The juxtaposition between this week’s readings seems favorable to the process in which we find ourselves in the writing activity. On the one hand, a very academic and scientific scrutinizing of different ways in which to manipulate or understand the biological process of voice hearing; on the other hand a personal recount of how to manipulate and understand voice hearing through a psychological or holistic standpoint. The first, seemingly super technologically advanced, not necessarily reaching a conclusive and desirable effect; and the second having the capacity to be confidently helpful when considering a humane approach to a very human difficulty. This chapter and lecture rectified the need for balance, and a broader standpoint in order to achieve a better understanding of a complex query. Made me think of how the last class discussion lead to the point of knowing that the right question, will lead to a more confident answer.

I share Jason’s recalling of Alva Noe’s “something else going on”. The grasp for understanding the self seems unreachable from any of the standpoints that have been evaluated because the rhetoric always falls short. The self always seems to have the ability to elude a definite statement once the efforts within a school of thought have been exhausted. There is so much that biology can do, and there is also as much as psychology or philosophy can. In this sense, May’s recognition of the fact that insistent voices must have something important to say, makes me think that the insistent underachievement to finding the self within specific academic specters can only tell us that it is not to be found uniquely in any of them. In other words if consistently the self cannot be found through biology, psychology, philosophy, anthropology or any other ology individually, then maybe it never will. I guess it is just a matter of waiting for someone to make the right question.