Macaulay Honors College
MHC 355
Lee Quinby
The Template:
Constructing an Artistic Reality
Through Empathy
By Davi Santos
Winter 2010
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks to Christopher Sula of the Philosophy Department at CUNY Grad for diagnosing additional research material from simply listening to me circumvent my working thesis and then introducing me to Eero Laine in Theatre Theory and Performance Studies at the Grad Center. Our cross-disciplined discourse spawned many great ideas; Keith Happaney in the Psychology Department at Lehman College who has been a huge reference to me and think tank in cognition and consciousness; Stephanie Rupp with whom I discovered mind mapping and through whom I drew connections in performance theory; and Bill Hoffman, my mentor. Thanks also to Lee Quinby without whom this would be an entirely different paper.
I. Empathy is Holy
Empathy is the basis of Method-System Acting. That is as substantial as saying that there is Holiness in Art. Empathy is equal to Holiness[1], and acting conventionally falls in the ‘Art’ category of things, but the brand of Holiness found in art is not like the one commonly assigned to mathematics; although, there is certainly some providential grace in there too; actually, “Mathematics is the language of God.” Galileo said so himself. He was a Reductionist de facto. They believe that every thing in existence can be reduced to the sum of its parts or to the accounts of those individual parts themselves: “Ducks are reducible to nothing more than biological machinery that operate robotically,” a Reductionist might say, and in 1662, one did say so: Descartes in De Homines wrote: “Non-human animals are reducible to automata.” What do ducks have to do with mathematics? If they are reducible to automata, then the math in machinery part’s steel precise dimensions and their parts’ technical interplay to make a timekeeping element in pendulum swinging is the same math that lies behind the ducks’ biological machinery. A duck is as automatic as a clock. For Descartes, humans are exempt from life as biological automata. The worst loneliness must have been experienced by that first mutant ape-man, or it could just as easily have been an ape-woman, who realized that she had freewill and all the other ape-men and women did not, and then later she did die never knowing that her genetic mutation, which had been passed down to Junior, was going to become such an evolutionary hit that her fellow non-automata-free-willed homo sapiens would dominate the planet like they do today: 6 billion and going strong.
Reductionists today peel reality as if it were an onion from the top layer of social sciences, unveiling psychology, then physiology, cellular biology, molecular biology, chemistry, many body physics, to finally to the crux of it, particle physics. The opposing viewpoint focuses on another entity instead: consciousness, the sum is greater than its parts. Idealists believe that only consciousness exists: ideas, concepts, and experiences. Dualists rest in between arguing that bodies are material and ideal: the sum of a body and a mind.
Philosophy is like a dog; there are so many breeds. That means there is no accord over the fundamental nature of reality. There is no standard for that special something that relates to everyone and everything, there is no standard of reality. It is fundamentally inconsistent between people, yet there have still been standards established for experiencing reality: drug laws, traffic laws, sex laws, religious laws, foreign policy, rubrics, mottos, trend magazines, the metric system, peer pressure, etc. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if people unanimously decide to market themselves as organic biomachines or free willed bodies, with assertion or doubt, they will still ask a very serious question: what do we do about it? What do we do about the disaccord over philosophy, these disagreements that claim to satisfy the criteria to justify war? As of late, what is done about metaphysical diversity: Standardizing a line to avoid or to encourage crossing is very popular, and then building small boxes to avoid thinking outside of them is also a symptom of the masses. What can be done about it?
Empathize. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, and leader of the Tibetan people said:
“By definition, empathy involves our ability to connect with others, our ability to relate to them, understand their feelings, to share their experience and so on. So it seems that connecting or relating to others based on our common humanity, our shared characteristics as human beings is essentially a method of creating empathy. With this kind of empathy, you can relate to all human beings, and it does not depend on being able to relate to their individual characteristics or personal experiences.”[2]
If empathy were more widely practiced, the world would see more peace, diplomacy, human rights, and legislative progress, because decisions would be rooted in the sincere mutuality of those who are affected. Today there are billions of peoples living at the expense of others, and the planet is grossly mistreated. Who would contest that? The population in abundance is apathetic. The greatest progress will result from the movement that reverses this epidemic of disregard. I had previously written that empathy is equal to holiness; if it is truly the attitude and experience that can save human kind from its self-destruction, how can anyone contest that empathy is anything short of sacredness? If it cannot be literally blessed by an angel or a personified flaming bush, then Empathy is at least a metaphorical prophet.
