Bi-cameral brains in depth

[H. R. Riley]

Dan: "There is a long, noble history of doctors doing things that work long
before we know why they work"

If you leaf through the Physicians Desk Reference (PDR), you will find that
in a startling number of cases, the description of a medication includes,
roughly, "it works, but we don't know how."

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> There you go! I know nothing of medicine in any of its forms - to the
> extent that tai chi is already finding its way into contemporary medical
> practices in the West, it's probably just a matter of time until people
> like John Bove are in the same situation as people who refuse vaccinations
> because they think they know better than doctors what counts as "real
> medicine." There is a long, noble history of doctors doing things that work
> long before we know why they work, although this sort of thing is typically
> hidden from people rather than worn on the sleeve. If tai chi, acupuncture,
> and who knows what else work, it's up to scientists to figure out why, not
> for lay people to poo-poo them because they don't have the imprimatur of
> science.
>
> Danny
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <http://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/20160206/5ae7fdfe/attachment.html>