Archive for the ‘Psychology’ Tag

Faltering Lines and Insecure Distances

The inner life has its soft and gentle beauty; an abstract formlessness as well as a subtle charm like a figure in a foggy painting with faltering lines, insecure distances, and a merging of grey and black. An emotion or a mood is a mere wisp of color that is shaded off and made to spread until it becomes one with all that surrounds it.

Whatever we do not know, in order to conceal our limitations or hide our imperfections, we either say that it is non-existent or we will say it is an abstract. In the universe, whatever comes within the scope of our senses or within the periphery of our perception, we say, “It is,” and whatever is beyond the arena of the senses or jurisdiction of perception, we cannot say anything. Hence, our world functions within the limitations of our senses and perceptions.

In the realm of cosmic introvert or extrovert phase, “subtle” is transmuted into “crude”, and “crude” is metamorphosed into “subtle”. In this progress, there are subtler objects in the scope of matter – many objects subtler than electrons or protons or positrons, but we find no alternative but to say that they are either electron or proton or positron or neutron. Similarly in the psychic sphere, there may be entities subtler than ectoplasm or its extra-psychic coverage, endoplasm.

There are entities which come within the realm of both physicality and psychic expressions which are smaller or subtler than atoms, electrons or protons, and in the psychic realm may be subtler than ectoplasm. For such objects or entities which come within the realms both of physicality and of psychic expression and smaller and subtler than physical atoms and subatomic particles, and in the psychic realm they can be subtler than mind–stuff, and contribute to "pure consciousness."

They may not be of the same density or subtlety. Some of them may come within the range of a highly developed microscope; others, by their expression, faculty or vibrations come within the scope of our perception. They are of subtler order. There may be still more subtle forms which may not come directly within the scope of our perception but may come within the scope of a special type of perception which is actually the reflection of conception within the range of perception in a limited sphere.

Special perception may be felt or realized by persons having highly developed, spiritual minds. By dint of our spiritual practice, our minds will develop in all strata, and the power of conception will also develop and we can know the secrets of these mysterious cosmic factors.


Posted June 11, 2014 by dranilj1 in Introverts

Tagged with , , , ,

People Literally Can Feel Pain of Others

Experience of ‘auras’ around people may be result of a neuropsychological condition called synesthesia. Synesthesia is a fascinating condition which causes a cross-wiring of the senses. People with it find they can taste numbers or associate particular colors with certain people. It is a condition in which one type of stimulation evokes the sensation of another, as when the hearing of a sound produces the visualization of a color. A sensation felt in one part of the body as a result of stimulus applied to another, as in referred pain. It is the description of one kind of sense impression by using words that normally describe another.

Rather than being weird, spooky or mystical, it is now a recognized neuropsychological phenomenon which is thought to affect about 4% of the population. Synesthesia may help to explain the claim that people have auras; a subtle field of energy around them, which can be read. It may be that seeing this ‘energy field’ is a type of synesthesia.

One example of this cross-over between New Age beliefs and recognized neuropsychological phenomena is the case of Esteban, a faith healer from southern Spain. Researchers from the University of Granada have examined him and found that he has mirror-touch synesthesia. Mirror-touch synesthesia is a phenomenon in which the mere observation of another person being touched causes the observers to experience a touch on their own body. The condition is quite rare, with an estimated prevalence of 1.6% in the general population.

Two main features set this condition apart from other synesthesia. First, the primary unique feature of mirror-touch synesthesia is that the relationship between the inducer (the sight of the touch), and the concurrent sensation (the synesthetic, felt touch) involves a similar sensory experience between the person who is touched and the observer. Yet, this shared representation for the viewed and felt touch is not unique to synesthesia. Even in non-synesthetic individuals, witnessing someone else undergoing a given tactile sensation activates brain areas normally involved when one experiences the same sensation, the so-called ‘tactile mirror system.’ This mapping, in turn, enables an automatic and unconscious simulation of others’ somatic states, supporting our ability to understand others’ sensations.

The second fascinating aspect of mirror-touch synesthesia is its association with empathy. Mirror-touch synesthetes, both developmental and acquired following sensory loss, show higher levels of affective empathy than non-synesthetes. This relationship further links synesthesia with general mechanisms of sensory simulation, rather than with processes unique to synesthesia.

