Capleton Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 1. The body figures this [insert cuss language]guy is not going to feed me, so there is no point in being hungry. Here you seem to support my hypothesis well. 2. After both the stomach and the small intestine are empty, they cease to act as organs of digestion and start to help with removal of waste. This is from Dr. Moser. If this is true, then it would not make sense for the body to want food while this is happening.Still a strong supporter! Hunger does come back fully, thereby showing that the "abuse" does not permanently destroy the hunger mechanism. Suppose you stop walking on rocks barefeet but instead wear some ultra comfy shoes from that time on; the fact remains that the sole of your feet would regain its softness. I imagine that your spouse could even make you chuckle by tickling it at that stage. Please note that I never said that the abuse would inflict permanent damage. So I must say your objections are off mark. The stomach is not abused by fasting.Oh, do come on! So starving your child for a month is not abuse? The act of starving a child has the sme effect on the stomach as diligent fasting. The stomach can be abused by overeating, by eating foods that are hard to digest, by eating bad food combinations, etc. During a fast, the stomach gets a rest and recovers from abuse. This may be true in individual cases and it depends on the length and type of the fast. Both fasting and poor eating habits may be deemed abuse. Macaroni and cheese would not be the best foods to eat on the first day of a fast of any length. Fasts must be broken properly. Perhaps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted August 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 With the image of Jerry purposefully starving (fasting) himself to the point of frothing at the mouth like a dog at the sight of food, yet even then still dubious as to whether it is possible for him to confidently identify "hunger" or "true hunger" without further starving himself to the point of becoming a skeleton, to the point of near-certain death, I have no desire to scratch below the surface I've already seen. Fasting is not starving. The term that covers both fasting and starving is "inanation". There are two stages of inanation: fasting and starving. Inanation means abstinence from food, water only. The difference between fasting and starving is that during fasting the body is consuming its reserves; during starving the body is consuming its machinery. Starving begins when reserves run out. The body consumes its tissues in reverse order of importance, the least important first and most, the most important last and least, during both fasting and starving. For example the body readily consumes fat and pathological tissue (eg tumors). But I saw charts showing results of autopsies of people who have died of starvation, and the fat is pretty much gone but the brain tissue and nerve tissue are hardly touched. About "frothing at the mouth like a dog": That was more from the smell of food than the sight. But anyway, the lesson to be learned from that experience seems to be that there is a difference between true hunger and false hunger. I do not recall anyone else in this discussion agreeing with this distinction. Should I judge from my own experience and conclude that I am right and everyone else here is wrong? Or should I accept without explanation that I can understand that everyone else is right and my experience is wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jrshep Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 ...the lesson to be learned...seems to be that there is a difference between true hunger and false hunger. True and false what, Jerry? What is "hunger"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted August 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 About the idea that fasting is abuse: Dr. J. H. Kellogg says: -- -- It is certainly irrational to suppose that great benefit can come from prolonged and painful resistance of a natural instinct with which the body is endowed by Nature for its protection by securing the prompt and regular meeting of its essential requirements. Hunger is a sensation through which nature serves notice upon the consciousness that the energy resources of the body are running low and need to be reinforced; in other words, that food is needed. --[end quote]-- Dr. Shelton says: -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted August 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 True and false what, Jerry? What is "hunger"? That's the question that I started this thread with. The term "false hunger" is really a misnomer. It is not hunger. But it is an expression that expresses the idea that it is falsely interpreted as hunger. The term "true hunger" is redundant, like "round circle". Obviously if it is a circle, then it is necessarily round. But one might want to emphasize the roundness of the circle. Hunger is the body's way of saying: Eat! Ayn Rand wrote that we can know that we have a sensation (hunger), but the knowledge that it is hunger must be learned. The "false hunger" experienced by some people during the first 3 days does not seem to be any more an indication of need for food than a "craving for a cigarette" is an indication of need for tobacco. If there is no salivating, it is not hunger. (If there is, it still might not be hunger.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jrshep Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Hunger is the body's way of saying: Eat! If there is no salivating, it is not hunger. (If there is, it still might not be hunger.) So, that's what you mean by "hunger"? The "body's way of saying: Eat!"? How does the body say, "Eat!"? All these post wondering what "hunger" is, yet you keep taking about hunger. How is it that you are confident that you can identify and use the concept of "hunger" validly, but yet you seem to think that it's some serious dilemma for Objectivism, or for all the rest of us? What is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreathofLife Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 The stomach acts differently after being deprive of food for extending periods of time. Yea, it satisfies itself by cannibalizing your body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted August 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 How does the body say, "Eat!"? That's the question. All these post wondering what "hunger" is, yet you keep taking about hunger. How is it that you are confident that you can identify and use the concept of "hunger" validly, but yet you seem to think that it's some serious dilemma for Objectivism, or for all the rest of us? What is your point? No point. A question. Hunger is a sensation/experience that means eat. The question is how to identify it. I assumed the answer would be trivial for anyone who is well versed in Objectivist epistemology. Ayn Rand wrote that we must learn to identify hunger. It seems like a relevant and practical question. For what it's worth, here is my attempt to partially answer the question. Hunger (true hunger) is always accompanied by salivation. I mean beyond the constant salivation which is necessary to keep the mouth from going dry. If there is no salivation, it is not hunger, no matter how intense one's desire/craving for food is, and no matter what symptoms of pathology one has that one attributes to lack of food. But this is only a negative test. Salivation does not mean hunger. Salivation can be a defense against irritating spices; this is not hunger. For me, since I avoid irritants, salivation probably can be taken as hunger. A desire/craving for food can be (perhaps always is) a mental/emotional association. Some people are bored and they eat, thinking they are hungry. Or they are tired and they use food as a stimulant instead of as nutrition, again thinking they are hungry. (The correct response to tiredness is rest.) Some people use food as an alcoholic uses alcohol, to drown or bury their problems, and they think they are hungry. Objectivists don't do these things. Objectivists eat rationally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jrshep Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 That's the question. No point. A question. [Edited the "point" that Jerry claims he had no intent to make.] Objectivists don't do these things. Objectivists eat rationally. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So basically it's your view that only if a person "enjoys" routine and regular fastings, certainly with periodic ventures ("starvations" or "fastings"; you call it what you want, i'll call it what i want) to the "skeletal condition" in order to truly identify that one is actually in need of food, a "procedure" and an identification that surely needs to be done with some regularity given that one's past identifications perhaps no long apply as one's context and condition changes, and then also only by eating only what one has thereby identified as minimally required for life and health, then one cannot be an Objectivist because Objectivist would have to agree that your proposal of this ascetic lifestyle oriented primarily around food and eating is the only rational course? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted August 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 So basically it's your view that only if a person "enjoys" routine and regular fastings, certainly with periodic ventures ("starvations" or "fastings"; you call it what you want, i'll call it what i want) to the "skeletal condition" in order to truly identify that one is actually in need of food, a "procedure" and an identification that surely needs to be done with some regularity given that one's past identifications perhaps no long apply as one's context and condition changes, and then also only by eating only what one has thereby identified as minimally required for life and health, then one cannot be an Objectivist because Objectivist would have to agree that your proposal of this ascetic lifestyle oriented primarily around food and eating is the only rational course? Wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted August 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Some people are bored and they eat, thinking they are hungry. Or they are tired and they use food as a stimulant instead of as nutrition, again thinking they are hungry. (The correct response to tiredness is rest.) Some people use food as an alcoholic uses alcohol, to drown or bury their problems, and they think they are hungry. Objectivists don't do these things. Objectivists eat rationally. This was not intended as an insult and I am surprised that it was taken as an insult. It was a compliment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jrshep Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Wrong! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then do reveal to us what is right. You seem to be quite dedicated to issues of hunger, food, fasting, etc., and the rational identification of "hunger" among other things (I assume), so why not do us a favor, quit making us wait guessing, and tell us how and what we should eat, when, etc., if we care to be good, rational Objectivists. Seriously. I'm simple-minded with respect to hunger and eating. As I said, when I'm hungry, I simply eat something. Given that my moral standing rides upon my eating habits, and given that I don't care to "fast" to the "skeletal condition" in order to identify true hunger, and given that I don't typically wait until I'm frothing at the mouth at either the sight or smell of food, I've realized that I have been irrational all my life, eating without having properly identify when and what to eat, or even if I need food at all. So, I've now been on a fast since I first started discussing this with you, waiting for a rational identification of "hunger," and I'm getting "hungry." I know. That's not necessarily "true hunger," but just my own misguided sense of my being hungry. But I don't think I can go on this way. It's starting to affect my thinking, I think. Who knows. Anyway, do me a favor and let me know how I should rationally approach my need for food, if it is even appropriate for me to assume that I really do have such a need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted August 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 There is something called "rationalism", which is an epistemological mistake. To those who confuse between fasting and starving, how much do you know about fasting? What books about fasting did you read? What people did you correspond with or talk with who have fasted? Do you have experience with fasting, doing it or supervising? Do you know something about fasting? Or is your opinion about fasting based on musings? This is from the table of contents in a book about fasting. Can you figure out all this stuff purely by philosophical reasoning? The author of this book supervised 40,000 fasts. That's forty thousand. Ranging in length from one day to ninety days. He also seems to have read the whole body of literature on the subject and the book has many references. Introduction 1 Definition of Fasting 2 Fasting Among the Lower Animals 3 Fasting In Man 4 A Bill-of-Fare for the Sick 5 Autolysis 6 Fasting Not Starving 7 Chemical and Organic Changes During Fasting 8 Repair of Organs and Tissues During Fasting 9 The Influence of Fasting On Growth and Regeneration 10 Changes in the Fundamental Functions While Fasting 11 The Mind and Special Senses During a Fast 12 Secretions and Excretions 13 Bowel Action During Fasting 14 Fasting and Sex 15 Rejuvenescence Through Fasting 16 Gain and Loss of Strength While Fasting 17 Gain and Loss of Weight During Fasting 18 Fasting Does Not Induce Deficiency "Disease" 19 Death in the Fast 20 Objections to the Fast 21 Does Fasting Cure Disease? 22 The Rationale of Fasting 23 The Length of the Fast 24 Hunger and Appetite 25 Contra-Indications to Fasting 26 Fasting in Special Periods and Conditions of Life 27 Symptomatology of the Fast 28 Progress of the Fast 29 Hygiene of the Fast 30 Breaking the Fast 31 Gaining Weight After the Fast 32 Living After the Fast 33 Fasting in Health 34 Fasting in Acute Disease 35 Fasting in Chronic Disease 36 Fasting in Drug Addiction 37 Fasting Versus Eliminating Diets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jrshep Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 This was not intended as an insult and I am surprised that it was taken as an insult. It was a compliment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know, Jerry, but perhaps you're hungry too. You are now replying to your own posts. Likely didn't mean to insult yourself, but gee, I wouldn't be so hard on myself about such things, even if mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jrshep Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 What people did you correspond with or talk with who have fasted? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Only you, but I can't tell if you're coming or going! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted September 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 The term that covers both fasting and starving is "inanation". Spelling correction: That should be "inanition", not "inanation". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.