Jump to content
Science Forums

Brain hemispheres and theory


Recommended Posts

The differences between the two cerebral hemispheres have been discussed with the left more analytical and logical and the right more intuitive and spatial. To better explain this distinction consider the color yellow. If one went to a paint store, there are dozens of yellows to choose from. The right hemisphere sees a commonality in all the yellows and would lump them as yellow, due to the integral nature of the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is more differential and will allow us to see the suble distinctions between the dozens of yellows.

 

If we showed somebody just one swatch, both hemispheres would sort of be in agreement, seeing it as a yellow. With two swatches the differentiation approach of the left will see the distinctions, while the integral approach of the right would still see yellow. The names sort of reflect this parallel processing, with lemon yellow, sunrise yellow, etc., reflecting both their distinctions and commonality.

 

If one wanted to exploit this natural integral approach of the right hemisphere, using knowledge, instead of color, as input data, the left will notice the distinctions between various orientations, while the right would organize these distinctions into an integration or commonality. This is the approach I tried to take with respect to science and knowledge. With a good center it becomes easier to make quick judgements.

 

Let me give an example. The hydrogen bonding model for life is based on something that is common to all the important stuff in the cell. This was the integral variable that came about for the life sicences. It still needs to be differentiated to suit the left hemisphere orientation of science. The left hemisphere has tried to develop its own integration variable called DNA. But if one looks at this variable its practical use stops once proteins are made. The other 90% of the cell operates without the DNA doing anything beyonde making proteins. The DNA variable just can not cut the mustard with respect to the integral utility of the cell. Yet, it remains firmly in place as the standard. The reason this is so is that although science is trying to be left hemisphere, factoring out emotion, it can not completely shut off the subjective nature of the right hemisphere. This creates an irrational attachment to the cure-all DNA.

 

What needs to happen is a marriage between the two hemispheres when conducting science. Some people are more skilled at right hemisphere commonality and others more skilled at left hemisphere differentiation. The integral approach hits common center better, while the differential approach is better able to define minute details. Both have a use and both have their own limitations.

 

One may think we would create more jobs with a differential approach to science due to its inherant tendancy to create many centers. But the opposite is true. A common center speeds up the rate of discovery and innovation, which creates exponential job opportunities. This sort of happened in the 1980's with computers. At first, anyone could start a computer business in both hardware and software because their was no common standards and because they all worked fine. After the shakedown that integrated the computer industry, employment increased due to the faster rate of innovation due to integrated efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to build on this foundation by looking at male sexuality. Men are often called dogs by females because of their sexual attraction to almost all women. I know myself, it doesn't matter if a female is rich-poor, tall-short, blond-brunette-redhead, well dressed-peasant dressed, smart-stupid, emotional-poised, etc., if she is attractive... One may notice that natural male sexuality has all the characterists of being right hemisphere in nature. It centers wide varieties of females around a type of commonality associated with the female essense. Marriage moves male sexuality into a more differential state, with sex limited to his wife.

 

Female sexuality is far more differential in nature. Typically, women will set some type of condition that narrows down the types of men. It could be marriage, money, job, charm, power, prestige, sensitivity, friendship, smile, motorcycle, criminal, etc. These basic obsrvations indicates differential sexuality and the left hemisphere. The male sexuality, being integral or more right hemisphere, includes and extends way beyond any of these differential boundries. It is the female essense that is important rather than just a external wapper.

 

Where I am heading with this is, science theory and the two cerebral hemispheres. Integral science being more right hemisphere is masculine science. While differential science, which is more left hemisphere is feminine science. Sometimes I want to b*tch slap science. I don't not mean this in any disrespectful way to the females of science. In fact, I highly respect them because they are acting within their natural nature as females. The men on the other hand, are using a feminine approach that is out of touch with their natural natures as men.

 

This is not the whole story of science. The right hemisphere in men is still important but is used primarily for masculine motivation such a drive, desire, etc. But rather than translate this 3-D output, the masculine emotional expression of the 3-D integration is left nebulous and becomes drive for science manipulation within the left hemisphere. This drive will make men pioneers, willing to push forward against all the odds, but the output method is typically feminine. In this respect, modern science is only part masculine and part feminine. Gay science may not be the best term but it is sort of a fitting analogy with respect the hemispheres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only talking about instinctive sexuality. If we add the second half of human sexuality to the the picture the situation reverses with respect to gender. The second half is connected to the instinctive needs of children. For example, natural maternal love is more unconditional with respect to the differences within children. This is integral love that is more right hemisphere. Natural paternal love is more conditional or differential with respect to children, i.e, establish guidelines for optimized behavior. With humans it is hard to separate sexuality from the maternal and paternal connection that is also at work. The result will make human sexuality appear more distributed in the brain for both sexes.

 

If one was cold blooded, the woman will marry the old geiser for money. This would be 2-D female sexuality without 3-D maternal. While the male will bang anything that moves, 3-D sexuality without 2-D paternal. If we add the paternal and maternal element, the male will begin to differntiate the specific needs of good mate and a woman will look for more integrated connections in her choice of mate. One can find everything in the middle making hemisphere separation less than clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't sexuality be more related to the hypocampal and amydalal regions? Your focus is on cortex, and I contend that it's much deeper than that. Also, start looking at what's been done already with research in these fields so you can support and adjust your statements when appropriate.

 

 

Cheers. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...