Jon, List -

> "I'll just leave my sample statistical for what it tells of themes universal."

Since you're on vacation, I looked up some figures on low-weight births.  Among 
non-Hispanic White women in the USA, the low-weight birth rate is about 7.2%, 
or 1-in-14 births.  The rate is lower than the overall average among women age 
25-35, and is highest among women over 40 years and for women giving birth to 
multiple children -- a number on the upswing. The latter two causes appear to 
be physiological/medical, and unrelated to neglect of the child's welfare.  So 
the rate of pre-birth "neglect" among this main cohort of child-bearers must be 
below 1-in-20.  The trend is gradually trending higher over time.  Very-low 
weight births among non-Hispanic White women is 1.2%. 
http://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa08/hstat/hsi/pages/203vlbw.html

Data on breast feeding show that about 75% of all mothers breast feed their 
children some of the time, and 12.5% (1/8) breast feed exclusively during the 
first 6 months.  Breast feeding is positively related to household income, 
ranging from about 10.6% at the bottom end of the income scale to 14.7% at the 
top.  (This effect may reflect differences in leisure time, education and other 
things.)  

I'm not suggesting these data answer any deeper questions.  I only looked them 
up to see how prevalent the problem of "neglect" might be during the pre-birth 
(gestation) period.  

Regards,
Tom Wyrick 


> On Jul 17, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Tom, List,
> 
> Vacating as I am (on our annual dramatic immersion) and having no new 
> thoughts for the nonce on the  hoary old mater of nature v. nurser I would be 
> reduced to recycling links to previous adumbrations — were it not that I've 
> been chastened from that — so I'll just leave my sample statistical for what 
> it tells of themes universal.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon
> 
> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
> 
>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Ozzie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Jon -
>> I believe mothers who deny basic care to their fetuses and babies are a 
>> minority, and that when the neglected/abandoned children get older they are 
>> often emotionally disturbed and have an impaired ability to think 
>> objectively.   
>> 
>> That does not seem to be the right starting point for a discussion of 
>> instinct & emotion in the logical process.  If we want to discuss human 
>> instinct, we should focus on a representative human instead of an abnormal 
>> one. (The logic of emotionally damaged people is more psychology than 
>> philosophy.)  
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> Tom Wyrick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tom, List,
>>> 
>>> Having done statistical consulting for nurse researchers I can tell you 
>>> that "low birth-weight babies" and "mother-infant communication" are two 
>>> major areas of research and practice.  In neither case is perinatal life 
>>> quite so halcyon as we'd like to imagine.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>>> On 7/17/2015 11:53 AM, Ozzie wrote:
>>>> Ben, list -
>>>> Thanks for your interesting comments.  I will spend more time thinking 
>>>> about them later today.
>>>> 
>>>> Let me briefly address one sentence from your comments:  "I'd say that 
>>>> instincts can also be triggered _inside_ the body, e.g., by prolonged 
>>>> emptiness of the stomach."
>>>> 
>>>> According to the common definition (interpretant) instincts are triggered 
>>>> by things in the external world.   Before birth, food is ALWAYS available 
>>>> to the baby.  After birth, and assuming an attentive mother (caregiver), 
>>>> food continues to be available without any effort or reciprocation on the 
>>>> baby's behalf.  This goes on daily for many years, so not feeling hunger 
>>>> pains becomes the norm, the expectation.
>>>> 
>>>> Against that backdrop, when food is withheld (by the external 
>>>> environment), one's sensation of hunger (-) is a disturbance to the status 
>>>> quo (0), which summons the instinct to do something (+) to make that 
>>>> "pain" go away.  When something from the environment is eaten (+), the 
>>>> sensation (-) disappears (0).
>>>> 
>>>> It is in this sense hunger pains and their elimination are related to 
>>>> (triggered by) the individual's contact with the external world.  If the 
>>>> individual eats a full meal AND THEN feels hungry, I agree that particular 
>>>> sensation has an *internal trigger (likely emotions or a physical 
>>>> disability).
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tom Wyrick
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regarding some of your comments, I'd say that instincts can also be 
>>>>> triggered _inside_ the body, e.g., by prolonged emptiness of the stomach.
>>> 
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to