Camera Double Spirit

Camera Double Spirit

Beyond the mental man and man neuronal

To develop a true science of man, it should be, not only to get rid of literary, but also, to an antagonism of the neuron (nerve, which is on one side of the body) and psyche: the spirit of l, this means that all the others who We don not know where you are. In other words, what I would like to show you today is that these two schools of thought, which are the neurosciences and psychoanalysis, are governed by a completely outdated dualism, and despite the many debates that are still generating even today, here or there.

In the neurosciences, has a absolutely extraordinary scientific apparatus and, on the other hand, this neuroscience is entitled to search the cortical packaging … but what? Scholars have not raised the question of how to formulate with precision the "facts" they present to their devices. Again, your devices are absolutely wonderful, but which is used for electroencephalography, magnetic resonance scanners images, etc that is what they are doing, in general, some of these specialists? Well! Put a guy in a camera, and say, "Go!" Think! "And then these scientists say to you:" Do you see the light? On the right, left! Oh, there! But I ask the question "What is thinking?" At that time, they will seat, and they will say "serious problem! Do not know of that. "After all, this is the projection of the natural sciences (" science "nat") we try to apply it in a simplified form, which is the source faculty of knowing or knowledge "(That's why we call it as a" cognitive "something to give.) is the" neuronal man "by Pierre Changeux.

Most formidable, yet, claim to give neuroscience a report for almost all phenomena of culture. Thus, some are asking neurobiology, with the utmost seriousness, if there is a gay gene, a gene of love, and even a God gene! I'm not making this up I have here a special issue of "Science and Life "magazine devoted to the issue. It seems that" neurotheology "work! It is done:" It was found (I quote) the crucial role of a small molecule to be among those who have faith. "The neurotheologue" was questioned about the nature of God, and here is his response: "For Of course, the definition of God that we use is not the theologian, that accurately reflect the nature of the attributes of God. For us, it is simply defined as a superior entity, often invisible, and the origin of the world. "We are quite advanced!

And again I searched, a magazine of a "serious" one ("The world of religions"), which has devoted a file review to the question: "Are we programmed to believe?" I can not resist reading the first lines of the first article: "The spectacular advances in neuroscience, particularly brain imaging techniques have contributed to skip the "ecstasy" scanner. Brain images of a Buddhist … "(But is Buddhism a religion?) …" The brain in meditation Buddhist or the decade of the Franciscans of prayer have shown a particular neurological status, which opens the way to speculate: is the brain programmed to believe, or religions "derivative" of cognitive processes? I am not inventing anything. It is from Bouvard and Pecuchet, no more no less! You laugh about neurotheology "." Well, be aware that, in his latest book, Changeux has invented, somehow, the neuroepistemology "," and "neuroethic" ("Truth, beauty, good") "It is huge!" Flaubert laugh. I've said enough, I think, that you understand that the neurosciences are now, a real end of the route. Why? Because this does not have a model of human rationality, the questions they ask are foolish. The most frightening is that the neurosciences, take it all! All shoots are thrown at them. Why is that? Here again, because this seems serious.

If the neurosciences represent currently, the "nat-science" applied to man, we can say that psychoanalysis is still practicing his art (which are less and less numerous, it is true, and in less ten years, no longer exist), and is something that philosophers "new man" talk a lot about losing sight of one of the great Greek myths, condemning to a neo-philosophy: they represent the persistence of the philosophers of the Renaissance, as neuroscience represent the continuation of the "NAT-science" from the same period. They are dependent on the tradition of conventional arts, the other of positivism. It is true that we can say that either of the two schools has not even a foot, in the context of a genuine science of man.

In fact, we consider that the neurosciences and psychoanalysis are only sciences and a half. Some of them are absolutely wonderful scientific apparatus, and not to make progress every day, but they have no model of man, not build their data. The other – the psychoanalysts, with this double bottom that arise in terms of rights and what they call "unconscious" clearly defines your data, but have no scientific laboratory to test the validity and its model of man and the tone you take it. You see where it comes from their antagonism, the antagonism that is not taking sides. In other words, neuroscience is real science they have a technical apparatus that is in constant progress every day, but those are the real science of a false object, because they have no idea of what a man. With regard to psychoanalysis, we can say that is the false science of a real object. Then a little more conciliatory and another, say, "well let's put some of ours: perhaps we can understand. And seeing that in the end, we are compatible. "But what can I ask you, the amalgam of nonsense (for what the mix is possible). How, for example, will you hear of are God's cognitive effect of a molecule, and psychoanalysts who make a neurosis or "sublimation" of sexuality (Confused in the hope that it inspires)?

Honestly, we can take from psychoanalysis, which Freud had invented, the beginning of a full understanding of this confrontation, which his successors, laziness or impotence, have totally neglected. The unfortunate Freud, basically, was betrayed by his heirs. About what you were dreaming? About one day biology will find cortical container psychoses of neurosis, Freud etc, which was infinitely more intelligent than today's, wrote in 1920: "Biology is a field actually unlimited possibilities. We to wait for the lights as the lights more surprising, and we can not guess the answers that will, in a few decades, the questions we ask. Such time will be, probably, replies, and will bring down the whole edifice of our assumptions artificial "(Gesammelte Werke). We wonder whether analysts have not read Freud! This self-christened "Viennese neurologist" has not stopped saying that: "All I say is very nice, but what will remain is poetry if we develop a new biology. "Why again? Because" veterinarian "era of biology of his time, was insufficient for mental illness he was studying.

Well, this new biology in which Freud was presenting the emergency (and dreaming), Jean Gagnepain masterfully presented the bases in the last book published before his disappearance, and that presents more than one ("one of the reasons more or one less – About of medicine and theology), in particular the first part of his work called "Spirit of the body, thanks anthropology. "Anthropology" Why? Because it is biology that does not reduce what is, in humans or in chimpanzees, but the biology of the diseases of man, which does not exclude Of course, taking account of the pathologies that we share with animals. Knowing these things, this will certainly do the Oedipus complex, "no longer exist, whether narcissism "," no relationship "dual" and all that. Continue to teach psychoanalysis model as a dogma is today quite ridiculous.

You see Jean Gagnepain is the end of the perennial debate about dualism: mind and matter, psyche against the neuron, angel against evil, etc, which is still working on the minds: no one accepts to have a sick mind, but everyone agrees that a nerve little crazy, especially with stress of modern life etc! It is true that there is a little more than a century of psychiatry to distinguish psychastheniques disease (psyche) and the neuron (bad), I mean, first, "psychopath" (According to the traditional terminology of psychiatry), who were mentally ill, and in contrast, "neurotic" they were, as we say "sick man of raw nerves." But now we can not accept the separation of the neuron and the psyche. The dualism is weakened, we can not say anything about the culture of pathology, which has a crust packaging, and therefore neurological disorders. At the end we will have to call the psychology of Neuroscience "Human" and neurology, at least he is not interested, but only in multiple sclerosis, the "human psychology." You have there, in one and the same framework, (and we must insist on the fact that there is only one), two aspects of one reality. We do not have the right to object, so it dualistic that is, the beast and what is the angel. In fact, neurology and psychology are two aspects, natural or cultural, and what is human. In short, there is neurology, or psychology that no one science, it is precisely this "anthropology" whose authorship belongs to Jean Gagnepain.

At the same time, is not to the share of somatic and psychic. There somatic everywhere. If we do not bark we could not have, no more, the powers we have now. What we have to review is by no means the relationship between soma and psyche giving more importance to one or the other: it must be admitted that everything is psyquesomatique … or psychosomatic (call as you want). A man is a complete, so it is not possible to separate the factors that constitute it. I mean, we to understand the contradiction of neurology and psychology, in order to better understand the difference in performance of animals and humans function. This difference was not far enough questions. Or, more accurately, it is raised by various specialists (for, ethnologists, psychologists, or neurologists) if they fail, they will not invade the field of others without having to go, not a commitment, (I told you it was impossible) but to an overrun of their differences.

In other words, we must remember that man is a spiritual body or spiritual body, as you want. It is absurd to hold that a spirit is intangible. The spirit is the function of the body: we have a body different from the chimp, I mean, a body capable of making us access to the powers that are language, technical, society and the rules. It is true that we can not say that the body is the house, and there is a spirit that moves inside. The spirit is the function of the body we have.

Under these conditions, and it is with these words I will conclude, to understand that talking about materialism or spiritualism is philosophical nonsense. Why? Because on the one hand, put the body on the other, the spirit. But why should we favor one or another? Speaking of the spirit as something that has nothing to do with the body or speak on the body as something that has nothing to do with the spirit is not important. It is a matter of choice in one form or another. We are neither body nor spirit, but a particular body type that allows us to develop the mind.

mediation www.theory>

About the Author

Jean-Luc LAMOTTE, Anthropologist and essayist
Disciple of Jean Gagnepain, he published an Introduction in the Theory of the Mediation in the publishing De Boeck (2001), and contributes, at present, to spread the thought of the Master.
Teacher who has passed aggregation by classical literature, he taught at first the linguistics to the College of the Letters of Beirut (University of Lyon), then professed during ten years in preparatory classes in the entrance examinations of the superior teachers’ training colleges (in Montpelier, then in Versailles).
His career led him, on the other hand, to put itself in the service of the distribution of our language and our culture abroad (Means-0rient, Morocco, the United Kingdom). He also had the honor to collaborate in the works of the service of the publications of the Académie française.
Since 1991, he dedicates itself to his researches in clinical anthropology, led within the framework of the activities of the School of Rennes (University of Haute-Bretagne).

Girl Attacked by Ghost Spirit Demons Caught On Camera