[Don Salmon]

Hi folks:

Clinical Psychologist (non-prescribing) here.

To the best of my knowledge, the current stats regarding effectiveness of treatments is this:

40% cure rate for severe clinical depression: placebo

41-44% cure rate: medication alone or CBT/interpersonal therapy alone

45-50% cure rate: medication + therapy

Philosophically, the most interesting stat here, to me, is the equal effectiveness of meds alone vs therapy alone.

This means decades of research continues to show that virtually all of the physiological effects that Gary describes may occur through therapy alone.

Now, another even more interesting philosophic point: nearly all the therapies they test are TALK therapies.

I haven’t seen much research on it, but I’d be willing to bet, if you included somatic therapies (I mean based in body awareness, not more meds) in the comparisons with meds, you’d see somatic therapies + mindfulness + contemplative heart-fulness + CBT alone would be far superior to meds alone, with an over 50% cure rate (and probably higher if you add meds)

To understand BOTH Iain’s hemispheric theories and the mind-body relationship in general, we really need to radically shift from our customary way of seeing things.

Here’s something to ponder:

Sri Krishna Prem (a British man who was the first non-Indian to be accepted into the Vaishnava order in India – the monastic worshippers of Krishna) once wrote:

we tend to think of Apollo as a myth about the sun.

A more accurate understanding of this is to consider the sun to be a myth of Apollo.

That’s a good start in understanding the relationship between the mind, the body and the Consciousness within which both exist.

[Don Salmon]

Hi John,

I read your articles; all very interesting. Could we perhaps take one particular event (smaller scale than an entire issue -just a particular event) and explore it from your perspective? I’d like to understand better how you’re approaching it.

I’ll suggest one, but feel free to take any. There’s been articles recently (early 2023) on how teens are becoming more and more depressed, lonely and anxious. How does understanding attention shed light on this?

I’m still using the word attention, following Iain’s own statement that it is the essence of the difference between the way each hemisphere approaches the world. If you’d prefer to speak of the divided brain, that’s fine as well.

Looking forward to learning more from you.

[Don Salmon]

Hi John – good timing. I read that article as well as a related one in The Atlantic.

I’ve followed the work of the author, Dacher Keltner, for some years. I’m sure he’s aware of Iain’s work, but you know how difficult it is for Iain to explain his work to people who’ve never come across it. The “sophisticated” audiences of the Times and the Atlantic would, I imagine, reject it immediately if the hemisphere hypothesis was included.

I find it, personally, best to avoid it in many of my live or written presentations, preferring instead to talk about narrow, objective, detached attention (LH) and wide, immersed attention (RH). Does the trick without all that need for explanations.

In fact, in terms of practice and experience, I’m not sure that Iain has ever come up with a definitive response to the question, how does this neuroscience help me practically?

I do have an answer though. For many if not most people who feel that “psychological” (or worse, contemplative or meditative) practices are somehow vague and not enough to deal with things like depression, anxiety, etc that allegedly have a “real” “physical” basis, talking in terms of neuroscience is a big help.

When I did work with chronic pain patients, BOY did it help to begin by explaining the gate theory and how the cerebral cortex and subcortical regions of the brain work together to produce nerve impulses and chemicals which affect pain responses in all areas of the body. After 1 or 2 sessions of reminding people of the “physical” correlates of experience, then I was free to talk of instinctive, emotional and mental responses to pain without having to bring in the brain again!

[Don Salmon]

Mark D, I’m sorry you keep misunderstanding me. Nothing I’ve said is the slightest bit insulting. Nor has anything I said been meant to “teach you.” If you want to try the practice, try it. If you don’t, don’t. But don’t be concerned, I won’t return to this group unless you write another comment completely misrepresenting everything I’ve said.

So why don’t we mutually accept silence?

[Don Salmon]

Hi Mark and Mark!

