- Nov 2024
-
en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
-
-
en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
- May 2024
-
en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
-
For much of this poem's history, readers viewed Ulysses as resolute and heroic, admiring him for his determination "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield".[1] The view that Tennyson intended a heroic character is supported by his statements about the poem, and by the events in his life—the death of his closest friend—that prompted him to write it. In the twentieth century, some new interpretations of "Ulysses" highlighted potential ironies in the poem. They argued, for example, that Ulysses wishes to selfishly abandon his kingdom and family, and they questioned more positive assessments of Ulysses' character by demonstrating how he resembles flawed protagonists in earlier literature.
Is Ulysses a heroic poem? Or, is it selfishness?
-
-
-
I think one of the other mistakes that have been made in biology of the 20th century was
for - individual / collective gestalt - gene centrism - paradigm shift - adjacency - mistake of 20th century biology - reductionism - separating organism from environment - individual / collective gestalt, individual / environment gestalt - quote - mistake of 20th century biology - Ray Noble - key insight - mistake of 20th century biology- Ray Noble
quote - mistake of 20th century biology - Ray Noble - (see below)
- I think one of the other mistakes that have been made in biology of the 20th century
- was to treat organisms as if they existed within an environment that was sort of like some nebulous box as it were
- and you could study the organism by taking it out
- and you study it in isolation
- It's the beginning of reductionism in a sense because
- you taken it away from the environment but the organism has an intimate relationship with the environment
- It's feeding both
- to the environment and
- from the environment
- What is that environment?
- That environment in large part is
- other organisms of the same species but
- other organisms of different species
- That environment in large part is
- and it's in a continuous bubble of change
- It's like a cauldron of change
- So the big question for life is
- how do you maintain yourself in this cauldron of change?
- You cannot do it by standing still
- You have to respond to it
- so it's not surprising therefore that you find that you know organisms have mechanisms for responding to those changes
adjacency - mistake of 20th century biology - between - reductionism - separating organism from environment - individual / collective gestalt, - individual / environment gestalt - adjacency relationship - The mistake that 20th century biology has made is in - ascribing too much power to the gene, and - minimizing the role of epigenetics - Focusing the majority of attention and resources on the genes of the organism, and - defocusing attention on the organisms (epigenetic) interactions with the environment, including both - biotic elements and - abiotic elements - It's not the case that the genes are the major determinant factor and the epigenetics play a minor role - It IS the case that epigenetics play an equally important role in transmitting and assimilating features into the genome - The individual organism is intertwingled with its environment and with other living organisms - The individual / collective gestalt and the individual / environment gestalt is the appropriate unit of study
- I think one of the other mistakes that have been made in biology of the 20th century
-
- Apr 2024
-
southpasadenan.com southpasadenan.com
-
Henry Dreyfuss: Designer for Humanity | The South Pasadenan by [[Rick Thomas]] of South Pasadena News
-
-
en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
-
Wilhelm Nestle (.mw-parser-output .IPA-label-small{font-size:85%}.mw-parser-output .references .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .infobox .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .navbox .IPA-label-small{font-size:100%}German: [ˈnɛstlə]; 16 April 1865, Stuttgart, Kingdom of Württemberg – 18 April 1959, Stuttgart) was a German philologist and philosopher.[1]
-
- Feb 2023
-
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
-
The prefrontal leukotomy procedure developed by Moniz and Lima was modified in 1936 by American neurologists Walter J. Freeman II and James W. Watts. Freeman preferred the use of the term lobotomy and therefore renamed the procedure “prefrontal lobotomy.” The American team soon developed the Freeman-Watts standard lobotomy, which laid out an exact protocol for how a leukotome (in this case, a spatula) was to be inserted and manipulated during the surgery. Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now lobotomyThe use of lobotomy in the United States was resisted and criticized heavily by American neurosurgeons. However, because Freeman managed to promote the success of the surgery through the media, lobotomy became touted as a miracle procedure, capturing the attention of the public and leading to an overwhelming demand for the operation. In 1945 Freeman streamlined the procedure, replacing it with transorbital lobotomy, in which a picklike instrument was forced through the back of the eye sockets to pierce the thin bone that separates the eye sockets from the frontal lobes. The pick’s point was then inserted into the frontal lobe and used to sever connections in the brain (presumably between the prefrontal cortex and thalamus). In 1946 Freeman performed this procedure for the first time on a patient, who was subdued prior to the operation with electroshock treatment.The transorbital lobotomy procedure, which Freeman performed very quickly, sometimes in less than 10 minutes, was used on many patients with relatively minor mental disorders that Freeman believed did not warrant traditional lobotomy surgery, in which the skull itself was opened. A large proportion of such lobotomized patients exhibited reduced tension or agitation, but many also showed other effects, such as apathy, passivity, lack of initiative, poor ability to concentrate, and a generally decreased depth and intensity of their emotional response to life. Some died as a result of the procedure. However, those effects were not widely reported in the 1940s, and at that time the long-term effects were largely unknown. Because the procedure met with seemingly widespread success, Moniz was awarded the 1949 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine (along with Swiss physiologist Walter Rudolf Hess). Lobotomies were performed on a wide scale during the 1940s; Freeman himself performed or supervised more than 3,500 lobotomies by the late 1960s. The practice gradually fell out of favour beginning in the mid-1950s, when antipsychotics, antidepressants, and other medications that were much more effective in treating and alleviating the distress of mentally disturbed patients came into use. Today lobotomy is rarely performed; however, shock therapy and psychosurgery (the surgical removal of specific regions of the brain) occasionally are used to treat patients whose symptoms have resisted all other treatments.
Walter Freeman's barbaric obsession and fervent practice of the miracle cure for mental illness that is the "transorbital lobotomy"
Tags
- Walter Freeman
- psychosurgery
- 20th Century Neuroscience
- António Egas Moniz
- James W. Watts
- Lobotomy
- Prefontal Lobotomy
- 1950s
- Neurosurgery
- Walter Rudolf Hess
- 1940s
- Walter J. Freeman II
- Brain Surgery
- Electroshock
- Nobel Prize
- leukotome
- mental illness
- neurology
- Shock Therapy
- 20th Century Medicine
Annotators
URL
-
- Feb 2021
-
www.aeaweb.org www.aeaweb.org
-
Lowes, S., & Montero, E. (n.d.). The Legacy of Colonial Medicine in Central Africa. American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180284
-