|
Home > Archive > Yoga > October 2006 > 'Mind' is not separate from brain.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
'Mind' is not separate from brain.
|
|
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| 'Mind' is not separate from brain.
Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong in assuming that 'mind' is separate
from the human brain. Mind is the functioning of a living brain, not a
supernatural attachment to a human brain. There is no mind without
brain and no mind transmigrates from one lifetime to the next, other
than through reproduction via physical DNA. The personal ego dissolves
upon death and never comes back. There is no carrying over good or bad
"karma" from one lifetime to the next because there are no future
lifetimes for any individual mind. Good deeds will help future
generations of new mind-brains physically created by DNA, however. You
can make the world a better place to live for future generations, but
the personal 'you' will never come back to see it.
Rajneesh, otherwise known as "Osho", failed as a teacher because he
thought mind was separate from brain and above and beyond the brain.
There is nothing beyond the brain as far as human consciousness or
human mind is concerned. Rajneesh was a sucker for spiritual myths and
Western psycho-babble, and his teachings were 90% false as a result.
His teachings WERE a factually incorrect and deceptive combination of
Eastern spiritual myths and Western psycho-babble nonsense, both of
which he borrowed from books written by others. Rajneesh destroyed his
own brain with drugs, specifically nitrous oxide gas and a massive
intake of Valium. He thought his "mind" and consciousness were above
and beyond mere brain, and thus could not be touched by the destructive
effects of drugs. This assumption was wrong! Rajneesh-Osho went mad
and took his followers with him on his long trip to insanity.
Despite what Rajneesh-Osho said, the problem with the world is not that
people do not "surrender" themselves enough to pompous gurus who
set themselves up as perfect super-heros. The problem with the world
is that humans lack basic honesty and the dual ability to use both
reason and empathic compassion to solve the problems of living here and
now.
Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
| |
|
|
Dear Christ,
You are completely right, mind is a function of brain and our neuro -
system...
Please forget about this OSHO, as he is dead,,,and we all learned how
he was from yourselve and from his acts...So much is enough after a
dead person... I do not like him neither..As he was a liar, a
cheater.. We all know how within one night he made himself a BHAGVAN.
But he is gone now...He can not defend himself against us.
I really appreciate what you are trying to do, so keep going without
Osho please...
With compassion,
Puma
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> 'Mind' is not separate from brain.
>
> Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong in assuming that 'mind' is separate
> from the human brain. Mind is the functioning of a living brain, not a
> supernatural attachment to a human brain. There is no mind without
> brain and no mind transmigrates from one lifetime to the next, other
> than through reproduction via physical DNA. The personal ego dissolves
> upon death and never comes back. There is no carrying over good or bad
> "karma" from one lifetime to the next because there are no future
> lifetimes for any individual mind. Good deeds will help future
> generations of new mind-brains physically created by DNA, however. You
> can make the world a better place to live for future generations, but
> the personal 'you' will never come back to see it.
>
> Rajneesh, otherwise known as "Osho", failed as a teacher because he
> thought mind was separate from brain and above and beyond the brain.
> There is nothing beyond the brain as far as human consciousness or
> human mind is concerned. Rajneesh was a sucker for spiritual myths and
> Western psycho-babble, and his teachings were 90% false as a result.
> His teachings WERE a factually incorrect and deceptive combination of
> Eastern spiritual myths and Western psycho-babble nonsense, both of
> which he borrowed from books written by others. Rajneesh destroyed his
> own brain with drugs, specifically nitrous oxide gas and a massive
> intake of Valium. He thought his "mind" and consciousness were above
> and beyond mere brain, and thus could not be touched by the destructive
> effects of drugs. This assumption was wrong! Rajneesh-Osho went mad
> and took his followers with him on his long trip to insanity.
>
> Despite what Rajneesh-Osho said, the problem with the world is not that
> people do not "surrender" themselves enough to pompous gurus who
> set themselves up as perfect super-heros. The problem with the world
> is that humans lack basic honesty and the dual ability to use both
> reason and empathic compassion to solve the problems of living here and
> now.
>
> Christopher Calder
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| http://home.att.net/~meditation/CommonLies.html
Great article on Gurus. All fields of human endevour suffer from the same
issues. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about science, business,
politics, art, the street corner hoodlum, or the statesman of international
repute. It's all the same. No mystery.
The basics of power and relationships are built in. School, work, and social
life are were we gain experience, balance pain against pleasure, and weigh
the immediate with the long term. Who we are determines our goals and shapes
our outcomes.
I think, you're right to question the ego issue. Personally, I prefer to
think in terms of intellectual and emotional action, or fitness for purpose.
It's a question of the right tool for the job. It can be tested and the
results counted. Again, no great mystery.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| Puma,
I am not writing for you, but for new people coming on-line. I get
letters from people every day who have never heard the real story of
Osho-Rajneesh. You may be tired of it, but others have never heard the
story and simply believe all the propaganda sold in bookstores. Osho
sold more books than anyone and they are still out there misleading
people all around the world, from Nepal, to Australia, to London, to
Moscow. Osho is dead, but his words live on. I am fighting wrong
ideas, not a corpse. Don't forget there are literally thousands of
pro-Osho websites all selling the same rubbish. Please allow a little
repetition from one poster once in awhile in the name of balance and
easy access to the facts. I have not posted anything on these forums
in months.
http://home.att.net/~meditation/
Christopher
Puma wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dear Christ,
>
> You are completely right, mind is a function of brain and our neuro -
> system...
>
> Please forget about this OSHO, as he is dead,,,and we all learned how
> he was from yourselve and from his acts...So much is enough after a
> dead person... I do not like him neither..As he was a liar, a
> cheater.. We all know how within one night he made himself a BHAGVAN.
> But he is gone now...He can not defend himself against us.
>
> I really appreciate what you are trying to do, so keep going without
> Osho please...
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>
>
> calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| > I am fighting wrong ideas, not a corpse.
Clearly, you're not doing too well. I think, a little less focus on fighting
and more on providing a better alternative may have more traction. The best
critique of a film is to produce another film, etcetera. To do otherwise is
tail wagging dog.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2006-10-14, 9:33 pm |
| Charles,
It's all on my website at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/
See "The TES Hypothesis" at http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/TES.html
and other essays, including "The Brain and Meditation" by Aditha K. at
http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/brain.html
The first step is to clear the air of the old smoke and falsehoods,
then fill that empty space with more realism and more fact. Myths have
been important in human development and the fantasies of religion have
helped people tolerate the suffering and boredom of life. However,
some small percentage of the human population is interested to know
what actually is, and are not are not just interested in what is
convenient or entertaining to believe. That is the small group of
people I am interested in, and finding what really exists is my own
interest.
Also see "Call for a New Buddhism" at
http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/Buddhism.html
Christopher
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> Clearly, you're not doing too well. I think, a little less focus on fighting
> and more on providing a better alternative may have more traction. The best
> critique of a film is to produce another film, etcetera. To do otherwise is
> tail wagging dog.
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2006-10-14, 9:33 pm |
| Charles,
It's all on my website at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/
See "The TES Hypothesis" at http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/TES.html
and other essays, including "The Brain and Meditation" by Aditha K. at
http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/brain.html
The first step is to clear the air of the old smoke and falsehoods,
then fill that empty space with more realism and more fact. Myths have
been important in human development and the fantasies of religion have
helped people tolerate the suffering and boredom of life. However,
some small percentage of the human population is interested to know
what actually is, and are not just interested in what is convenient or
entertaining to believe. That is the small group of people I am
interested in, and finding what really exists is my own interest.
Also see "Call for a New Buddhism" at
http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/Buddhism.html
Christopher
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> Clearly, you're not doing too well. I think, a little less focus on fighting
> and more on providing a better alternative may have more traction. The best
> critique of a film is to produce another film, etcetera. To do otherwise is
> tail wagging dog.
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-14, 9:33 pm |
| > See "The TES Hypothesis" at http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/TES.html
> and other essays, including "The Brain and Meditation" by Aditha K. at
> http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/brain.html
[...]
> Also see "Call for a New Buddhism" at
> http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/Buddhism.html
Lots of fair comment in those articles, and equally applicable to politics,
science, and religion. If you take, say, trickle down economics, you've got
the same cult effect. It's a human nature thing.
I have my issues with various philosophies, disagreements between them, and
how they're implemented. Then again, my own understanding is still
developing so, I suppose, moderation and friendliness has value.
I think, social, technological, and spiritual convergence is the emerging
theme of the age. It may be my imagination talking, here, but a new
settlement, or renaissance, looks possible in spite of the difficulties.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2006-10-14, 9:33 pm |
| Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"I think, social, technological, and spiritual convergence is the
emerging theme of the age. It may be my imagination talking, here, but
a new settlement, or renaissance, looks possible in spite of the
difficulties."
Exactly, and why not! Life-universe-man is one phenomena, so why
should there be any conflict at all between the social, the
technological, and BRAIN ELECTRICS (my term for what others called
"spiritual").
Christopher
http://home.att.net/~meditation/
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-14, 9:33 pm |
| > "I think, social, technological, and spiritual convergence is the
> emerging theme of the age. It may be my imagination talking, here, but
> a new settlement, or renaissance, looks possible in spite of the
> difficulties."
>
> Exactly, and why not! Life-universe-man is one phenomena, so why
> should there be any conflict at all between the social, the
> technological, and BRAIN ELECTRICS (my term for what others called
> "spiritual").
Yup, but "brain electrics" is iffy branding. It's strange, needs explaining,
and not properly descriptive. Unless you've got some added value the market
is dying for, you're going to remain a niche player.
Unlike many people, I've read L Ron Hubbard's Dianetics. Mostly, it's
standard psychology and mythology, with different labels. It puts it in
la-la land and the excessive secrecy of Scientology makes it look sinister.
Like big corporations, some of these gurus sell snake oil but they're really
good at branding and marketing. The bigger the customer base, the more
resilient they are. Better design and marketing can erode this.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2006-10-14, 9:33 pm |
| Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"brain electrics" is iffy branding. It's strange, needs explaining"
The term BRAIN ELECTRICS comes from "The Ridiculous Teachings of Wrong
Way Rajneesh" at http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/wrong-way.html
----------------the last few paragraphs pasted below-------------
Opinions and Possible Explanations
It is my unproven theory that Rajneesh's vast consciousness was
the result of the unique structure of his unusually large brain, which
was created through his DNA code. If you look at his photos you can
easily see how incredibly big his skull was in proportion to the rest
of his body. That skull was filled with an extra large brain, not thin
air. [see picture of Rajneesh's giant skull]
Magnetic resonance imaging studies (MRI studies) have shown that
people with large brains, on average, are more intelligent than humans
with smaller brains. [see MRI brain size study] My theory is
unrelated to the issue of intelligence, because I do not believe that
'enlightenment,' in the Eastern esoteric meaning of the word, is
intelligence or wisdom at all. My first hand experience with the
enlightened sages is that they have a vastly increased energy output of
the consciousness producing realms of the brain. These areas are not
responsible for the thinking and reasoning functions of the brain. My
position is that you can be enlightened and highly intelligent, or you
can become fully enlightened with just average intelligence, and you
can find examples of both situations. It is also entirely possible to
be very wise and not even be a student of meditation at all.
People often become fooled into thinking they are great geniuses
because meditation makes them feel marvelous and full of light. I am
definitely pro-meditation, but oppose the false teaching that wisdom is
possessed only by those who live in a constant state of
superconsciousness. World history backs up the position that yogis,
monks, and the famous mystical gurus are not the sole owners of human
intelligence, and they are often not very wise at all.
Bigger brained people may have an edge in the long-shot odds of
becoming enlightened because they may possess an expansion of areas of
the brain that are directly involved in the creation of consciousness.
Brain imaging of people who meditate regularly has shown increased
thickness in cortical regions related to sensory, auditory, visual, and
internal perception. If an individual is born with these portions of
their brain naturally enlarged due to their unique DNA structure, it is
possible they may be more prone to developing the phenomena who call
"enlightenment." [see brain scans prove meditation changes the brain]
The enlightened heroes of Buddhism and Taoism are often depicted
in old paintings with extra large skulls and enormous piercing eyes.
[see paintings of Bodhidharma, Rinzai, Lao-Tse] I am not saying that
everyone with a giant brain is destined to become enlightened, or that
100% of all enlightened humans have extra large brains. Some of the
enlightened, as J. Krishnamurti and Ramakrishna, probably had a form of
temporal lobe epilepsy as an aid to their enlightenment. I do suggest
that a large skull and brain is far more common in the enlightened
elite than in the general population, and this is just one of many
indicators that suggests that enlightenment is a physical, DNA based
phenomena. [see Do you have a soul? for a discussion of temporal lobe
epilepsy in gurus]
Science has proven that DNA forms the human brain, not some
immaterial soul. Rajneesh, Ramana Maharshi, J. Krishnamurti, and many
other sages became enlightened between the ages of seventeen and
twenty-one, just when their brains and central nervous system became
fully developed. The great spiritual teachers were destined to become
enlightened due to their rare DNA, not because of any extraordinary
effort at meditation. Most humans who become full Buddhas become
enlightened within seven years of beginning meditative practice, which
is an incredibly short period of time to achieve such a unusual and
grand result. Some Buddhas never even had to practice anything at all;
it just happened to them without any apparent cause.
If you can comprehend that consciousness is a physical attribute
that is the result of the formation of complex patterns of brain cells,
then you can understand that "enlightenment" is a mathematically
predictable probability. For example, there are tall people, short
people, geniuses and fools. There are people with unusually accurate
eyesight and supersensitive hearing, and there are people who are blind
and deaf. The vast majority of humans need anywhere from five to ten
hours of sleep at night to survive, but a tiny percentage of humans
have just the right genetic code that allows them to live healthfully
without any sleep at all. They stay up all night long, awake and
alert, every night of their lives and they feel fine and are physically
healthy. Human beings are subject to a wide range of genetic
expression and capabilities. Consciousness is a brain function, and
thus the mathematics of the grand genetics crap shoot demands that a
tiny percentage of the population will have just the right DNA code
structure to produce a continuous state of superconsciousness. All
human beings are capable of superconsciousness given the right
conditions, so the fact that some humans are born destined to live
continuously in an expanded state of consciousness should not be a
surprise.
Meditation techniques do work (see Meditation Handbook), and with
effort average individuals can push themselves ahead in consciousness
to the equivalent of 10%, 20%, or even 30% of a fully enlightened
state. Consciousness comes in degrees of intensity and fullness, and
it is far better to be 30% enlightened than not enlightened at all.
Tibetan Buddhists take four and five year old boys and stick them into
monasteries in order to grow their brains to become enlightened monks
like so many hothouse tomatoes. This strategy works to some degree due
to the neuroplastic nature of the brain. If you start early enough,
while the central nervous system is still forming, you can grow the
brain to function in a way that is conducive to meditation, but not
much else. There is a tradeoff in loss of practical brain function
when you devote your entire life to the vegetative state of meditation.
Meditation is a passive and vegetative flowering of brain function,
thus no society can afford to have more than a small percentage of its
young men turned into celibate monks. This was part of the reason the
Chinese had such an easy time when they leisurely waltzed into Tibet in
1950. Tibetans had dedicated too much of their cultural energy to
their religion to survive in a hostile world.
Our brains change and adapt with our behavior. If you meditate
day after day, year after year, your meditation becomes easier and more
powerful as your brain structure changes itself to accommodate your
lifestyle. This is what is meant by the term "neuroplasticity." Tibet
has produced many semi-Buddhas through the wholesale grooming of
children to become Buddhist monks, but India has always been the
powerhouse for producing full Buddhas, not just half Buddhas or near
Buddhas. Indian sages are almost always lone individuals who are born
destined to become enlightened. They are not part of any theocracy or
an army of monks, and they usually become enlightened completely alone.
Their enlightenment does not come from virtue or past life experience,
but from the Indian brain structure which is the most suited to the
superconscious state. History shows that the genetic oddity of
enlightenment is most prevalent in India males, and this is a mystery
scientists should explore in further detail. Tibetan, Chinese, and
Japanese monks have practiced meditation for centuries, but on average
they have had to work twice as hard to achieve half the results. In
the West, aside from George Gurdjieff, enlightenment is in almost total
absence. To date, the West has produced many great scientists,
philosophers, artists, and scholars, but very few living Buddhas. [see
picture of George Gurdjieff's giant skull]
The great myths of spirituality may vanish in the coming centuries
as the fascinating new science of what I call BRAIN ELECTRICS is born.
The human brain is an organic electrochemical computer that is capable
of displaying the most incredible light show, which we call
superconsciousness. The brain can also be studied, mapped, and
understood. The realms of the occult and mysticism are a
misinterpretation of brain phenomena that all humans experience to one
degree or another at different times in our lives, either
spontaneously, through the practice of meditation techniques, or
through the use of psychoactive drugs. It's all in the brain, and none
of us know any world outside of the human brain because that is what we
are.
---------------------------
Also see "Do you have a soul?" at:
http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/soul.html
Christopher
| |
|
|
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> "brain electrics" is iffy branding. It's strange, needs explaining"
>
> The term BRAIN ELECTRICS comes from "The Ridiculous Teachings of Wrong
> Way Rajneesh" at http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/wrong-way.html
>
> ----------------the last few paragraphs pasted below-------------
>
> Opinions and Possible Explanations
>
> It is my unproven theory that Rajneesh's vast consciousness was
> the result of the unique structure of his unusually large brain, which
> was created through his DNA code. If you look at his photos you can
> easily see how incredibly big his skull was in proportion to the rest
> of his body. That skull was filled with an extra large brain, not thin
> air. [see picture of Rajneesh's giant skull]
>
> Magnetic resonance imaging studies (MRI studies) have shown that
> people with large brains, on average, are more intelligent than humans
> with smaller brains. [see MRI brain size study] My theory is
> unrelated to the issue of intelligence, because I do not believe that
> 'enlightenment,' in the Eastern esoteric meaning of the word, is
> intelligence or wisdom at all. My first hand experience with the
> enlightened sages is that they have a vastly increased energy output of
> the consciousness producing realms of the brain. These areas are not
> responsible for the thinking and reasoning functions of the brain. My
> position is that you can be enlightened and highly intelligent, or you
> can become fully enlightened with just average intelligence, and you
> can find examples of both situations. It is also entirely possible to
> be very wise and not even be a student of meditation at all.
>
> People often become fooled into thinking they are great geniuses
> because meditation makes them feel marvelous and full of light. I am
> definitely pro-meditation, but oppose the false teaching that wisdom is
> possessed only by those who live in a constant state of
> superconsciousness. World history backs up the position that yogis,
> monks, and the famous mystical gurus are not the sole owners of human
> intelligence, and they are often not very wise at all.
>
> Bigger brained people may have an edge in the long-shot odds of
> becoming enlightened because they may possess an expansion of areas of
> the brain that are directly involved in the creation of consciousness.
> Brain imaging of people who meditate regularly has shown increased
> thickness in cortical regions related to sensory, auditory, visual, and
> internal perception. If an individual is born with these portions of
> their brain naturally enlarged due to their unique DNA structure, it is
> possible they may be more prone to developing the phenomena who call
> "enlightenment." [see brain scans prove meditation changes the brain]
>
>
> The enlightened heroes of Buddhism and Taoism are often depicted
> in old paintings with extra large skulls and enormous piercing eyes.
> [see paintings of Bodhidharma, Rinzai, Lao-Tse] I am not saying that
> everyone with a giant brain is destined to become enlightened, or that
> 100% of all enlightened humans have extra large brains. Some of the
> enlightened, as J. Krishnamurti and Ramakrishna, probably had a form of
> temporal lobe epilepsy as an aid to their enlightenment. I do suggest
> that a large skull and brain is far more common in the enlightened
> elite than in the general population, and this is just one of many
> indicators that suggests that enlightenment is a physical, DNA based
> phenomena. [see Do you have a soul? for a discussion of temporal lobe
> epilepsy in gurus]
>
> Science has proven that DNA forms the human brain, not some
> immaterial soul. Rajneesh, Ramana Maharshi, J. Krishnamurti, and many
> other sages became enlightened between the ages of seventeen and
> twenty-one, just when their brains and central nervous system became
> fully developed. The great spiritual teachers were destined to become
> enlightened due to their rare DNA, not because of any extraordinary
> effort at meditation. Most humans who become full Buddhas become
> enlightened within seven years of beginning meditative practice, which
> is an incredibly short period of time to achieve such a unusual and
> grand result. Some Buddhas never even had to practice anything at all;
> it just happened to them without any apparent cause.
>
> If you can comprehend that consciousness is a physical attribute
> that is the result of the formation of complex patterns of brain cells,
> then you can understand that "enlightenment" is a mathematically
> predictable probability. For example, there are tall people, short
> people, geniuses and fools. There are people with unusually accurate
> eyesight and supersensitive hearing, and there are people who are blind
> and deaf. The vast majority of humans need anywhere from five to ten
> hours of sleep at night to survive, but a tiny percentage of humans
> have just the right genetic code that allows them to live healthfully
> without any sleep at all. They stay up all night long, awake and
> alert, every night of their lives and they feel fine and are physically
> healthy. Human beings are subject to a wide range of genetic
> expression and capabilities. Consciousness is a brain function, and
> thus the mathematics of the grand genetics crap shoot demands that a
> tiny percentage of the population will have just the right DNA code
> structure to produce a continuous state of superconsciousness. All
> human beings are capable of superconsciousness given the right
> conditions, so the fact that some humans are born destined to live
> continuously in an expanded state of consciousness should not be a
> surprise.
>
> Meditation techniques do work (see Meditation Handbook), and with
> effort average individuals can push themselves ahead in consciousness
> to the equivalent of 10%, 20%, or even 30% of a fully enlightened
> state. Consciousness comes in degrees of intensity and fullness, and
> it is far better to be 30% enlightened than not enlightened at all.
> Tibetan Buddhists take four and five year old boys and stick them into
> monasteries in order to grow their brains to become enlightened monks
> like so many hothouse tomatoes. This strategy works to some degree due
> to the neuroplastic nature of the brain. If you start early enough,
> while the central nervous system is still forming, you can grow the
> brain to function in a way that is conducive to meditation, but not
> much else. There is a tradeoff in loss of practical brain function
> when you devote your entire life to the vegetative state of meditation.
> Meditation is a passive and vegetative flowering of brain function,
> thus no society can afford to have more than a small percentage of its
> young men turned into celibate monks. This was part of the reason the
> Chinese had such an easy time when they leisurely waltzed into Tibet in
> 1950. Tibetans had dedicated too much of their cultural energy to
> their religion to survive in a hostile world.
>
> Our brains change and adapt with our behavior. If you meditate
> day after day, year after year, your meditation becomes easier and more
> powerful as your brain structure changes itself to accommodate your
> lifestyle. This is what is meant by the term "neuroplasticity." Tibet
> has produced many semi-Buddhas through the wholesale grooming of
> children to become Buddhist monks, but India has always been the
> powerhouse for producing full Buddhas, not just half Buddhas or near
> Buddhas. Indian sages are almost always lone individuals who are born
> destined to become enlightened. They are not part of any theocracy or
> an army of monks, and they usually become enlightened completely alone.
> Their enlightenment does not come from virtue or past life experience,
> but from the Indian brain structure which is the most suited to the
> superconscious state. History shows that the genetic oddity of
> enlightenment is most prevalent in India males, and this is a mystery
> scientists should explore in further detail. Tibetan, Chinese, and
> Japanese monks have practiced meditation for centuries, but on average
> they have had to work twice as hard to achieve half the results. In
> the West, aside from George Gurdjieff, enlightenment is in almost total
> absence. To date, the West has produced many great scientists,
> philosophers, artists, and scholars, but very few living Buddhas. [see
> picture of George Gurdjieff's giant skull]
>
> The great myths of spirituality may vanish in the coming centuries
> as the fascinating new science of what I call BRAIN ELECTRICS is born.
> The human brain is an organic electrochemical computer that is capable
> of displaying the most incredible light show, which we call
> superconsciousness. The brain can also be studied, mapped, and
> understood. The realms of the occult and mysticism are a
> misinterpretation of brain phenomena that all humans experience to one
> degree or another at different times in our lives, either
> spontaneously, through the practice of meditation techniques, or
> through the use of psychoactive drugs. It's all in the brain, and none
> of us know any world outside of the human brain because that is what we
> are.
> ---------------------------
>
> Also see "Do you have a soul?" at:
> http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/soul.html
>
> Christopher
What difference can it make? If mind and brain are one thing or if
mind and brain are two things? What difference? If you poke something
into your brain, something is going to happen. Lots easier to think a
thought, huh? Thought, we can do thoughts. Playing with pieces of
brain, that is much more dangerous. Terry
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-14, 9:33 pm |
| > "brain electrics" is iffy branding. It's strange, needs explaining"
>
> The term BRAIN ELECTRICS comes from "The Ridiculous Teachings of Wrong
> Way Rajneesh" at http://home.att.net/%7Emeditation/wrong-way.html
Well, I don't need 1001 words rammed down my throat. You need to calm down
and learn a little flexibility. If I want jargon and 1001 word tracts rammed
down my throat I'd go looking for it. Most people are the same.
Another thing, if you're going layer a claim to being "new" on top, you'd
better deliver. At the moment, Deputy Dawg, it ain't and you're not. This
sort of delivery only makes things ten times harder for yourself.
You make find a little more practicality and socal skills useful.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| calderhome@yahoo.com 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| Charles,
You stated the term BRAIN ELECTRICS needed explanation so I posted the
full explanation. I answered your question and did not ram anything
down anyone's throat. Your head is full of negative projections that
are unfair. I have made no claims on being on top of anything. I am
discussing issues, that is all. I am not selling anything. You ARE
projecting.
Christopher
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> Well, I don't need 1001 words rammed down my throat. You need to calm down
> and learn a little flexibility. If I want jargon and 1001 word tracts rammed
> down my throat I'd go looking for it. Most people are the same.
>
> Another thing, if you're going layer a claim to being "new" on top, you'd
> better deliver. At the moment, Deputy Dawg, it ain't and you're not. This
> sort of delivery only makes things ten times harder for yourself.
>
> You make find a little more practicality and socal skills useful.
>
> --
> Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| n_cramerSPAM@pacbell.net 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| "calderhome@yahoo.com" <calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Charles,
>
> You stated the term BRAIN ELECTRICS needed explanation so I posted the
> full explanation. I answered your question and did not ram anything
> down anyone's throat. Your head is full of negative projections that
> are unfair. I have made no claims on being on top of anything. I am
> discussing issues, that is all. I am not selling anything. You ARE
> projecting.
I believe that my mind has more in common with you minds than it does with
my brain.
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~
| |
| Robert Epstein 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> 'Mind' is not separate from brain.
>
> Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong in assuming that 'mind' is separate
> from the human brain.
How could you possibly know this? Are you God?
Mind is the functioning of a living brain, not a
> supernatural attachment to a human brain. There is no mind without
> brain and no mind transmigrates from one lifetime to the next, other
> than through reproduction via physical DNA.
Well, God, thanks for setting us straight.
The personal ego dissolves
> upon death and never comes back.
You've been there and done that and not come back? Wow, that is
fascinating.
There is no carrying over good or bad
> "karma" from one lifetime to the next because there are no future
> lifetimes for any individual mind.
How do you know this?
Good deeds will help future
> generations of new mind-brains physically created by DNA, however. You
> can make the world a better place to live for future generations, but
> the personal 'you' will never come back to see it.
>
> Rajneesh, otherwise known as "Osho", failed as a teacher because he
> thought mind was separate from brain and above and beyond the brain.
Gee, maybe it was also because he was a psychotic egotistical idiot.
> There is nothing beyond the brain as far as human consciousness or
> human mind is concerned.
How do you know this?
Rajneesh was a sucker for spiritual myths and
> Western psycho-babble, and his teachings were 90% false as a result.
You are sucker for scientific materialism.
> His teachings WERE a factually incorrect and deceptive combination of
> Eastern spiritual myths and Western psycho-babble nonsense, both of
> which he borrowed from books written by others. Rajneesh destroyed his
> own brain with drugs, specifically nitrous oxide gas and a massive
> intake of Valium. He thought his "mind" and consciousness were above
> and beyond mere brain, and thus could not be touched by the destructive
> effects of drugs. This assumption was wrong! Rajneesh-Osho went mad
> and took his followers with him on his long trip to insanity.
