 |
|
According to
my farfetched, but altogether not entirely unreasonable
interpretation, [1]
the mooring pin, that to which the boat as a psycho-physical
entity is anchored, symbolized the brain, and the two
lands within its two cerebral hemispheres, roughly corresponding
to the omphalos, the rounded stone in the Temple of
the Ancient Greeks (symbolized, aptly, by Apollo - god
of light, of prophesy, of poetry, of music and healing
- within the omphalos) being the mind; [2]
the Egyptians' Lady in the Shrine being the mind in
its intangible aspect but connoting its temporal manifestations
in the physical world.
In the picture on the left, [3] of which you
can see an enlarged view by clicking it, we have a representation
of the brain showing both its hemispheric structure
and the human cerebral cortex, concerning which, R.W.
Sperry demonstrated that the following capacities belong
to the dominant, or left, hemisphere: verbal expression;
ideation capacity; analytic capacity; sequential analysis
capacity (serial); rapport with conscious state; and,
seat of arithmetical (and computer type) elaborations
. Therefore, an hemisphere which we may define as rational
and thinking, to which all the processes which we attribute
to the conscious state belong. These results emerging
from the surgical bisection of the corpus callosum (the
broad transverse nerve tract connecting the two cerebral
hemispheres), hence allowed, at the very moment when
the dominance of the left hemisphere was removed, to
define the capabilities of the non-dominant, or right,
hemisphere as follows: it has no relation with consciousness;
it regulates a |
|
| |
non-verbal and, in particular,
musical activity; it is concerned with artistic and structural
perception of objects; it supervises synthetic activities (holistic),
and, it integrates a spatial dimension. Hence an hemisphere
which may be defined as non-verbal, non-logical, and not conscious
which controls a series of integrations and formulations nearer
to the imaginative - or fantastic - world.
[4]
But first I will touch another subject: consciousness. Before
venturing in discussing it, adding my little thoughts to those
of those great minds of the past centuries and the present times
who still did not find a valid, positive and sure answer to
it, let me recount a recent personal experience that I named
"reverse consciousness".[5]
Last night, after a long day immersed in books, I decided to
take a break, hence I sat down properly, turned off the light
and plunged myself in my usual breathing exercise but, as I
was just starting I realized that the world's orientation had
shifted 180 degrees, or, in other words, my spatial perception
- my brain's compass - had its polarity reversed. In the darkness
south became north and viceversa. It appeared - or better,
it was - as if the door in front of myself was at my back
and the pillow on my back was in front of myself. Obviously
right's and left's perception were as well turned around so
much so that also the open window on my right side appeared
on my left side and my right side, normally turned towards the
window now was turned towards the wall; touching with my left
hand the shelf by the wall, now apparently at my right
side, I found it to be at his right place on my left and by
this the realization came that I had not acquired the siddhi
(psychical power) to turn the world around. All this real, tangible
and while completely awake in full awareness of consciousness
of wrong consciousness. [6]
"Cogito, ergo sum contrarius?" While this is not the
first time that I have had such an experience (being abstemious
no pink elephants are allowed in my perceptions), last night
it happened in a favorable condition since I just sat there
for a good twenty minutes trying to make something out of it
and strenuously striving to bring my perception to normal but
without any result whatsoever. The world remained turned around
and, as anticipated, it revolved to its normal position - or
normalized spatial perception - immediately as I lighted up
the lamp. Nor can the experience be re-created by an act of
will so much so as succeeding to see the floor when, lying on
your back, you stare at the ceiling. Since I described this
experience as it happened in full consciousness, how does it
tally with the following statement: "The contents of conscious
experience have no spatio-temporal dimensions; in this respect
they resemble the non-things of quantum physics which also defy
definition in terms of space, time and substance...can only
be described 'by going outside space and time.' But the unsubstantial
contents of consciousness are somehow linked with a substantial
brain..." ? [7]
Analytical and perceptive consciousness and/or
split-consciousness: what, anyhow, is consciousness,
that element inserted into everyone's individual existence and
to which since man started to concoct a rationale for it a jungle
of hypotheses and explanations have been attempted in trying
to define it, [8]
but all with their flaws and uncertainties? While you are reading
this line you are all but conscious of each single word as you
read it, you are not even conscious that you are reading the
whole line nor of the process going on within your mind which
is putting the words together to create a meaning and give sense
to the whole process, a meaning and sense which will be conscious
awareness to you by introspecting into the intended meaning
of the phrase and not of each single word. Nor, in writing,
am I conscious of every consonant, vowel, syllable or word that
I type, they just fall off my fingers coming spontaneously from
some unconscious repository by themselves, unless I
have to give thought for a moment to find the most suitable
word to put down; and, furthermore, all this is most probably
an automatic translation into the English language since my
mother language is Italian. Stop reading for a moment ... and
you will perhaps notice that just the word 'stop' was
consciously perceived, an imperative which, as such, attracted
you attention and awakened a conscious response. How do we explain
this marvelous process, coming apparently from nowhere unless
we analyze it within a thought-frame and then we dispose hurriedly
of the same by muttering "It is all in the mind", just to avoid
a strenuous and difficult mental exercise? What about if you
get a sudden portentous mystic experience which causes the total
absence of self and environment? And why this question? Simply
because coma is defined as "the total absence of
awareness of self and environment". [9]
The logical question following, then, is "what is not-consciousness
like?" Is the great mystic in a transcendental experience -
or state - a deep-sleeper or a comatose being? Or is the ecstatic
great mystic a de-cerebrated animal (sic), since animals are
supposed, by many authorities, [10] to be without consciousness?
