Heidegger

In a message dated 26/09/2006 18:58:09 GMT Standard Time, _Bernx at aol.com_
(mailto:Bernx@aol.com) writes:

Jud [earlier]

Now, to address your question. To me it is clear that knowledge that we are
going to sneeze, or are engaged in sneezing, is just as much a perception as
if we reflectively decide to take the kids to the zoo? So what is it that you
are looking at here Bernard - You’ve got me interested?

I think that what you are homing in on, is not so much an attempt to
distinguish a difference between a sensorial awareness of the fact that we are about
to or engaged in the act of sneezing, and the awareness of deciding to take
the kids to the zoo, but simply pointing to the different causal objects
which stimulate such responses, and the different reactions which ensue in regard
to the contrasting causal objects - i. e., the irritated nasal sensors on
the one hand, and the kids on the other.

Bernard:
Jud, I am attempting to distinquish (in your view) the sensorium of the
autonomic system which is largely unconscious and that of the common sense
perceptions that are not.

Jud:
The way I see it there are differing levels of autonomicism ranging from on
the one hand - the automatic sneeze, which, although controlled by the
autonomic nervous system, we are fully aware of as it is happening, and in certain
circumstances [an escaped prisoner hiding from Heidegger’s *Factory Farm*
guards for example] can be semi-controlled or stifled, and on the other hand -
the fully involuntary beating of the heart, over which we have no little or no
control, or the flow of blood in our arteries over which we have no control
whatsoever unless we apply a tourniquet.

So without going in to a long boring examination of where exactly the
precise: *seat of sensation* lies during every different instance of autonomic or
semi-autonomic activity or internal or external impingement our bodies
experience and interpret, I will be content to say that *sensation* and the
*sensorium* exist:

NOWHERE AT ALL!

It is the active, changing, causal BODYMEAT we feel, not some pie-in-the-sky
Heideggerian *ontological difference.* Try booking into Hospital Emergency
and claiming you have a *painful ontological difference,* and see what
happens.

The damaged toe-meat *reports* its *systems damage* locally *AS* A DAMAGED
TOE, and sends a copy of the peripheral damage report to the brainmeat via the
nervous system.

*Sensation* and the confused clerical kerfuffle of the *sensorium* is a lot
of metaphysical medieval pig’s-bladder-shaking.

*Sensation, sensitivity, the senses* etc., are a myth - the do not exist at
all and are a just another bum product of the priestly masturbatoriums of the
Dark Ages. What exists is the sensing, sensitive human sensor.

It is the painful toe that exists - and it is the painful toe we experience
- not some airy-fairy *phenomenon* called *pain.*

regards,

Jud.

But I must stop here because due to running my wife into university this
morning straight after taking the kids to school - I missed my breakfast and I
FEEL HUNGRY. So how and why do I FEEL hungry?

This is from

Hunger and Eating By Takako Hara
_http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/hunger.htm_
 http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/h…)
(spring 1997)

Hunger and Eating Based on Biology.

Many theories of hunger are historically discussed from the biological
component. Cannon and Washburn (as cited in Coon, 1995) came up with the stomach
contraction theory which states that we know we are hungry when our stomach
contracts. In the notorious balloon study, Washburn trained himself to swallow
a balloon which was attached to a tube, then the balloon was inflated inside
of his stomach. When the balloon was inflated, he did not feel hungry. Later
this theory was opposed by the fact that people whose stomach was removed
still felt hungry. Glucose theory states that we feel hungry when our blood
glucose level is low. Bash (as cited in Franken, 1994) conducted an experiment
transfusing blood from a satiated dog to a starved dog. The transfusion
resulted in termination of stomach contraction in the starved dog, and supported the
glucose theory. But as LeMagnen (as cited in Kalat, 1995) suggests that
blood glucose level does not change much under normal conditions. Insulin theory
states that we feel hungry when our insulin level increases suddenly in our
bodies (Heller, & Heller, 1991). However, this theory seems to indicate that
we have to eat to increase our insulin level in order to feel hungry. Fatty
acid theory states that our bodies have receptors that detect an increase in
the level of fatty acid. Activation of the receptor for fatty acid triggers
hunger (Dole, 1956, Klein et al., 1960 cited in Franken, 1994). Heat-Production
theory suggested by Brobeck (as cited in Franken, 1994) states that we feel
hungry when our body temperature drops, and when it rises, the hunger
decreases. This might be explain that we tend to eat more during winter.

Hunger and Eating Based on Learning.
Hunger cannot truly be explained only by the biological component. As human
beings, we cannot ignore our psychological part, the learned and cognitive
components of hunger. Unlike any other beings, we humans use an external clock
in our daily routine, including when to sleep and when to eat. This external
time triggers our hunger. For instance, when the clock says 12 pm, lunch
time, many people feel hungry just because it is lunch time. This hunger is
triggered by learned behavior. In addition, the smell, taste, or texture of food
also triggers hunger. For instance, if you like french fries, the smell of
frying potatoes may trigger your hunger. However, this preference of taste,
smell, or texture is a culturally learned preference. If one does not like sushi,
the smell of sushi does not trigger hunger. Interestingly, people also feel
hungry for a particular taste, more specifically, the four basic tastes:
sweet, sour, bitter, and salty. For example, an often heard expression is “I am
hungry for something sweet.” People keep feeling hungry until these four
tastes are satisfied.

Hunger and Eating Based on Cognition.
Colors also contribute to hunger. Looking at a yellow banana makes one to
want to eat it, but a red banana does not. Similarly, red or green can trigger
hunger for an apple, but not blue. It is hard to find natural food with blue
color, because mother nature does not produce blue food. Blue is said to be
an appetite suppressant. Color greatly affects our hunger.

Many people eat foods base on their knowledge of what foods are good for
them. For example, low fat, low sugar, and low sodium food are said to be good.
Eventually people learn to change their preference and want to eat “good food”
only (Franken, 1994).

regards,

Jud Evans. Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_  http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)

Posted on Wednesday, September 27th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback