Thought I'd give an update as to what I've been reading over the past several months. First of all, in relation to alchemy, I've found Adam McLean's books to be a refreshing break from the garbage that pervades the topic. His analyses of the Mutus Liber and the Rosicrucian emblems of Daniel Cramer are clear, concise, and avoid any of the "reaching" that typically defines many works on the subject (e.g. Bridges and Weidner, Stavish, Hauk, etc). His book, The Alchemical Mandala is a collection of emblems with about a page or two of analysis each. For the most part he restricts himself to simply identifying the symbols used and their relationships within the space of the emblem. In such a way, associations can be made to the realms of cosmology, psychology, alchemical processes, etc. His CD lessons are also very good if you want to get an introduction into the library of symbols used by alchemists, and they way they compose their texts.
In psychopathy, I've been rereading James Blair's Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain, and it really is a great summary of the research to date (picks up where Hare's 1970 work left off), presenting the most cogent neurobiological account of psychopathy (genetics that lead to amydala and orbitofrontal cortext dysfunction, i.e. emotional deficit). He also gives the latest research into understanding what Lobaczewski called characteropathy, namely frontal lobe damage and "paranoia", both resulting increased reactive aggression. The two pathologies affect the executive regulation and the responsiveness of basic threat circuitry, respectively. Also, I've been reading three edited works: Chris Patrick's Handbook of Psychopathy, Millon's Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior, and the International Handbook on Psychopathic Disorders and the law. The last opens with a chapter by the German editors of the work, which describes the history of the concept of psychopathy over the last 200 years. Interestingly, there are correspondences between the German understanding and Lobaczewski's, i.e. psychopathic disorders as a range of personality disorders: asthenic, anankastic (obsessive-compulsive), histrionic, etc.
In psychology, I've noticed that William James and his colleagues really had something going, and that the rise of behaviorism stifled the direction in which science was headed. This had two effects: by focusing on behaviour to the exclusion of "nature", the understanding of psychopathy, which had previously been understood as constitutional, i.e. genetic, was now understood as socially created, i.e. sociopathy. Luckily Cleckley helped change that and the field hasn't suffered TOO much. But we can see the hands of "cosmic cointelpro" in this one. Not only did they block an adequate understanding of psychopathy (which still affects scientific opinions to this day), it blocked an understanding of the true nature of consciousness, cosmos, being. James and colleagues saw the brain as a filter of consciousness, not the source. The book by Edward and Emily Kelly The Irreducible Mind is a modern, scientific attempt to expand upon James and especially his colleague Frederick Myers, who was one of the founding members of the Society for Psychical Research, and a great influence on James. They give a theory of mind that takes into account psychic phenomena and other anomalies not accounted for by the prevailing computational theory of mind.
In the same vein, I've been reading Rupert Sheldrake's work, which accounts for the development of forms, and instinctive habits, of biological creatures. His hypothesis, summarized on his website, is that DNA cannot account for the development of 3D forms, only the specific building blocks, proteins, that must then grow into a form, determined by a morphogentic field. His hypothesis leaves open the possibility that these fields are effects of hyperdimensional influences. Just as we see the "effects" of gravity, which is a 4D influence (folding of spacetime), but no material or energetic cause for such an effect; we cannot "see" the influence of these fields, only their effects, namely the growth of forms and the development of species-specific habits. In such a framework, we can see how "rewiring" is changing one's frequency, vibrating with a NEW morphogenetic field. Perhaps psychopaths have their own archetypal morphogenetic field, lacking emotional experience, and this has the effect that their amygdala cannot respond to stimuli. They have the machinery, but it's not "plugged in", so to say. These morphogenetic influences can perhaps also explain why some humans have souls and others do not. If the archetype is such, it will have effects on its expression in the body. Thus some individuals will not have the ability to develop in the same way as others. Their options are more limited, just as a being with truncated DNA will not be able to grow into its final form because all the building blocks are not available.
And lastly, I just read Michael Cremo's and Richard Thompson's Hidden History of the Human Race which is a book-length summary of their Forbidden Archaeology. Very insightful and eye-opening. I look forward to reading Cremo's Human Devolution, which is his alternative to Darwinism, accounting for the evidence presented in his previous book, and more, that shows Darwinism cannot explain all observable phenomena. He also makes use of much of the same data presented in the Kellys' book and Sheldrake's.
