voidness

I looked up some of the things Enoch either shared info from and/or suggested we read:
The Descartes Error by Antonio Damasio seems like an intriguing read. The author, Antonio Damasio, has been interviewed by The Harvard Brain and for some publicity from his publisher.


According to Damasio, Descartes’ mistake was to separate the brain from the body. Damasio proposes the somatic marker hypothesis to explain a connection he believes exists between emotion and the exercise of reason.
An opposing view. This looks similar to the stuff I did for Nelson’s class oh way way back….on pre-conscious perception. The intent of the study I read was to debunk Freud (fine with me) but it was intriguing because of how I thought it fit in with Billig’s notion of dialogic repression. (Have to check up on it again to be sure.)
We had some discussion about whether the notion of a self is an internally generated phenomena or an interactively-generated one. While there seemed to be some agreement on the interaction part, it also seems problems of “what a self is” are no more easily solved in anthropology than they are in communication. ­čÖé
Geosophy was a new term for me. It reminded me of Ley Lines and Chaco Canyon.
Then there was a hint about the body recently being “discovered as an electromagnetic device”. And some interesting parallels: that the earth and the human body are composed of the same percentage of water (70%), and also have the same base resonate frequency (7.8) – and rumors are this may be shifting up. There’s two types of stuff on the ‘Net: astrobiology, psychic sites, etc., and electronics, but I couldn’t find a basic definition. (I can deduce it but always like to verify my deductions.)
What intrigued me most about class tonight, though, was our group dynamic. There was no way I was gonna leave Juan hanging out there all by himself!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *