Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Sartre] Illusion is not Hallucination

Expand Messages
  • John Foster
    ... From: Christopher Bobo To: Sartre_yahoogr Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [Sartre] Illusion is not Hallucination ... between the object
    Message 1 of 13 , May 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:47 AM
      Subject: Re: [Sartre] Illusion is not Hallucination

      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<<
       
      Christopher:
      What do you mean by "object".  The "skin" itself senses nothing. 
       
      John:
       
      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 anything.
       
       
       
      Christopher:
      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.
       
      John:
       
      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)].
       
      addios
       
      john foster
       
      a list owner
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: John Foster
      Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:27 AM
      To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Sartre] Illusion is not Hallucination

      Christopher writes:
      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.
       
      John:
       
      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.
       
      chao
       
      john foster


      Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/

      To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@...

      <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+Sartre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.