Bi-cameral brains in depth

[Keith Davis]

As a matter of fact, Dr. Yang, my primary Taiji teacher, conducts Taiji workshops at the Mayo Clinic. 

The only thing anyone can know for certain is what they have verified for themselves. The rest is just conceptual.

Www.innergroovemusic.com

> On Feb 6, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> At the very least, from Bove's list of "subjective observations that are most typically wrong," geocentricity, phlogiston, humours, and leeching were undoubtedly part of science as it existed at the time. The Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe provided BETTER predictions than the Copernican heliocentric model for some time, for instance, thanks to all the "epicycles" that they added into the Potlemaic model as they refined it over the years. Phlogiston was a respectable theory of combustion until we came up with tests to distinguish it from its competitors, at which point it was disproven. That ought not to be a black mark on phlogiston: scientists can be wrong sometimes! The same can be said for humours and leeching, which were our best bets at figuring out what was going on and how to fix it.
> 
> Thus what it takes for something to be "proven" knowledge is a little opaque to me. Certainly things that we thought were right later turned out to be wrong, such as Aristotelian physics and Newtonian physics, or geocentricity, or phlogiston. Much of what we now think is right may one day similarly turn out to be wrong, and if you think about it, the track record for science is actually one which suggests that we're likely to DISPROVE much of what we now take to be "proven" as we make progress, hence the idea of what philosophers call the "pessimistic induction" or the "pessimistic meta-induction," which is that one ought not to think that science has proven ANYTHING yet, because at some point in the future, the next Einsteins will make us throw out everything we are now as sure about as we were once sure about Newtonian physics (see here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#PesInd ).
> 
> This is not to say that anything goes, but it is, I think, ludicrous to deny that science is not just a magic objective process that serves us slices of truth on toast every once in a while. Scientists don't have a mystical ability to divine the truth - instead they have a process that lets the muddle along and improve on our current models with models that we think do better. How long will these models last? It's very had to predict this sort of thing. People have been as certain as anything about things we now know are wrong. Kant thought Newtonian physics was fundamental to our understanding of reality such that there's no way to conceive of space and time outside of Newton (if you're a human, at least). Because science is a process undertaken by scientists, it's subject to all the vagaries of those scientists themselves, including (for instance) Eurocentricity about the sorts of medical treatments that are subject to sustained study and refinement in the "proper" scientific manner. Maybe acupuncture and so on is all bullshit, maybe it isn't, but there are more reasons than "it's bullshit" for the fact that the Mayo Clinic isn't sticking needles into people (if in fact they aren't).
> 
> Danny
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Joseph Stafura <jzstafura at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Snide comments on here aside - my life has been marked by a decreasing number of people who believe in the value of the scientific method. The weird mortality bump among 50-ish whites in America is likely a result of this, as is an inability to think in certain organized ways that allow one to see the world clearly - in at least one way! not the only way! It used to depress the living shit out of me, but now it is not surprising in the least. 
>> 
>> Peace all….Joe
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 11:52 PM, Christopher <christophperec at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bove's aggression and sneering is just another case of the increasing number of people who aggressively believe in scientific 'progress' in retaliation to a fear of the unknown and an anxiety over that which they're unable to 'master'. 
>>> 
>>> And, of course, science requires an act of faith as anything else does....
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:44 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There have always been things that are not measureable by current "science." Science is limited by theory and technology.  Science IS a belief system. If you don't know that, you should check yourself...
>>>> 
>>>> David Morris 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Friday, February 5, 2016, john bove <malignd at gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> I make myself too important?  If there are things that exist tht are not measurable by science, explain to me what it is you're proposing to show that they do exist.  Science isn't a belief system; it's a method, a program, for verifying or not the things that you want to believe in without verification, most of which are tied up with superstition, ancient ideas, etc.  and "ultimate realities"?  What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>  
>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 at 10:28 PM
>>>>> From: "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>>> To: "john bove" <malignd at gmx.com>
>>>>> Cc: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Bi-cameral brains in depth
>>>>> Bove,
>>>>>  
>>>>> You make yourself too important, like Trump.
>>>>>  
>>>>> There are things that exist that are not measureable by current science. There are ultimate realities that defy describing by words, because they are beyond words.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mysteries are real.
>>>>>  
>>>>> David Morris 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Friday, February 5, 2016, john bove <malignd at gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Eons of subjective observations that are most typically wrong -- the flat earth, geocentricity, witches, devils, over one thousand invented gods and counting, phlogiston, humours, leeching, Christian scientists, Jung, intelligent designers ...  It may be deep in the genes, but that's precisely why it can't be trusted.  And horrors attributable to the pursuit of objectivity, to the scientific method?  You want it abandoned?  Or do you mean the ends, e.g., atomic bombs, to which that knowledge has been put to -- horrible because effective, because it was correct.  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> And interesting to see how criticism of what one person -- me -- finds unscientific (untestable, subject to irresponsible, anecdotal, and naive claims) makes people so angry.  Someone who has chosen to call himself "Jerky" wants me tossed off the list. Been there before ...
