire BBC review of world news (all bad). My experiential ground was an exciting insight underlying all these stories, that implied a new “solution”.  A bit later, after reading Glisten’s cry against all the evil on the planet and demanding a way to stop it (and my frustrating attempts using my Droid cell to reply to her) I went meta and flashed on my experientials without visuals or verbals, which I once called conceptual-emotive imagery.  I was able, for the first time, to experience the distinction between the “nature” and the “content” of “images” of all modes, sensory and beyond.

I reflected on the “nature” of my experience of visual and auditory percepts (sensory system participating).  There is the medium and there is the content. The content is not “displayed” on the medium, but “enabled” through it.

What was new and important was that I realized that the “content” I experienced associated with the BBC audio percepts was of the same “nature” as visual or auditory “content”.   In old terminology, my experientials were “gestalts” (figure on ground in context).  Seeing the THREE here, new RIGHT NOW while writing!  I had been confusing ground and context. Context is not experienced, but ground is experienced in “gestalt” with explicit figures of attention.

In association with sensory percepts, “visualizers” may also experience “visual thoughts”. I experience “conceptual-emotive thoughts” to accompany my auditory percepts. Others might have “verbal thoughts”, as I have when I start thinking about sharing my experiences.  Last night I failed to activate the TALK function of my cell adequately to record my ideas “on the spot”. [The voice recognition system refused to recognize “nuet”, with instead “knew it”, “new it”, “newt”, etc.  The online system voice recognition system can’t be “taught”.]

The concept of “mental imagery” is  finally clarified to actually include non-sensory mental imagery. I experience this type because I am unable to experience “sensory mental imagery”.  What I experience is as “real to me” as visual or auditory mental imagery is to others. Elsewhere I speculated that everyone experiences what I experience, but it is masked and unnoticed by the strength of the sensory imagery which masks non-sensory imagery.

I wonder whether we need a new term to label what I have been calling Mental Imagery (sensory and beyond)? There is too much connotation about sensory, if not strictly visual associated with the term “imagery”.  Emagery? Still will have the connotations.  I have long used the term “experientials” to label the content of “consciousness”. We might use s-experientials for sensory and i-experientials for inner generated.

How do my styles of experientials assist Larry/nuet have his insights and how might strong sensory experientials block others from sharing nuet’s insights?  Yet, there are others who lack visual imagery.

Is it possible that our very powerful asset, VISUALIZATION, may be a barrier to the scenario speculation so needed today?  This query may be very difficult to conduct at a time when the interest and technologies for better visualization are in ascendry.  I expect that facing this issue may actually strengthen efforts in positive uses of visualization while managing the negative consequences (natural for visualizing being a natural and powerful human competency).