For these features, mirror-touch synesthesia may be considered as an extreme version of a normal process involving the simulation of others’ corporeal sensation. These sensations are classified as synesthesia when conscious experiences occur, namely, when the sight of a touch elicits conscious tactile experiences on the observer’ own body. But what causes synesthetic sensations to emerge? Evidence from neuroimaging experiments suggests that the experience of mirror-touch synesthesia may be related to heightened excitability within the tactile mirror system. In a recently published paper in Current Biology, an attempt is made at verifying whether an increased excitability of the somatosensory cortex could actually cause the emergence of mirror-touch synesthesia even in non-synesthetes.

To this aim, transcranial direct current stimulation is used; which is a non-invasive technique of brain stimulation that can increase cortical excitability, in combination with a task developed for the study of mirror-touch synesthesia. It is found that, by allowing the somatosensory cortex to reach a certain activation threshold non-synesthetic individuals became slower at localizing a site touched on their hand, for example, a felt touch on the left hand, when they simultaneously viewed a touch to the opposite hand, for example, a viewed touch on the right hand. This is a behavioral pattern typical of mirror-touch synesthesia. This interference effect implies that during somatosensory cortical stimulation non-synesthetes are confused by the viewed touch, which becomes difficult to be distinguished from the real touch. This phenomenal experience occurs only when viewing a touch to a human body part, being absent if objects are touched, as also shown in synesthetes. Noteworthy, individual emphatic abilities predict the emergence of mirror-touch responses during the stimulation of the somatosensory cortex: when you look at a person who is being touched, your ability to “put yourself in his/her shoes” is associated with synesthesia-like responses induced by somatosensory cortical stimulation.

These synesthetic phenomena, along with high levels of empathy, and a slightly delusional personality, mean one has special emotional and pain reading skills. In Estaban’s case, there is some relationship between his synesthesia and his perceived special abilities. To further examine the claim, researchers looked specifically at four synesthetes who don’t claim any special ‘New Age’ abilities. They then compared this with known faith healers and aura readers who do claim special abilities. A large enough overlap between the two might suggest a causal role for synesthesia.

The researchers, though, found too many differences between the experience of synesthetes and those claiming to read auras. This does not mean that the aura readers are really seeing auras, just that their ‘powers’ can be explained by alternative means. Seeing auras may instead be a result of the normal functioning of the visual system: The complementary color effect, which results from a temporary ‘‘exhaustion’’ of the color-sensitive cells in the retina, could account for the presence of auric colors seen by a sensitive viewer when staring at a person. Staring at a darker object against a bright background may induce the perception of a bright ‘‘halo’’ around the object,” or it could be that ‘aura readers’ simply see what they want or expect to see, and perhaps invoking synesthesia is too complex an explanation for a much simpler cause.

In summary, mirror-touch synesthesia reflects general vision-touch matching mechanisms, which may underpin our ability to simulate others’ sensations. Importantly, it is also based on an increased activity of cortical areas concerned with bodily sensations. Under normal conditions, the somatosensory system is physiologically active below the threshold of perceptual awareness when we observe other’s tactile experiences. This may be due to inhibitory processes, which prevent one from experiencing the observed sensation. The absence, or reduction, of this physiological inhibitory control in the somatosensory system may, consequently, lead to the experience of mirror-sensory synesthesia. Moreover, differences in empathy reveal themselves in the extent to which individuals respond, physiologically, to seeing others being touched.

Posted October 23, 2013 by dranilj1 in COGNITION

Tagged with , , , , , , ,

We Build Our Own Reality!

A right way of looking at things will see through almost everything. Think for a moment about a bee. A bee stung a boy, and the boy says the object of the bee is to sting people. A philosopher admires the bee, sipping honey from the cup of the flower, and says the object of the bee is to sip the nectar of the flower. A beekeeper says the object of the bee is to gather honey. Another beekeeper, who has studied bees more closely, says the object of the bee is to gather honey to feed the young ones, and to rear a queen, and to perpetuate the race. The botanist believes the object of the bee is to fertilize the pistil of the flower. Another sees the hybridization of plants and believes the object of the bee is to contribute to that end. The perception of the observer depends upon the observer’s own assumptions and perceptions. That is not to say we experience totally different things but different aspects of things. The Hindu’s view of a cow in no way corresponds to that of a canning factory meat packer.

