GENIUS FORUMS

Nice article. This is why some smart folks are actually idiots, and why I have noticed some, otherwise intelligent, religious folk are really inferior thinkers.


Neuroscience and Fundamentalism
Kenneth M.Heilman and Russell S. Donda

The evolving and growing complexity of the human brain allowed our ancestors the ability to question, wonder, and consider new possibilities—to be creative. Life altering advances were the result. Is unconditional adherence to dogma (whether religious or secular) at odds with this evolved capability and our full potential as creative beings?

Something changed. Whether it happened gradually over several hundred thousand years, as noted anthropologists Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks suggest, or quickly in a “great leap forward,” as Jared Diamond puts it, we are at least certain of this: early humans became dissatisfied with their circumstances and began to diverge from what was practiced and known. Stone implements gave way to the more easily shaped and versatile bone. Bare cave walls were brought to life with paintings. Adorning jewelry was carefully fashioned from ordinary objects previously ignored. Simple weapons, somehow now seen as insufficient, gave way to more complex and multi-piece devices. The notions to plant instead of gather, to breed captive animals rather than hunt them, took hold.

Humans have altered their environments and enhanced their well-being unlike any other life form on the planet. This unique capacity to diverge from what is, and create something which has never before existed, resides solely within the domain of humanity. The gifts of diverse artistic expression, societal development, and technological innovation all result from the ability to question—and to conceive of things beyond—the status quo. And this magnificent and advanced capability results, not unexpectedly, from an evolved and complex brain.

Clinging or adhering to a currently accepted practice, for example believing stone tools are perfectly fine, and questioning and searching for new tool solutions (in other words, to wonder if bone might make a more suitable implement) represent two very different ways of dealing with current circumstances. Adherence begets consistency or stability; questioning, searching, and discovering innovative alternatives, which is creativity, leads to change.

Certainly, human acts of consistency or creativity require a highly elaborate and functional brain. If stone was an adequate tool material, we at least had the good sense to continue using it after the first try. Still, there is something special about the desire for novel alternatives. No other being with which we share the planet demonstrates the human capacity to continuously spawn newness. It is the height of evolution and stems from some of the most evolved and sophisticated parts of the brain.

The implication that adherence behavior could involve a more primitive or phylogenetically older portion of the brain should not be an altogether startling notion. After all, given the most basic understanding, we would expect that early humans eventually became unstuck from various conditions because of an increasingly evolved reasoning power. Our capacity for creativity expanded and so we conceived of new and often better ways to do things.

Could this same logic begin to offer some insight into why, today, some people seem unwilling to break free from certain beliefs or ideologies which are contrary to sound science, or worse, lead to terrible acts of inhumanity? Especially when those beliefs stem from an unconditional adherence to religious fundamentalism? While there have been many reasons offered about why people differ in their interpretation of authoritative texts like the Koran and Bible, most seem based on environmental/educational influences. But perhaps there is another explanation worth exploring.

A common thread that may weave its way through fundamentalist extremism was perhaps aptly expressed by three so-called reformed fundamentalists during the American Public Media special, “The Power of Fundamentalism.” Representing each of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they implied they were taught to believe as they were told, and that personal interpretation and imagination were to be marginalized. Deviation and creativity were unacceptable.

If this is the case, how is it that one person can find it utterly intolerable to believe anything other than a given interpretation of religious doctrine, while another appears comfortable with adding his or her own meaning to the same literature? It is conceivable that the mystery underlying these distinct approaches arises from a not often considered, yet key difference in brain function.

A Difference in Reasoning

A number of the behaviors we employ are either genetically programmed or imprinted at an early stage of development by observing the behavior of parents, relatives and others. Many are controlled by motor know–how or procedural memories, and many of these procedural motor memories are so well established they can be performed even without conscious awareness (e.g., chewing, drinking, and even driving a car). More complex problems, however, might not be resolvable by these routine procedural memories. In this case, declarative memories, formed throughout our lives as we acquire additional knowledge from multiple sources, are often activated to address them (e.g., preparing a meal, fixing a car, or organizing a family vacation).

Still, such learned strategies are often insufficient for dealing with many of the issues and problems that frequently confront us. Fortunately, the sophistication of the human brain provides us with capacity to move beyond indexed memories: We can reason. In its two major forms, convergent and divergent, reasoning is the most essential means of solving the problems that confront us.

