Bi-cameral brains in depth

[David Morris]

Science CAN'T measure the thing that created Science.  Of course this is
all folly to a materialist.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:50 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the problem of our ability to measure Consciousness (the Big C) is
> that it exceeds the terms of existence in this physical realm.  Its
> manifestations can be measured, but not much else. Its existence preceeds
> (in fact it generates) ours.  Science can measure the thing that created
> Science.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>> correction- “ whose increasing numbers seem indispensable to recent
>> mathematical models.”
>>
>> By the way I agree that consciousness can be examined scientifically. I
>> think it should be , with the same open mindedness as anything else, but I
>> am far from convinced that either what we call the physical world or
>> consciousness( if there really is any difference in these phenomena) can be
>> fully examined via current scientific methods. I just think the complexity
>> may be beyond our current intelligence and our methods still too crude and
>> unevolved. The first order of the day is saving ourselves from raping our
>> mother planet so we can have a few million years to study on some of this
>> shit. We need to pass kindergarten as a species. You know, learn to play
>> nice.
>> > On Feb 11, 2016, at 7:50 PM, 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>
>> 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>
>> 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> 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>
>> >>>>> To: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: Bi-cameral brains in depth
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 9:29 PM, john bove <malignd at gmx.com> 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>
>> >>>>>> To: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> >>>>>> 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> 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/?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/?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/ef04c0b0/attachment.html>