Ed Shorter: Is Neuroscience Valuable?

Forest,
Thank you for such a germane response. I agree, this is a great quote, not the least for mitigating the woolliness of Sarno's early writings. Like you, I playfully, loosely attribute psyche to structure, simply to fascilitate understanding but I make different divisions to you.

I see the Id as representing the Reptilian brain, the Ego as the 'Limbic System' or cuddly brain, and the Superego as the Neocortex. I found this enabled me to untangle the bewildering array of mind-body theories, and particularly, the place tms rests within that spectrum. Neuropsychology is a gift, and as Dr. James Alexander stated in my first link, it is the cornerstone of tms theory whether or not people accept it. Like it or not, once someone becomes a spokesperson for tms, the halo of authority descends and therefore we must guard against sloppy thinking and lazy or flabby responses. People come here to further understanding, to clarify confusions and ultimately to heal. That tms exists is not in dispute but we have to acknowledge that not everyone who comes here has tms. They may be suffering with something in the mind-body realm and they need help to determine this. Threads like this go a long way in achieving this goal.

What I find particularly gratifying is that we do not need to choose between science and god, theory or art. No need to divide our minds yet further in our seeking. Each aspect of the psyche has it's own language. Our 'Inner Africa' (J. P. F. Richter), loves its symbols and dreams, while the higher brain loves words. It matters very much that there is a plurality of explanations for somatisation because each speaks to different levels and while cogent and embellished explanations appeal to the neocortex, that same need for words is an iron clamp for the deep nature. They will never penetrate because reptiles don't use words.

I felt sorry for the little monkey too. It reminds me of the time I saw a ferret that had been raised by a mother rat. He was just another member of the litter, albeit one larger than his 'mum'. He wasn't an ugly duckling. He belonged. Regarding attachment, may I add the following book which centres on this. The author is a neuropsychologist with a sense of humour. The book is 'Rewire your Brain for Love: Creating Vibrant Relationships using the Science of Mindfulness' by Marsha Lucas.
 
It sounds like he is saying that a great deal of TMS is explained as arising from a division between two different parts of the brain - the neocortex and an older, more primitive part of the brain. The neocortex is associated with higher functions, like rational thought, whereas the older part of the brain include traits "we consider the most troublesome, like childishness, dependency, or the capacity for savage behavior."
Click to expand...

Of course, there are other unpleasant symptoms associated with this fundamental division besides TMS - things like addiction, rape, child abuse, murder and war. Good little boys and girls who want to be liked and admired get TMS. Other less sensitive types act out directly and behave in anti-social ways without putting pressure on themselves to be perfect and good. I guess what this proves is that people who get TMS are highly intelligent and basically nice. If you look at it this way, you have to conclude that TMSers are sensitive and caring, which places us all in pretty good company. In my old neighborhood in San Francisco in the 1950s, when kids were having trouble at home, they just went out and burned down a building, vandalized a school, or beat up some random victim they encountered on the street. Who knows what other psychological symptoms they may have had. Yikes! I guess, as Freud insisted in his Civilization and Its Discontents, repression is one of the cornerstones of society and the price the more sensitive of us pay for that are PPDs and TMS.
 
plum said:
Forest,
Thank you for such a germane response. I agree, this is a great quote, not the least for mitigating the woolliness of Sarno's early writings. Like you, I playfully, loosely attribute psyche to structure, simply to fascilitate understanding but I make different divisions to you.

I see the Id as representing the Reptilian brain, the Ego as the 'Limbic System' or cuddly brain, and the Superego as the Neocortex. I found this enabled me to untangle the bewildering array of mind-body theories, and particularly, the place tms rests within that spectrum. Neuropsychology is a gift, and as Dr. James Alexander stated in my first link, it is the cornerstone of tms theory whether or not people accept it. Like it or not, once someone becomes a spokesperson for tms, the halo of authority descends and therefore we must guard against sloppy thinking and lazy or flabby responses. People come here to further understanding, to clarify confusions and ultimately to heal. That tms exists is not in dispute but we have to acknowledge that not everyone who comes here has tms. They may be suffering with something in the mind-body realm and they need help to determine this. Threads like this go a long way in achieving this goal.

What I find particularly gratifying is that we do not need to choose between science and god, theory or art. No need to divide our minds yet further in our seeking. Each aspect of the psyche has it's own language. Our 'Inner Africa' (J. P. F. Richter), loves its symbols and dreams, while the higher brain loves words. It matters very much that there is a plurality of explanations for somatisation because each speaks to different levels and while cogent and embellished explanations appeal to the neocortex, that same need for words is an iron clamp for the deep nature. They will never penetrate because reptiles don't use words.

I felt sorry for the little monkey too. It reminds me of the time I saw a ferret that had been raised by a mother rat. He was just another member of the litter, albeit one larger than his 'mum'. He wasn't an ugly duckling. He belonged. Regarding attachment, may I add the following book which centres on this. The author is a neuropsychologist with a sense of humour. The book is 'Rewire your Brain for Love: Creating Vibrant Relationships using the Science of Mindfulness' by Marsha Lucas.
Click to expand...

superb post. one of my main concerns with TMS is the way people who've experienced recovery can then try to explain it their way.
However another reinforcing point for me is the fact that Sarno himself doesn't claim to fully understand the exact mechanisms and acknowledges it is different in everyone. If he were a quack he could easily say ''this is how you recover, buy my book and in three months...yada yada''

Its absolutely important to try and reconcile Sarnos theorys with a modern psychological approach coupled with neuroscience. Their is a propensity to take new scientific discoveries like Neuroplasticity and twist them to further a Pseudoscientific agenda.
I cannot get Howard Schubiners book in the UK but I understand he goes into some detail regarding all this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top