Bi-cameral brains in depth

Sat Feb 6 11:26:52 CST 2016

Now that is a pair a' dimes I can buy.

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:

> My point is, and I qualify it by saying I'm no expert in either system,
> that they approach illness, diagnosis and treatment in different ways, with
> a "distinct set of concepts or thought patterns". It doesn't mean one is
> better than the other, or that they are mutually exclusive. I think the
> current trend among forward thinking people in both fields, such as those
> at NIH and Mayo and Harvard, and Dr. Yang and others coming from the
> Eastern culture, is to find the best of all possibilities inherent in both
> (all?).
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 6, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the listed illnesses are ameliorated or cured, by a Western or Eastern
> practice, then that will be provable. Amelioration or cure, in the absence
> of ruling out other influences is the proof.  "you're gonna get your cause
> & effect".
> I suggest you are using the word "paradigm" too broadly or metaphorically
> if you use it to describe Western vs. Eastern medical practices.
> Kuhn's use is the one I mean when I use it, although I haven't.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, Mark, and it may not be possible to prove one by the other, because
>> they operate in different paradigms.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Joseph sez:
>> "The thing about that is that you will not see large effort to test this
>> since no idependent and provably objective western scientists or doctors
>> want to be put on the line if their examination of the phenomena shows it
>> to be real."
>>
>> If "provably objective by western or any area scientists, this is
>> science." I do not think that resistance by doctors is the ONLY reason it
>> is not more widespread.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan’s post goes into more depth than I was able to convey with a nice
>>> clarity.
>>>
>>> As far as Chinese healing techniques. Robert Peng has taught Qi Gong
>>> healing at several eminent Hospitals. Acupuncture is being used at
>>> Stanford’s 2 hospitals for anesthesia. It is being used at Mt Sinai
>>> Hospital for the *list of conditions below.  There is a qigong hospital in
>>> China that claims to have had a number of cancer cures including ones that
>>> have ben recorded via ultrasound. Skepticism makes sense with such claims
>>> but they should looked into. The thing about that is that you will not see
>>> large effort to test this since no idependent and provably objective
>>> western scientists or doctors want to be put on the line if their
>>> examination of the phenomena shows it to be real. Resistance to these
>>> things is still very high.
>>>  *• Anxiety
>>> • Arthritis
>>> • Bursitis
>>> • Constipation
>>> • Frozen Shoulder
>>> • Headaches
>>> • Insomnia
>>> • Joint Pain
>>> • Lower Back Pain
>>> • Migraines
>>> • Nausea
>>> • Neck Pain
>>> • Neuralgia
>>> • Nicotine Dependency
>>> • Sciatica
>>> • Sinusitis
>>> • Stress
>>> • Tendonitis
>>> • Tennis Elbow
>>> • Tinnitus
>>> • TMJ
>>> • Weight Problems
>>> About 1/4 of US hospitals now include non-allopathic medical treatments
>>> from accupuncture to homeopathy
>>>
>>> Then there is biofeedback which combines techno monitoring of brain and
>>> body signals in order to empower the mind to facilitate healing.
>>>
>>> > 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
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160206/514bcbc7/attachment.html>