We build our own reality. The colors are products of our mind. Who knows if my red is the same as your red? Even if the two most distinguished color experts in the world were asked to dress up Santa Claus, and one were asked to pick the coat and the other the trousers you can be sure the top will not exactly match the bottom. We have to accept the fact that what is real to us is governed by our own perceptions.

Our stereotyped notions block clear vision and crowd out imagination. We never realize it is occurring. We make instantaneous judgments every day all predicated on what we see and hear based on our past experiences. We can easily change the way we look at things. What made psychologist Sigmund Freud famous was not the discovery of a new science about the subconscious, but in fact, was his way of representing the subject in a new way. Sigmund Freud would reframe something to transform its meaning by putting it into a different framework or context than it has previously been perceived. For example, by reframing the unconscious as a part of him that was infantile, Freud began to help his patients prime the way they thought and reacted to their own behavior.

Just a few moments’ of thinking time can prime us to perform either better or worse than normal at both mental and physical tasks. Remarkably, we can even lessen pain by changing the way we look at it. Researchers at Oxford University discovered a way using inverted binoculars to reduce pain and swelling in wounds. When we look at a wound through the wrong end of binoculars, our perception of the wound makes it appear much smaller. It is this perception that acts like a painkiller and diminishes pain. This demonstrates that even basic bodily sensations are modulated by our perception.

Mindfulness with No Religious Overtones

We generally think of mindfulness as an idea that has been around for thousands of years, originally emerging out of Buddhist traditions. Many Buddhist researchers are doing great studies showing that mindfulness has an impact on many aspects of human experience. When you understand the underlying physiology of mindfulness, you begin to see that any discussion about human change, learning, education, even politics and social issues, ends up being about mindfulness. That is because mindfulness, in some ways, is simply the opposite of mindlessness, and mindlessness is the cause of a tremendous amount of human suffering.

Deep thinking being linked to any religion is problematic; because it is hard getting across the idea that being mindful is useful, without activating a threat response from the billions of Non-Buddhists who could benefit from it. Why mindfulness is difficult to talk about with the busy people who run companies and institutions, is that these people tend to spend little time thinking about themselves and other people, but spend a lot of time thinking about strategy, data, and systems. As a result, the circuits involved in thinking about oneself and other people, the medial prefrontal cortex, tend to be not too well developed.

Speaking to an executive about mindfulness therefore can be a bit like speaking to a classical musician about jazz. It might look like they could play a little Coltrane, because they deal in sounds, but they don’t really have the circuits for it. We don’t take well to learning new skills, especially in later life, and any reason to not focus on a new skill, like it being linked to a religion other than yours, doesn’t help.

When you explain step by step, how mindfulness works and how it affects brain, and give people a chance to experience it, even the most cynical, anti-self-awareness agitator can’t help but see that they will be better off practicing this skill. The key is to be able to explain the actual neuroscience involved. Here are some of the highlights of how mindfulness impacts the brain, from “Your Brain at Work.”

A 2007 study called "Mindfulness Meditation reveals distinct neural modes of self-reference" by Norman Farb at the University of Toronto, along with six other scientists, broke new ground in the understanding of mindfulness from a neuroscience perspective.

Farb and his colleagues worked out a way to study how human beings experience their own moment-to-moment experience. They discovered that people have two distinct ways of interacting with the world, using two different sets of networks. One network for experiencing your experience involves what is called the "default network", which includes regions of the medial prefrontal cortex, along with memory regions such as the hippocampus. This network is called default because it becomes active when not much else is happening, and you think about yourself. If you are sitting on the edge of a quayside in summer, a nice breeze blowing in your hair and a cold beer in your hand, instead of taking in the beautiful day you might find yourself thinking about what to cook for dinner tonight, and whether you will make a mess of the meal to the amusement of your partner. This is our default network in action. It is the network involved in planning, daydreaming and ruminating.

The default network also become active when you think about yourself or other people, it holds together a "narrative". A narrative is a story line with characters interacting with each other over time. The brain holds vast stores of information about your own and other people’s history. When the default network is active, you are thinking about your history and future and all the people you know, including yourself, and how this giant tapestry of information weaves together. In the Farb study, they like to call the default network the ‘narrative’ circuitry. The ‘narrative circuit’ term for every-day usage is easier to remember and a bit more elegant than ‘default’ when talking about mindfulness.