>
> Despite what Rajneesh-Osho said, the problem with the world is not that
> people do not "surrender" themselves enough to pompous gurus who
> set themselves up as perfect super-heros.
How about to self-styled scientific gurus?
The problem with the world
> is that humans lack basic honesty and the dual ability to use both
> reason and empathic compassion to solve the problems of living here and
> now.
Well it is not reasonable for you to think you know what happens or
doesn't happen after death, or whether the mind is confined to the brain
or not. It is arrogant and myopic.
Robert
- - - - - - - -
| |
| Robert Epstein 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> Charles,
>
> You stated the term BRAIN ELECTRICS needed explanation so I posted the
> full explanation. I answered your question and did not ram anything
> down anyone's throat.
Your head is full of negative projections that
> are unfair.
This is an overstatement. How could you possibly know what someone
else's head is full of?
Robert
I have made no claims on being on top of anything. I am
> discussing issues, that is all. I am not selling anything. You ARE
> projecting.
>
> Christopher
>
> Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>
>
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| >> You stated the term BRAIN ELECTRICS needed explanation so I posted the
>
> Your head is full of negative projections that
>
> This is an overstatement. How could you possibly know what someone else's
> head is full of?
People can fly off the handle and repeat learned concepts without thinking.
I'm relaxed about that. I just think Chris may benefit from a bit of space
to absorb the feedback and reflect on his ideas and presentation. No biggy.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| Robert Epstein 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>
> People can fly off the handle and repeat learned concepts without
> thinking. I'm relaxed about that. I just think Chris may benefit from a
> bit of space to absorb the feedback and reflect on his ideas and
> presentation. No biggy.
>
If someone is absolutely sure of their own position and thinks it is
objective, it would be worthwhile to look at their own assumptions and
overstatements.
robert
- - - - - - - -
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| >> People can fly off the handle and repeat learned concepts without
>
> If someone is absolutely sure of their own position and thinks it is
> objective, it would be worthwhile to look at their own assumptions and
> overstatements.
That's true. Driving too hard a deal can be counter-productive, as per my
comments on Chris' own content and presentation. People, around here, can
razz someone's XXX too hard. I got the feeling, this time around, it
wouldn't be a good idea. I don't do sensitivity well. Make the most of it.
:-)
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| Robert Epstein 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>
> That's true. Driving too hard a deal can be counter-productive, as per
> my comments on Chris' own content and presentation. People, around here,
> can razz someone's XXX too hard. I got the feeling, this time around, it
> wouldn't be a good idea. I don't do sensitivity well. Make the most of
> it. :-)
>
Yeah, skillful means and awareness are always worth taking into account.
I'm trying to use them a little more myself these days, occasionally
successfully. I may even turn out to be a "Buddhist" if I keep it up.
That would be an achievement.
Robert
- - - - - - -
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| > Yeah, skillful means and awareness are always worth taking into account.
> I'm trying to use them a little more myself these days, occasionally
> successfully. I may even turn out to be a "Buddhist" if I keep it up.
> That would be an achievement.
On the surface, we seem to have swapped roles. I've done the INTJ thing for
most of my life, and am working on rebalancing that. The range and
flexibility thing is hard to develop, but I picked up on an intuition and
decided to roll with it. Make hay while the sun shines, etcetera.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| Sammybaby 2006-10-15, 8:26 am |
|
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> If you can comprehend that consciousness is a physical attribute
> Christopher
If it is a physical attribute, it should have dimensions. How big is
yours?
| |
| Sammybaby 2006-10-15, 8:26 am |
| REally it should read the other way around. Brains are not separate
from mind. The idea of a brain is something derived from experiences
that happen in consciousness. Consciousness is more primary, from our
experiences we make hypotheses about 'things'. QM makes these things
much more ephemeral and dynamic than even biochemistry does. When we
talk about physical things we tend to think of solid items, secretly
refering to our experiences of objects in our lives. We have made up
this notion of solidity from non-solid experiences occuring in
consciousness. And now QM comes along ironically from the world of
science and says that things are not solid. Let me stress this: It is
not merely that 'things' fluctuate between waves adn particles, but
actually move forward adn backward in time, move backward and forward
from potential to existing. This occilating, constantly changing
field, set of tendencies, I don't even know what to call it, is what we
call physical. Oddly people think that if they can say the mind is
brain they have brought the listener back to the real base. But it is
quite the opposite. and who is to say that current limitations on
control over the field are the real limitations. (Rupert Sheldrake
might make a good read here). Osho went past his fears adn did not
respect himself or his followers. He proves nothing to me about our
limits.
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> 'Mind' is not separate from brain.
>
> Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong in assuming that 'mind' is separate
> from the human brain. Mind is the functioning of a living brain, not a
> supernatural attachment to a human brain. There is no mind without
> brain and no mind transmigrates from one lifetime to the next, other
> than through reproduction via physical DNA. The personal ego dissolves
> upon death and never comes back. There is no carrying over good or bad
> "karma" from one lifetime to the next because there are no future
> lifetimes for any individual mind. Good deeds will help future
> generations of new mind-brains physically created by DNA, however. You
> can make the world a better place to live for future generations, but
> the personal 'you' will never come back to see it.
>
> Rajneesh, otherwise known as "Osho", failed as a teacher because he
> thought mind was separate from brain and above and beyond the brain.
> There is nothing beyond the brain as far as human consciousness or
> human mind is concerned. Rajneesh was a sucker for spiritual myths and
> Western psycho-babble, and his teachings were 90% false as a result.
> His teachings WERE a factually incorrect and deceptive combination of
> Eastern spiritual myths and Western psycho-babble nonsense, both of
> which he borrowed from books written by others. Rajneesh destroyed his
> own brain with drugs, specifically nitrous oxide gas and a massive
> intake of Valium. He thought his "mind" and consciousness were above
> and beyond mere brain, and thus could not be touched by the destructive
> effects of drugs. This assumption was wrong! Rajneesh-Osho went mad
> and took his followers with him on his long trip to insanity.
>
> Despite what Rajneesh-Osho said, the problem with the world is not that
> people do not "surrender" themselves enough to pompous gurus who
> set themselves up as perfect super-heros. The problem with the world
> is that humans lack basic honesty and the dual ability to use both
> reason and empathic compassion to solve the problems of living here and
> now.
>
> Christopher Calder
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
| |
|
| Baby,
Check the name of BRAIN,,, Do not make any salad of it!
Puma
Sammybaby wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> REally it should read the other way around. Brains are not separate
> from mind. The idea of a brain is something derived from experiences
> that happen in consciousness. Consciousness is more primary, from our
> experiences we make hypotheses about 'things'. QM makes these things
> much more ephemeral and dynamic than even biochemistry does. When we
> talk about physical things we tend to think of solid items, secretly
> refering to our experiences of objects in our lives. We have made up
> this notion of solidity from non-solid experiences occuring in
> consciousness. And now QM comes along ironically from the world of
> science and says that things are not solid. Let me stress this: It is
> not merely that 'things' fluctuate between waves adn particles, but
> actually move forward adn backward in time, move backward and forward
> from potential to existing. This occilating, constantly changing
> field, set of tendencies, I don't even know what to call it, is what we
> call physical. Oddly people think that if they can say the mind is
> brain they have brought the listener back to the real base. But it is
> quite the opposite. and who is to say that current limitations on
> control over the field are the real limitations. (Rupert Sheldrake
> might make a good read here). Osho went past his fears adn did not
> respect himself or his followers. He proves nothing to me about our
> limits.
> calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
| |
| Dave K 2006-10-15, 4:27 pm |
|
calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> 'Mind' is not separate from brain.
>
> Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong in assuming that 'mind' is separate
> from the human brain. Mind is the functioning of a living brain, not a
> supernatural attachment to a human brain. There is no mind without
> brain and no mind transmigrates from one lifetime to the next, other
> than through reproduction via physical DNA. The personal ego dissolves
> upon death and never comes back. There is no carrying over good or bad
> "karma" from one lifetime to the next because there are no future
> lifetimes for any individual mind. Good deeds will help future
> generations of new mind-brains physically created by DNA, however. You
> can make the world a better place to live for future generations, but
> the personal 'you' will never come back to see it.
>
> Rajneesh, otherwise known as "Osho", failed as a teacher because he
> thought mind was separate from brain and above and beyond the brain.
> There is nothing beyond the brain as far as human consciousness or
> human mind is concerned. Rajneesh was a sucker for spiritual myths and
> Western psycho-babble, and his teachings were 90% false as a result.
> His teachings WERE a factually incorrect and deceptive combination of
> Eastern spiritual myths and Western psycho-babble nonsense, both of
> which he borrowed from books written by others. Rajneesh destroyed his
> own brain with drugs, specifically nitrous oxide gas and a massive
> intake of Valium. He thought his "mind" and consciousness were above
> and beyond mere brain, and thus could not be touched by the destructive
> effects of drugs. This assumption was wrong! Rajneesh-Osho went mad
> and took his followers with him on his long trip to insanity.
>
> Despite what Rajneesh-Osho said, the problem with the world is not that
> people do not "surrender" themselves enough to pompous gurus who
> set themselves up as perfect super-heros. The problem with the world
> is that humans lack basic honesty and the dual ability to use both
> reason and empathic compassion to solve the problems of living here and
> now.
>
> Christopher Calder
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - home page
Back from Vulcan?
I can accept that the mind may be the same as the brain in a physical
sense. But the philosophical problem is that what you have here is a
notion of "brain" which is limited to what your brain can think of. So
essentially, while your "mind" may be in your "brain", your concept of
"brain" is all in your mind.
