PINEAL GLAND (2)

Thu Jan 15 15:50:42 CST 2009

Kia ora Peter and others,

I have been enjoying this discussion very much both the content and the
political (under)currents.  I have found that a concept borrowed from
Process Psychology assists me when we are speaking of those ideas/beliefs
that are not the current accepted scientific view.  Mindell describes these
beliefs as 'Non-Consensus Reality' or NCR for short.  It is good to be able
to have the whole here in these discussions as 'consensus' is not developed
in isolation.  So, from my perspective in the act of discussing robustly or
otherwise, when we come out of isolation and share our ideas across the
whole spectrum of possibility, our worlds expand; perhaps we even start to
develop a consensus, and this is sociatry in action.  Yay!

I also really appreciate the information that gets shared- I have some great
leads for further research.  Many thanks

Cheers

Grace

  _____  

From: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org [mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org]
On Behalf Of Peter Howie
Sent: Friday, 16 January 2009 9:43 a.m.
To: Group talk Listserv
Subject: Re: PINEAL GLAND (2)

Hi Ivo,

I was saying that the Pineal Gland, despite it having similar cells to light
sensitive ones in other animals, receives no external light - it is well and
truly in the dark in an objective sense. Sorry for the loose language with
such a metaphoric discussion.

I am writing about and interested in how we know what we know. Hence
remembering how different parts of the body have had purportedly different
purposes over the millennia. After writing I then listened to a great
podcast from our ABC radio station pointing out that most of what we know
about the brian began the expand only some decades ago. That the production
of hormones as neurotransmitters is only a bit over a hundred years old and
for a little while before that the brain and nerves were thought to only
work electrically - in the article I was listening to it was called the "dry
brain" theory and when hormones were discovered it became the "wet brain"
the wet brain theory. A transcript
<http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2425082.htm>  is
available here as it doesn't appear the podcast is still available. What
this means is that despite what might be termed politically correct - the
scientific argument is not seen as politically correct. My colleagues
despair for my interest in science and a sceptical vantage point. Despite my
having lived in ashrams and followed a single spiritual practice for many
years in the past. I think this is a slightly novel idea - that what I am
putting forward is not politically correct becasue it is so new and the
other stories have been around for thousands of years. On another adpect of
this argument is the one that alluding to another authority still does not
make an argument correct or right.

I have no argument with your coming to terms with the process of the list
around this/these arguments. Calling them political is I think reasonably
close. The implicit which is undiscussed is also different for each of us.
What you think is implicit and undiscussed and what I think of as implicit
and undiscussed would be quite different. What do you think. This would mean
there are many content elephants in the room - though maybe only one process
elephant. I think we talk/write this way because we don't have a well enough
developed relationship(s) and so it does appear political. 

There are also the forces that lead different people here to want to have a
certain type of culture on the list. But so far we have what we have. some
people come here and then get put off for a whole host of reasons. Some
people come here and are more accepting. I certainly want different things
than we often have here but lately we have been having pretty robust
discussions as well as propositions, rebukes and engagement - including your
original remarks which kicked off many subsequent discussions. I don't think
I have responded directly to your email yet rather to others responding to
you.

Cheers for the moment

Peter in Brisbane

On 15/01/2009, at 10:36 PM, Ivo Banaco wrote:

Dear Peter, Adam, Connie, Ed and all,

Let's awaken up the implicit here. Let us not pretend that this recent
dynamic exchange of e-mails doesn't exist. This is politics in-action in the
Group talk list. At least I feel in this way, I don't know if anybody feel
the same. I am only speaking for myself. There is nothing wrong with
"political arguments", what is wrong, in my opinion, is letting the implicit
stay there, not generating an explicit output.

What I am trying to say in objective terms and in a reconstructive fashion
is: Ed starts a tread with a certain topic: Pineal Gland. To use again
Hegel's thesis and antithesis terms we had the first reply of Connie using a
more spiritual emphasis (the thesis) to make sense of the topic and a more
"rational" response of Adam (antithesis). 

If this happens to be a good description of that dynamic, what followed next
was a "political fight" in the best sense of the word. But let us assume
that, genuinely and directly, and not pretend that this isn't happening. At
least in "real" politics, albeit all the bad things in it, they have
political parties, constant dialectical arguments, making their differences
crystal clear. 

For me, this last e-mail of Peter (whom I don't know but it doesn't inhibit
me to engage with him an intellectual argument), with due respect, doesn't
say virtually nothing unless for supporting Adam's answer. Or to put it
differently, it has a lot of content (and a good one I must say), but the
material is used in an implicit way, in a political correctness that I must
admit annoys me sometimes. What do you, Peter, are defending in this topic,
I mean clearly, and not from your comfort zone? just that "the pineal is
well and truly in the dark". Are you saying that it's not possible to say
more about it? 

With care and good intentions,

Ivo 

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Peter Howie
<peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au> wrote:

Dear Adam and Connie,

Good response Adam. I was thinking how the purpose and function of the brain
was for many millenia mistaken and thinking and all these processes we
associate with the brain were thought to come from the heart . At least
since Aristotle the brain was thought of as a useless mushy bit.

Adam my Japanese accupuncturist, and I am not advocating accupuncture,
however I have been around it for a while and he taught me that the language
of accupuncture is entirely figurative. So when he says "Your liver is low"
he doesn't mean my actual liver but a type of body response that he
interprets as a type of energy which is titles "Liver". Or "wood" or any of
a number of other titles. Now I know a number of other accupuncturists who
actually believe that "a low liver" means that the actual liver is low. What
do they think it means when there is not enough "wood"? Unintended pun here.

I think the pineal gland hangs around 1) because we are relatively more
ignorant about it than other parts of the brain and 2) we (generalisation of
many but not all people) have a great desire to find physical correlates for
god and spirituality. There are fantastic arguments about faith while at the
same time a great desire for miraculous proofs and the like. One very
familiar one is the idea that the human body is the machine that experiences
god so we don't need to create a machine/process/proof of god because we are
that machine/process/proof.

Also Connie, with the pineal and Descartes, he had the philosophy that there
was a person behind our thoughts - the controller idea of how are thoughts
are controlled - and that the pineal was the most likely place for it for
similar reasons you wrote. From memory it regulates melatonin and we are
only beginning to understand what role that plays apart from skin colour and
body rhythms. And while some of the cells appear similar to light sensitive
ones, the regulation of rhythms via melatonin from the pineal from ambient
light takes place via another pathway. The pineal is well and truly in the
dark.

Cheers for now

Peter Howie B.Sc, TEP

Managing Director

The Moreno Collegium for Human Centred Learning, Research and Development

0411 873 851

www.morenocollegium.com.au

On 15/01/2009, at 2:07 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:

Dear Connie, you may be right! However, there are different levels of
evidence-based thinking in general discourse, and many people get confused.
Anything called a "theory" seems to have equal status, so there are state
governments who, being ignorant of this simple fact, are intimidated by the
word (ah, semantics) and feel obliged to give creationism an equal status to
the theory of evolution in the teaching of science in the schools.

     When you mention that the mystery traditions and esoteric schools have
long known...". though, I have reservations: That word "know" must be put on
"pause" and examined. A great deal---almost all---that was known for sure by
authorities, schools of thought, and such over the last three thousand
years, upon careful examination and testing, has been proven repeatedly and
in many ways to be flat wrong. This has been the cultural impact of science
for three hundred years. So the key question to ask is:  "But is it so?"

       I have no objection to figurative or symbolic language, and use it
freely in my conversations. I think there is an important place for poetry
and myth-making, but I am also committed to a sharper level of critical
thinking that differentiates myth from fact.

      I think there are some things that myth speaks to with greater
usefulness in our lives than mere fact, such as the construction of romance
or the sense of significance of oneself or one's movement, or the
construction of meaning in general. However these constructions are then
subject to the reality of "paradigm shift,"---the recognition that new
perspectives can change the way we view the world in rather basic ways. So I
hold on to what I think I know rather gently.

     Thanks for noting what has been scientifically shown about the pineal
gland---in fact, though, we still know very little, other than some of the
things you pointed out. Then again, for all the advances in neuro-science,
again we should recognize that for every advance, two or more questions come
into view, and that's the definition (by Huston Smith) of a mystery.

       So this is aimed really more for our general grouptalk community. I
appreciate your pioneering in many ways the interface of spirituality and
the use of action methods. Warmly, Adam

----- Original Message -----

From: Connie <mailto:connie at souldrama.com>  Miller

To: Edward Schreiber <mailto:edwschreiber at earthlink.net>  ; Grouptalk
Listserv <mailto:list at grouptalkweb.org> 

Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:34 AM

Subject: Re: PINEAL GLAND    Here is what I have;

The pineal gland was the last endocrine gland to have its function
discovered. Its location deep in the brain seemed to indicate its
importance. This combination led to its being a "mystery" gland with myth,
superstition and even metaphysical theories surrounding its perceived
function. The pineal gland is occasionally associated with the sixth chakra
(also called Ajna or the third eye chakra in yoga). It is believed by some
to be a dormant organ that can be awakened to enable "telepathic"
communication. In the physical body the eye views objects upside down. It
sends the image of what it observes to the brain which interprets the image
and makes it appear right side-up to us. But the human body has another
physical eye whose function has long been recognized by humanity. It is
called the 'Third Eye' which in reality is the Pineal Gland. It is long
thought to have mystical powers. Many consider it the Spiritual Third Eye,
our Inner Vision.

It is located in the geometric center of the brain. This correlates to the
location of the great pyramid in the center of the physical planet. The
Pineal Gland is about the size of a pea, and is in the center of the brain
in a tiny cave behind and above the pituitary gland which lies a little
behind the root of the nose. It is located directly behind the eyes,
attached to the third ventricle. The true function of this mysterious gland
has long been contemplated by philosophers and Spiritual Adepts. Ancient
Greeks believed the pineal gland to be our connection to the Realms of
Thought.

Rene Descartes called it the Seat of the Soul, believing it is unique in the
anatomy of the human brain in being a structure not duplicated on the right
and left sides. This observation is not true, however; under a microscope
one finds the pineal gland is divided into two fine hemispheres. This gland
is activated by Light, and it controls the various biorhythms of the body.
It works in harmony with the hypothalamus gland which directs the body's
thirst, hunger, sexual desire and the biological clock that determines our
aging process.

When the pineal gland awakens one feels a pressure at the base of the brain.
This pressure will often be experienced when connecting to higher frequency.
A head injury can also activate the Third Eye - Pineal Gland.

While the physiological function of the pineal gland has been unknown until
recent times, mystical traditions and esoteric schools have long known this
area in the middle of the brain to be the connecting link between the
physical and spiritual worlds. Considered the most powerful and highest
source of ethereal energy available to humans, the pineal gland has always
been important in initiating supernatural powers. Development of psychic
talents has been closely associated with this organ of higher vision.

Grouptalk mailing list

List at grouptalkweb.org
http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

Grouptalk mailing list
List at grouptalkweb.org
http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090116/eea2157b/attachment.html>