.

Primordial form — The idea of some ulterior reality hiding “behind” the two things being considered in analogy
“Connection” — The idea that some fundamental, real (physical), connection exists between the two things.

 
.

I am prone to believe that the connective tissue, or the “ulterior reality” or form, if there is one, is the human brain rather than some objective aspect of the exterior (non-human) universe.  The problem is:  We only ever see the surfaces.  Perhaps this deficiency leads us to posit interiors via analogy; or, to develop wholes on the basis of partial empirical observations.  But too often, because this occurs in the interior that is our mental analysis of partially observed phenomena, we are drawn toward believing in “realities” taking shape in that interior observation—and we therefore too easily posit either a real connection between disparate objective phenomena or we begin to suspect an actual exterior, objective phenomenon that matches up perfectly with the reality we have created in our minds…when we compare the interior observation of one phenomenon (our concept of it) with other interior observations of other phenomena.

.

For example.  I was delighted to read in Nietzsche’s notes from 1888 this statement which fits the subject at hand:

.

“Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying “there are only facts,” I should say:  no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations…”

 
.

I was delighted by reading that, because it correlated well with much of my own thinking before I even started reading Nietzsche.  However, the question arises:  Should I therefore posit either a) an actual objective reality that inspired or informed both Nietzsche & myself, or b) some sort of actual connection between  Nietzsche and myself?   I could even posit an objective reality that both Nietzsche and I observed and say that he and I are connected by that objective reality, that real world.  But perhaps I happen to have the type of brain that he had, and similar life experiences, which would draw the same sort of picture, or interpretation, when studying human specimens who themselves study phenomena and react to that phenomena.  I.e., he and I could have a similar interpretive faculty, but this is no proof that our interpretations are accurate (founded upon an objective reality that he and I have observed without error) nor that he and I have some sort of mystical connection between us.

.

Another question might be whether we are far more prone to err — or even. less prone to err — when accepting analogy as valuable indicator of objective phenomena.
 

*
I had a similar response when I started having panic attacks. First of all, I am not sure I even believed in so-called “panic attacks” and second it was something that happened in movies and not in real life.  For me, I had to finally admit to myself that something was happening and confide in my doctor about said events. 

*
He prescribed to me Imipramine , that, at least for awhile, was like a magic pill. It wasn’t until later, when I was forced to take a class in psychology as a requirement for an associates degree in mechanical engineering, that I learned how these attacks came to me. (it should be noted that it was during this class in psychology that I actually received the first perfect grade on a paper that I have written).  

*
And while panic attacks and Synesthesia might be unrelated, I think there is something in the gap between synapses that may be similar, as is our attempt at being considered “normal”. 

*
On the other hand, isn’t Silicon Valley itself a collective response to modern culture and civilization? I mean if it wasn’t collective there would be no need to be defined by an area. If wasn’t about civilization, it wouldn’t be an area of wealth connecting most of civilization.

*
So I find no surprise that if these “diseases” are caused by our collective response to modern culture and civilization that their center of infestation would be located in Silicon Valley and not somewhere else, let’s say in a Red State as an example.  

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

Not everyone with autism has it and not everyone with it is autistic.
She’s a remarkable women no doubt, but her advocacy, although well intentioned, is a bit misleading. The idea that autism is some kind of new evolution or that it is the specific condition that has fueled our creative innovation economy is a a big leap. 

Autism is a neurodevelopmental affliction that is very possibly some kind of autoimmune disorder. It’s (in my humble amateur though informed opinion) a disease of civilization caused by our collective response to modern culture and civilization. I doubt more people in Silicon Valley have it than anywhere else.