leonarde

I wasn't talking about epilepsy "carrying on"
into adulthood but BEGINNING in adulthood (ie he
was 25 or 26 around the time of this mock execution and there's no record of his having had a seizure before). One or more of his biographers
did, if I recall, "make" something of this (or at
least imply it). I however am skeptical: many years ago in New York I was involved in a pickup
game of basketball with a guy in his 20s who had
a seizure right on the court. He and his friends later said that he had had no prior experience with such seizures. I will never know whether that was epilepsy-driven or not (since I
believe certain other conditions -like diabetic
shock) can lead to seizures. Still there seems to
be quite a bit which is unknown about epilepsy beyond the fact that it involves electical "storms" in the brain.
Dostoevsky incorporated his own experiences with
epilespy into his work as you mention but it is no
means only the heroes like Prince Myshkin who have
it: the patricide of the Brothers Karamazov, Smerdyakov, also suffers from epilepsy if I recall
and Smerdyakov has imbibed (at least in a superficial way) the world view of Ivan (the tormented atheist-nihilist brother).
I doubt that epilepsy can explain people's views of the (non)existence of God(s) but it can explain
some of the particulars of their expression of it.
Cheers!

Gurdur

This really doesn't answer me, does it ?

Oh, and we do know quite a bit about epilepsy.

leonarde

Posted by Gurdur:[QUOTE]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by leonarde:
.....
I doubt that epilepsy can explain people's views of the (non)existence of God(s) but it can explain
some of the particulars of their expression of it.
Cheers!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This really doesn't answer me, does it ?

Oh, and we do know quite a bit about epilepsy.

Leonarde: Yes I think I addressed ALL your points
(in case you didn't notice you had not a single
QUESTION in your prior post).

Who is "we"? Certainly those in neuroscience would love to learn far more than they presently
do about epilepsy since, although there are drugs
which help some people, there is no one-remedy-fits-all panacea for the condition; indeed the condition can vary tremendously from individual to
individual and in some cases surgery might even be indicated....
Why the nasty tone?

Dr Rick

After reading this thread, I, similar to Koy, was left wondering what evidence there is that 1st century AD Jews distinguished violent from non-violent deaths in their burial practices?

Rick

leonarde

Did you read the post that included a quotation
from Lamm, an expert (I believe he is a rabbi)on
Jewish funeral practices?
As to the PHYSICAL evidence, well we are talking
about ANCIENT times (ie 1500 plus years ago)and,
remember, they were then practicing SECONDARY burials (ie after a year or so of decomposition, the bones were reinterred so that the ORIGINAL
clothes/shrouds etc. (which were "unclean" both in
a ritual AND in a literal sense) were discarded
and would not be found centuries later by archaeologists.
To do a partial repost from page one in which I
cite Ian Wilson's treatment of this question in
chapter 4 of his book "The Blood and the Shroud":
So Wilson is going by one living expert (Tunkel) and two written Jewish sources:
Nahmonides and the Shulhan Aruch. Neither of these
primary sources is available to me. But they, in
turn, agree with Lamm. Despite Koy's protestations
there doesn't seem to be any disagreement on this
point among JEWISH scholars conversant with ANCIENT Jewish burial customs....
Cheers!

Gurdur

It doesn't answer my question because it doesn't say much at at all about the writer's own mystical-religious leanings, which IMHO were heavily influenced by his epilepsy.

BTW, one point you left out:
Epilepsy is a fairly easily diagnosable condition, much of the time; and is distinuished from pseudo-seizures by its recurring nature, for one, and by certain co-occurring physiological symptoms and signs, for another.

Another thing: my questions were fairly clear, I believe; I would like to see some discussion as I outlined, if at all possible.

Pardon me, but none of the above actually really gets into what we don't know about epilepsy.

I had an interesting experience a couple of months ago, BTW; I was invited to give a talk to the staff of a clinic on:
"How to distinguish genuine seizures, pseudo-seizures, conversion syndromes and simple malingering from each other".
This wasn't my area, but I did it; it was very interesting, since the staff were faced with the questions of the seminar topic every day in very practical ways.

Well, I could ask the same of you.

Plus I'm hoping for an interesting discussion for once, but I suspect I'm a hopeless romantic.

Berenger Sauniere

'
Wrong question too. Without going into details just remember, there are two kinds of shrouds, those that violate the 2nd Commandment, and those that don't. Like I said before, wrong shroud. You, like so many others, are getting lost in the tangible. Here's one for you, the man on your shroud has blood on his hands, even if you can't see it, it's there. You do know what they say about a person who has blood on their hands, don't you?

leonarde

Excuse me, Berenger, but it is time for me to return to the planet Earth now! Be sure to write!

leonarde

Gurdur,
If you check your first post on this thread you
will find you asked one question and one question
only: In the first sentence of the very next post I said
"No, no one brought up his epilepsy." And then I
got into more of Dostevsky's background. So I fail
to see what "question" I did not respond to.

If you want to get into speculation about
pre-onset auras, go right ahead but you'll be on
your own there. If you are involved in treating
epileptics I'm sure you will find them a religiously diverse group of patients. I'm sure the same was true in the 19th Century but that too
is merely speculation.
Cheers!

leonarde

Before I get back to the blood on the Shroud I
thought I would give a rundown on the ideas of the
leading Shroud-debunkers of the English-speaking world as to the likely origin of the Body Image in
the Shroud of Turin:

1)Walter McCrone: a painting.

2)Joe Nickell: a rubbing.

3)Nicholas Allen: a proto-photograph of the "camera obscura" method. (This of course was
NOT, as far as we know, used on any other such cloth of that time period (14th Century))

4)Steven Schafersman: straddles explanation 1) and
the official STURP report (that the image is the
result of oxidation and premature deterioration
of upper fibrils of the cloth).
(To elaborate on number 4: SS believes that some
element of the painting (a binder?) somehow created the oxidation and fibril deterioration but
then itself was lost in a washing or boiling.

Naturally these gentlemen are not agreeing with
each other....

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>