II. Developing a Semblance of Holiness
So how is empathy accomplishable? Over the past 2000 years, the Buddhist movement has developed mindfulness to liberate the mind because vast compassion and empathy grow as a result. Thich Nhat Hanh, a leading figure in Western Buddhism, was nominated for the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize by Martin Luther King Jr. who said: “I do not personally know of anyone more worthy of [this prize] than this gentle monk from Vietnam. His ideas for peace, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity.” [3] Thich Nhat Hanh had written:
When your mind is liberated your heart floods with compassion: compassion for your-self, for having undergone countless sufferings,
because you were not yet able to relieve your-self of false views, hatred, ignorance, and anger; and compassion for others because they do not
yet see and so are still imprisoned by false views, hatred, and ignorance and continue to create suffering for themselves and for others.[4]
He suggests many forms of mindful meditation to “liberate your heart,” that will vanquish reproach and hatred and develop empathy and compassion, yet there is another vehicle, almost entirely different in nature and function that also requires empathy and is known to develop it: Aristotle was on to something when he said…no, not Christianity…but when he said a character’s catharsis was also the audience’s. The 2nd vehicle of Empathy is theatrical art, and it is the basis of Method-System Acting. Superficially it is very far from the meditation of Buddhism but upon closer examination, their practices could not be more similar.
III. The Hard Science behind Empathy in Acting
The work of award winning neuroscientist Vittorio Gallese, who has published in over 150 international peer-reviewed journals and edited books, suggests that “[i]magining and doing use a shared neural substrate…[so i]magining is a form of simulation-a mental simulation of action or perception, using many of the same neurons as actually acting or perceiving.”[5] In other words, the things that are imagined are physically real to the brain as an active neural network; the brain physically experiences all the items in consciousness, so that the rest of the body can react to any thing that happens in the mind of an actor whose performing, or someone meditating, in a way that looks and feels as if it were happening. Although only the delusional and the conned believe that a game of pretend is reality, if one can succumb to reacting to an imagined simulation, he will react to it in a way that is present in his experience and in those who are observing. The circumstance is not unlike that of the Placebo Effect, which suggests that some neural effects have non-neural causes like expectations and beliefs. If beliefs can change brain chemistry, then brain chemistry can be changed by what is believed; so an actor is like a self-attributed alchemist, a spiritual apothecary whose potions are brain stuff and imagination. Professor and current Nobel laureate chemist Alan J. Heeger emphasis that “electrophysiological and blood-flow measures of brain activity show that the same areas of the brain are used in visual perception and visual imagery.”[6] What we see and what we imagine coexist in the brain. The advantage of the lack of detailed sensory information in the images of the imagination is that it helps us distinguish between perceived and imagined events, so we can cooperatively react to them and yet maintain their property of pretend. More than for a monk, this may be more immediately associated to the relevance and work of an actor or politician, someone who is getting someone else to feel what they feel, but this example illuminates the biological function of pretend in meditation: Andrew Newberg is a prominent neuroscientist and researcher in the field of nuclear medical brain imaging at the University of Pennsylvania. In his experiment, he uses Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography to look at blood flow in Buddhist monks as they meditate, Franciscan nuns as they pray and Pentecostals as they speak in tongues. He found that measurable brain activity match up with the religious experiences described by worshippers. They were not lying when they said they felt ‘one with the world,’ ‘relaxed,’ or ‘oceanic.’ Decreased blood in one area of the brain while increased in another can certainly affect consciousness in ways more profound than even those they described, but still, that they were able to modify the blood flow in their brain from one area to another by simply focusing on particular phrases and meditative concepts is a glimpse at the expansive potential of the imagination in its ability to inherently influence brain chemistry.[7]
But what exactly are people consciously doing to themselves to create this sort of impact? There is an acting technique that engages the “magic if” of his imagination: “what I would do if I were in this character’s situation.” Well-published neuropsychiatrist Marco Iacoboni, a Professor and Director at the Brain Mapping Center of UCLA, explains empathy as the phenomenological function of simulation routines that occur in ‘as if’ processes in predominantly preconscious levels. This relationship occurs between the expressive (actor) and his imagination, another expressive (actor), and/or a receptive (observer): certain neural networks are triggered either by doing or by watching someone. The brain mirrors the neural network it observes through behavior and physically becomes more like it by imaging what it is, allowing it to understand and react to it. Almost 100 years after it was invented for the theatre, “the term ‘as if’ has been adopted by contemporary neuroscientists to describe the body’s physical responses to imagined conditions.”[8] This dualistic interplay also apples to meditation like in Newberg’s experiment on monks: “First, you are focusing on something,” Newberg begins to explain their cognitive process, “usually it is a sacred object or an image or something like that, but, second, you also screen out irrelevant information. As you do this, more and more information that normally goes to the orienting parts of your brain doesn’t go there. So it keeps trying to give you a sense of yourself, an orientation of that self in the world, but it no longer has the information upon which to do that.” The blood flow in the “orientation area” dramatically declines in activity during the meditation practice. “So this area of the brain becomes much less active. We think this is part of what is associated with somebody losing that sense of self. They feel at one with God, at one with their spiritual mantra, whatever it is they are looking at. This was a group of Tibetan Buddhist meditators.”[9] They focused on the object or concept “as if” it was all that existed; as result, each brain took less information about what was in his surroundings and its affects on him, giving his consciousness a sense of selflessness and expanse. The act of pretend becomes a technique to find empathy with an imagined character, or a human being, with one’s self, or with a concept, to render one selfless or to become an extension to others.
IV. Designing His Neural Network: An Actor’s Preparation
This paper opened with an account of basic philosophical stylizations for perceiving reality. The progress of acting as the art form that lends itself to the neurologic possibilities aforementioned is the result of an evolution through many philosophical movements. There is no doubt that art takes after the attitude and culture of its people. The Romantics were not Classically spirited artists. They wanted to break away from the conservative formulas of the past so that they could express themselves more sincerely and more accurately.[10] The cultural movement which amounted to the flowering of romanticism in the early nineteenth century by stressing emotion, imagination, and individuality, was partly motivated by the people’s philosophical evolution from valuing the noble simplicity and calm grandeur of Classical art to their own emotional subjectivity. Into the 21st century, Art had evolved in all its branches. Igor Stravinsky said: “We find ourselves confronted with a new logic of music that would have appeared unthinkable to the masters of the past. This new logic has opened our eyes to riches who existence we never suspected.”[11] This new logic is found beyond music but in each of the art forms. Acting matured into realism just over a century ago with the innovation of Method-System Acting.
Different teachers developed different methods, although Method-System in general appeared in the western world when the Director of The Moscow Theater, Constantin Stanislavski, in the turn of the century, created a studio adjoined to his theater in which he researched and developed a psychophysical theory to ‘build a character’ and ‘create a role’, and eventually stimulate theatrical realism by certain cognitive techniques like the ‘as if’ that has recently been utilized by neuroscientists. The actor must empathize with the imagined reality whether it be improvised, a playwright’s, a director’s, or a fellow actor’s. How does he do it? We start with a master.
Melvyn Gussow, the New York Times veteran American critic of the New York Times for 35 years wrote that Lee Strasberg was the “father of American Method [who] revolutionized the art of acting by having a profound influence on performance in American theater and movies,”[12] Strasberg claims that Stanislavski’s “entire search, the entire purpose of the ‘Method’ or our technique or whatever you want to call it, is to find a way to start in each of us this creative process”[13] Neurologically, the creative process is when the brain starts tinkering and adapting to the stimuli of the pretend world. Before introducing the masters and the heated debates of Method-System, let us reach a consensus on its meaning. ‘System’ refers to the ‘Stanislavski System’ of Acting. Not that there is one solidly, it had continued to evolve his entire life, but certain fundamental properties remained the same, like so: An actor receives his script, and he ideally meditates on the following:
Each technique demands a meditation on an aspect of reality. Every technique demands one to relate, to empathize with the different parts until he arrives at a rooted whole. He is then ready to pretend truthfully under the given circumstances.
“If our images of objects or events were as accurate and detailed as the actual events, then our ability to distinguish between actual and imagined events would be impaired. The ability to distinguish between external and internal sources has been called reality monitoring.”[16] Conversely, if we meditate on the details and develop a sense of accuracy, we find that our elaboration influences our imagination and ‘creative state’. Elaboration, which studies show is also the key to memory enhancement, is the act, like meditation, of focusing on an object or concept and being receptive to more details about it from the imagination. If we elaborate on any factor, say, intention specifically: what do I want, why do I want it, what would happen if I didn’t get it, then it becomes more and more real to us when we perform it. By getting to the root of the action’s identity, we find our own. Same goes for the setting: sounds, smells, temperature, props, is the area populated, is it familiar, are there changes to the location since the last time you were here, any significance to this location?
