--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of > why we can't get there from here between some posters.
Glad you enjoyed it. > Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... > it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point > to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was > largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that > in a different way from creative writing. Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and develop different parts of the brain. In her words, "...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how we read it." Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the language and how the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view. > Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being > attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that > prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things > that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy > chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for > not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It > is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, > especially when not much more of that writing is going on. > > I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff > about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first > thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my > brain. As it has drifted further and further from any > content, it has become less and less satisfying in that > regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle > creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested > in writing. > > This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for > that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious > of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where > my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the > kind of writer I want to be. Much more research is being done by this same team, including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the two different modes of reading affect such things as how they experience emotion arising from what they're reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect the person more when reading for pleasure, or for analysis? But one of the valuable things learned even so far from this projects is that each of us has the ability to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can shift them from one mode of operation to another, just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also shown that we can control which areas of our brains "light up" and are used or not used, depending on whether or not they are appropriate for the circumstances. On the literature side of the equation, these experiments may help us to understand the impact that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips says, "...give us a bigger, richer picture of how our minds engage with art or, in our case, of the complex experience we know as literary reading." > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence > > > distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the > > > import of my complete thought as contained in the > > > whole paragraph. > > > > Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but > > tripping on what you said above, I thought I > > should draw your attention to a post I made > > here recently entitled "This is your brain on > > reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously." > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 > > > > It details some fascinating research being done > > on people to determine what is going on in their > > brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the > > sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is > > called "close reading," as if they have to report > > on what they're reading later in an essay about it. > > The researchers, watching the brains of people > > through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered > > that very different parts of the brain are being > > used, depending on whether one is reading for > > pleasure, or doing "close reading." > > > > Riffing on what you say above, is it possible > > that a certain person is using different parts > > of their brain when reading your posts than you > > used when writing them? > > > > I find this an interesting question when applied > > to this forum. "Different strokes for different > > folks" turns out to be true even in the brain, > > and at different times, depending on the *intent* > > with which we read. Two people could read the > > same piece of literature -- in the experiments, > > passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very > > different things from them. That's not a surprise, > > of course, chances are we *all* would see the > > same passages slightly differently. *However*, > > the new information from these studies is that > > the *same* person could view and interpret > > these passages completely differently, depend- > > ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, > > or "for work." > > > > Taking a profession completely at random, consider > > the case of a professional editor. Their day job > > is parsing other people's writing, *looking for > > nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, > > parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- > > ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. > > And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling > > could render an entire work unworthy of publication, > > and thus of being taken seriously. > > > > Now consider another random profession, say a > > person who makes their living as a musician and > > an educator. Such a person might have said many > > times that they read the posts on FFL -- and > > write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* > > tend to parse them carefully, looking for things > > "not right" in them; instead they might be looking > > for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after > > all, of "reading for pleasure." > > > > These two types of people, conditioned by years > > of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, > > might be using entirely different parts of their > > brains while reading, and as a result might have > > a tendency to react to what you write completely > > differently. > > > > Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context > > of the experiments so far and to the next level. > > If humans use different parts of their brains > > when either reading for pleasure or reading more > > seriously, "close reading," is it possible that > > they do the exact same thing when writing? > > > > The musician in my completely random example, for > > example, might have gone on record many times as > > saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer > > fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's > > ideas "come together" as a result of the very > > act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit > > that you might be, too. > > > > Someone else might tend to bring the same "close > > reading" brain functioning they practice as a > > reader to their writing, and tend to take the > > writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity > > to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing > > "close writing." If this were the case, would it > > not be likely that they are using an entirely > > different mode of brain functioning when writing > > than the person who is writing for the pleasure > > of it? > > > > Just a few random thoughts, written for the > > pleasure of writing them. Parse them as you will, > > and do with them what you will, using whatever > > parts of your brain you tend to use when doing > > that sorta stuff. :-) > > >