This in turn raises another question: the mind of the great
ecstatic mystic, is it a mind at all since he is, albeit temporarily,
seemingly de-cerebrated? Or, to say it differently, without
"lady of the two lands in the shrine" if we equate
this lady with what we call mind and the
two lands in the shrine with the cerebral hemispheres.
Years ago I was about to brush my teeth when
a current of remarkable voltage was felt in both my arms. A
physiological switch was automatically turned on for unknown
reasons and almost immediately after consciousness was switched
off. How much time elapsed I don't know, but the next thing
was that when I opened my eyes I was crosswise in a waterless
bath tub with my legs outside and a tremendous bump on my head.
The fact that the big bump's pain had already subsided even
if it was to vanish completely in about two weeks suggests that
I laid unconscious for a not too short period of time. [11]
However, what did I experience in-between the current in my
arms and the regaining of consciousness? I can narrate it as
I can narrate the experiences that I have in deep sleep. This
is all very mysterious and as well quite baffling: with all
our science we still have no hint of what kind of life we live
when we are apparently lifeless. But live we do! On the neurosurgeon's
operating table he can tamper with electrodes on a living brain
and get reflex responses which are not dictated by consciousness,
and this helps him to map the brain's cortical areas and related
responses to sense perception. On the anatomist's autopsy table
he can get a lot of mindless brains and get a good many biological
responses by using the appropriate chemicals thus deepening
his anatomical knowledge of the machinery. Therefore by now
we have a formidable collection of brains, more or less sliced
and preserved in formalin, together with a considerable knowledge
of the brain and how it works. On the other hand we cannot probe
consciousness with electrodes, we cannot examine the no-processes
of unconsciousness because the switch in the reticular activating
system is off and, furthermore, we cannot look at mind from
the outside so as to delimit it and analyze it in a test tube.
All in all, we can, therefore, play with the substrate - dead
or alive - and define its anatomy, observe a good many neurochemical
processes and foresee or perceive tangible results. And we are
still at loss concerning what consciousness is, what non-consciousness
is in deep sleep or coma, and what mind is. We theorize, prove,
strengthen the proof and then something or someone will destroy
the castle and theorizing and proof will start over again: this
is how we get a good increase in knowledge and this also explains
why we cannot possibly get to the end of knowledge. We climb
the rungs of a ladder which goes up into infinity so that we
constantly increase our knowledge of our ignorance. Paradoxically,
this is the human mind's evolution.
Introduction
Lady
of the Two Lands in the Shrine is Thy Name
The Mooring Pin
Life and Brains
Brains and Life
No-Brain and No-Mind
Deus Ex Machina
o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
o
NOTES
[1] When
it comes to symbolism, it is never easy to reconcile points of view,
viz,. exoteric, esoteric, or scientific, et al. In the context
of the "Mooring pin" and the "Lady of the Two Lands in
the Shrine" it would not be difficult - and also justifiable -
if an anthropologist or a archaeologist would see a phallic symbolism
or connotation in the context. Be as it may, personally, even if aware
of the strong sexual influence both hidden and overt within the ancient
Egyptians, and their cults and rites, I prefer to see it in a more positive
and scientific orphic context. Where not appearing in its degenerated
popular forms, i.e., within a circle of a specially selected élite,
symbols were the keys to knowledge, power, and their continuance. Where
symbols lost their pristine intrinsic meaning, knowledge, power, and
empires fell to the dust. We dig, observe, surmise, infer and judge
from a point in time several thousands years in the future but we know
little for certain, not to speak of all those marvels spread all over
the globe which still haunt and puzzle our omniscience. Apart from visionaries,
and by know admittedly recognized by many renown scientists all over
the world, we are now aware of the immense astronomical, mathematical
and scientific knowledge possessed by ancient populations which point
to an era which goes as far back in time as 12,000 years and, as well,
we know that most of the knowledge they bequeathed to posterity was
lost in great geological catastrophes and, besides, in wilful destruction
of immense libraries in Alexandria, Persia, India and China, not to
mention the appalling contribute of the Christian Church wherever its
blessings appeared. This is why the phrase "I prefer to see
it in a more positive and scientific orphic context" is used, by this
meaning that we cannot disprove - even if the contrary holds as well
- that a knowledge of neurology, as we presently understand it, was
not known by very ancient populations.
