Post by ayoungspirit on Oct 12, 2016 9:46:10 GMT -5
Dr Dario Nardi recently posted on his facebook page (Neurotypes) a two hours capture of a UCLA presentation concerning his EEG researches on the brain in altered states (meditation, substances etc). He also mentions having more informations on Jungian functions in the slide deck, for people who are interested. As always, the matter is rightly introduced, so one does not need any particular background to appreciate the findings.
Here is the table of contents, courtesy of the presenter :
Auburn and Alerith in particular might be drawn once again into emulating the process. At the 27:00 mark, Dario Nardi explains having compared his results on DMT with those of two Brazilian researchers, Dr Juan Acosta-Urquidi of Sodia University and Dr. Michael Villanueva of Alpha Theta Center.
Just got the chance to finish watching this today - what a wonderful presentation! Thank you so much for sharing
So much of what he says is exactly along the lines of what I've been thinking. It seems he's beginning to touch upon the neurological quantification of the conscious vs unconscious state, which is one of the things I want to explore with EEG studies. Erifrail and I have discussed the use of DMT to induce immersion into unconscious states, with the goal of defining the neurological patterns underlying unconscious psychological structures (such as Jung's archetypes). I was inspired to see Nardi's integration of Jungian theory, especially as it relates to the transcendent function. It seems from what he wrote on page 43, that he's beginning to construct a therapeutic method to induce development, which is very exciting.
Seeing what he's doing inspires me so much to begin experiments!
Just got done watching these ...and absolutely loved it. So many thoughts...
It's quite apparent that human psychology is a very complicated system. I like how Nardi's perspective honors the complexity, while also trying to highlight over-arching patterns that can be found.
He talks about the nervous system and the various sections, watching this I really got a sense that the neocortex, limbic system, and vagus system are a pretty "true" trichotomy.
Just as left/right brain hemispheres have legitimate anatomical as well as psychological differences, so do these three subsystems of the nervous system. And it seems to coincide with the enneagram's "Head, Heart, Gut" trichotomy. It's also the same thing enunciated by Plato as the "Tripartite Soul".
And for any theory/efforts to quantify human nature, it's very gratifying to have or build a model that reflects the reality of our biology as well. So it makes sense to me to have a psychological theory that runs parallel to the science; built on natural dichotomies... and I hope to help in this department.
So far what I gather about "the human soul" is that it's divided into:
1) Neocortex: Realm of conscious awareness/sentience (mental dialogue) and the use of processing for completion of tasks, for imagination, decision making, reason, even value judgment forming, auditory processing, visual recognition, association, etc. - - - - Right Hemisphere: Holistic perception, more organic reasoning, "intuition", imagery. - - - - - - - Fp2: "CEO" of perception - - - - Left Hemisphere: Delineation, differentiation of things, specificity, verbal analysis/grammar - - - - - - - Fp1: "CEO" of judgment
2) Limbic: Realm of more mammalian emotional responses, "emotional register", affection, attachment, bonding, sexuality, strong emotions of fear, rage, terror. Remembrance and long-term memory.
3) Vagus: Realm of fight-or-flight responses, anxiety, moods, gut feelings, ....but can also have a parasympathetic effect and calm the mind and body (serenity). Relaxation through deep breathing.
I find slide 31 on the PDF so interesting, in how it describes that the neocortex can be antagonist toward the limbic response and put up a "shield" against it. We have a response at one level, but an opposite attitude at the more "conscious" level.
It's quite fascinating to me to see more research being done to legitimize the existence of this phenomenon. I wanna run parallel studies on this too.
I like how Nardi is a mix between formal/professional but also very curious/correlative/associative. He's not dry and overly sterile in what he allows himself to say or speculate about. Some may consider him sloppy for the very same trait, but to me he is willing to draw parallels which the data supports and I get a sense that this is someone whose chasing the data with passion to see where it leads. Which isn't always the case when researchers are too focused on hitting publication goalmarks and trying to retain rapport; more worried about their academic standing than the physical world and how it works.
Love this guy!
ps. I really like his new modeling software; I wonder where I could find it.