Conference hydra::dejavu

    Listen to toys and teapots,
    little birds and wind chimes,
    winds and waters, strength and sight,
    pictographs and starry night,
    dead tongues and silly rhymes,
    metaphors and verbal knots.
    
    Pat
    

    Re .0 (Joe Jas):
    
    >	The English language is a highly structured thing, bound by
    >a large # of gramatical rules that dont necessarily make sense until
    >you know the structure inately. Perhaps this is one reason why English
    >is difficult for people raised within a different language structure
    >to learn. My guess is that English language itself is a left brain
    >operation.
     
    The English language is very complexly structured, and quite flexible
    as to nuance.  To take a triviality, the positional relationship
    of one word can change entirely the meaning of a sentence.
    
    Take the sentence, "I hit him in the face."  Add the word "only."
    
    "Only I hit him in the face." means nobody else did.
    "I only hit him in the face." means I didn't kick him in the ribs,
                                  or otherwise batter him.
    "I hit only him in the face." means I didn't bother anyone else.
    "I hit him only in the face." means I may have hit him a lot, but
                                  nothing below the neck.
    
    There's sufficient flexibility so that nuances of meaning can be
    word-position dependent.
    
    _Symbols, Signals, and Noise_, by John R. Pierce (out of print,
    but available in some libraries) is a popularization of communication
    theory (Claude Shannon's _A Mathematical Theory of Communication_
    is the uncut stuff, but it doesn't appeal to every taste), and it
    goes into the structure of language from an enginering viewpoint.
    Good stuff, if you're technically inclined.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re: .0

The problem *could* be seen to be not so much with brain function but 
with the difference in _mind_ and _brain_ and the connection between the 
two.  If the mind is seen as the controlling, observing, and registering 
body, and the brain is seen as the *tool* whereby the mind accomplishes 
its tasks, then the brain doesn't have any *needs* of a mental nature.  
In this context, the mind is like a carpenter and the brain is like a 
hammer.  The hammer doesn't *need* a nail.  The carpenter determines the 
need for a nail and then uses the hammer to accomplish the his task. The 
hammer definitely makes contact with the nail, but not of its own 
volition; it is simply wielded by the carpenter.  

Therefore, in this same context, self-esteem would not actually reside 
in either side of the brain, but in the mind.  The brain, as a physical 
tool of the mind, starts off new and clean, slowly wears out or 
completes its functions, and then is discarded.  The carpenter finishes 
with one hammer, then gets a new one (next incarnation).  Similarly, 
the mind doesn't die at the end of an incarnation, but goes on to the 
next with all of the knowledge and impressions which have been gained.
    
Regarding language, it does have an affect, to some extent, on the brain 
function in that it makes up a large part of the environment in which the 
brain must function.  The left or right side of the brain may be more or 
less effective as a tool depending on the nature of the language.

Jeff

    English is not the only language to reside in the left hemisphere.
    Most do.  One of the special structures in the left hemisphere is
    Broca's Area, which coordinates language use.  I have heard that
    the Japanese use both hemispheres for language processing, but this
    is the only exception I know of to the rule, going by national groups.
    
    Going by individuals, the rule is far from hard and fast.  Many
    left-handed people and a few right-handed people may have linguistic
    abilities in the right hemisphere.  In general, men tend to specialize
    hemispherical functions more than women.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: .3
    
        I agree with what you state.  Evidence for this comes in noticing
    the brain structure of infants and comparing it to that of adults.
    There appear to be many more "connections" in infants than in adults
    (and I forget in what context.)  This would indicate to me that
    infants have a greater *potential* than adults do...and by virtue
    of growth eliminate some of that potential and set only certain
    of the "connections" in concrete, vis a vis--left brain and right
    brain.  Moreover, people who have lost function of one side over
    the other can be taught, even if poorly, how to perform the other
    functions that the opposite side had once "held."  So, to that extent,
    language can be learned from the other side, thinking can be learned
    from the other side, motor control, etc. can be learned from elsewhere,
    feeling can be accomplished in other ways as well.  To the extent
    that people don't do it is not necessarily an indication of the
    brain's inability to do so...beliefs, attitudes--along with
    desire, expectation, imagination and intent...provide "reasons"
    for the limited reality. 
    
