| Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. W. Lovitt, Trans. New York & London: Garland Publishing. |
 
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 5/10/23, 9:57 AM |
|
| "But we do not yet hear, we whose hearing and seeing are perishing through radio and film under the rule of technology." |
| Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans. Oxford: Blackwell. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 12/11/23, 12:24 PM |
|
| "We can make clear the connection of discourse with understanding and intelligibility by considering an existential possibility which belongs to talking itself—hearing. If we have not heard 'aright', it is not by accident that we say we have not 'understood'. Hearing is constitutive for discourse." |
| "It requires a very artificial and complicated frame-of-mind to 'hear' a 'pure noise'. The fact that motor-cycles and waggons are what we proximally hear is the phenomenal evidence that in every case Dasein, as Being-in-the-world, already dwells alongside what is ready-to-hand within-the-world; it certainly does not dwell proximally alongside 'sensations'; nor would it first have to give shape to the swirl of sensations to provide the springboard from which the subject leaps off and finally arrives at a 'world'. Dasein, as essentially understanding, is proximally alongside what is understood." |
| "It is on the basis of this potentiality for hearing, which is existentially primary, that anything like hearkening becomes possible. Hearkening is phenomenally still more primordial than what is defined 'in the first instance' as "hearing" in psychology—the sensing of tones and the perception of sounds. Hearkening too has the kind of Being of the hearing which understands. What we 'first' hear is never noises or complexes of sounds but the creaking waggon, the motor-cycle. We hear the column on the march, the north wind, the woodpecker tapping, the fire crackling." |
| Howard, C. Q., Hansen, C. H., & Zander, A. C. (2004). A review of current airborne ultrasound exposure limits. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand, 21(3), 253–257. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 11/29/22, 7:51 AM |
|
Concensus on ultrasound exposure in SPL below 4 hours.
Frequency
(kHz) |
Sound Pressure Level
(dB re 20mPa) |
| 20 |
75 |
| 25 |
110 |
| 31.5 |
110 |
| 40 |
110 |
| 50 |
110 |
Later (p. 258) cites recommendations (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists) suggesting that exposure levels may be 30dB higher than the above. |
| Smith, S. D., Nixon, C. W., & Von Gierke, H. E. (2006). Damage risk criteria for hearing and human body vibration. In I. L. Vér & L. L. Beranek (Eds.), Noise and Vibration Control Engineering: Principles and Applications 2nd ed. (pp. 857–886). Wiley Online Library. (Original work published 2005). |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 12/6/22, 10:54 AM |
|
| "ultrasonic energy at frequencies above about 17kHz and at levels in excess of about 70dB may produce adverse subjective effects experienced as fullness in the ear, fatigue, headache, and malaise." |
| Windmill, J. F. C., & Jackson, J. C. (2016). Mechanical specializations of insect ears. In G. S. Pollack, A. C. Mason, A. N. Popper & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Insect Hearing (pp. 125–157). Switzerland: Springer Nature. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 2/10/23, 4:25 PM |
|
| "The sound frequencies exploited by different species of katydids [crickets] vary across a huge range from 2 to 150 kHz." |
