New research reveals surprising connection between environmental sensitivity and psychic phenomena |286|
Summary: Recognized expert in ‘Sick Building Syndrome’, Mike Jawer has discovered a potential link between environmental sensitivity and psychic phenomena.<br> <a href="http://ba0.8a3.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/285-michael-jawer-skeptiko-2.jpg"><br><br> </a>Photo by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/asbestostesting/">Testing</a><br> Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Michael Jawer, author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Anatomy-Emotion-Feelings-Brain/dp/1594772886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441928239&sr=8-1&keywords=spiritual+anatomy+of+emotion"> The Spiritual Anatomy of Emotion</a> about his research on environmental hazards and its connection to psychic experiences.<br> Mike Jawer: One concept that could be helpful is boundaries. This is a big part of the book and a big part of how I come at things. It’s this idea that all of us are somewhere on a spectrum of thick versus thin boundaries. It talks about how people differ as far as their connection with other people and the environment. Some people are, and you can just tell if you’ve been with them for a while, they’re kind of thick boundary people. They don’t really reach out as thoroughly as other people. They seem pretty rigid or armored and very decisive in saying this or that; using ‘or’ rather than ‘and’. Then on the other side of the spectrum you have people who you can tell after a few minutes, they’re very flexible, they seem to be empathetic, they seem to be sensitive… and whatever the opposite of armored is. These are the people who have a tendency for psychic experiences. It’s not that the others couldn’t, but all the information that I’ve gathered and others have suggested that it’s thin boundary people who literally have less between them and the environment. And if the environment is emotional–fundamentally I think that it is, that’s my thesis–they’re the ones who are more apt to experience that loss of boundary; and sort of venture out and feel what other people wouldn’t necessarily feel.<br> Click here for forum discussion<br> <a href="http://www.emotiongateway.com/pages/theBook/biographies.html">Click here for Michael Jawer’s website</a><br> <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/michael-jawer">Click here for Michael Jawer’s blog on Psychology Today</a><br> Read Excerpts:<br> With respect to the reductionist paradigm, Mike suggests that neuroscience is making progress toward new ways of thinking about the mechanics of the mind.<br> Mike Jawer: In the book I’m pretty critical especially in the last chapter about reductionist neuroscience because I think any reductionist approach is counterproductive and ultimately not helpful.<br> Alex Tsakiris: Hold on, I think it’s falsified. And I think there’s a huge distinction that we need to make there. It just doesn’t fit the data. Yet they keep advancing it, and the emperor has no clothes. So the more we feed into this neuroscience model–it’s just bullshit. It doesn’t hold up to the data.<br> Mike Jawer: Well it’s held up pretty well over hundreds of years. I’m not saying that I’m reductionist myself. I want to make that very clear. And it, like all disciplines of science, has to evolve and the problem that neuroscientists have is they accept certain tenants about humanity that hold them back. And you mentioned embodiment and that’s the main thing that I use to challenge neuroscience. It’s coming around gradually. It’s going to take a while but it’s moving in the right direction because neuroscientists need to understand that we’re not brain-based organisms. I talk about the body as an orchestra [and] you have different players, and the brain might be the conductor let’s say. But you’re not going to get any sound without the tubas and without the flutes and the trombones, the violins and so forth. And they’re all parts of us. There’s a field called psychoneuroimmunology which I discuss at length in t...