The tricky question then is that now you have to tell us where the
brain separates from everything else in the body, and then you have to
tell me where that body separates from it's environment. And you have
to do this in a way the provides absolute separation at some definitive
point, without room for interpenetration.
My guess is you won't be able to do it. Everything interpenetrates.
Brain/Body/environment. I would rather just call it a mind without
limiting it to the grey matter, becuase there is no way to tell exactly
where the matter stops being grey. I believe the Thai masters use the
same word for mind as they use for heart. Silly isn't it? According
to your dissection they are just plain wrong. But most of them seem to
do just fine.
So, you're not wrong, but your analysis doesn't provide much value for
me. One one hand I am very cynical, non-superstitious, and not a
magical thinker, but for me there isn't one world of myth and another
world of reality. They are both interpenetrating becuase they are both
ideas in my brain/body/environment which I would much rather just call
a mind. There is no use in putting more stock in either scientific
reality or mythology. They don't exist outside your mind anyway.
-DaveK
| |
| howdydave 2006-10-15, 4:27 pm |
| Howdy!
In presenting the case that the mind and brain
are not separate the argument was:
"The mind is a function of the brain."
That very statement proves the opposite because
a function is not the organ.
Dave
| |
| Robert Epstein 2006-10-15, 4:27 pm |
| Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>
> On the surface, we seem to have swapped roles. I've done the INTJ thing
> for most of my life, and am working on rebalancing that. The range and
> flexibility thing is hard to develop, but I picked up on an intuition
> and decided to roll with it. Make hay while the sun shines, etcetera.
>
In the past I've always been a big fan of intuition and spontaneity,
sometimes accompanied by screaming. Now I'm heading for the middle way.
Robert
- - - - - - - -
| |
| Lawson English 2006-10-15, 4:27 pm |
| calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
> 'Mind' is not separate from brain.
It is an interesting claim and possibly correct.
However, what is "brain" and what is "mind?"
Both terms are quite difficult, possibly impossible, to define.
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-15, 9:32 pm |
| > In the past I've always been a big fan of intuition and spontaneity,
> sometimes accompanied by screaming. Now I'm heading for the middle way.
I've been working on a project for some years, now, and the mismatch between
goals, process, and outcomes is a real drag. I've seen better funded
competition catch up while I've dithered. Doom shadowing, Half-Life 2
character animation, Far Cry landscape size. Now, Chris Crawford has taken
the plunge with his story telling engine. I could add to that list.
Having a world class design vision is the easy bit. Getting down and
cranking it out piece by piece is the hard part, and that's where character
comes in. If you can't organise a team, pull your own weight, deal with some
of the huge blows that life throws at you, or understand the market, you're
going to land on your XXX. Being cocky or snarly about things doesn't help.
This post may be a bit ill-advised. On the other hand, the former Cabinet
Minister, David Blunkett, had a similar battle with dreams and nightmares
and has come out the other side looking a little daft but in better shape.
As with the Aristotelian story structure, rise, fall, and redemption,
there's something of the heroes journey about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1889616,00.html
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
|
| On 2006-10-15 11:30:12 -0700, Lawson English <LawsonE@nowhere.none> said:
> calderhome@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> It is an interesting claim and possibly correct.
>
> However, what is "brain" and what is "mind?"
>
> Both terms are quite difficult, possibly impossible, to define
The common definitions are that *brain* is a physical entity and *mind*
is a function of that entity. Like a television set is *brain* and
"Lost" is a function of that. Television is made up of physical thing
producing sound and images. "Lost" is made up of symbols, signs, text
and the like. One can hold a TV set or a brain, one can not hold
"Lost" or consciousness.
Chris wrongly states:
> Mind is the functioning of a living brain, not a
> supernatural attachment to a human brain.
The Cartesian dualism rests on this distinction. Chris is falling into
the Cartesian trap though. Its an unfortunate form of monism. By the
late 20th century most people were well over this myth. Brain does not
necessarily produce consciousness. And vice versa.
We know now from neurobiology that not only do physical brain changes
alter consciousness (drink some vodka to test this theory), but changes
in consciousness can alter the physical brain. Some examples of this
are the development of dense neural areas where someone has learned a
new skill. And more interestingly, the results of experiments in the
growing field of epigenetics. Nestler, Unitversity of Texas; Grayson,
Untiversity of Chicago..to name a few researchers in this area. We see
alterations in environment have direct effect on the attachments of
methyl groups to DNA.
Consciousness appears to play an integral part in brain activity. To
say one controls the other is a grave mistake.
For this reason, we can shape our consciousness by altering our
environment, or we can shape our environment by altering our
consciousness. Its a two way street. The former is limited by
physical restrictions, the later is limitless, unbounded by imagination
and infinite intelligence.
Which would be the better path to follow if we are looking for improvement?
--
~Stu
| |
| Robert Epstein 2006-10-16, 2:31 am |
| Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>
> I've been working on a project for some years, now, and the mismatch
> between
> goals, process, and outcomes is a real drag. I've seen better funded
> competition catch up while I've dithered. Doom shadowing, Half-Life 2
> character animation, Far Cry landscape size. Now, Chris Crawford has taken
> the plunge with his story telling engine. I could add to that list.
>
> Having a world class design vision is the easy bit. Getting down and
> cranking it out piece by piece is the hard part, and that's where character
> comes in. If you can't organise a team, pull your own weight, deal with
> some
> of the huge blows that life throws at you, or understand the market, you're
> going to land on your XXX. Being cocky or snarly about things doesn't help.
>
> This post may be a bit ill-advised. On the other hand, the former Cabinet
> Minister, David Blunkett, had a similar battle with dreams and nightmares
> and has come out the other side looking a little daft but in better shape.
> As with the Aristotelian story structure, rise, fall, and redemption,
> there's something of the heroes journey about it.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1889616,00.html
>
Couldn't read most of the article, as a popup ad game took over my
browser and I had to force-quite to get back control of my mouse. Hmn......
Robert
- - - - - - -
| |
| Charles E Hardwidge 2006-10-16, 2:31 am |
| > Couldn't read most of the article, as a popup ad game took over my browser
> and I had to force-quite to get back control of my mouse. Hmn......
Don't have that problem. Maybe it's a browser thing or because you're
viewing from a non-UK based IP? Normally, I wouldn't 'mirror' copyright
content but as it's live I've copied the fully article, here, with the
X-No-Archive header flagged.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1889616,00.html
'My world was collapsing'
Until his resignation, David Blunkett was one of the most brilliant, natural
politicians in the cabinet. Now he is back with a controversial account of
life in the corridors of power
Julian Glover and Patrick Wintour
Saturday October 7, 2006
The Guardian
The collapse of David Blunkett's cabinet career was a very New Labour
tragedy, a double destruction of a man whose life story encapsulates his
party's transformation, triumphs and now its woes. As a CND activist and
leftwing council leader in the 1980s, he defied the Thatcher revolution and
went on to share and shape hopes for a fairer Britain when Tony Blair won in
1997. His blindness, and challenging childhood, seemed only to add to his
strength of character and the moral force of his fight. But, by the time he
was brought down, both by his own hand and by the media, his fall was seen
as symbolic of a government that had lost its way amid the seductions of
power. Anyone hoping for a read packed with scandal and sex, however, will
be disappointed, he says - there is no "sleazy gossip".
"I've edited it and I have left the bodies buried," he says. "I have not got
into the salacious, into the getting a headline for its own sake. Probably,
the person who comes out worst is David Blunkett."
The former home secretary loathes his reputation and knows he must overturn
it if he is to be given credit for all he believes he has achieved. That is
why, only a year after that second, desperate resignation, he is stepping
back into the limelight by publishing his diaries of a decade pursuing
power, holding and losing it.
"It is a modern record, similar to Tony Benn's and Richard Crossman's, which
no one else has yet done and, as far as I know, has the diary notes to do,"
he says.
A sprawling but candid book, The Blunkett Tapes: My Life in the Bearpit
combines contemporary transcripts of his cassette-recorded diary with
present-day reflection on what he now feels about the events and people he
describes. It carries with it the sense of a man who was on the edge of
breakdown, thrown into depression by his sudden celebrity. "At one point, I
did really think I was going mad. My whole world was collapsing around me. I
was under the most horrendous pressure. I was barely sleeping and yet I was
being asked to sign government warrants in the middle of the night."
He agrees he was probably clinically depressed, and the Commons doctor
recommended antidepressants and then therapy, an offer he declined.
Sipping a latte in his small, modern Westminster office earlier this week,
surrounded by the detritus of backbench life, Blunkett admits he is taking a
risk by going public. He was scalded once by his outspokenness about
colleagues to his biographer, Stephen Pollard. Cooperating with Pollard's
biography was "the biggest political mistake of my life".
But, he says, it is a search for the truth that made him publish diaries he
recorded for private consumption. On 88 tapes filled at weekends in his
Sheffield constituency, or at the Derbyshire home rented on the Chatsworth
estate, he talks frankly about the challenge of "being a modern minister at
the turn of the century with 24-hour, seven-day-a-week global
communications."
The sessions were a way, too, for a sometimes lonely man to express his
thoughts. "It gradually became therapy - I could let off steam in the diary
in ways that you couldn't possibly in public."
First at education, then at the Home Office and, last year, at work and
pensions, he recorded the struggle to live up to the tasks facing him. He
makes power sound neither glamorous nor attractive, a mess of insecurities
and battles that, he admits now, reveals a man under pressure.
"You don't reflect the good things, because if it is going well, it has not
got to you," he explains. "So the diary is about the things that were a
challenge or things that were really irritating you and going badly wrong.
"The diary, I have to confess," he adds, "is a distortion. Balanced as I
hope it comes out, it is not quite as balanced as I would have liked. It is
not Samuel Pepys; it is David Blunkett."
Nine months of editing the tapes has thrown into sharp relief the trauma of
a man who, at times, came close to falling apart. High office changed him,
he says.
"Private relationships became more difficult, more tetchy," he says. "I had
less time for my friends and I regret that very much. Personally, I became
more difficult to be with. Politically, I became more astute, more
comfortable and so had fewer raw clashes."
But clash he did at times, and he makes no secret of the fact that it was
not always easy to remain "a decent human being" - "I was affected by the
harshness of government, the reality of 16-hour days and the pressures of
modern communications," he admits. The media both captivates Blunkett and
troubles him. No other minister was so keenly aware of what the press was
saying about him - or so angry at what he believed were distortions.
That he went through all of this without being able to see is something he
writes about movingly, and he agrees it shaped fundamentally the way he
behaved. Sitting with his black Labrador guide dog snoozing at his feet, he
says that blindness only drove him to work harder. "I spent more time making
sure I was properly briefed and that I would not let myself or other people
down by being unable to answer questions."
The weekend recording sessions, then, were only an extension of an
extraordinarily dedicated pattern of working that saw him use Braille and
audiotapes to outperform many of his sighted colleagues. His bigger battles,
though, were not against disability but against the institutional culture of
government, especially at the Home Office and with the judiciary.
"The Home Office culture was one of being just above the problem, of
hovering just out of reach of knowing what was going on on the ground,
whether it was crime or immigration," he says. But he argues that, while
there, he successfully struck a balance between the pressure to get tough
and liberal critics on the left - including, at times, his own family. "The
security services obviously wanted whatever powers politicians were about to
grant," he explains. "The public, contrary to what some people in parliament
thought, actually wanted tougher action."
Among his adversaries, at times, were both traditionalists and liberals who,
for instance, opposed his antiterror laws in the House of Lords. "Bishops
and judges are some of the best politicians in the world. They know how to
manipulate the political process," he says. "I am against the judiciary
believing that they are another arm of government and that they can
therefore say they dislike what parliament has done and overturn it."
He reflects now on how he might have been remembered had his time at the
Home Office not coincided with September 11 and its aftermath of tackling
the threat of terrorism. "There is a sadness because I came out with a
different image to the one I would have sought when I was a young
politician. But I was there when it needed saying in the way I was saying it
and legislating in the way it needed to be done."
For now, though, Blunkett has his own reputation to think of. Of the reasons
for his resignations, he says: "The first time, my physical, emotional
health had cracked because of the personal side. The second time, it was
necessary for Tony and the government."
Blunkett stops short of expressing hopes of returning to government under
Gordon Brown. He has warm words now, though, for a chancellor with whom he
has often had run-ins.
"I have had the most enormous rows with him, particularly in the early part
of government when we were getting to know each other and testing one
another," he says. "What I write in the diary is a description of a
constructive, robust relationship that reflects two people who hold strong
opinions, have very strong characters and do not suffer fools gladly. I have
known him for well over 25 years and have got on with him well - and often
extremely explosively.
"Since he has been married to Sarah, I have got to know him personally, as
opposed to politically, much better," he adds. "The times I have spent with
him in Scotland have been joyous times. On several occasions I have wished
we could run the UK parliament from Edinburgh because the influences there
are helpful."
So what are Blunkett's plans? "Last time, I made the mistake of trying to
come back too soon and I set my stall out to do that and I did not see the
dangers coming," he says. "I am not going to make that mistake again."
But he expects to play his part at the next election. He is far from done
with politics, he says. "I have been in it for 42 years, and I feel full of
life and strength."
The reaction to his book, when it comes out later this month, will test
that.
This life
Born Sheffield, June 6 1947. Blind from birth. Father, Arthur, died in an
industrial accident when David was 12.
Educated Boarding school for the blind aged four, then Royal Normal College
for the Blind. Later, BA in political theory at university of Sheffield.
Married Ruth Mitchell in 1970, divorced after 20 years; three sons.
Early career Lectured in industrial relations and politics in Barnsley
(1973-81). Joined Sheffield city council, aged 22; council leader, 1980-87.
Politics Joined the Labour party at 16; elected to national executive in
1983. Elected MP for Sheffield Brightside, 1987; shadow minister for health,
then education and employment. Secretary of state for education (1997-
2001), Home Office (2001-04) and work and pensions (May-November 2005).
Resignation 1 Quit as home secretary in December 2004 over allegations he
had fast-tracked a visa application for the nanny of Kimberly Quinn, the
Spectator publisher, with whom he had had an affair. (A legal battle
followed, in which he proved his paternity of her son William.)
Resignation 2 Quit Department for Work and Pensions in November 2005 after
failing to consult the relevant committee before taking a directorship in
DNA Bioscience, a paternity-testing company.
He says "I am bluff and robust. I'm an instinctive politician. I don't
provide the standard soundbite."
They say "He's one of the most sensitive people I know and that's why he's a
wonderful friend." - Tessa Jowell. "He is a bully and a liar." - Lord
Stevens
Research by Katy Heslop.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
| |
| Robert Epstein 2006-10-16, 2:31 am |
| Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
>
> Don't have that problem. Maybe it's a browser thing or because you're
> viewing from a non-UK based IP? Normally, I wouldn't 'mirror' copyright
> content but as it's live I've copied the fully article, here, with the
> X-No-Archive header flagged.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1889616,00.html
>
> 'My world was collapsing'
>
> Until his resignation, David Blunkett was one of the most brilliant,
> natural politicians in the cabinet. Now he is back with a controversial
> account of life in the corridors of power
>
> Julian Glover and Patrick Wintour
> Saturday October 7, 2006
> The Guardian
>
> The collapse of David Blunkett's cabinet career was a very New Labour
> tragedy, a double destruction of a man whose life story encapsulates his
> party's transformation, triumphs and now its woes. As a CND activist and
> leftwing council leader in the 1980s, he defied the Thatcher revolution
> and went on to share and shape hopes for a fairer Britain when Tony
> Blair won in 1997. His blindness, and challenging childhood, seemed only
> to add to his strength of character and the moral force of his fight.
> But, by the time he was brought down, both by his own hand and by the
> media, his fall was seen as symbolic of a government that had lost its
> way amid the seductions of power. Anyone hoping for a read packed with
> scandal and sex, however, will be disappointed, he says - there is no
> "sleazy gossip".
>
> "I've edited it and I have left the bodies buried," he says. "I have not
> got into the salacious, into the getting a headline for its own sake.
> Probably, the person who comes out worst is David Blunkett."
>
> The former home secretary loathes his reputation and knows he must
> overturn it if he is to be given credit for all he believes he has
> achieved. That is why, only a year after that second, desperate
> resignation, he is stepping back into the limelight by publishing his
> diaries of a decade pursuing power, holding and losing it.
>
> "It is a modern record, similar to Tony Benn's and Richard Crossman's,
> which no one else has yet done and, as far as I know, has the diary
> notes to do," he says.
>
> A sprawling but candid book, The Blunkett Tapes: My Life in the Bearpit
> combines contemporary transcripts of his cassette-recorded diary with
> present-day reflection on what he now feels about the events and people
> he describes. It carries with it the sense of a man who was on the edge
> of breakdown, thrown into depression by his sudden celebrity. "At one
> point, I did really think I was going mad. My whole world was collapsing
> around me. I was under the most horrendous pressure. I was barely
> sleeping and yet I was being asked to sign government warrants in the
> middle of the night."
>
> He agrees he was probably clinically depressed, and the Commons doctor
> recommended antidepressants and then therapy, an offer he declined.
>
> Sipping a latte in his small, modern Westminster office earlier this
> week, surrounded by the detritus of backbench life, Blunkett admits he
> is taking a risk by going public. He was scalded once by his
> outspokenness about colleagues to his biographer, Stephen Pollard.
> Cooperating with Pollard's biography was "the biggest political mistake
> of my life".
>
> But, he says, it is a search for the truth that made him publish diaries
> he recorded for private consumption. On 88 tapes filled at weekends in
> his Sheffield constituency, or at the Derbyshire home rented on the
> Chatsworth estate, he talks frankly about the challenge of "being a
> modern minister at the turn of the century with 24-hour,
> seven-day-a-week global communications."
>
> The sessions were a way, too, for a sometimes lonely man to express his
> thoughts. "It gradually became therapy - I could let off steam in the
> diary in ways that you couldn't possibly in public."
>
> First at education, then at the Home Office and, last year, at work and
> pensions, he recorded the struggle to live up to the tasks facing him.
> He makes power sound neither glamorous nor attractive, a mess of
> insecurities and battles that, he admits now, reveals a man under pressure.
>
> "You don't reflect the good things, because if it is going well, it has
> not got to you," he explains. "So the diary is about the things that
> were a challenge or things that were really irritating you and going
> badly wrong.
>
> "The diary, I have to confess," he adds, "is a distortion. Balanced as I
> hope it comes out, it is not quite as balanced as I would have liked. It
> is not Samuel Pepys; it is David Blunkett."
>
> Nine months of editing the tapes has thrown into sharp relief the trauma
> of a man who, at times, came close to falling apart. High office changed
> him, he says.
>
> "Private relationships became more difficult, more tetchy," he says. "I
> had less time for my friends and I regret that very much. Personally, I
> became more difficult to be with. Politically, I became more astute,
> more comfortable and so had fewer raw clashes."
>
> But clash he did at times, and he makes no secret of the fact that it
> was not always easy to remain "a decent human being" - "I was affected
> by the harshness of government, the reality of 16-hour days and the
> pressures of modern communications," he admits. The media both
> captivates Blunkett and troubles him. No other minister was so keenly
> aware of what the press was saying about him - or so angry at what he
> believed were distortions.
>
> That he went through all of this without being able to see is something
> he writes about movingly, and he agrees it shaped fundamentally the way
> he behaved. Sitting with his black Labrador guide dog snoozing at his
> feet, he says that blindness only drove him to work harder. "I spent
> more time making sure I was properly briefed and that I would not let
> myself or other people down by being unable to answer questions."
>
> The weekend recording sessions, then, were only an extension of an
> extraordinarily dedicated pattern of working that saw him use Braille
> and audiotapes to outperform many of his sighted colleagues. His bigger
> battles, though, were not against disability but against the
> institutional culture of government, especially at the Home Office and
> with the judiciary.
>
> "The Home Office culture was one of being just above the problem, of
> hovering just out of reach of knowing what was going on on the ground,
> whether it was crime or immigration," he says. But he argues that, while
> there, he successfully struck a balance between the pressure to get
> tough and liberal critics on the left - including, at times, his own
> family. "The security services obviously wanted whatever powers
> politicians were about to grant," he explains. "The public, contrary to
> what some people in parliament thought, actually wanted tougher action."
>
> Among his adversaries, at times, were both traditionalists and liberals
> who, for instance, opposed his antiterror laws in the House of Lords.
> "Bishops and judges are some of the best politicians in the world. They
> know how to manipulate the political process," he says. "I am against
> the judiciary believing that they are another arm of government and that
> they can therefore say they dislike what parliament has done and
> overturn it."
>
> He reflects now on how he might have been remembered had his time at the
> Home Office not coincided with September 11 and its aftermath of
> tackling the threat of terrorism. "There is a sadness because I came out
> with a different image to the one I would have sought when I was a young
> politician. But I was there when it needed saying in the way I was
> saying it and legislating in the way it needed to be done."
>
> For now, though, Blunkett has his own reputation to think of. Of the
> reasons for his resignations, he says: "The first time, my physical,
> emotional health had cracked because of the personal side. The second
> time, it was necessary for Tony and the government."
>
> Blunkett stops short of expressing hopes of returning to government
> under Gordon Brown. He has warm words now, though, for a chancellor with
> whom he has often had run-ins.
>
> "I have had the most enormous rows with him, particularly in the early
> part of government when we were getting to know each other and testing
> one another," he says. "What I write in the diary is a description of a
> constructive, robust relationship that reflects two people who hold
> strong opinions, have very strong characters and do not suffer fools
> gladly. I have known him for well over 25 years and have got on with him
> well - and often extremely explosively.
>
> "Since he has been married to Sarah, I have got to know him personally,
> as opposed to politically, much better," he adds. "The times I have
> spent with him in Scotland have been joyous times. On several occasions
> I have wished we could run the UK parliament from Edinburgh because the
> influences there are helpful."
>
> So what are Blunkett's plans? "Last time, I made the mistake of trying
> to come back too soon and I set my stall out to do that and I did not
> see the dangers coming," he says. "I am not going to make that mistake
> again."
>
> But he expects to play his part at the next election. He is far from
> done with politics, he says. "I have been in it for 42 years, and I feel
> full of life and strength."
>
> The reaction to his book, when it comes out later this month, will test
> that.
>
> This life
>
> Born Sheffield, June 6 1947. Blind from birth. Father, Arthur, died in
> an industrial accident when David was 12.
>
> Educated Boarding school for the blind aged four, then Royal Normal
> college for the Blind. Later, BA in political theory at university of
> Sheffield.
>
> Married Ruth Mitchell in 1970, divorced after 20 years; three sons.
>
> Early career Lectured in industrial relations and politics in Barnsley
> (1973-81). Joined Sheffield city council, aged 22; council leader, 1980-87.
>
> Politics Joined the Labour party at 16; elected to national executive in
> 1983. Elected MP for Sheffield Brightside, 1987; shadow minister for
> health, then education and employment. Secretary of state for education
> (1997- 2001), Home Office (2001-04) and work and pensions (May-November
> 2005).
>
> Resignation 1 Quit as home secretary in December 2004 over allegations
> he had fast-tracked a visa application for the nanny of Kimberly Quinn,
> the Spectator publisher, with whom he had had an affair. (A legal battle
> followed, in which he proved his paternity of her son William.)
>
> Resignation 2 Quit Department for Work and Pensions in November 2005
> after failing to consult the relevant committee before taking a
> directorship in DNA Bioscience, a paternity-testing company.
>
> He says "I am bluff and robust. I'm an instinctive politician. I don't
> provide the standard soundbite."
>
> They say "He's one of the most sensitive people I know and that's why
> he's a wonderful friend." - Tessa Jowell. "He is a bully and a liar." -
> Lord Stevens
>
> Research by Katy Heslop.
>
Thanks Charles. I wonder how many of us have gone through something
similar at one time or another. I know I have, and came out with a
conviction I didn't have before that, that it was harder for me to crack
than I had thought. I realized how strong I was, and that was worth
finding out.
Robert
- - - - - - - -
| |
|
| On 2006-10-14 11:56:30 -0700, "calderhome@yahoo.com"
<calderhome@yahoo.com> said:
> 'Mind' is not separate from brai
But if the true believers on both sides of the emerging consciousness
debate are likely to shout the loudest on the matter, neither should be
allowed to have the last word. There is, in fact, an alternative
scenario-one in which the seemingly fixed battle lines of the opposing
armies are shown to be drawn according to some rather dubious
principles. Not only has advanced neuroscientific research revealed an
obdurate mystery at the core of consciousness, but theoretical advances
in the natural and physical sciences have greatly complicated the
effort to reduce all human phenomena-the mind notably included-to the
effects of material causes. And even as cutting-edge science challenges
crude materialistic explanations of the phenomenal world, new thinking
in philosophy and theology is questioning the assumption of an absolute
divide between mind and body, spirit and matter-an assumption that has
long sustained many religious conceptions of the soul. Interestingly,
these parallel developments in science and religion point to a new
picture of reality-or maybe even recall older understandings implicit
in traditions as ancient as Judaism or Buddhism-in which subject and
object, mind and matter are more interfused than opposed.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health...1015/23soul.htm
--
~Stu
| |
| Dan Barkye 2006-10-17, 4:28 pm |
| A beautiful article, Calder.
Reasoned, supported and w many interesting implications. I resonate w it
b/c I'm very interested in the connection of the physical/spiritual and
in the concept of consciousness, which, BTW, is emerging as a new
academical discipline for the last 10-15 yrs.
I believe that all the answers are within us and that once we will know
the exact way in which we are built and function, we will also know the
answers to all the q's that baffle us, as "Who are we, What are we,
Whereto do we go and From where do we come" and will we be able to
control ourselves to the pt in which we shall be so-called supermen, in
the better meaning of the word.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Upon reading the opening para in your
"Meditation Handbook ", I do have some clarifications/additions:
Meditation comes from the Latin 'meditari' - "to think or reflect upon,
revolve in one's mind".
Clearly, from this, one can deduce that the _meditative process_ had
been assigned its name from one of its stages, the main one, the one in
which we, meditators, 'meditate', but the process itself does not in any
way include only the meditative stage, it has others as well, preceding
the meditative stage and succeeding it, like _relaxation_ (before the
meditating stage), and _contemplation_ and, optional, _adoration_ (after
the meditating stage).
In itself, this faculty of the mind, the thinking, has nothing to do
with religion, it is just used in religious or pseudo-religious or
non-religious practices as a very useful tool among others, mind you, to
focus the mind (as a product of the brain, to paraphrase on your initial
message) as intensely as possible on some related issues, mainly on the
issue of losing one's identity on behalf of the unity with the ALL,
whatever it is and however it is perceived in the various spiritual
schools.
If I would have to advise on *one* tool to better the individual, and
the human race in whole, it would be the meditation tool that I'd
recommend. Its real, immediate and popwerful implications upon the
person doing it are inumerable and cover every aspect of our physiology,
as well as the mind and the spirit.
Dan
--
"Dieu et mon Droit"
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-10-17, 9:33 pm |
|
Stu wrote:
> On 2006-10-15 11:30:12 -0700, Lawson English <LawsonE@nowhere.none> said:
>
>
> The common definitions are that *brain* is a physical entity and *mind*
> is a function of that entity. Like a television set is *brain* and
> "Lost" is a function of that. Television is made up of physical thing
> producing sound and images. "Lost" is made up of symbols, signs, text
> and the like. One can hold a TV set or a brain, one can not hold
> "Lost" or consciousness.
>
> Chris wrongly states:
I think it is also erroneous to think that consciousness resides in,
or emanates from, only the brain. with serotonin being produced in the
GI tract, the bliss of "superconscious state" is more dependant on a
properly functioning digestive system than "brain electrics"
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The Cartesian dualism rests on this distinction. Chris is falling into
> the Cartesian trap though. Its an unfortunate form of monism. By the
> late 20th century most people were well over this myth. Brain does not
> necessarily produce consciousness. And vice versa.
>
> We know now from neurobiology that not only do physical brain changes
> alter consciousness (drink some vodka to test this theory), but changes
> in consciousness can alter the physical brain. Some examples of this
> are the development of dense neural areas where someone has learned a
> new skill. And more interestingly, the results of experiments in the
> growing field of epigenetics. Nestler, Unitversity of Texas; Grayson,
> Untiversity of Chicago..to name a few researchers in this area. We see
> alterations in environment have direct effect on the attachments of
> methyl groups to DNA.