To Mark Delepine, there’s probably not much more that I could add but to say, practice of contemplation makes these kinds of discussions into something quite radically different. Here’s one framework from Tibetan Buddhist Alan Wallace

1. Very gently almost effortlessly attend to the spontaneous flow of breath. When you can do this – on a regular basis – for at least one hour without being carried away by thought, go on to step 2

2. Very gently almost effortlessly attend to the spontaneous flow of thoughts emotions, and any other phenomena arising in the mind. When you can do this – on a regular basis – for at least one hour without being carried away by thought, go on to step 3

3. Very gently almost effortlessly rest in the experience of simply being aware. When you can do this – on a regular basis – for at least one hour without being carried away by thought, turn your attention “around” and silently inquire: What is it that is aware of this awareness?

This is said to lead to perfect complete enlightenment. You’ll notice gradually that all of what you thought was your effort was being done for you. Then all discussion of God will become superfluous, just as in the Bhagavad Gita, it is said the wise person has as much need of sacred scripture as do inhabitants of a town need a well when the whole town is surrounded by a vast lake.

To Mark Harigan, everything I just wrote could be summed up by the word “unGod.” let go of all concepts (which is essentially what the Buddhist practice helps you do) and then we’ll talk!:>)))

[Don Salmon]

I’ve always loved Stephen’s writings. I do find that many (I would say most of us) benefit from this kind of detailed unfolding of science and assumptions underlying materialist science.

At the same time, a wholly “heart based” approach is just as much if not more powerful. By “heart” I don’t mean “emotion” as much as direct experience.

What is here now?

That’s a question that comes to mind throughout the day. it’s immensely helpful, I find, in “dropping” the story of “me” and coming into a more immersed, holistic awareness of the Divine.

[Don Salmon]

Thanks Charles for this very interesting post. I haven’t seen research on this but it is a fascinating point. Perhaps someone else has more information about this.

[Don Salmon]

I do hope you’ll tolerate one final note for me, as I promise never to write another comment on this forum. This way you won’t need to recontact Mary Attwood or anybody else about this.

I’m afraid we’ve misunderstood each other one more (and obviously one last) time. I had assumed it would be enough if I didn’t respond to you directly (ie keeping silent in relationship to you). I hadn’t *planned* to write either, but when Mark H mentioned my name, I had – evidently incorrectly – assumed if I don’t respond to you directly (ie keeping silent) it would be enough.

Obviously it wasn’t, therefore I won’t write *anything* in this particular topic area again. I’m so sorry, as I ascertained immediately you were an intelligent, thoughtful and (quite unusual these days) culturally literate person it would be fun to engage in a dialog with. I cited Hart in what I thought would be a friendly suggestion to consider an aspect of philosophy perhaps you hadn’t considered, and didn’t mean it to be anything critical. I apologize for failing to write clearly enough to get this across.

I also thought perhaps my reference to Iain’s medical experience was taken incorrectly as a direct reference to you, when I meant it to be an amusing story about left hemisphere overemphasis and perhaps lead to a shared smile between us. I apologize for what in retrospect I should have recognized could have been misunderstood.

And my reference to Alan Wallace’s contemplative experiment was not intended to be preachy or involve “telling” *anyone* what to do, and I’m sorry – and again apologize – that I didn’t contextualize it well enough to make this clear.

So this is my last comment in this particular topic area.

If we meet in another group, and you have a comment about something I wish to reply to, I’ll try to wait and respond to someone else so you don’t feel that I’ve acted inappropriately, contrary to my promise to be silent to you. I still hope that perhaps one day we may have a conversation on different terms and in a different spirit, and if I may, I will apologize once again, broadly, for these misunderstandings and my failure to communicate clearly.

[Don Salmon]

Hey Mark,

Clinical psychologist (composer/pianist in the old days here too)

Can you say a bit more about the practical use you find in Hillman’s writings and in Jung’s depth psychology as well?

There’s an interesting term that Frederick Meyers coined back in the late 1890s – “subliminal” – this encompasses and, I think, goes beyond much of what Jung and his followers (Like Marie von Franz) have described. Meyers refers to a vast wealth of experience which goes beyond anything we know of in the physical sciences.