Coming up: Burton Mack's new book just recently came out: The Cristian Nation: A Social Theory of Religion, in which he makes the case for his theory (used in his books but never fully elucidated until now) that religion can best be defined as a social phenomenon. That is, it serves primarily social purposes, NOT individual religious experiences. This makes perfect sense, as religion is used as a tool to keep people controlled. While I think there IS a religious experiential component, it's obvious this only applies to a particular segment of humanity, whereas "religion" can apply to all as a system of social programming.
More when I have it!
In psychopathy, I've been rereading James Blair's Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain, and it really is a great summary of the research to date (picks up where Hare's 1970 work left off), presenting the most cogent neurobiological account of psychopathy (genetics that lead to amydala and orbitofrontal cortext dysfunction, i.e. emotional deficit). He also gives the latest research into understanding what Lobaczewski called characteropathy, namely frontal lobe damage and "paranoia", both resulting increased reactive aggression. The two pathologies affect the executive regulation and the responsiveness of basic threat circuitry, respectively. Also, I've been reading three edited works: Chris Patrick's Handbook of Psychopathy, Millon's Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior, and the International Handbook on Psychopathic Disorders and the law. The last opens with a chapter by the German editors of the work, which describes the history of the concept of psychopathy over the last 200 years. Interestingly, there are correspondences between the German understanding and Lobaczewski's, i.e. psychopathic disorders as a range of personality disorders: asthenic, anankastic (obsessive-compulsive), histrionic, etc.
In psychology, I've noticed that William James and his colleagues really had something going, and that the rise of behaviorism stifled the direction in which science was headed. This had two effects: by focusing on behaviour to the exclusion of "nature", the understanding of psychopathy, which had previously been understood as constitutional, i.e. genetic, was now understood as socially created, i.e. sociopathy. Luckily Cleckley helped change that and the field hasn't suffered TOO much. But we can see the hands of "cosmic cointelpro" in this one. Not only did they block an adequate understanding of psychopathy (which still affects scientific opinions to this day), it blocked an understanding of the true nature of consciousness, cosmos, being. James and colleagues saw the brain as a filter of consciousness, not the source. The book by Edward and Emily Kelly The Irreducible Mind is a modern, scientific attempt to expand upon James and especially his colleague Frederick Myers, who was one of the founding members of the Society for Psychical Research, and a great influence on James. They give a theory of mind that takes into account psychic phenomena and other anomalies not accounted for by the prevailing computational theory of mind.
In the same vein, I've been reading Rupert Sheldrake's work, which accounts for the development of forms, and instinctive habits, of biological creatures. His hypothesis, summarized on his website, is that DNA cannot account for the development of 3D forms, only the specific building blocks, proteins, that must then grow into a form, determined by a morphogentic field. His hypothesis leaves open the possibility that these fields are effects of hyperdimensional influences. Just as we see the "effects" of gravity, which is a 4D influence (folding of spacetime), but no material or energetic cause for such an effect; we cannot "see" the influence of these fields, only their effects, namely the growth of forms and the development of species-specific habits. In such a framework, we can see how "rewiring" is changing one's frequency, vibrating with a NEW morphogenetic field. Perhaps psychopaths have their own archetypal morphogenetic field, lacking emotional experience, and this has the effect that their amygdala cannot respond to stimuli. They have the machinery, but it's not "plugged in", so to say. These morphogenetic influences can perhaps also explain why some humans have souls and others do not. If the archetype is such, it will have effects on its expression in the body. Thus some individuals will not have the ability to develop in the same way as others. Their options are more limited, just as a being with truncated DNA will not be able to grow into its final form because all the building blocks are not available.
And lastly, I just read Michael Cremo's and Richard Thompson's Hidden History of the Human Race which is a book-length summary of their Forbidden Archaeology. Very insightful and eye-opening. I look forward to reading Cremo's Human Devolution, which is his alternative to Darwinism, accounting for the evidence presented in his previous book, and more, that shows Darwinism cannot explain all observable phenomena. He also makes use of much of the same data presented in the Kellys' book and Sheldrake's.
Coming up: Burton Mack's new book just recently came out: The Cristian Nation: A Social Theory of Religion, in which he makes the case for his theory (used in his books but never fully elucidated until now) that religion can best be defined as a social phenomenon. That is, it serves primarily social purposes, NOT individual religious experiences. This makes perfect sense, as religion is used as a tool to keep people controlled. While I think there IS a religious experiential component, it's obvious this only applies to a particular segment of humanity, whereas "religion" can apply to all as a system of social programming.
More when I have it!