    Frederick
    

RE 0. (Joe)    
>    	Where does self esteem reside when all inputs about the self
>    are rendered in a completely different language structure that,
>    say, has few consonants - mostly vowels, such as in Asian languages?

Joe,

I haven't seen "The infinite Voyage", so maybe I am asking something that is
explained in that series.

To me, it seems highly doubtful that self-esteem is in any way related to the
language people speak. True, a language does constrict the way we look at
reality (it is far more easy to distinguish between two concepts when you have
two different words for it, than to distinguish in a situation where both
concepts are generally addressed to with the same word).

But why should that influence self-esteem? I read your question as if you want
to be able to answer the following quesion: what language do people have to
learn when they want the highest self-esteem. Is this correct? 

Curious,

Arie

I've been doing some right-brain work lately.  I know I'm accessing information 
that surprises me and that I hadn't accessed before.  Sometimes, it's like two 
different people within me, each having a lot in common with the other, but 
there are subtle differences.  I know that accessing the right brain has done a 
lot for my esteem/confidence.  So the logical side of my brain ;-) says that it 
should work the other way, too.

Incidentally, when I'm writing from my right brain, my grammar goes down the 
toilet and I forget how to capitalize, or so it seems.

    If IV really said this (I missed it) I'm rather disappointed.
    
    There is some differentiation between the brain-halves.  At least
    99% of what is said about that differentiation is complete and
    utter nonesense.
    
    What goes in which half is a subtle and complex distinction which can be
    *very* loosly summarized by the analytic/local vs intuitive/global
    distinction usually made.
    
    There are multiple speech centers, dealing with different aspects
    of speech, in the brain.  Some of them are on the left and some
    are on the right.  One of them (the single most important but still
    only one of them), the so-called "primary speech center" is on
    the left.  When someone talks with an EEG attached, both sides of
    their brain "light up" like a Christmas tree.
    
    Generally, whatever we are doing, are brains are operating equally
    with both hemispheres.  Pictures you may have seen showing lateralized
    brain activity from PET or complex EEG systems are made by subtracting
    out the usual very homogenous signal and amplifying the difference.
    Its really a very small effect, albeit important to neurologists.
    
    Unless you have had the two halves of your brain seperated surgically
    or have had an anasthetic injected into one half of your brain but
    not the other, brain hemisphere specialization is irrelvant, the
    left and right halves of your brain are in more intense communication
    than the front and back halves.
    
    I have seen a discussion (in Science?) hypothesizing that Japanese
    speakers are somehow more right-brained in their speech neural
    anatomy.  There was no direct evidence presented for the hypothesis
    and the argument seemed incredibly naive about both neurology and
    linguistics.  It was also a bit racist (mostly pro-Japanese).  I
    was a bit surprised that it had been published.  Unless someone
    has done something more concrete, I would put this in the category
    of wild speculation.
    
    Lets look at the distinction between analytic vs intuitive for a
    moment ignoring any question of its association with neuroanatomy.
    Specifically lets look at the hypothesis that our culture is primarily
    analytic.  Lets make some predictions on that basis and see whether
    it stands up:
    
    		1) Analytic music (like Bach) would be extremely popular
    		   while less analytic musi (like most Rock and Roll)
    		   would be generally unpopular, listened to only by
    		   a relatively small group of afficianados.
    
    		2) Politicians would campaign almost exclusively on
    		   issues (however distorted and misleading their
    		   presentation -- an analytic bias does not imply
    	 	   skill in its use).
    
    		3) Advertising would emphasize facts and pseudo-facts
    		   rather than image or association.
    
    I could continue, but why bother, the idea is thoroughly falsified.
    The problem is not any intrinsic bias in our society towards one
    or the other but a lack of skill in using either and an even greater
    lack of skill in using them together.  If there is a bias it is
    towards the "don't think -- just do" idea, but the bias is minor
    compared to the general incompetence at either one.
    