Ed Kelly, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia, has a group of over a dozen physicists, philosophers, therapists, biologists and more who have come out with several books exploring the realms that contemplatives around the world have described. Ed was also involved in parapsychological research for years. His first book, Irreducible Mind, gathers together an amazing wealth of evidence for telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis and much more.

In terms of practice (for therapy or any other area) I wonder if you know about the latest trend in non-dualist therapy. It’s quite close to that practice I suggested from Alan Wallace. You could almost think of it as a “scientific” exploration of these subliminal worlds Meyers and Jung described, yet going even beyond that.

At the most practical level, I’ve found if introduced well, it has profound and VERY quick positive effects on patients. If you’re interested in practices, you might look at Loch Kelly’s work. For Mark D, you’d be amazed at how thoroughly Loch presents his work in a purely agnostic fashion. Doesn’t matter, he says, what people believe, the recognition of non dual awareness through practice, can have powerful healing effects for just about any challenge.

[Don Salmon]

Hi Mark:

Beautifully (and clearly) expressed. Mark D’s comment left me flummoxed, as what I wrote was the exact opposite of an appeal to authority (I don’t know if he thought my brief aside referring to Hart’s book – which is in Iain’s bibliography, was meant as part of some ‘argument”)

I mention this because the instructions I gave from Alan Wallace are meant to be practiced, not agreed with or disagreed with.

It’s actually quite fascinating comparing your comments with Mark D’s. What you described here and in your other comments is experiential. I tried in my suggestion for practice to direct Mark D’s attention away from abstract theorizing to a concrete scientific experiment in contemplation, but I guess while in abstract theoretical mode, it must have seemed like more theorizing (or an “appeal to authority”)

It’s always been interesting challenge, one I found as a psychologist, mindfulness teacher and especially in teaching music. If your whole way of approaching the world is through abstract, indirect left hemisphere activity, how do you invite people into right hemisphere experiential awareness, when everything you say is filtered through the abstract (and often quite argumentative) left hemisphere?

It reminds me of one of Iain’s favorite stories of his life as a med student. he had a patient who had a stroke and lost the use of his left arm. Iain was doing rounds and asked how the patient’s arm was, and he said, “Oh, it’s fine.”

Iain tried all kinds of ways to talk to him about the problems with his arm, but the patient kept insisting (not lying, actually BELIEVING IT) it was fine. Finally Iain went over and lifted the patient’s arm up, asked him to keep it raised, and then let go.

of course the arm dropped back to the bed. When Iain pointed this out, the patient said, “Oh, that’s not my arm, that’s the arm of the guy in the next bed.”

I’ll say it again – not as an argument but EXPERIENCE:

Try the experiment I suggested – observing the breath, then the passing thoughts, then simply being aware of awareness.

See what happens. The only authority here is you.

[Don Salmon]

“God as a being makes no sense to me”

I’m not aware of any religion, philosophy, mystic tradition, contemplative practice, yogic teaching, etc – anywhere on the planet, at any time in thousands of years of history, that genuinely takes “God” to be “A” being.

It’s kind of amusing. If you had never taken a class in physics (and perhaps you haven’t, or maybe you were a physicist, but imagine you had never read a book or taken a class on it) I’m willing to bet that you would feel somewhat hesitant to state your beliefs regarding the nature of gravity, electricity, the laws of nature, etc. Similarly with neuroscience, or engineering.

yet most people feel that religion/philosophy/psychology/yogic understanding is so superficial that it’s easy to dismiss it all while knowing essentially nothing about it.

In the bibliography of both of iain’s books, I would say that the best book of all is David Bentley Hart’s “The Experience of God: Existence Consciousness Bliss.” The last 3 words (Existence consciousness bliss) are a translation of the Indian name for Absolute, Infinite Being – Sat Chit Ananda.

one of the first points Hart makes in the book (and he repeats this many other places in his writings) is that most people who know little about philosophy speak of God as if it were A being. God is not A anything. the Word “God” refers to unthinkable, inconceivable, infinite, Being utterly and infinitely beyond all concepts.

