Her presentation certainly seemed in the style of the great traveling charlatans and revival ministers. I think that’s what stuck me first and foremost about her. Eyes closed, hands raised to the heavens, a pleading voice, a building up of emotion, a use of repetition, an ecstatic rumbling conclusion. If the talk wasn’t presented as grounded in science and scientific observation and given public weight by her status as a neuroanatomist, I think most of us would either be moved by the talked or would have simply moved on with a roll of the eyes. It’s interesting and also annoying to see how susceptible we are still to these kind of performances, how much we grasp for meaning.

What is the purpose of bring out a real human brain with its dangly bits? She could have easily include a clear picture of the brain in one of her slides. But the effect of it was wonderful – the gasps of the audience, the putting on of the gloves, the demonstration that her authority as a scientist licensed her to hold this miraculous organ, the holding it up into the air, the invitation to us to enter her 19th century surgeon’s theater.

I don’t mean to suggest, of course, that she’s a charlatan. But the talk is not by a scientist and is actually inteclectually uninteresting and scientifically misinformed. It is, however, an impassioned performance by a woman struggling to shape and express her experience and her desire that the world be a better place, that through understanding there is no separate self we can create a more peaceful and compassionate world.

Or maybe it’s just an annoying, cloying, rather egocentric presentation elevated in a unquestioning public discourse.

Her presentation certainly seemed in the style of the great traveling charlatans and revival ministers. I think that’s what stuck me first and foremost about her. Eyes closed, hands raised to the heavens, a pleading voice, a building up of emotion, a use of repetition, an ecstatic rumbling conclusion. If the talk wasn’t presented as grounded in science and scientific observation and given public weight by her status by a neuroanatomist, I think most of us would either be moved by the talked or would have simply moved on with a roll of the eyes. It’s interesting and also annoying to see how susceptible we are still to these kind of performances, how much we grasp for meaning.

What is the purpose of bring out a real human brain with its dangley bits? She could have easily include a clear picture of the brain in one of her slides. But the effect of it was wonderful – the gasps of the audience, the putting on of the gloves, the demonstration that her authority as a scientist licensed her to hold this miraculous organ, the holding it up into the air, her invitation to us to enter her 19th century surgeon’s theater.

I don’t mean to suggest, of course, that she’s a charlatan. But the talk is not by a scientist and is actually inteclectually uninteresting and scientifically misinformed. It is however an impassioned performance by a woman struggling to shape and express her experience and the desire that the world be a better place, that through understanding there is no separate self we can create a more peaceful and compassionate world. Or maybe it’s just an annoying, cloying, rather egocentric presentation elevated in a unquestioning public discourse.

I have not read any pedantic pseudo-intellectual stuff in a long time. It hasnt changed over the years and is still as ridiculous as ever. Your oxy-moronic statements and catch phrases abound. Im sure you think yourself as oh so clever. In short, you could be a politician with your ability to talk so much and yet say nothing at all. I might add, you do it brilliantly enuff to even confuse yourself,- which is evident and so very obvious to me. You have missed the point of Taylor’s rant, but not to worry – you dont need anything she has to say, yet!!!

Good Luck to you,
Bobo

The key, it seems to me, is to strip away the showboating and unecessary emotive slant of the video and tv appearances and [try to] abstract the essence… and then to ask: “Is nothing that she experienced possible?”

It seems that science needs to first understand philosophy if it wants to denegrate ideas that are not immediately explainable… someone once said that science is the art of “putting in order the facts of experience…” Accordingly, the naysayers really out to restrict themselved to doing just that rather than cast doubts about a person’s ability to sing or write poetry…

Life is stranger than fiction; facts interfere with a good story…

Anthony

1. She talks about water hitting her chest like bullets while in the shower, light hurting her eyes, sounds becoming amplified, all the chatter and “noise” she was hearing, and yet at the same time she says that while she was in the “right side space” there was peace and unity? That doesn’t sound very peaceful to me.

2. She also talks about the “wonder of being alive” and sitting on the couch with a grin on her face. So where did all the noise and sensitivity to lights go? And sitting on the couch smiling doesn’t sound like a productive human life to me. Imagine, we’d still all be living in caves, or something like that.

3. Frankly, I’ve had the ability to go into that “NOW SPACE” for most of my life, mainly when I’m painting and so fully concentrating on the here and now shapes and colors that there is no past or future. But it’s a temporary thing. The chatter comes back, especially when I’m surrounded by other people where one has to pay attention and is forced to make judgments of what they say and do. One also has to be aware of the chatter to avoid danger because we are forced to judge and make choices with such simple things as just crossing a street.

4. When she spoke about making a choice to come back, that is “logic” working. It seems to me if she was really into that peaceful space that she talks about and being united with all, logic would not enter into it.

So, more than anything, the whole series left me puzzled, perplexed, in disbelief that she is for real or that her experience was for real. On the other hand, I do agree that when I am in the “NOW” while painting and feeling “connected” and “truly alive” there are no words to describe that, so perhaps she was just describing something that is difficult, if not impossible to describe. But I’m still skeptical about it all and the way everyone seems to have bought the story.

The only area she spoke of where I felt reasonably comfortable is when she spoke about taking responsibility for our thoughts. Yes, we can control out thoughts, but it takes huge amounts of effort and is simply not as simple as she says it is.

Thank you for reading, reflecting, thinking, discussing, and commenting. I am honored to have been in part a provocation for that.

As to your comments themselves, I agree that scientists often damage their capacity to interact with people by slavish, orthodox attachment to their methods, as you point out. Underneath all of that, I think the source of the difficulty is a collection of poor interpretations of what human beings are – which was, of course, what I was going after in the original posting.

As to JBT, I find her a powerfully compelling person, enchanting. Her ambition, I interpret, is to delve more deeply into the question of the human experience, and to show more of what a human being is. I share that ambition. But she’s trapped in the background to which you point.

I think your comments make a good contribution to the conversation. Thank you. Worth much more than 2 cents, and the left/right brain stuff, a poor metaphor for traditional Cartesian rational/emotional, male/female, subject/object atomization of the human being, deserves the happy face with which you adorn it.

All the best to you.