Bi-cameral brains in depth

Mon Feb 15 06:11:00 CST 2016

There's sarcasm too and some insults seem so true:
Love this one.

*MarkKohut* ‏@MarkKohut  <https://twitter.com/MarkKohut> now
<https://twitter.com/MarkKohut/status/699203693724368897>

Samantha Bee: Ted Cruz as a "fist-faced horse shit salesman".....

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

>  That is what I mean by the root meaning.  The etymological core of the
> word.  I do also understand what you are talking about and that it is the
> current definition of science.  There are substantive differences within
> the scientific community about what is known and knowable, what are the
> limits of the scientific method, and what is a proper mode of communication
> between science and other disciplines. There always has been. Pynchon takes
> up the theme in his novels and addresses it head-on in the Essay about C.P.
> Snow and the Luddites.  I have tried to elaborate my own thoughts
> respectfully. I understand why some disagree.
>
> Disagreement around such topics is inevitable and can provoke clear
> thinking and new ideas. I don’t understand the hostility here. It just gets
> in the way of clear communication, especially insults.  Maybe insults are
> part of the scientific method.  There are plenty of scientists who resort
> to them, and many who don’t. It is not something I find admirable or useful
> in my own communication or that of others. Not that I don’’t have a
> smartass streak, especially when it comes to politics.
> > On Feb 14, 2016, at 2:12 PM, john bove <malignd at gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> > Try looking at a dictionary. The root meaning of the word science is
> knowledge.
> >
> > Here's what Merriam's says:
> >
> > • the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic
> study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world
> through observation and experiment: the world of science and technology.
> >
> > • a particular area of this: veterinary science | the agricultural
> sciences.
> >
> > • a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject:
> the science of criminology.
> >
> > • archaic: knowledge of any kind.
> >
> > You'll note that your definition is listed as archaic.
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 8:29 PM
> > From: "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> > To: "Joseph Tracy" <brook7 at sover.net>
> > Cc: "P-list List" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > Subject: Re: Bi-cameral brains in depth
> > 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>
> 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/?listpynchon-l
> > - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160215/56462249/attachment.html>