Now, most people ignore the modifiers here, but the first step toward having even an infinitesimal glimpse of what the words in the previous sentence point to is to take seriously that this infinite Being is:

unthinkable

inconceivable

infinitely beyond all concepts

in a sense, that might substantiate your claim that it’s useless to discuss God. The key word which is correct here is “discuss.”

The first thing you learn in Contemplation 101 is all discussion goes out the window. Plotinus is famous for saying “From discussion let us go to vision.”

But vision also is unthinkable, inconceivable, infinitely beyond all concepts.

Now, all that you’ve written is within a kind of left-hemisphere conceptual box. But unthinkable and inconceivable are beyond the right hemisphere too.

So basically, the way I put it, to simplify things, is there’s no point in even having a conversation about infinite Being unless you’ve developed the capacity to be fully, vividly aware while at the same time verbal thinking is completely silent.

When you can do this for at least one hour, then it actually IS possible to have a genuine conversation about infinite Being. But it won’t be ABOUT infinite Being, it will BE infinite Being!

[Don Salmon]

Hi Mark:

I didn’t always get prompts either, but you might check – if you don’t get one now, write to the web folks; after the first few weeks I started getting regular prompts.

just one thought – something beyond BOTH hemispheres, I think.

There’s a beautiful word in Sanskrit, “shraddha,” which is sometimes translated as “faith.” Sri Aurobindo poetically describes it as “the light of the yet uprisen sun.”

That is, it is intimations shining forth from the depths of the Kingdom of Heaven within (from the Buddha Nature, the Tao, Allah; whatever word you wish to use).

From what little I know of orthodox Christian theology, this may have been the original meaning of faith but it has been corrupted in the modern, heavily LH age to mean mental belief.

My sense is just the way we all here have been responding to TMWT goes beyond LH AND RH – it is something that has touched our souls, thirsty for nourishment in this dry materialist desert of a world.

****

By the way, be mindful of whether you click “Notify me of replies via email” when you post a response. If you don’t you won’t get a prompt.

[Don Salmon]

Thanks!

[Don Salmon]

Well, as someone who finished the doctorate in psychology around 1999, my deepest sympathies.

I remember around some time in the 2nd year, a group of 8 of us were sitting around and we all had the same feeling: “Doesn’t it feel like we’ve spent our entire LIVES in this program!!”

So since I graduated, I’m often in touch with people about to do or in the midst of the doctorate and I always like to say, “Hey, really, there IS life after the doctorate.”

Your term “professional doctorate” doesn’t sound like you’re from the US – British?

And good luck. It’s a lot of work but well worth it. TIP! Many people go for the doctorate primarily to be therapists. If you can learn to enjoy evaluations, it pays VERY well – and I would urge you, even if you’re a little computer phobic, to get very very comfortable with online evaluations. I’m quite certain that neuropsychological testing, with precise measurements of galvanic skin response, brain waves, and many cognitive functions, is going to be the wave of the future. If you learn this stuff your job will never be outdated and you can earn enough to work just a few days a week if you live relatively simply.

[Don Salmon]

Hey Mark: Have you explored any meditative or contemplative practices?

It seems to me there are just about endless types of practices which address all the issues that Iain brings up (and address many he doesn’t bring up).

I’d love to see more discussion on this site about practices that can radically shift/transform attention:

recognizing stillness, spaciousness, silence underlying our mind’s constant chatter.

practices that directly enter into the “heart” – loving kindness, gratitude, etc

practices of Presence, which seems to me to go beyond LH/RH, though perhaps when we live with the RH as “Master” we have more access to Present

present moment practices, which seem to me to shift from LH to RH dominances

shifting from the “Story” of the LH to sensory awareness, particularly sounds, which I find the single most rapid and easiest way to shift from LH to RH dominance.