[2] While I used the word mind,
to the ancient greeks this was the brain, as we can read from this passage
attributed to Hippocrates: "Men ought to know that from the brain, and
from the brain only, arise our pleasures, joys, laughter and jests,
as well as our sorrows, pains, griefs and tears. Through it, in particular,
we think, see, hear and distinguish the ugly from the beautiful, the
bad from the good, the pleasant from the unpleasant...". However, since
this definition of the brain distinctly includes abstract concepts directly
related to the mental processes, using the word mind may be
justified. This note is to bring in context the omphalos, the
rounded stone in the Temple of Apollo, with my interpretations above
as referred to Apollo - god of light, of prophesy, of poetry, of music
and healing - and to the Lady of the Two Lands in the Shrine.
[3]
Adapted from Scientific American - Brain Function and Blood Flow - Niels
A. Lassen, David H. Ingvar and Erik SkinhØj - October 1978 - page 52.
[4]
Description adapted from Vittorino Andreoli's "La terza via della psichiatria"-
Edizioni Scientifiche e Tecniche Mondadori - 1980.
[5] Quoting from James P.
Cattell - Depersonalization Phenomena: "In depersonalization, reality
sense is impaired, while reality testing is intact" - American Handbook
of Psychiatry, Volume Three, edited by Silvano Areiti - Basic Books,
Inc., New York - London - 1966.
[6] Since both the analytical
consciousness and the perceptive consciousness - or should
I say awareness? - were both of an extreme tangible reality,
although the latter was a short episode within the life-long presumably
analytical... which one stands the test for truth? Just because it is
always a wise idea not to trash ideas, and for the benefit of those
who love ESP (Extra Sensory Perception): did I experience one of the
past geological eras when the Earth's poles were reversed? Or did I
experience the time, which will come, when the Earth's poles will be
once more reversed? Should I interpret it in this wise: "A young
lady, entering the physical laboratory [Engineering College, Cooper's
Hill] and seeing an inverted image of herself in a large concave mirror,
naïvely remarked to her companion: "They have hung that looking-glass
upside down."? [a]
[6-a]
The World of Mathematics , Volume II, p. 1107- Janes R. Newman - Simon
and Schuster - New York - 1956.
[7] Arthur Koestler - The
Roots of Coincidence - Richard Klay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd., Bungay,
Suffolk - 1972.
[8] On the neurological
side it appears that it easier to state what consciousness is not
since it depends on that tangled mass of tiny internuncial neurons called
the reticular activating system, anatomically the central core of the
brainstem, which extends from the top of the spinal cord, or caudal
medulla, through the brainstem all the way up to the thalamus and hypothalamus,
viz., to the rostral midbrain, attracting collaterals from the sensory
and motor nerves and, as well, lines of command to several major areas
of the cortex and probably to all the nuclei of the brainstem, besides
sending fibers to the spinal cord where it influences the peripheral
motor and sensory nerves. Here it is where general anesthesia, by deactivating
its neurons, produces coma, which is defined as the total absence of
awareness of self and environment. Stimulating the reticular activating
system through an implanted electrode in most of its regions wakes up
a sleeping animal. As a reflection of its internal excitability and
by the titer of its neurochemistry it is capable of grading the activity
of most other parts of the brain. Patterns of self-aware consciousness
and conscious behavior in man depend on the integrity of an aroused
cerebral cortex and coma, particularly metabolic coma in its early stages,
and deep sleep share many behavioral characteristics. But waking and
sleeping reflect primitive vegetative functions while the sleep-like
quality of coma reflects a state of temporary inhibition of arousal
mechanisms, a form of reticular 'shock'. Behavioral appearance of physiologic
sleep and pathologic clouding of consciousness overlap and often seem
to blend together in the presence of cerebral dysfunction.
[9] Fred Plum &
Jerome P. Posner - The Diagnosis of Stupor and Coma - F .A. Davis Company,
Philadelphia - 1982.
[10] Behaviourist psychologists
in particular, whose science keeps animals and humans seemingly
unconscious on the same pedestal.
[11] At this point you must forgive
me if I cite subjective experiences but not being a scholar, nor even
one of these specialists whose knowledge is indeed very great concerning
very little, [a] I have no case-study archives
unless I dig within my available literature.
[11-a] To quote Professor H.
J. Esyenk: "Scientists, especially when they leave the particular field
in which they have specialised, are as just ordinary, pig-headed and
unreasonable as anybody else, and their unusually high intelligence
only makes their prejudices all the more dangerous...." - Quoted by
Arthur Koestler in "The Roots of Coincidence" - Pan Books Ltd - 1972. |