Convergent reasoning involves an assembly of known information and results in a solution within the realm of what is already known. Most problem solving occurs this way. It is instilled, for example, in medical school students. If a physician sees a person in the emergency room that has a fever and is comatose, they are taught that there are two possible disorders that might give these signs: an infection or a heat stroke. If this patient is found to have a stiff neck, the physician considers the possibility that the patient’s fever and unconsciousness are related to an infection of the central nervous system, such as meningitis. To obtain further converging evidence the resident doctor may perform a spinal tap; if the analyzed spinal fluid reveals certain indicators there is now sufficient converging evidence to make a diagnosis of meningitis and to start antibiotic therapy.

Divergent reasoning, on the other hand, enables a person to arrive at a previously unknown solution (at least unknown to the person who is doing the reasoning). When a person is confronted with a problem and decides that the existing information is insufficient to develop a satisfactory solution, he or she may diverge from the information and imagine,or reason about, new possibilities. William James, who first put forth the concept of divergent reasoning, stated:

Instead of thoughts of concrete things patiently following one another in a beaten track of habitual suggestion, we have the most abrupt cross-cuts and transitions from one idea to another ... unheard of combinations of elements, the subtlest associations of analogy ... we seem suddenly introduced into a seething cauldron of ideas ... where partnerships can be joined or loosened ... treadmill routine is unknown and the unexpected is the only law.
[James: This bit is interesting in relation to what happens to a mind as they learn to disconnect from "concrete things" - it shows how the mind opens itself to real philosophical learning and knowledge, even enlightenment]

The human capability for divergent reasoning results in a nearly limitless range of creative outcomes, from entirely personal to world changing. Surely humanity’s earliest innovations were life altering, as were the many that followed. Recall our eventual acceptance (against initially unyielding church doctrine) of Copernicus’s unfathomable idea that the Sun, and not the Earth, was at the center of our solar system, or Einstein’s affront to the known laws of physics with his concept that matter and energy are different forms of the same thing. But even more mundane activities, like resolving an unacceptable marital situation by seeking conduct on the part of one of the partners that was previously not considered, discovering a treatment solution for a heretofore incurable disease,creating a work of distinctive art, finding an alternative to war in a tense geopolitical situation, a chef’s creation of a new recipe, carefully arranging flowers in vase, or making up a bedtime story, are examples of creative acts resulting from the ability to diverge from current circumstances and consider or enact new possibilities. Certainly, both convergent and divergent reasoning serve to enhance our well being. But it is an individual’s ability to diverge from what is familiar and move beyond the known into a new understanding which is the essence of creativity, and that which gives rise to advancement. In the words of Frank Zappa, “Without deviation from the norm, ‘progress’ is not possible.” Whether a person chooses to question and think on his or her own or remains unconditionally adherent to religious dogma, might relate to how specific areas of the brain are utilized—or not.

A Difference in the Brain

Based on work performed almost fifty years ago, neurologist Derek Denny–Brown of Harvard demonstrated that animals and people with a frontal lobe injury display an odd, but fascinating, behavior: Even when not appropriate, they touch or grasp things and then have trouble letting go. Termed physically “adherent,” such brain–injured subjects are incapable of letting go or disengaging from the adhered–to object. In 1966, Oliver Zangwell of Cambridge expanded Denny–Brown’s observations by showing that frontal lobe damage or dysfunction was clearly associated with a disruption in divergent reasoning.

In 1984, Brenda Milner of the Montreal Neurological Institute showed that patients who had surgical removal of parts of the frontal lobe (for the treatment of medically intractable epilepsy) were impaired at divergent reasoning as assessed by the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. In this test subjects are required to sort a deck of cards according to a shared feature such as shape, color, size, or number. The subjects are not informed of the sorting principle (e.g., shape) but must try to decipher the correct strategy based on the responses of the examiner after each sort. Throughout this test, however, the sorting principles change (e.g., from shape to color, color to number, etc.) and the subject must again switch strategies based on the examiner’s responses.

The impairment displayed by Milner’s patients was not related to the performance of the initial sort, but rather to their inability to diverge from a successful sorting strategy even when provided with the information that this strategy was no longer correct. These patients were locked in a “mental adherence” and could not let go—they were stuck.

