>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
<snip>
> > "The rACC...plays a critical role in the awareness of the
> > nastiness of pain: the feeling of dislike for it, a loathing so
> > intense that you are immediately compelled to try to make it
> > stop."
> >
> > Not awareness of pain, but awareness of the "nastiness"
> > of pain.
>
> So someone in CC doesn't think that pain is nasty?
Read it again, Lawson.
> > I'd suggest it wouldn't be a matter of CC "shutting
> > down" the rACC, but rather of not triggering its
> > activity in the first place. The rACC seems to be a
> > mechanism for making you take action to neutralize
> > whatever is causing the pain *because pain is often
> > a signal that the integrity of the physical organism
> > is being threatened*.
>
> And this would be a bad thing because?
I said it would be a bad thing where?
> > But if you aren't attached to the physical organism
> > because you identify with the Self rather than the
> > self, you don't need that alarm system to make you
> > perceive the pain as intolerably unpleasant so you
> > spring into action to neutralize it. Whatever is
> > causing the pain is no longer a threat to your
> > survival because you don't experience your physical
> > survival as necessary for your existence.
>
> Which is a plain stupid thing for CC to do from an evolutionary
> perspectie and isn't supported by any research that I'm aware of.
Has it ever *been* researched?
It isn't "stupid"; it allows you to make a *choice*
about whether to pay attention to the pain and
what's causing it, or just to ignore it, depending
on the situation. In some cases that ability could
actually *save* your life (I'm thinking, e.g., about
the guy who sawed off his arm when it was caught
between two rocks in an isolated place; if he hadn't
done that, he'd have starved to death.)
> CC doesn't prevent one from feeling things or
> worrying about things.
Nor did I say it did.
> All CC appears to be is the establishment of sufficient
> connectivity in the brain to maintain the stability of Pure
> Consciousness regardless of whatever transitory mental states are
> going on, including, one presumes, pain and pleasure.
Exactly.
> > So the rACC, or at least its function of making pain
> > unpleasant (it may have other functions), would become
> > irrelevant as a kind of side effect of CC, in this
> > formulation. There's no longer a *need* for pain to
> > be an "overwhelming" sensation.
> >
> > Just a guess...
> >
>
> There's no "side effect" to CC
Sure there are, at least in the sense I'm using
the term.
: its just the brain better maintaining the global connectivity
> of Pure Consciousness along with the normal activation of various
states whether major
> states like waking, dreaming and sleeping, or localized
activiations like paying attention to
> music, thought or pain or pleasure. CC isn't something UNusual --
its just plain old
> normalcy at its most normal.
>
> The rACC or whatever doesn't change its activiation much, if
> any, in CC.
And you know this how?
The brain becomes a bit more efficient in CC, but CC doesn't lead to
some
> drastic increase or decrease of the activation levels of the
various parts of the brain
> outside of TM practice --they just work *together* more efficiently.
You might want to read the whole article, actually.
That would give you a clearer picture of what's
involved here, I think.
(I am *not* suggesting that this particular scanning
technique for chronic pain patients induces anything
like CC, by the way.)
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