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Good luck with your pursuits.  I suggest Madame Blavatsky, if you haven't yet embraced her.
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 at 10:47 PM
>>>>>> From: "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: "john bove" <malignd at gmx.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Bi-cameral brains in depth
>>>>>> Bove,
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> You somehow think your measure of reality is superior because it is somehow "objective?"  But your objectivity discounts multitudes of eons of subjective observation.  Call it what you will, but it is deep in the genes. Your standard is modern, but not inherently superior.  It has its benefits, but its horrors are also rife.  A real scientist would look at the eons of other esoteric sciences and be less hostile. They don't threaten you.  They don't care about you.  Truth will prevail.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> David Morris
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:39 PM, john bove <malignd at gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm not picking a fight. I'm in fact doing the opposite, trying to take this seriously.  But  Chunlian Al Huang said or did this, and Spinoza thought that in the 15th century and even Nietsche gave it a green light ... The two houses of the brain ... (Why "houses"?), natural wisdom, a helix curved ...  By any standard this is laughable non-science, and so you have to fall back on the argument that science misses important keys of knowledge or undiscovered pathways or the wisdom of the ancients or whatever.  If you can't do better than that or, instead, offer up anecdotal evidence ("my backache's gone!"), it's on the level of astrology.
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 at 2:20 PM
>>>>>>> From: "Ian Livingston" <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: "ish mailian" <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: "pynchon -l" <Pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Bi-cameral brains in depth
>>>>>>> Keith, my teacher's teacher was Chunliang Al Huang. It is a less martial, more simply chi-oriented style that resembles dance more than combat-training--but, then, tai chi chuan resembles dance in individual practice anyhow, doesn't it?
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Joseph, there is indeed support for the linear / holistic activities for recognizing a division of labor between the two houses of the brain. Language is associated with the left brain, so pretty much all we express in linguistic terms (remembering that mathematics is a language, as may movement be) is dominated by left-brain activity. That, of course, implies that even the most finely-honed linguistic approaches to expression also engage the broader, synthetic functions of the creative, visionary areas of the right brain. I look forward to reading The M & Em.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> And pain, yes. Some of the neurons associated with pain messages extend the entire distance from the mid-brain to the tip of the big toe. That can be a 7' long neuron. Don't know where I'm going with that, but, hey--it's just one of those remarkable factoids contained within the fact of the non-duality of the body and mental activity. It still fascinates me that Spinoza postulated that argument so effectively in the 15th c. That's quite a stretch for a lens grinder! For all his eagerness to dismiss Spinoza for his methods, even Nietzsche embraced the rightness of his thought.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:47 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In this brief and simple piece some of the ideas discussed here
>>>>>>>> recently are addressed. One of the ideas is the Natural wisdom we
>>>>>>>> have, of our bodies, bodies that are not separate from our heads or
>>>>>>>> minds, not divided. .  We got here without much of modern medicine's
>>>>>>>> miracles. The miracle of conception, of two sharing the energies of
>>>>>>>> life, the double, is a black hole, is a helix curved.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Does Lamaze “Work”?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431777/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://www.timeshighereducation.com/content/book-review-black-hole-by-marcia-bartusiak
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/12/lifes-greatest-secret-story-race-genetic-code-matthew-cobb-review
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Just caught your reply tonight. Thanks for the feedback. Your experience with accupuncture, where the healing takes place overnight, is typical of several people I have talked with and my own experience. Makes me think pain works in the brain in a self-reinforcing cycle. I find that sending consciousness and , in my imagination, breath/chi to an aggravated or painful area while doing qigong exercises has reliably good results.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > As far as the hemisphere differences, McGilchrist often repeats what your studies are saying that complex processes engage  more than one hemisphere. But it does seem irrefutable that when there is for instance a stroke that severely impairs one hemisphere or the other the disabilities are dramatically different for each and fall into distinct patterns of effect that point both to the kinds of things that each hemispere is likely to handle and to the way each side processes personal experiences and mental tasks.  Of course what is hard to tell by that means would be something that initiates in one hemispere and is sent to the other  for the bulk of processing. But his extensive citations show he is not alone in his leanings about some general and specific  differences between the hemisperes. McGilchrists mastery of the current reasearch is not of a pop-science quality, but the expression of a life devoted to brain research and its interpretation in a larger context.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> On Jan 27, 2016, at 4:00 AM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> A single accupuncture treatment cured my sciatica a decade ago after I had thrown useless hundreds away on massage therapy and chiropractic treatment. The next step was to be weeks of bed rest I could not afford combined with pain meds. Would've cost thousands in lost work and expenses. On a whim, because I figured I had nothing to lose, I stopped at an accupuncture school in Santa Cruz, Ca, where I lived at the time, and got a low-cost treatment from an advanced student. That night the pain was incredible, but I eventually fell asleep and woke in the morning pain-free, with full range of motion. True story. I took up tai chi chuan as a maintenance plan, and have had no flare-ups of the pain I experienced while trying to climb trees (I was a full-time arborist then) and carry heavy logs and limbs, and generally bend, lift and twist 8 hours a day.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> I do not understand all the energy theories. I've been at the fringes of all that stuff for decades, on and off, of course, but I've mostly worked in heavy labor and played in book-learning. It was shortly after the incident with the sciatica that I took up a serious Zen meditation practice, which did wonders for helping me to stop smoking and quit caffeine without anxiety or cravings. I went on to study Chinese alchemy as a result of reading Jung on the subject, and found myself in agreement with him that alchemy is indeed a psychological pursuit of integrity on a relatively subtle level. There's a terrific little intro book used in Traditional Chinese Medicine schools here in CA, The Web That Has No Weaver. Worth a look.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> In direct response to your query, Joseph, my profs were cautious about the left-brain / right-brain differentiation primarily because recent work with fMRI studies shows that, when complex problems are presented, the whole brain lights up, with higher activity levels in some areas than in others. Also, the role of the corpus collosum appears to be that of making sure that action potentials carry effectively between the two cerebral lobes. Furthermore, it would be false to say that the entire brain is divided by the corpus collosum. Only the cerebral cortex is thus divided and united, as it were. The why of that is the study of a great many lifetimes. Maybe humans will someday know. One of the darkest areas of brain research is still to do with neurotransmitters. Research reveals how they work in synapses, but how many operate within the brain is still anybody's guess, and the functions of only a very few are known. Folks are discovering new ones all the time.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> I'll leave off with a wonderful quote from one of my neuropsych texts: "The number of possible synaptic connections in a normal human brain exceeds the number molecules in the known universe." I suspect it'll be a while before we fully understand an organ with that level of potential complexity.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> The Chinese have been working with energy flow  for thousands of years and have developed a medical system based on it that is very effective. The west too is beginning to study the flow of low level electric charge in the body.   Many would have mocked  mindfulness meditation as having any value a decade ago. Now, based on clinical trials, it is being incorporated into western medical practice. Tibetan herbs are being used in medical operations in Israel to minimize drug side effects and improve the speed and comfort of healing.  Such herbs are being studied in Switzerland and Germany for the treatment of high cholesterol.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> At 64 i have personally only found increased flexibility, better posture,  improved non drug -dependent energy levels, and other sometimes dramatically  positive effects from yoga, acupuncture, tai chi and qigong. I teach a small class on qi-gong and tai chi and others report similar positive results.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> I understand  and practice skepticism. I see from a friends post that the Dalai Lama is going in for prostate surgery. No Kundalini bolt up the spine for me so far.  I don’t so much believe in energy meridians as hold them in my mind as a map, and pay attention to my actual experience with qigong practices. Accupuncture can be simply amazing for things that doctors can’t seem to treat. Myself and several very rational friends have seen severe chronic pain from an injury disappear overnight through accupuncture.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> > On Jan 26, 2016, at 4:38 PM, john bove <malignd at gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > And you too?  The Kundalini awakening???  Good luck.
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 at 4:33 PM
>>>>>>>> >> > From: "Joseph Tracy" <brook7 at sover.net>
>>>>>>>> >> > To: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>>>> >> > Subject: Re: Bi-cameral brains in depth
>>>>>>>> >> > Very interesting response in that I am myself very engaged currently with trying to learn to meditate with particular interest in the Kundalini awakening. For years I have done yoga and for the last 3 years have shifted my interest to qigong and tai chi. But for a couple months now I have been trying to meditate and doing some breath practices. If you have any personal thoughts or advice or suggestions for reading or online info, I would be interested. With qigong I am experiencing very discernible warmth and tingling in my arms and hands and have been able to profoundly and at least for 2 months now, completely relieve some muscle knots in my left shoulder and neck - knots that had been with me for probably cloose to a decade.
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > In general it seems that asian philosophies and practices have much greater emphasis on balance. The idea/knowledge base that the central channel has no power of its own is something I had missed but really fits with role of emptiness in Taoism and Tibetan Buddhism. Anyway thanks, David. This one went right past the conversation at hand to hit dead center of my own interests and pursuits.
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > > On Jan 25, 2016, at 4:00 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > In Eastern meditation/spiritual schools there is a concept of Kundalini energy that is the life-source of all animated flesh. This model is part of the ages-old Chakra system that illustrates the pathways of something called the "subtle body." In that model chakras are nodes of energy passage, crossings along the vertical main highways of the three main energy channels: the Right side (Bingala Nadi), the Left side (Ida Nali), and the Central channel (Sushumna Nadi). In some ways it might be said that the goal of meditation when it come to the workings of the Chakra system, is to achieve a balanced blending of the right and left energy channels into the central channel, achieving a synthesis greater then the sum of the two sides, because the central channel has no power of its own, only that supplied from the two sides. But when the two sides unify into the center, that is when transcendence happens.
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > I expect the bicameral structure of the brain might be also mapped to this ancient system.
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > http://www.freemeditationnz.com/our-three-energy-channels.html
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > David Morris
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > On Monday, January 25, 2016, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> > > My neuropsych profs were eager to caution that we have now reached such a deep understanding of the brain and its functions that we can at last say with confidence that we know almost nothing about it.
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> > > Yes I read those reviews. What I am finding so far is that the book is very careful to build its picture of how the hemispheres work from data. Every step of the way, he draws on research and is very careful so far not to overreach and to include differing takes on that data. One of the things he points out is that brain science is with current technology and perhaps will always be a matter of intelligent interpretation since it deals with qualities and actions for which quantification makes little sense, like empathy, unjustified self confidence, manual grasping behaviors etc. Also it is almost impossible to really track the mechanisms involved( if they really are of a mechanistic nature) because they take place in a living organism. So brain scans give correspondences between activities and brain metabolism but not clearly detailed causal relationships. Also many mental processes draw on both sides of the brain which he frequently reminds the reader.
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > Stlll, I think any reader will be surprised and amazed at the wealth and specificity of the data and how much can be meaningfully and confidently understood about the hemispheric differences. I know I am.
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > It is true that he is trying to say something philosophically profound and that is always dangerous terrain, though I have not gotten to the heart of that part of the text. The question is whether there is enough data to support it. So far the data base is so rich that the book cannot fail to leave a powerful imprint and sense of enriched understanding for me.
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > > On Jan 25, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > > One of a number of favorable reviews, this one glowing. However a couple of reviewers according to Wikipedia cautioned against culture and psychology conclusions getting too far ahead of hard brain science.
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > > http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/02/1
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> > > > "You're gonna want your cause and effect, eh?"
>>>>>>>> >> > > > Since his first book is entitled Against Criticism, I hope he isn't IN GR--
>>>>>>>> >> > > > but I'll mic drop in advance. ......
>>>>>>>> >> > > > Just a little metajoke there, heh, heh.
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> > > > I am currently reading Iain McGilchrist’s The Master and his Emissary
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > > One of the most scientifically, psychologically and philosophically profound books I have ever read. It really has me reeling with information and insight and makes sense of so much that seems inscrutable in human history and personal behavior. I came across the title and a description with a brief quote while doing research on another book. It seemed the more intriguing book so I got it from the library. Will be looking for a used copy.
>>>>>>>> >> > > > The topic is the roles of the 2 hemispheres of the brain and he brings together an unexpected wealth of medical/scientific research, both contemprary and historic to build a very powerful picture of the nature of each hemisphere, as well as the evolutionary logic of their differentiation. Both from the introduction and from some peeks ahead I know he has a philosophic intention that argues for a greater balance in our cultural biases, and greater awareness of the brain-structure origins of those biases.
>>>>>>>> >> > > > From a Pynchon reader POV McGilchrist takes on the brain structure basis of major themes and historic tendencies that appear throughout the body of P’s work. Essentially it is about the division in the brain between left hemisphere’s tendency to seek and produce control achieved through manipulable units of thought, communication, structure, manufacture and the right brain’s holistic, individualistic and socially empathic style. ( there is no way to adequadetly summarize this or the pages of precise information derived from scientific research). This struggle appers in all P books and with profound starkness in Pynchon’s essay on CP Snow, and the GR theme of mechanistic control vs nature/pursuit of bliss/personal freedom, humane solidarity.
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > > The writer’s background for this book is about as good as possible. Professional Psychiatrist specializing in physiological brain issues, a researcher in neuro-imaging and an Oxford English teacher 3 times elected Fellow at All Souls College. Of equal or greater importance is the originality of his brilliance and the humane depth of his quest to understand how our brain structure fits into our historic development, and his sense that understanding these things might free us to find a better way forward.
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > > Has anyone else read it?
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > > 462 pgs of text and over 100 of end notes etc.-
>>>>>>>> >> > > > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> > > -
>>>>>>>> >> > > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> > -
>>>>>>>> >> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>>> >> > - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> -
>>>>>>>> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > -
>>>>>>>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>>> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160206/7f11f97f/attachment.html>