While the ability to figure out the first sorting criterion is an example of convergent reasoning, the ability to switch strategies would seem an example of divergent reasoning (think of the earlier mentioned remark by William James: “Instead of thoughts of concrete things patiently following one another in a beaten track of habitual suggestion, we have the most abrupt cross-cuts and transitions from one idea to another...”).

Active areas of the brain have an increased blood flow that can be observed using newly discovered brain functional imaging technology. Using this technology, Berman and colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health studied normal subjects performing the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; Carlsson and colleagues at Lund University studied subjects while they were performing another divergent reasoning test (similar to tests in which subjects are asked to provide alternative uses for an ordinary brick). Subjects performing both tests demonstrated an increase in frontal activity. In addition, Carlsson and colleagues showed that individuals who produced the most creative responses had more frontal lobe activation than those who adhered to the normal uses of a brick.

Do extremism and an unconditional adherence to religious dogma result from a failure of a portion of the frontal lobe to fully develop or, if fully developed, to activate? Studies suggest that faithful adherence to a single reasoning strategy on tests such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test means that parts of the frontal lobes are inactive, have failed to fully develop, or have even been damaged. Thus, unqualified disdain for divergent beliefs,for personal interpretation, and for creative theories like Darwin’s theory of evolution, may indeed have, at least a partial, biological explanation: a reduced utilization of that section of the brain which has played such a vital role in humanity’s creative advances—the frontal lobes. By unconditionally obeying religious tenets—or any dogma—some people may be relying on the phylo-genetically older, more posterior portions of the brain that store knowledge and enable consistent or stable behaviors and, unknowingly, circumventing the portion which has been gifted to humans alone through evolution.

Where is the Genius?

We may find ourselves puzzling over a seeming incongruity here. People who unconditionally adhere to doctrine can have a high intelligence quotient (IQ), and can certainly be as “smart” as the next person. But if a vital portion of their brain is not being utilized, as we have suggested, how can this be?

A creative individual applying divergent reasoning to address a problem benefits from his or her acquired knowledge and skills. Many psychologists view the ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills for problem solving as a measure of IQ. (IQ tests do not typically assess divergent thinking—they measure learned knowledge and the ability to store information.) On the face of it, this sounds entirely logical. People with very high IQs have been labeled as geniuses, and the implication is that geniuses are creative. But that is not necessarily the case.

Multiple studies that have examined the relationship between IQ and creativity demonstrate that they are only moderately related. Certainly, creative endeavors require knowledge and skills, and so creative people have to be sufficiently intelligent to acquire this knowledge. But several studies have suggested that an IQ threshold might exist. In his book Origins of Genius, Dean Simonton reviews the evidence that, once an IQ of approximately 120 is reached, it longer predicts a person’s creative abilities.

This relationship between IQ and something we could now call creative intelligence (CI), implies a point of view contrary to our long held belief about the importance of IQ in human advancement: It may not deserve all the credit; indeed, the flourishing of our species may also be the result of CI.

Such a revelation asks that we begin to reframe our formerly accepted opinions about intelligence and what being“smart may really encompass. In his best selling book, Emotional Intelligence, author Daniel Goleman introduces something he refers to as “emotional intelligence” (EQ) and claims that it is perhaps more important for our personal success and happiness than IQ. CI is different than IQ and EQ. And perhaps every bit as important.

The Future of Genius

We would never argue that adhering to learned principles is not of great value to humanity. Likewise, we cannot say that all answers to humanity’s woes lie in simply being creative. They do not. Convergent reasoning can be an effective way to approach the problems that often confront us. Certainly, the wisdom to be found in consistent or unchanging behaviors, rituals, and other social norms can play a vital, stabilizing role in society. If something familiar is working for us, we should not necessarily abandon it. Nor would we ever say that to have religious beliefs is unimportant. The practice of religion and a belief in the divine can be a deeply significant and profound source of meaning in our lives.

What we are suggesting is that being stuck in a doctrinal belief system which is intolerant of one’s own or another’s personal interpretation, or one which dispels science and foments intolerance of others while setting its followers apart as elite and uniquely special, is a move away from our full potential and from the kind of reasoning that has brought humanity its marvelous advances: that it is good to question the status quo, to remain open to creative new ideas, and to apply wisdom to their use. Moreover, when someone is stuck in a belief, we are suggesting that they might try to explore their capability to question and consider their own personal interpretations—to practice our evolved capacity for divergent thinking.

This will not be easy for many adults who have unconditionally adhered to dogma their entire lives. However, there is mounting evidence that the brain and reasoning processes have a certain plasticity and can be altered throughout life. But no brain is as plastic as that of the child’s.

Albert Einstein, one of the most creative individuals of the last century said, “It is amazing that our educational system doesn't destroy all curiosity.” Might a child’s capacity for CI be potentially threatened by virtue of the environment in which they are immersed?

The portions of the brain that are the slowest and latest to develop are often the most complex; it is the most complex systems that are most vulnerable to developmental abnormalities. In humans, this is the frontal lobes. Based on what we know about brain growth, it is possible that a child taught only to follow, and not to personally wonder about or question doctrine, will suffer from an abnormal development of the frontal lobes.

There is also evidence that stimulation induced neuronal development can occur in specific areas of the brain. Children who receive musical training at an early age have larger regions of the temporal lobe cortex, which processes sounds, when compared to those who do not receive this training. In contrast, sensory deprivation induces an opposite type of phenomenon. If a child was unable to see from one of his or her eyes because of a structural defect and then, as an adult, has this defect corrected, the vision in this eye will often remain useless. This is because the portions of the brain to which this eye projects did not, or could not, develop normally; because it did not, it remains incapable of properly processing incoming visual information.

With respect to convergent and divergent reasoning, should this matter? The divergent thinking ability of children who attended secular versus religious schools was studied by Dafna Hirschmann of Haifa, Israel. The result? Students who attended the secular schools had higher scores in divergent reasoning tests than those who attended religious schools.

Regrettably, most schools, in general, assess student knowledge and convergent reasoning (in other words, IQ), but they do not test the students’ ability to perform divergent reasoning and think creatively. Unfortunately, Einstein’s concern about our educational system may be appropriate.

The relative importance of schooling, parental nurturing, and hereditary factors on both IQ and CI remain unclear. It is possible that the under–utilization of the frontal lobes, or an increased susceptibility to such under–utilization, might be, in part, hereditary. Of course, there have been very creative people who were brought up in rigid ideological or fundamentalist environments. But these people seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
[JamesH: Lamarckian evolution raises its head again]

Children raised in environments which consistently reward convergent reasoning and strict adherence but punish divergent reasoning, could conceivably grow into adults who are prone to getting stuck in various beliefs or ideologies. Might our current preoccupation with strict religious fundamentalism be creating obstacles to resolving the complex dilemmas we face in the world today? If we continue to insist that children around the world unfailingly adhere to the tenets of religious fundamentalism which promote intolerance, are we doomed to repeat the past simply because we have nurtured a world of thinkers who will not diverge from what they are told?

In his recent, influential book, The Rise of the Creative Class, Richard Florida says it is the emergence of a “creative class” that will be necessary to drive innovation and America’s competitiveness. The winner of last year’s Nobel Prize for economics, Edmund Phelps, stresses the importance of creativity and the value of an innovative economy. Are these really new notions? Given stability and wisdom from which they can proceed, has it not always been the creative who have then advanced humanity? This precious capacity for creativity is gifted to humans alone. Yet, when we find ourselves mired in dogma and beliefs of intolerance and elitism, we may very well be misusing that gift and failing our full potential. Questioning and wondering about what we presently know has been, and remains, vital to us all; enhancing global humanity’s well being lies in properly using the genius of creativity. Surely, the next Copernican idea awaits us.

The Genius Beyond Unconditional Fundamentalism is based on a book about creative intelligence now being planned by the authors. Kenneth M. Heilman, M.D. is the James E Rooks, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Neurology and Program Director at the University of Florida. He is author, co-author,or editor of 11 books and more than 500 chapters and research articles that deal with brain–behavior relationship in health and disease. Russell S. Donda has devoted more than a decade to interpreting and expanding the research of scientists in order to bring applied knowledge to the world. He has spearheaded the advancement of numerous, novel concepts and is named as an inventor on more than a dozen patents and applications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice find Jamesh. edit: Intelligence ( Creativity) > Wisdom ( Dogma)

Questioning and wondering about what we presently know has been, and remains, vital to us all

Some of the intolerant, petty and vindictive rubes here, could learn from this article the real meaning of enlightenment.