    					Topher

    
    	A love poem is written in English, with tight structuring (rhymes)
    and is very emotionally assuring to the reader. A love poem is written 
    using only vowels (AEIOU), in a different language, also conveying to
    the reader emotional assurance that they are loved or whatever. Are the
    mechanisms of emotional recognition the same in each case?
    
    	A song is written where the emotional content is expressed in 
    words; the music only supports the vocals. (An extreme example is 
    "rap" music - which, BTW to me is not "music") Another song is written 
    where the emotional content is expressed by an instrumental melodic
    line. (i.e. Jazz, which, BTW to some is also not "music") Are the
    mechanisms of emotional content recognition the same? Is there a
    blend? Can some resolve the verbal content meaning but not the melodic
    content meaning? Can others resolve the melodic content meaning but
    not the words? See how this conveys what we beg to call "the same
    thing" but by coming into one's perception in two very different ways!
    Perhaps it's not the same at all.
    
    I still claim that perception of self may be inextrictably linked
    to the language structure we use. Were comparing a structure based
    on literal meanings vs a structure based on analogies. A rigorous
    formula vs a painted picture. It shall be vs It looks like. Where
    does the perception of Beauty reside? What language was being spoken
    when *the* so called "area responsible for language recognition"
    was identified. Why is there a distinction between what brain areas 
    "light up" when one plays music off the sheet, vs playing it from
    what "sounds like it's right"?
    
    This is all not worth arguing over - it's all just a thought that
    was sparked by what I heard on the Infinite Voyage about a commonality
    between "self esteem" and the "insatiable need for logical completion".
    
    	Joe Jas            

    I remember some distinction in the right/left analogues of 
    'Broca's area' as to singing vs speach.  Both sides can
    connect language to vocalization.  One is better at
    structured speach, the other better at singing.  An
    example is Mel Tillis, whose stuttering during speach
    vanishes when he sings....MWR
    

    As a data point, I recently recognized or "discovered" something
    about myself related to self esteem upon writing it down and seeing
    it.  This was after talking about it for a couple of weeks.

    Re: .10
    
    I understood that the reason stuttering "vanishes" or
    eases during singing is because of the rythmic patterns
    in music.  I read somewhere that speech therapists are
    teaching chronic stutterers to sing on a regular 4/4 beat
    and then removing the music.  Then the rythm is applied
    to normal speech and much of the stuttering problem goes
    away.
    
    Nanci

    In a previous career effort as a musician, I studied a lot of music
    theory.  Most of my compatriots hated it; I found I loved it.  I
    had always received experienced strong emotional impact from music,
    especially rhythmic and chordal motifs.  What music theory taught
    me was the "why" of the structure, and what emotional hit the composer
    might be trying to produce by employing a particular musical form.
    As I learned, I began to listen to music with both brains -- and
    my pleasure was doubled.  The way I often experienced it was: get
    a rush of emotion from a particular passage, simultaneously analyze
    the nature of the structure of the passage, feel a tremendous rush
    of pleasure as well as respect for the composer at having used that
    structure in that particular way.
    
    I found the same was true when I began to study the belly dance.
    Many other dancers seemed to either analyze, in a left-brained fashion,
    every movement, but have no "feeling" for the dance, and others never
    wanted to learn any technique, convinced that, if they could only
    turn off their left brains completely, Terpsichore would strike
    them in their 3rd eyes and they would dance magnificently.  I found
    that courting a state of consciousness in which both sides were
    in synch worked wonderfully, and some of my best performances were
    done in a kind of trance, where the the left brain allowed me to be
    analytically aware of what I was doing while the right brain gave
    me intiutive inspiration to respond to the musical or audience needs
    of the moment.  I was simultaneously deep in the experience, but
    aware; involved and yet observing.
    
    That is a state not to be missed; it has produced for me the peak
    experiences that I have called "centeredness" and "unity" and "complete
    wholeness".
    
    Marcia