> > Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being > > attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that > > prompts and urgency of response... > > curtisdeltablues: > This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this > month! Thanks. > Looks like several respondents got really scared of Judy.
LoL! > > > 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." > > > > > > > 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. :-)