Question everything. Assume nothing. - Plato.

Thomas Merton, as I do, would have thought this person to be glib and insincere. It isn't genius to change "2+2=4" every moment so that its meaning is ever-new. Here's what Merton had to say on the idea of "creativity":

We must begin by facing the ambivalence which makes so much of our talk about creativity absurd because it is fundamentally insincere. Why insincere? Because it is so glib, so all-embracing. The popular use of the word creativity is so facile that one feels immediately that it is a pure evasion. It is a trick to avoid thought, and to avoid real communication. When everything is 'creative', nothing is creative. But nowadays everything is called creative: we have creative salesmanship, meaning probably obnoxiously aggressive and vulgar salesmanship. We have creative advertising, which is merely outrageously whimsical or arbitrary. We have creative ways of doing everything under the sun, and in every case what is called 'creative' is not even more original than what it is supposed to supersede: it implies nothing but a more ponderously stupid emphasis on what is already too familiar. In a word, being 'creative' seems to mean little more than rushing forward with breakneck impetuosity into the conventional, the vulgar, or the absurd.

Kelly Jones: Creativity is not changing outcome of 2+2 all the time... Here is a link to meaning of word Creativity

The article was not talking about "creativity" as defined by Thomas Merton.= "The popular use of word". (if he is to be belived)

IMO the author of the article was not insincere or glib. He was talking about true meaning of the word and not of new age marketing driven equivocation of the word, to which Merton is refering in the quote you posted.


Apples and Oranges.


From article:

Creativity
Individual’s ability to diverge from what is familiar and move beyond the known into a new understanding which is the essence of creativity

From dictionary:

Enlightenment
Common English translation of the Sanskrit term bodhi, which strictly means ‘awakening’

2+2 =

The Ability to diverge from what is familiar and move beyond the known into a new understanding = Awakening

That is the kind of creativity he is talking about, and logic is one of the tools (among other tools such as wisdom) that philosophy uses, that shows us that = That is so.

Be awake = Be enlightened = Be creative.
Be awake = Be enlightened = Be creative.
Be awake = Be enlightened = Be creative.
................................................

Now wake up! :)

trav·er·tine

Be creative


Dogon People

I endorse this product/service. Carry on.

Take out the normative claims and the weighted, rhetorical questions, and there's nothing definitive. These authors have filled this article with too much information from across the board -- enough information that I suspect that they chose this information, and arranged it in this order, to cater to a pre-conceived interpretation. Regardless, with this much information, many conclusions could be drawn.

If you want to prove that fundamentalists use less of one part of their brain, you better begin and end your article with studies on the brains of fundamentalists.

And you most definitely do not try to sell me a book.

The old, cliched dichotomy between "creativity" and "religious fundamentalism" which the article reinforces is horribly uncreative. I'm waiting for the day when humanity can start thinking outside the box on that one.

Creativity has its place, but give me a person who has a deep understanding of truth and can express it authentically in his behaviour anytime. At the moment, we are drowning under the weight of our own creativity. It could even lead to our extinction as a species. And that is because wisdom has been pushed aside in the wake of this obsessive focus on newness.

I agree with Merton that the modern obsession with creativity is indicative of a mental sickness, one that features a disconnection from reality and a desperate desire to keep escaping the present moment.

-

Take out the normative claims and the weighted, rhetorical questions, and there's nothing definitive.

It is definite to me, because I previously had in a general sense, developed the same overall theory. It was nice to see my ideas reflected by scientists.

It is just an article, naturally they are saving the background data for their book.

From a developmental standpoint, the nuclear family household, with only 1-2 kids in front of the TV does not present nearly the challenges of the daily interaction that large farm families, the village, or tribal setting had with other kids who were both older & younger, and engaged in the intricacies of the real, living, natural world going on around them. That setting provided not only the visual of the TV, but also the tactile, inertial, smell, & taste, and with sounds coming at them from a wide variety of directions, often simultaneously.

Joseph Campbell observed that whereas Dionysianism (archetypal Aryan religion) was based on works of theater claiming allegorical truth, Levantine religion was based on works of literature claiming literal truth. If you just dont get it, then it makes perfect sense to prefer a Levantine scripture to Homer.

In Homer, Zeus is like the mayor of a republican city state who must contend with the factions; in the Torah, Jehovah is a tyrant, and there are no factions. Save Satan, the world's first democrat. Dr. Freud noted that neurotics cannot tolerate ambiguity, and in Homer and the Greek plays, there's a lotta that. The neurotic prefers the simple dualism of good/evil, blessed/cursed, and faithful/apostate.

So, along with the decline in academic performance, and the rise in autism, ADD, ADHD, drug addiction, divorce, sexual & physical abuse, and innumerable other mental pathologies, there is a rise in religious acceptance of literal truth in scripture. the world is just too complex and ambiguous to cope with.

Nietzsche, "The Birth of Tragedy", chap VIII:"It is the sure sign of the death of a religion when its mythic presuppositions become systematized, under the severe, rational eyes of an orthodox dogmatism, into a ready sum of historical events, and when people begin timidly defending the veracity of myth, but at the same time resist the natural continuance- when the feeling for myth withers and its place is taken by a religion claiming historical foundations."

The reason for this is neurotic denial of the complexity and ambiguity of the world with a kind of tunnel vision of mind, allowing it to only go down certain tracks, and as Dr. Freud noted, use inventiveness to explain why they think like they do rather than try to deal with conflicting sources of information. There is the continual search for excuses for conviction.

From a developmental standpoint, aside from the socialization effects cited above, there is dietary deficiency and contamination that hinders maximal neurological development in childhood. Hominid evolution included a wide variety of wild plants and animals that, in turn, provided a wide variety of trace minerals and micronutrients plants absorbed from natural soils- which are not present in the ground agribusiness doses with Nitrogen, Phophorus, & Potash to maximize tonnage, and therefore profits.

over 150 neurotransmitters have been identified so far, and the *reason* there are so many has to do with our evolution that had so many food sources in the diet. These are known to be involved in the laying down of new neural pathways during learning. And when the appropriate complex natural factors are not present, other chemicals the child is exposed to are used instead. The result a couple generations later, is an adult population of neurotics.

Which is why, you can lay out a clearly rational proposal in ascii just like this, and so many posters just cannot deal with it, but respond with ad hominum, quick comebacks of lame humor, or memorized rhetoric of some partisan position. If your presentation challenges some conviction, as Dr. Freud noted, the response will often be a focus on some trivial point to convert it into a strawman.

The level of mental pathology is so widespread that it destabilizes the entire political & economic system. People are somewhat aware of the danger. Thus Wallace, in his anthro classic "Culture & Personality", noted that when a system is on the skids, people's coping skills dont work so well anymore, and they engage in "magical thinking". A term he coined. Thus Christians speak of "The Rapture", hoping for Jesus to take them away cause they just cant handle it anymore.

7th and 8th cIrcuit Mutants who have to some degree stabilized an understanding of their own circuity (reference Dr. Leary's Eight Circuit Consciousness Model) have the ability to access DNA scripts, which is basically what "magical thinking" is lacking in essence (a guilt complex that arises from a faulty atomic family unit(y) is to blame for a decline in modern coping skills). The tech imprints of Leary's Model range from interspecies symbosis (telepathy, precognition, retrocognition) to more advanced tech of beyond spacetime psi (communication with alien entities, com at beyond relativity speeds, quantum information access). Interestingly, the quantum level of reality is the means to a wide-range of extra sensory technology - the Buddha wasn't lying when he spoke of the 10 superhuman powers achieved after reaching a certain spiritual state. Most often these upper imprints, or mini-gears, are turned on via magical means (drugs), but, as in my personal case, intense mediation also can do the job (reference certain yogic practices).

Steven Coyle wrote:7th and 8th cIrcuit Mutants who have to some degree stabilized an understanding of their own circuity (reference Dr. Leary's Eight Circuit Consciousness Model) have the ability to access DNA scripts, which is basically what "magical thinking" is lacking in essence (a guilt complex that arises from a faulty atomic family unit(y) is to blame for a decline in modern coping skills). The tech imprints of Leary's Model range from interspecies symbosis (telepathy, precognition, retrocognition) to more advanced tech of beyond spacetime psi (communication with alien entities, com at beyond relativity speeds, quantum information access). Interestingly, the quantum level of reality is the means to a wide-range of extra sensory technology - the Buddha wasn't lying when he spoke of the 10 superhuman powers achieved after reaching a certain spiritual state. Most often these upper imprints, or mini-gears, are turned on via magical means (drugs), but, as in my personal case, intense mediation also can do the job (reference certain yogic practices).

