Heidegger

In a message dated 27/09/2006
_Bernx at aol.com_ (mailto:Bernx@aol.com) writes: In a message dated 9/27/2006

_GEVANS613 at aol.com_ (mailto:GEVANS613@aol.com) writes:
*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.

BERNARD:
Be that as it may, citing the existence of a “human sensor” by no means
informs us about what is sensed either consciously or unconsciously. Neither does
it account for the difference.

JUD:
The citing of the existence of a *human sensor* is necessary because
basically there is nothing else to cite as regards to its awareness of trauma or its
sometime unawareness of the regularised maintenance background qualia of
autonomic systems and reactions. NOBODY ELSE can feel what we feel, although
they can empathetically relate to it and form an opinion about it
experientially, based upon their own biography. What is nociceptorially sensed, either
consciously or unconsciously, is an intrusive or intrinsic causal object, and
that part of the human causal object [our meaty holism] which has been impinged
upon by such a causal object.

Examples?

(1) A typical intrusive impingement would be a deterministic coupling of
[say] causal object (a) - a rusty nail, and causal object (b) a human big toe.

(2) A typical intrinsic impingement would be a deterministic coupling of
[say] causal object (c) - a metastatic tumour or cancerous conglomerate of
malignant cells, exerting pressure on causal object (d) the surrounding human
hepatic tissue.

A persistent feature of folk psychology with its curious obsession to
gratuitously trowel-on additional ontological ooky-spooky *spirit-levels* is the
belief that *pain* like *love* or *beauty* is something that actually exists *a
la la-la Plato* ‘in itself.’ That half-wit loon Plato has a hell of a lot
to answer for the way he cocked-up western ontology for centuries and scuffing
off his philosophically enervating *ontological difference* is like trying
to scrape shit off a suede shoe.

So leaving the plonker Plato aside, how does this modern misunderstanding
arise? I suggest here that it is because people confuse the apparently obvious
phenomenological EXISTENCE of the abstraction ‘pain,’ with ‘that which
ACTUALLY EXISTS and deterministically causes THE TRAUMA - [the nail or the cancer]
and *that which deterministically UNDERGOES the tissue change known as
*trauma.* [the big toe or the liver tissue.]

Nociceptors respond to multiple types of stimuli, such as high levels of
pressure, high or low temperatures and chemicals, including acids. However,
these types of stimuli will only generate electrical activity in such neurons
when they are of an intensity sufficient to cause, or potentially cause, injury
to the human causal animal or members of other sensate species.

I have written about this myth of *pain* at greater length here:

_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ed_pain.htm_
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)

regards,

Jud Evans.
Personal Website: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…

Posted on Wednesday, September 27th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback