Bi-cameral brains in depth

Thu Feb 11 22:12:45 CST 2016

Correction: Sience can measure *manifestations* of that which created
Science, but it can't define/describe its source beyond metaphorical means.

David Morris

On Thursday, February 11, 2016, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:

> That is the correct answer.
>
> Www.innergroovemusic.com <http://www.innergroovemusic.com>
>
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 8:53 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fqmorris at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','brook7 at sover.net');>>
>>> >>>>> To: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','brook7 at sover.net');>>
>>> >>>>>> To: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fqmorris at gmail.com');>>
>>> >>>>>>> To: "john bove" <malignd at gmx.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','malignd at gmx.com');>>
>>> >>>>>>> Cc: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','igrlivingston at gmail.com');>>
>>> >>>>>>> To: "ish mailian" <ishmailian at gmail.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ishmailian at gmail.com');>>
>>> >>>>>>> Cc: "pynchon -l" <Pynchon-l at waste.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','brook7 at sover.net');>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> To: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/dea0669b/attachment.html>