HISTNEUR-L: The History of Neuroscience Internet Forum

[Previous Posting] [Next Posting]

Re: Ventricular Doctrines 

Message forwarded to HISTNEUR-L (original sender not subscribed):


>From s.kemp@psyc.canterbury.ac.nz Sat Feb 21 15:48:50 1998
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 12:48:36 +1300
From: Simon Kemp 
Subject: Ventricular Doctrines
To: histneur-l@library.ucla.edu

Dear Dr. Robinson,

Christopher Green forwarded your query about the ventricular system 
to me.  I don't have a definite answer, but here are some possible 
helpful thoughts.

	1) It's not easy to be definite, but it is possible 
that no one much around the 10th century knew of Nemesius. Of course 
you're quite right that his scheme is dynamic.

	2) Actually, it hadn't really registered with me  that Clarke and 
Dewhurst drew a distinction between a static and a dynamic model 
(I've just checked and of course they do). But to me that is the most 
puzzling part of the whole thing. I simply don't see how any of the 
models can be static. Surely in any of the different theories, the 
output of some components/ventricles could be made use of by others, 
although this isn't always stated. It would be implicit - though I 
don't think it's stated directly - in Augustine's ideas on cognition 
for example. Augustine buys into the ventricular theory (On the 
Literal Meaning of Genesis) and in On the Trinity he does suggest an 
interplay between the  processes of imagination and memory.

	3) Tenth century could include Avicenna (980-1037) though it's 
pushing it a bit. Better possibilities are the Islamic writers Razes 
(d. ealry tenth century) and  Haly Abbas (d. 994/5). E. Ruth Harvey 
in "The Inward Wits" (London: Warburg Institute, 1975) summarises 
their ideas on the ventricular system. Both theories sound dynamic to 
me, but as I said earlier, I can't recall any static accounts 
anyway.		

	Best wishes,
	Simon Kemp

--- End Forwarded Message ---
<HISTNEUR-L@library.ucla.edu>