----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:47
Subject: Re: [Sartre] Illusion is not
John, we almost agree here. You wrote:
>>Tactual sensation is still the most reliabe of the senses because
there is no media
between the object and the skin<<
What do you mean by "object". The "skin" itself senses
The skin is a "proprio ceptor" which means that it is an organ of
perception. The skin is the tymphanum, the epidermis, the area of contact
between the sensual person and the brain which also has it's own *.*ceptors
that interpret data from the automatic nervous system. There are abnormal
conditions in some individuals such as 'kineasthetics' and those that confuse
physical pain with pleasure. The later are not persons subject to the normal
'vasanas' of consciousness, but are persons who have developmental histories
that have learned to associate the only contact that they have had as infants
and children, painful stimulii, with feelings of 'nurture' and thus are
deployed to seek feelings of gratification through painful physical stimulii.
Whatever 'au jus' is currently coming from the pot, converted into
psychic content is what is there for the present. These are the stems of what
'whirlwinds' occur in the consciousness: au jus, from the wine press of love.
Attitude is everything. I have liberally interpreted the term ousia as
'presence' because anything of 'substance' must have some presence, never mind
pure formal definitions regarding essential and intrinsic values inhering in
It's just epidermal tissue. It's the neurons that do the
sensing. The skin separtes the neurons from the objects of
sensation, space and the atmosphere may also separte the tactile
neuron from the the object of sensation. The tactile neurons, just the
the auditory and visual neurons, transmit raw data to the brain. It is
here in the brain that hallucinations and illusions occur--not in the eye, the
ear or the skin. I don't know of any data, personal or scientific, to
suggest that the brain is less prone to misapprehend tactile data than visual
or auditory data.
This is a an 'au jus' commentary relying on the
contemporaneous scientific view of the composition of the physical organism.
The tactual is a realm in itself that provides an 'oasis' of continual
meaning feeling (value). It is best to refer to the specific human form
of the sense of touch, viz touching, in humans, rather than general zoological
accounts regarding the sensation of touch. As a human I know nothing about the
specific mechanisms involved in touching, except to say that I am informed
regarding the 'neurologic' premise as explained in biological accounts. To say
the least, all animals, and some in part, share this basic
'chemo-physiological' character, but I do take precautions: eat bananas, and
load up on sodium and potassium, as a means of 'replenishing the electrolytic
balance'. However we are referring to the specific human sense of touch which
is indeed a wonderful oasis of meaning and sense. The term 'idea' means
meaning. My idea is therefore reflective of my understanding and experience as
a 'skin' full of functioning types of epidermal cells.
If Sartre was alive today he would probably have
something to say about the most reliabe of senses, the most important, that he
would make a comment on the person that experiences pleasure when others
feel nothing but pain. These individuals have to be 'de-automated' from the
'association' that the brain, the higher centers of perception and cerebration
have 'learned' to associate with physical forms of love. There is an innate
need in all humans to experience physical pleasure through the sense of touch.
It is therefore necessary to hold, to hug, and to be close to others, not to
mention the Other.
I think that the illusoriness of phenomenon are
in the 'brain' ...thus there is nothing apparently incorrect to assert that
the sense of touch is the most reliable of the senses. The data that the
senses transmit to the brain are not 'illusions' but rather 'sensations' and
thus if the organ of perception is similarily identical across the species,
viz 3 nanometers difference (range) in the perception of color variation in H.
sapiens, then there is little substance in the idea that all illusion arises
from a 'organic' source. There are of course various conditions which do give
rise to 'abnormal' or 'highly sensitive' differences in the data transmitted
to the brain. Apart from the purely organic causes there obviously are at
least two sources of 'illusoriness' (samsara) and 'false consciousness' in
terms of the tactual: vasanas, and karma (actions) (viz
'vasana-vrittri-karma-vasana', etc.). This circuit of 'whirlwinds' in the
consciousness feeds apon itself. Passion, love of life, ignorance,
individuality as a notion, etc., are largely the 'automatism' brought on by
culture, individual experiences, race, nationality, etc., but they are not the
grounds, place of a founding for the liberation of the self from the transient
states of consciousness. Concentration on a 'metaphysical truth' is indeed one
way to liberate the self from the transient forms of consciousness referred to
above as vasanas brought on by cittavrittri. [cf. Patanjali and Yoga, M.
Eliade (Schoken Books)].
a list owner
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:27
Subject: Re: [Sartre] Illusion is
The possibility of misapprehensions exist just as much with touch as
with sight and hearing. Was that a flea I just felt on my leg? I
can't tell. It was so faint, it might have been an illusion.
So you do agree that there are illusions? The tick does not feel any
different on the skin than a small spider. However the sting of a hornet
or bumble bee does feel much different than a mosquito bite. These are
'cognitions' when the mind 'recognizes' the insect and recollects about
the proper name; the skin does not make 'cognitions' itself, the mind
however does. The sensation is largely similar among bee stings. I should
know I am a bee keeper. Tactual sensation is still the most reliabe of the
senses because there is no media between the object and the skin. When the
fan stirs the wind, then it is the pressure of the wind on the skin that
is felt, not the fan. The wind could just as easily be a breeze from a
cascade in the forest.
unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@...
here to purchase books by Jean-Paul Sartre -in association with Amazon
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
the Yahoo! Terms of