YMMV. After all, cyberspace in monodimensional, which means it can penetrate into other dimensional frameworks, among which I am sure some are as you outline. But all I have to go by are the signals I see on my end. I dont doubt that there are bodhisattvahs who can use mediatation, altho among those I get to meet, an entheogen is a more reliable method.

I spoze as well the neuropathology we both see is in part explained with Leary's analysis. But among those I get to see, and the demographic data I know about, show that those who were raised on more natural foods and less exposed to modern contaminants dont exhibit the decline in coping skills. I've already cited what I know of the Amish and the Ozark farm families, but another example came to mind just now.

Couple months ago, CNN did an interview with a group of young men who had been excommunicated from a polygamist mormon sect. From what I know of them, they were raised on farms in these large families. CNN showed a few dozen of them seated on bleachers, and interviewed a few about the court case they had trying to get re-instated in the church.

Not a lard butt in the bunch, young, physically fit and attractive. I can see why the elder men wanted them gone. But no baggy pants, no tattoos, no piercings, or weird hair. All of them respectful and well spoken. And- all of them raised in polygamist families that I doubt ever had sugar cereals for breakfast, or junkfood, candy or soda any other time. All thru childhood, they had the competition of lots of other kids in the house. Is this a problem, or an opportunity?

I've asked this question before, and the silence is just deafening.

It seems to me that when a (polygamist) child has a competitive structure to work with, there is naturally a higher awareness of diversity, within themselves, and also towards others. The proneness to fight or flight is real, as instinctively each child knows that they are separate from their parents at an earlier age (due in large part to the wide range of the familiar). Whereas with a typical suburban setting (the nuclear unit that you mentioned previously) the homogeny is there, and lasts for much longer.

Steven Coyle wrote:It seems to me that when a (polygamist) child has a competitive structure to work with, there is naturally a higher awareness of diversity, within themselves, and also towards others. The proneness to fight or flight is real, as instinctively each child knows that they are separate from their parents at an earlier age (due in large part to the wide range of the familiar). Whereas with a typical suburban setting (the nuclear unit that you mentioned previously) the homogeny is there, and lasts for much longer.

Well for sure. And note the economic reality; as these kids grow up, they become a support network of brothers and sisters in the struggle with the transnational employers. The traditional nuclear family with only 1-2 kids is the absolute minimum to produce the next generation, and while the system gives lip service to marriage, court decisions have gone a long ways twards destroying it, leaving the single mom even more dependent on her employer. The author of "CUNT!" listed recent court decisions:
1- She no longer needs to provide sex, and can charge a husband with rape.
2- If she does have sex and gets pregnant, she can abort without his consent.
3- if she takes it to term, he hasta support it. The way the law is in most jurisdictions, even if the DNA shows it aint his.
4- But even if it is, she can leave with the kids any time and move in with a stud muffin with a record of sexual abuse at some distant location. (most sexual abuse is from these boyfriends or step fathers) He still hasta support his kids.

The author said she'd never marry anyone stupid enuf to make a deal like that. What right does a husband have that a BF does not? They have his name? She can go to the local court and change the name without letting him know.

Thus it is that the smart young men are not getting married, unless to an older woman, who prolly already makes more money than he will. And by the time her daughters reach puberty, things get really interesting with the stud muffins. But the power of the media is all behind the nuclear family romance model. when it breaks down, they get to sell a former spouse a whole new set of household goods. And a new place to live. The lawyers and courts make tons of money off divorce.

And "forever romance" is such an easy sell. Kids that grow up in polygamist families, communes, or even large farm families dont have this idea that they are someone special, and that somewhere there is a special mate just for them. Likewise to these kids, Jesus is sold just like Uncle Sam, who wants *you* for his army. You are gonna be so *special* in Jesus's army. Its a contest between jesus and Satan, as to who can have the biggest army. And we all want Jesus to win dont we?

Satan was the first democrat. If you like tyranny, then Jesus is the place to go. Like Orwell said, he'll take care of you, give you a harp and a halo, and you get to stand around forever like a Stepford wife, singing songs about what a great guy Jesus is. Hello? is this neural pathology, or what?

It'd be funny, but it threatens to destroy the whole global economy with religious zealotry.