When you experience the world using this narrative network, you take in information from the outside world, process it through a filter of what everything means, and add your interpretations. Sitting on the dock with your narrative circuit active, a cool breeze is not a cool breeze, it is a sign that summer will be over soon, which makes you thinking about where to go skiing, and whether your ski suit needs a dry clean.

The default network is active for most of our waking moments and doesn’t take much effort to operate. There is nothing wrong with this network. The point here is you don’t want to limit yourself to only experiencing the world through this network.

The Farb study shows there is a whole other way of experiencing experience. Scientists call this type of experience one of direct experience. When the direct experience network is active, several different brain regions become more active. This includes the insula, a region that relates to perceiving bodily sensations. The anterior cingulate cortex is also activated, which is a region central to switching your attention. When this direct experience network is activated, you are not thinking intently about the past or future, other people, or yourself, or considering much at all. Rather, you are experiencing information coming into your senses in real time. Sitting on the jetty, your attention is on the warmth of the sun on your skin, the cool breeze in your hair, and the cold beer in your hand.

Other studies have found that these two circuits, narrative and direct experience, are inversely correlated. In other words, if you think about an upcoming meeting while you wash dishes, you are more likely to overlook a broken glass and cut your hand, because the brain map involved in visual perception is less active when the narrative map is activated. You don’t see as much or hear as much, or feel as much, or sense anything as much, when you are lost in thought. Sadly, even a beer doesn’t taste as good in this state.

Fortunately, this scenario works both ways. When you focus your attention on incoming data, such as the feeling of the water on your hands while you wash up, it reduces activation of the narrative circuitry. This explains why, for example, if your narrative circuitry is going crazy worrying about an upcoming stressful event, it helps to take a deep breath and focus on the present moment. All your senses come alive at that moment.

Let’s recap these ideas. You can experience the world through your narrative circuitry, which will be useful for planning, goal setting, and strategizing. You can also experience the world more directly, which enables more sensory information to be perceived. Experiencing the world through the direct experience network allows you to get closer to the reality of any event. You perceive more information about events occurring around you, as well as more accurate information about these events. Noticing more real-time information makes you more flexible in how you respond to the world. You also become less imprisoned by the past, your habits, expectations or assumptions, and more able to respond to events as they unfold.

People who regularly practice noticing the narrative and direct experience paths, such as regular meditators, have stronger differentiation between the two paths. They know which path they are on at any time, and are able to switch between them more easily. Whereas people who have not practiced noticing these paths are more likely to automatically take the narrative path.

A study by Kirk Brown found that people high on a mindfulness scale are more aware of their unconscious processes. Additionally these people have more cognitive control, and a greater ability to shape what they do and what they say, than people lower on the mindfulness scale. If you are on the jetty in the breeze and you are someone with a good level or mindfulness, you are more likely to notice that you are missing a lovely day worrying about tonight’s dinner, and focus your attention onto the warm sun instead. When you make this change in your attention, you change the functioning of your brain, and this can have a long-term impact on how your brain works too.

John Teasdale is one of the leading mindfulness researchers. Teasdale explains, "Mindfulness is a habit, it is something the more one does, the more likely one is to be in that mode with less and less effort. It is a skill that can be learned. It is accessing something we already have. Mindfulness isn’t difficult. What is difficult is to remember to be mindful."

Practicing mindfulness is important, as you are more likely to then remember to do it. The key to practicing mindfulness is just to practice focusing your attention onto a direct sense, and to do so often. It helps to use a rich stream of data. You can hold your attention to the feeling of your foot on the floor easier than the feeling of your little toe on the floor: there’s more data to tap into. You can practice mindfulness while you are eating, walking, talking, doing just about anything, with the exception of drinking a beer in the sun, which works for only a limited time before your attention leaves to go and party; the neuroscience of all that will have to wait for another book.

Building mindfulness doesn’t mean you have to sit still and watch your breath. You can find a way that suits your lifestyle. Just build a 10-second ritual into the evening meal, which involves just stopping and noticing three small breaths before one eats. The added bonus is it makes a great dinner taste even better.

What ever practice you do develop, practice it. The more mindful you become, the better decisions you will make, and the more you will achieve your own goals, rather than other people’s goals for you.

Momentary Upsets Are Not Crises

If only we still faced tigers in the woods every day! Our bodies evolved to handle physical threats like that, not the mental, psychological and emotional threats we now face constantly. Our body’s chemicals are not at war with each other, but it certainly feels that way at times! Each of us produces more than 50 hormones, which collectively control how we behave, what we feel and how we respond to the world. The sympathetic nervous system produces fight-or-flight hormones whenever we perceive a threat, taking over from the parasympathetic nervous system, whose hormones keep us calm and serene.

Any change can be perceived as a threat, whether it is positive or negative, because it jolts us out of our nice, safe groove of everyday life. We all have a habit of taking minor annoyances and turning them into threats without meaning to. A big credit-card bill shows up… "Oh no! I’ll never be able to pay it! I’ll go bankrupt!" The boss makes a negative comment on something we did. "I’m going to be fired!" We get stuck at a long red light. "I can’t stand this!!" But we can stand it, we are not going to be fired because of one negative comment, and we will not go bankrupt because of a month of overspending. We know this rationally. But our immediate reactions ratchet up the threat level and our bodies therefore perceive us as perpetually surrounded by tigers. So we live in a flood of stress hormones, which weaken our immune system, make us vulnerable to disease, and leave us perpetually feeling anguish, discomfort and low-grade depression.

We do this to ourselves. That means we can undo it. The key is realizing that we create our own version of reality by how we react. We respond not to the event but to our perception of it. Imagine seeing a snake as you walk on a path. You may think: "Snake! Danger! It will bite me!" Then you react with fear, even panic. But suppose you are a scientist familiar with snakes, a herpetologist. Same event: snake in the path. You may think: "How interesting! It has beautiful colors and moves very gracefully." Then you react by watching it calmly or even picking it up; same event, different perceptions–and therefore different realities leading to different reactions. Teach yourself to moderate your reactions to things that you know, objectively, are not really threatening. Think things through when you are calm so you can apply your self-taught lessons when disturbing situations do arise.

For instance, you may dislike long telephone hold times, but instead of "I hate having to wait!" think "This is irritating, but I won’t remember it in a week." Long red lights may frustrate you, but instead of "Why do I always get stuck like this?" think "This will be over in three minutes, and I can listen to music until then."

By teaching yourself to rethink situations this way, you teach your body that momentary upsets are not crises and not worthy of a flood of stress hormones. That helps your body produce a more-balanced hormonal flow, keeping you closer to the golden mean that helps you stay physically, mentally and psychologically healthy.

Things That Manipulate Our Dreams

When we are sleeping, our bodies do everything they can to stay asleep. So rather than waking us up, outside stimuli of smells, sounds, sensations often become woven into our dream narratives. The dreaming mind has this really cool way of seemingly flawlessly incorporating the outside interference into the storyline of the dream; which means that there are a lot of influences that can shape how our dreams play out. Just keep in mind that our natural dreams, that is to say, those that are not at the mercy of what is happening around us in the real world, help us process our thoughts and feelings about our day. Too much interference is disruptive to the message our dreaming mind is trying to give us.

If you have ever incorporated the sound of your alarm clock into your dream — maybe it became a fire alarm or a Whistle. Real-life sounds can find their way into our dreams’ storylines. There is an app that even monitors sleep and plays sounds specifically designed to evoke certain dreams. Soundtracks can influence the content of dreams, and while researchers do not recommend making a habit out of this; again, it interferes with the cognitive work our dreams are meant to accomplish. Once in a while, if you want to influence a really awesome dream, play your favorite album quietly while you sleep or maybe the sound of the ocean, if you want to dream about a romp on the beach. For a restful sleep, white noise is recommended. White noise drowns out the other sounds around us and will improve sleep, allowing for organic dreaming.

If you smell flowers, chocolate or perfume when you’re awake, it tends to evoke positive emotions, hence it makes sense that the dream would follow a similar pattern. There is a biological explanation, too. The limbic system part of the brain that controls the ability to receive smell also receives emotions. Sleeping on your stomach increases the chances of having a sexual dream or a dream about being persecuted like having a sexual relationship with a big wheel or celebrity, being smothered, unable to breathe, and being tied and unable to move, which all make sense. When we are on our stomach, our genitals are in contact with the bed and they are stimulated and it is harder to breathe, just like when we are having sex or being suffocated. The best way to remember your dreams is to stay in the same position you were in when you woke up. That is really all it takes to be able to start remembering your dreams. Don’t move and stay put. If you wake up to go to the bathroom and want to re-enter the dream you were in the middle of, try getting right back into the position you were sleeping in before getting up.

Not surprisingly, your mental state; not just what happens to us and around us, has a huge impact on our dreams. Depression, for example, can influence our dreams’ color palettes. If you have a dream that is in black and white or where the colors are muted or it is in shades of gray, which can be a symbol for depression. Depression, however, also suppresses dream recall. The weather patterns we dream about are connected to our mind frame, too. Anxiety brings tornadoes, which represent spinning out of control. A clear, calm mind tends to dream of sunny days. The depression and sadness bring rain. Weather in dreams is very much connected to our emotions in real life.

Ever wonder why you are haunted by pizza and ice cream in your dreams when you are trying to lose weight? Whenever you quit something like drinking or smoking or even just cookies, you are going to dream about it. That is, if you diet or cut out sugar, your dreams are likely to feature a delectable buffet of treats. People who quit smoking tend to have dreams about smoking for the first couple of years afterward stopping the harmful habit and some are visited infrequently by such dreams even 30 years later.

There is a whole host of ways in which pharmaceuticals can influence our dreams. A lot of prescription meds affect REM and can really make your dreams crazy. Nicorette, for example, tends to give people intensely vivid dreams. Drugs can also affect dream recall. As depression render one less likely to remember dreams, anti-depressants can counteract that effect. Vitamin B6 also helps people remember their dreams more vividly and easily.

Hodgepodge of Understanding

As human beings we have a natural desire to understand the world and our place in it. In different ways, it is a desire that has fueled the development of science, philosophy, and theology across time. But what exactly is understanding? What are the different forms it takes, and how do we acquire it? When it comes to understanding another person, for example, it is necessary to have lived through similar experiences? Is it enough to be able to predict, perhaps on the basis of well-confirmed theory how that person will behave? In what way do the sciences provide an understanding of the world, and how does that differ from the sort of understanding we acquire from literature, philosophy, or the study of history? Are there types of understanding that these other pursuits provide that are somehow inaccessible to the sciences?

Despite the obvious importance of these questions for grasping how the mind makes sense of the world, until recently they have not been a focus of scholarly attention. Among philosophers, one might have expected understanding to be a primary concern of both epistemologists and philosophers of science, but this has not been the case. Thus for the most part epistemologists have been concerned not with what it takes to understand the world but rather with what it takes to acquire knowledge of quite commonplace facts; facts such as "that Jones owns a Ford" or "that the bank will be open on Saturday." This is not particularly surprising, because contemporary epistemology largely developed in response to the skeptical challenges of Descartes and Hume, which seemed to threaten all of our knowledge of the world, even the most basic. But in responding to these challenges "higher" epistemic goods such as understanding were largely lost from view.

In the philosophy of science, the connection between explanation and understanding was also lost for many years, as relatively formal definitions of explanation became the focus of attention, with understanding taken to be a merely psychological outcome of explanatory inquiry. Although, many philosophers of science gradually came to find the separation between explanation and understanding unnatural, it was not clear how to remedy the problem.

Over the last several years, important work has been done on recovering the idea of understanding, particularly in epistemology and the philosophy of science, and a parallel emergence has occurred in psychology. For instance, cognitive and developmental psychologists have documented the mental models and intuitive theories of children and adults for various domains, researchers in cognitive psychology have considered how people understand passages of text and figures, and social psychologists have studied how we understand others and ourselves. Broadly, several proposals have been made about how best to characterize the factors that underlie the concepts and causal beliefs that seem crucial to human understanding, including the processes of learning by which such beliefs inform judgments and behavior.

Despite these avenues of important research, psychologists have yet to properly integrate this work into something like a unified account, or to directly tackle the question, "What is understanding?" Even as philosophers have recently begun to examine these issues more closely, a number of big questions have barely been explored at all. For example, in what ways does the understanding provided by the sciences differ from the understanding provided by other areas such as philosophy or mathematics or history? If different types of inquiry provide different forms of understanding, how might they be combined to produce an integrated understanding of the world? Finally, how can recent work on understanding in philosophy and psychology can be relevant to theology?

In short, in spite of the recent attention to understanding, just tentative progress has been made on clarifying the nature of understanding in the sciences and we are still largely in the dark about the distinctive kinds of understanding provided by other forms of inquiry.


%d bloggers like this: