Guest guest Posted January 12, 2001 Report Share Posted January 12, 2001 > > Not sure I agree with you here Piper. > > In 1848 in Vermont, Pheneas Gage had his brain severed which lead to the > limbic system precursor brain research which ultimately lead to the > " beastie " He was described as an intelligent well balanced man. The > interesting thing about Gage was that his brain was severed in such a way > that disconnected the limbic system from the frontal area of the cerebral > cortex (part that sets priorities to incoming messages from the limbic > system). Working together the limbic system and the frontal area of the > cerebral cortex keep everything working in equilibrium. Without the > restraint of the frontal area of his cerebral cortex Gage's limbic system > was free to fire off signals for emotions without any cognitive check. He > had no control of himself. > > Homeboy was a mess :0) > > In that sense he was said to have been as much a beast as a man which is > where I believe the concept of the beast began. This seems to me, somewhat > of a misnomer as even beasts have more control than he. What I found > interesting was that he lived like that for IIRC 12 years after the > accident. I think it's a good point, that beasts do exercise self control. Social beasts recognize and respect authority, usually called dominance when referring to groups of non-human animals. They learn to adapt to their environment, which can't really be said of people who " work the program " the way AA says to. It seems to me that one aspect of AA is encouraging people to reduce their coping skills, their flexibility and willingness to adapt to situations beyond their control. If it causes you any stress, walk away from it and walk toward a meeting. The skill long-timers in AA learn is how to control an AA meeting. One thing I keep coming back to in my examination of how I was hurt by my experience with AA is that, using the 4th step as an excuse, I was made to define all aspects of my life prior to AA as lacking. While it is true that my life lacked AA except for the 2 years or so I was in treatment and attending meetings, it is entirely a matter of perspective whether the lack of AA was a positive or a negative thing. Currently I believe the lack of AA is a good thing, and this belief seems to give me confidence and reap positive benefits. > That said I think we're rather still in the dark ages when it comes to > issues of brain study. How does one define Love and hate or anger so that > it's effects on the brain can be studied under a microscope? Some progress > has been made in the love direction but I'm not even sure if studies have > been done for anger. > > To my , granted, very very very limited knowledge the only emotion that > lends itself to analysis that can be chemically traced and studied is > anxiety. The problem with researching emotions is that we are stuck with human beings who can only pose research questions, collect data, and draw conclusions based on that data, from a biased perspective. We can acknowledge our biases, and some of us do, but there are also researchers who are so anal about the scientific method that they seem willing to ignore the evidence of their own senses. It seems to me that the worst, largest scale mistakes have been made on the basis of a scientific discovery. Popular media influences public policy, huge sums of public money are spent to implement policy, and then 10 or 100 years, and countless human lives, later, the discovery is mitigated or found to be entirely spurious. Right now it seems to me that the pendulum is swinging in the direction of combining traditional folk wisdom, the evidence of generations' collective senses, with scientific research, to find some sort of synthesis or symbiosis that is more meaningful than the polar opposites of santerria and science. judith, using lots of s words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2001 Report Share Posted January 12, 2001 > > Not sure I agree with you here Piper. > > In 1848 in Vermont, Pheneas Gage had his brain severed which lead to the > limbic system precursor brain research which ultimately lead to the > " beastie " He was described as an intelligent well balanced man. The > interesting thing about Gage was that his brain was severed in such a way > that disconnected the limbic system from the frontal area of the cerebral > cortex (part that sets priorities to incoming messages from the limbic > system). Working together the limbic system and the frontal area of the > cerebral cortex keep everything working in equilibrium. Without the > restraint of the frontal area of his cerebral cortex Gage's limbic system > was free to fire off signals for emotions without any cognitive check. He > had no control of himself. > > Homeboy was a mess :0) > > In that sense he was said to have been as much a beast as a man which is > where I believe the concept of the beast began. This seems to me, somewhat > of a misnomer as even beasts have more control than he. What I found > interesting was that he lived like that for IIRC 12 years after the > accident. I think it's a good point, that beasts do exercise self control. Social beasts recognize and respect authority, usually called dominance when referring to groups of non-human animals. They learn to adapt to their environment, which can't really be said of people who " work the program " the way AA says to. It seems to me that one aspect of AA is encouraging people to reduce their coping skills, their flexibility and willingness to adapt to situations beyond their control. If it causes you any stress, walk away from it and walk toward a meeting. The skill long-timers in AA learn is how to control an AA meeting. One thing I keep coming back to in my examination of how I was hurt by my experience with AA is that, using the 4th step as an excuse, I was made to define all aspects of my life prior to AA as lacking. While it is true that my life lacked AA except for the 2 years or so I was in treatment and attending meetings, it is entirely a matter of perspective whether the lack of AA was a positive or a negative thing. Currently I believe the lack of AA is a good thing, and this belief seems to give me confidence and reap positive benefits. > That said I think we're rather still in the dark ages when it comes to > issues of brain study. How does one define Love and hate or anger so that > it's effects on the brain can be studied under a microscope? Some progress > has been made in the love direction but I'm not even sure if studies have > been done for anger. > > To my , granted, very very very limited knowledge the only emotion that > lends itself to analysis that can be chemically traced and studied is > anxiety. The problem with researching emotions is that we are stuck with human beings who can only pose research questions, collect data, and draw conclusions based on that data, from a biased perspective. We can acknowledge our biases, and some of us do, but there are also researchers who are so anal about the scientific method that they seem willing to ignore the evidence of their own senses. It seems to me that the worst, largest scale mistakes have been made on the basis of a scientific discovery. Popular media influences public policy, huge sums of public money are spent to implement policy, and then 10 or 100 years, and countless human lives, later, the discovery is mitigated or found to be entirely spurious. Right now it seems to me that the pendulum is swinging in the direction of combining traditional folk wisdom, the evidence of generations' collective senses, with scientific research, to find some sort of synthesis or symbiosis that is more meaningful than the polar opposites of santerria and science. judith, using lots of s words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2001 Report Share Posted January 12, 2001 > > Not sure I agree with you here Piper. > > In 1848 in Vermont, Pheneas Gage had his brain severed which lead to the > limbic system precursor brain research which ultimately lead to the > " beastie " He was described as an intelligent well balanced man. The > interesting thing about Gage was that his brain was severed in such a way > that disconnected the limbic system from the frontal area of the cerebral > cortex (part that sets priorities to incoming messages from the limbic > system). Working together the limbic system and the frontal area of the > cerebral cortex keep everything working in equilibrium. Without the > restraint of the frontal area of his cerebral cortex Gage's limbic system > was free to fire off signals for emotions without any cognitive check. He > had no control of himself. > > Homeboy was a mess :0) > > In that sense he was said to have been as much a beast as a man which is > where I believe the concept of the beast began. This seems to me, somewhat > of a misnomer as even beasts have more control than he. What I found > interesting was that he lived like that for IIRC 12 years after the > accident. I think it's a good point, that beasts do exercise self control. Social beasts recognize and respect authority, usually called dominance when referring to groups of non-human animals. They learn to adapt to their environment, which can't really be said of people who " work the program " the way AA says to. It seems to me that one aspect of AA is encouraging people to reduce their coping skills, their flexibility and willingness to adapt to situations beyond their control. If it causes you any stress, walk away from it and walk toward a meeting. The skill long-timers in AA learn is how to control an AA meeting. One thing I keep coming back to in my examination of how I was hurt by my experience with AA is that, using the 4th step as an excuse, I was made to define all aspects of my life prior to AA as lacking. While it is true that my life lacked AA except for the 2 years or so I was in treatment and attending meetings, it is entirely a matter of perspective whether the lack of AA was a positive or a negative thing. Currently I believe the lack of AA is a good thing, and this belief seems to give me confidence and reap positive benefits. > That said I think we're rather still in the dark ages when it comes to > issues of brain study. How does one define Love and hate or anger so that > it's effects on the brain can be studied under a microscope? Some progress > has been made in the love direction but I'm not even sure if studies have > been done for anger. > > To my , granted, very very very limited knowledge the only emotion that > lends itself to analysis that can be chemically traced and studied is > anxiety. The problem with researching emotions is that we are stuck with human beings who can only pose research questions, collect data, and draw conclusions based on that data, from a biased perspective. We can acknowledge our biases, and some of us do, but there are also researchers who are so anal about the scientific method that they seem willing to ignore the evidence of their own senses. It seems to me that the worst, largest scale mistakes have been made on the basis of a scientific discovery. Popular media influences public policy, huge sums of public money are spent to implement policy, and then 10 or 100 years, and countless human lives, later, the discovery is mitigated or found to be entirely spurious. Right now it seems to me that the pendulum is swinging in the direction of combining traditional folk wisdom, the evidence of generations' collective senses, with scientific research, to find some sort of synthesis or symbiosis that is more meaningful than the polar opposites of santerria and science. judith, using lots of s words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.