>
> Consciousness appears to play an integral part in brain activity. To
> say one controls the other is a grave mistake.
>
> For this reason, we can shape our consciousness by altering our
> environment, or we can shape our environment by altering our
> consciousness. Its a two way street. The former is limited by
> physical restrictions, the later is limitless, unbounded by imagination
> and infinite intelligence.
>
> Which would be the better path to follow if we are looking for improvement?
> --
my choice would be the path that utilizeds both, traditional astanga
yoga, and works the mental/physical system from various entry points.
> ~Stu
enjoyed your post, thanks.
| |
| omjaroo 2006-10-17, 9:33 pm |
|
hbkta@aol.com wrote:
> I think it is also erroneous to think that consciousness resides in,
> or emanates from, only the brain. with serotonin being produced in the
> GI tract,
Thanks for this reference! I owe you one :-)
Jared
o
^
| |
| dick blister 2006-10-18, 2:31 am |
|
<hbkta@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161133807.242032.21860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stu wrote:
brain is form....mind is content
brain is meat.....mind is flavour
brain is relative....mind is unmanifest potential
both are an experience, an expression and an extension of pure consciousness
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I think it is also erroneous to think that consciousness resides in,
> or emanates from, only the brain. with serotonin being produced in the
> GI tract, the bliss of "superconscious state" is more dependant on a
> properly functioning digestive system than "brain electrics"
>
Consciousness exists without the brain or mind. It underlies all existance.
Everything that exists, all manifest, relative existance has consciousness.
A rock has some degree of consciousness otherwise it would not maintain its
own rockness.
Consciousness is the glue that holds everything together.
Consciousness, flowing through individuated mind gives the relative field of
being its flavour.
We are all just the manifest expression and spiritual experience of the pure
potential of consciousness.
[vbcol=seagreen]
The human brain cannot control consciousness, but it can increase its
capacity to experience and express it.
The mind is capable of learning, devising and practicing techniques to
increase the degree and depth of conscious awareness.
When pure consciousness is permanently established within the very core of
our being, within the very heart of every aspect of our manifest, personal,
physical structure, there are no longer any boundaries between self and
Self. In the reality of pure consciousness, there are no labels, and nothing
to label. There is no separation or duality of self and other. There is only
Unity Consciousness......."I Am That" Pure Unbounded Consciousness....."Thou
Art That" Pure Unbounded Consciousness..... "All This Is That" Pure
Unbounded Consciousness.
[vbcol=seagreen]
Consciousness pre-exists mind and brain. It is consciousness that gives rise
to both.
Within the silent stillness of pure, unmanifest being, in the silence of
meditation is the home of pure consciousness.
The quality of the nervous system determines the degree or level of
consciousness that individual mind is capable of experiencing and
expressing.
The more refined the nervous system the more refined is the ebb and flow of
consciousness.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> my choice would be the path that utilizeds both, traditional astanga
> yoga, and works the mental/physical system from various entry points.
>
>
> enjoyed your post, thanks.
>
| |
| Dan Barkye 2006-10-18, 4:34 pm |
| "dick blister" <dickblisters@telanut.net.ca> wrote in message
news:3JiZg.155702$5R2.97204@pd7urf3no...
[...]
"Consciousness exists without the brain or mind. It underlies all
existance (sic; should be 'existEnce').
Everything that exists, all manifest, relative existance has
consciousness."
-- I agree, it's a cosmic truism:
"Consciousness resides in inanimate objects, sleeps in plants,
half-awake in animals and fully awake in humans."
Dan
--
"Dieu et mon Droit"
| |
| Dan Barkye 2006-10-18, 4:34 pm |
| <hbkta@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161133807.242032.21860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stu wrote:
>
> I think it is also erroneous to think that consciousness resides in,
> or emanates from, only the brain. with serotonin being produced in the
> GI tract
-- ...and in the central nervous system. BUT, it does not contradict the
subject matter; the whole body is taking part in the process of living
which has consciousness as a permanent tool at its side and so various
hormones and other products are produced by various parts of the body;
in the end the brain is making a synthesis and transforms it all from
the concrete into an abstract entity, one that will be the so-called
consciousness, that no one is able to define to this very day.
>the bliss of "superconscious state" is more
>dependant on a properly functioning >digestive system than "brain
>electrics"
-- ??? Care to explain the hierarchy of this functional pattern?
[...]
Dan
--
"Dieu et mon Droit"
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-10-18, 4:34 pm |
|
Dan Barkye wrote:
> <hbkta@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1161133807.242032.21860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> -- ...and in the central nervous system.
can you give reference for that?
http://www.mic-d.com/gallery/polarized/serotonin1.html
Serotonin is produced in the gastrointestinal system and transmitted
via the blood stream to the body's nerve cells. It also acts as a
precursor to melatonin in the pineal gland where it is important in the
regulation of sleep and circadian rhythms.
> BUT, it does not contradict the
> subject matter; the whole body is taking part in the process of living
> which has consciousness as a permanent tool at its side and so various
> hormones and other products are produced by various parts of the body;
> in the end the brain is making a synthesis and transforms it all from
> the concrete into an abstract entity, one that will be the so-called
> consciousness, that no one is able to define to this very day.
>
I do not know what you are trying to say
>
> -- ??? Care to explain the hierarchy of this functional pattern?
no heirarchy intended.
but the brain is a lump of neurons. serotonin is a very important
neurotranmiter, the neurons need it to work properly. so if the guts
aint doing their job producing it, neural functioning will also be
less than optimal.
>
> [...]
>
> Dan
>
> --
> "Dieu et mon Droit"
| |
| omjaroo 2006-10-18, 4:34 pm |
| H,
I have recently been made aware of the prevalence of
undiagnosed celiac disease.You mentioned that serotonin
is produced in the GI track.That got me to thinking there could be a
fundamental connection between celiac disease and
emotional/anxiety issues. Ran across some interesting
information.
I know for a fact that the severe panic attacks I was
dealing with for years simply went away when I stopped
eating wheat. Also these attacks were very much related
somehow to the GItrack. As when gas would move through the track a
panic/anxiety reaction would ensue and when the gas
passed the reaction would subside. One or two swallows
of beer would cause the panic reaction to subside. Far
to little to be related to the alcohol content.It's as
if the gas or some constituent of the beer had something to do with it
all.
But along the lines of the point you were making I found an interesting
discussion of the "little brain". And this is relatively old.
http://www.iffgd.org/symposium2001.html
Basic Principles: Brain-Gut
Moderators: Emeran Mayer MD and Jackie Wood PhD;
Panel: Michael Gershon MD, Brent Vogt PhD, Stuart
Derbyshire PhD, Santosh Coutinho PhD
During the last decade the concept of unique
bi-directional interactions between the gut and the
brain as an important factor in coordinated gut
function in health has become widely accepted. More
recent speculations have considered the possible role
of these brain-gut interactions in brain function and
the regulation of emotions. A dysregulation of
brain-gut interactions is thought to play an
underlying role in the functional GI disorders and may
account for accompanying disorders related to
emotional states (e.g., anxiety). This session focused
on basic physiological principles (i.e., the
characteristics of vital processes or functions).
Michael Gershon from Columbia University, New York
began this session discussing the enteric nervous
system (ENS). Also called "the little brain," the ENS
is a complex and independent division of the autonomic
nervous system (ANS). It contains nerves and
neurotransmitters (chemical messengers between nerve
cells) that are also present in the brain. Certain
cells within this system act upon sensory input to the
central nervous system and amplify signals that can be
associated with increased release of the
neurotransmitter 5HT (serotonin, which affects
intestinal motility) in response to pressure or injury
within gut tissue. This action, and the recent work
looking at the role of the serotonin transporter in
mediating reuptake function may play a role in
explaining why people develop IBS. (Neurotransmitters
interact with nerve cell receptors to communicate from
one nerve cell to another. They must be removed by a
transporter in a process called reuptake before the
cell receptor can reactivate.)
Stuart Derbyshire from the university of Pittsburgh
gave an overview of nerve function going from the gut
to the central nervous system (visceral afferent
function) and an introduction to brain imaging.
Positron emission tomography (PET) and functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can help us study
brain-gut connections, and differentiate brain
activity in response to cognitive function, stimuli
from the internal organs in contrast to other parts of
the body, and input from specific areas in the gut.
The receptive areas of the brain in this interaction
can be influenced by localized stimuli and by emotion,
memory, and cognitive function.
Brent Vogt from Wake Forest University, North Carolina
discussed the important role of an area of the brain
called the anterior cingulate cortex and its
subdivisions in influencing the subjective experience
of pain by translating emotion and cognitive awareness
into pain regulatory actions. For example, one area of
the cingulate cortex is rich in internally produced
opiates and may be an area of inhibition of pain
through pathways descending to the spinal cord.
One of the foundations of basic science is the
development of animal models to correspond to the
study of disease processes in humans. Santosh Coutinho
from UCLA discussed possible animal models for IBS.
Mechanical or chemical inflammation in the rat colon,
as well as maternal separation of rat pups, can lead
later to excessive sensitivity to pain within the gut
(hyperalgesia). Both factors may play a role in the
origin and development of IBS in humans.
Jared
o
^
| |
| The Gare 2006-10-18, 9:32 pm |
| fully awake in humans? Not the humans I've seen posting.
--
Isaiah 45:7 convinced ME!
Read it at this link:
http://141.213.83.24/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-...rse=7&endverse=
"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zdtZg.11149$Y24.9768@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. | | |