Bi-cameral brains in depth

Thu Feb 11 19:29:54 CST 2016

JT,
Very well said. Pynchon doesn't display a reverence for materialism.
Materialism is conflated often with Serious Science, for obvious reasons.
Science can't admit a metaphysical realm without proof, and such proof is
elusive, if not impossible, because meta exists on another planes of
reality. But Science can admit the possibility of meta, but only
tangentially. The physical evidence of meta realms is hard to deny, if one
is honest.  But it is impossible, so far, to prove.

David Morris

On Thursday, February 11, 2016, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

>  All knowledge is rooted in experience and tested by experience.There is
> no fully objective knowledge as all “scientific knowldge" is transmitted
> via human devised representative symbol systems.  That
> experimental/experiential foundation  includes science and I would include
> valid spiritual practices including loving compassion, spiritual healing,
> music, psychic abilities, mystical trance states and communication with non
> human entities. I believe there has been and is  bogus science and bogus
> spiritual claims. But I am inclined to believe both have an important role
> in human evolution. I respect what the scientific method has shown about
> the world. I am reading a long book about the brain right now. But I think
> there is plenty that is fully real which the scientific method doesn’t
> cover. There may also be things that call for us to combine science with
> spirit  to gain a fuller understanding about what is the nature of
> consciousness, the nature of fields, particularly whether there are fields
> we have not perceived through current pre-dispositions of science, and the
> nature of dimensions whose numbers seem indispensable to recent
> mathematical models to account for all that we know.
>
> I would also say that Pynchon’s inclusion of the imagination in his novels
> as a reified realm which includes ghosts, spirit entities- both malign and
> friendly, transdimensional journeys, transdimensional communication, etc is
> curiously unqualified. He treats nothing as “unreal”. Experience for him is
> democratic. Realms that science treats as discrete tend to interact with
> other  realms- historic, human and transcendental.  I believe that is
> actually quite realistic.  Everything has a role in the larger picture.
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 2016, at 6:35 PM, Mike Weaver <mike.weaver at zen.co.uk
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > I'll side with John Bove on this one. Personally I'm not as cynical as
> him about eastern medicines, and methods of meditation, but he's right
> about the strength of science as the most trustworthy tool with which to
> find what it true and what is not.
> >
> > Joseph, you are conflating knowledge and experience. Knowledge in the
> context of this debate is the current level of understanding of aspects of
> the world as accumulated by application of the scientific method.
> >
> > All those items on John Bailey's lovely list are things we experience,
> our knowledge of them is found in the way we name them, everything else is
> about how we experience them, which is not explained by science but by the
> elaborate engagement of human consciousness with the world. (Which can of
> course be examined scientifically - I'll back Ian's advocacy of Antonio
> Damasio there - Self Comes to Mind being the one I've read).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/02/2016 04:23, John Bailey wrote:
> >> You'd think a list devoted to the works of Thomas Pynchon would have a
> >> little room for poetry, the irrational, wild surmise, contradictory
> >> philosophies, unfounded superstition, anecdote, delusion and
> >> confabulation, and probably room for plentiful argument as well.
> >>
> >> Bove you were here the year one person flooded the list with
> >> autofellatio revelations, weren't you? And the psylocibin portal to
> >> god guy? And the one lister who was eventually posting under so many
> >> pseudonyms nobody knew who was who?
> >>
> >> A little chakra talk or yoga spruiking shouldn't get anyone riled.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> Try looking at a dictionary. The root meaning of the word science is
> knowledge.  What you are talking about is the scientific method. There is
> nothing here to argue about. I get what you are saying. But there are many
> things worth knowing and the scientific method can’t be applied to all of
> them.  A human life lived without any knowledge that came by other means
> than the scientific method would be a meagre affair.
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 2016, at 7:26 PM, john bove <malignd at gmx.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> science means knowledge. It is an invented concept with invented
> rules, and those who have claimed to be the arbiters of scientific
> knowledge have often been wrong. Can you admit that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Science doesn't mean knowlege.  Science is a method, the best method
> we have, of obtaining knowlege.  And science expects to be proved wrong:
> it is cumulative and builds on itself.  That '"arbiters" have been proven
> wrong, well good:  that's the point.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 at 11:28 PM
> >>>> From: "Joseph Tracy" <brook7 at sover.net <javascript:;>>
> >>>> To: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> >>>> Subject: Re: Bi-cameral brains in depth
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 9:29 PM, john bove <malignd at gmx.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joseph Tracy writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "It is only fair to remember that many of these false ideas were the
> “science”/ proven knowledge of their time.”
> >>>>> No they weren't, unless you expand the meaning of "science" into
> meaninglessness. They clearly weren't "proven.”
> >>>> science means knowledge. It is an invented concept with invented
> rules, and those who have claimed to be the arbiters of scientific
> knowledge have often been wrong. Can you admit that?
> >>>>> "The point of listers as I read isn’t that the western scientific
> method does not provide a useful body of knowledge, but that its claims to
> be the only route to knowledge are dissatisfying and strained. That the
> presumptions of this approach may only yield the kind of knowledge which it
> narrowly defines as being scientific."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And what dissatisfies you or strains you or it is that you find
> narrow? The request for verifiability?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "As far as anecdote, most hypotheses start with observations and
> questions about what is observed."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, and then what is absurd or unfalsifiable or superstitious falls
> outside science.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Thorough testing of nonwestern theories over centuries has been
> carried out in Chinese, Tibetan and Aryuvedic medicines."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thorough testing over the centuries? What sort of tests?
> >>>> with healing techniques, the patient recovers consistently with a
> treatment or not.
> >>>>> "How can you really falsify guesses/theories about evolution or the
> origins of life? How do you decide which of the several mathematical models
> of string theory, all of which look to be mathematically sound, directly
> reflects the actual universe?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is simply ignornant. String theory is obliged to prove itself,
> which it has not. People advocate it, but it remains subject to proof,
> falsifiabilty, etc., which may never happen. We'll see or not. That is the
> scientific method.
> >>>> Well I can see that science has saved you from ignornance I’m glad
> you are a satisfied customer. Enjoy.
> >>>>> And what are the guesses about evolution you refer to?
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 at 2:07 PM
> >>>>> From: "Joseph Tracy" <brook7 at sover.net <javascript:;>>
> >>>>> To: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Bi-cameral brains in depth
> >>>>> It is only fair to remember that many of these false ideas were the
> “science”/ proven knowledge of their time. And that modern science keeps
> changing, sometimes in major ways and that it has also restored ideas
> considered falsified: Leeches are in use again for certain medical
> applications, epigenetic changes are a growing area of knowledge, the
> genome project was a flop in terms of expected results. As far as anecdote,
> most hypotheses start with observations and questions about what is
> observed. Thorough testing of nonwestern theories over centuries has been
> carried out in Chinese, Tibetan and Aryuvedic medicines. To dismiss their
> theories out of hand is not a scientific position and western medicine has
> in fact assumed an increasing respect for these traditions. Also,
> experimental evidence continues to grow as to the efficacy and theories
> behind these systems. There is a large body of scientifically rigorous
> experimental evidence for what is labeled as psychic phenomena. But current
> theories simply won’t allow such data to be taken seriously despite the use
> of the scientific method. The point of listers as I read isn’t that the
> western scientific method does not provide a useful body of knowledge, but
> that its claims to be the only route to knowledge are dissatisfying and
> strained. That the presumptions of this approach may only yield the kind of
> knowledge which it narrowly defines as being scientific. That the presumed
> rules will guarantee that everything it validates will conform to the
> presumed rules. But science must and does inevitably reach into areas that
> are not for example falsifiable. How can you really falsify
> guesses/theories about evolution or the origins of life? How do you decide
> which of the several mathematical models of string theory, all of which
> look to be mathematically sound, directly reflects the actual universe?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a distinct tone of mockery in your posts toward anyone who
> is open or who embraces world views and practices you consider
> ”SUBJECTIVE”. I have never met a believer in science who has no subjective
> biases, nor a practitioner of yoga who doesn’t have large chunks of science
> based knowledge. I wonder about all the cancer patients I have watched
> trust western doctors use of chemotherapy despite a miserable record of
> success, people I have watched die. There can be real dangers and
> “subjective bias” in the claims of western science , no?
> >>>>> To me the argument Science vs Jung, or Science versus Magic, or
> Science Versus Non-Science is playing in the shallow end of the pool. The
> interesting questions and coversations lie in the nuances of the interplay
> between different ways of knowing, different experiences of life, different
> interpretations of data/experience/observations/theories. These subtleties
> of interpretion are happening as much within what is called the scientific
> community, among the hardest of the hard scientists, among healers, among
> psychiatric practitioners, as they are in places like the list. Nobody is
> asking you to agree with something you see as nonsense. But does the
> labeling further the kind of conversation that might give room for more
> understanding for all? As far as anger, insults tend to yield frustration
> and anger rather than dialog. It is often a way of preventing dialog. Do
> you want the final definitive put-down or respectful conversation and
> disagreement?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 12:08 PM, john bove <malignd at gmx.com
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>> To: "john bove" <malignd at gmx.com <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>> Cc: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>> To: "ish mailian" <ishmailian at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>> Cc: "pynchon -l" <Pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>> To: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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/?list=pynchon-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/?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/?list=nchon-l
> >>
> >
> >
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160211/91a5d73a/attachment.html>