So at this point, the analysis has taken the world of the play’s contents and atomized them so that they could be put back together after the actor experienced them in a creative aspect beyond reading it. Usually, as far as Stanislavski’s System is concerned, that aspect is exclusively the faculty of imagination: imagining scenarios in the shoes of the character, empathizing with him. But the point of view of his imagined reality, that is, the play that is being reconstructed in his imagination, can be experienced ‘as if’ he were the character or ‘as if’ it were happening to himself with people in his life that he knew. This technique is called ‘substitution.’ Another example of it in addition to/or instead of creating an identity from scratch, one can use someone from his memory and substitute the character for that person from his real life. Substitution is the heart of Method, and it isn’t a leg of System.
V. The Fork
The difference between Method and System is emotional. Stanislavski’s teachings became systemized in the USA when The Group Theatre, New York’s pioneering collective, sought to create an American Acting Technique that was derived from his work. Its main teachers were Stanford Meisner, Stella Adler, and Lee Strasberg, and members included Elia Kazan, the director of On the Waterfront, East of Eden, and Street Car Named Desire, Harold Clurman, Cheryl Crawford, and many others. There was a great divide on how one should approach his imagination, emotions, and bodily processes in empathizing with a part. “The earliest objections to Strasberg’s version of the System during the Group Theatre days stemmed from the disagreements among members over the attention that Strasberg paid to emotions in his teaching. Lee Strasberg left the Group Theatre in the end of the 30s and would become the director of the Actors Studio through the 40s. The Studio formalized the term “Method” and pop culture adapted it so that actors were either “Method or Non-Method.”[17] The difference between Method and System lay in 3 techniques that Strasberg stressed: “affective memory, private moment, and substitution,”[18] which Clurman wrote about: “It becomes a distortion of art in general and of Stanislavski’s teaching in particular.”[19] Strasberg’s stress on emotion also led to circulated stories “that aspiring Method actors were suffering nervous breakdowns at the hands of Strasberg, who exorcised them of their deepest fears with private moment and emotional memory exercises.”[20] So Method was nothing more than a fork of Stanislavski’s System. Method-System together is a process of empathizing with a text’s contents to perform it truthfully. But it’s a philosophy too. I had discussed elaboration and reality monitoring, how more detail about something makes it more real. Some actors pretend off stage, so that performance will be more rooted. Some just walk like their character, others maintain voices, others, even personalities. Winner and 8 time Emmy nominated Director Peter Miner tells the story of Meryl Streep disliking an experience working on The Devil Wears Prada where she played the villain, because she isolated herself from the other actors through the duration of the project to affect their relationship on camera. After the film, they had dinner. That is the spirit of Strasberg. The argument is over the extent of the pretend. Is it necessary? If anything it is a sacrifice to the work and one feels more focused because he did it, not unlike a religious experience after fasting. Another “Method” thing to do for, say, an actor who is playing a 15th century Native American on location, may spend time in the forest before beginning production, aside from just reading about the culture in his house and going over the previous factors a-g.
VI. Schools of Thought: Towards a Theatrical Reality
“Strasberg would have it that creative processes are matters of psychology and past experience; the actor draws stimuli from memory in order to ground conviction. Adler would have inspiration emerge from the actor’s faith in the power of imagination, the play’s circumstances, and the actor’s political-social viewpoint. Meisner takes a different view, arguing that the actor’s faith is shown in the give-and-take of interaction. But all three believed acting involves an essential act of inspiration and free will.”[21]
The spontaneity that Meisner emphasized has been a key to realistic acting because one is actually listening to another person and puts his focus entirely on the other one so that every action is an organic reaction to an impulse with minimum artificiality, that may otherwise have resulted from a predetermined notion. He said, “The truth of your instincts is the root of your foundation…[so] don’t do anything until someone makes you do it or something happens.”[22] He intended to take mindlessness out of acting; he wanted his make-believe to be spontaneous and purposeful with intention.
Martial Arts schools have divided similarly, passed down from one sensei to many students who develop to be teachers who each chose to emphasize the aspect of the discipline that most captured them. 10 generations later, with styles galore, like the philosophical styles in the opening, no one is better than the other, although one may serve a better use to the specific case i.e. Tai Chi is slow and steady, so it may be better suited for the elderly than the kicking based Ti Kwon Do of Korea. A teenage girl could learn karate, how to deliver a one-strike blow to end a fight, or she could learn aikido, which teaches her to grapple and manipulate the direction and body weight of an attacker who is twice her weight. The student who appreciates without judgment learns without bias, a little here and a little there, and incorporates all the styles. That’s why it’s Method-System and not one or the other, because there are no limits in the imagination to developing empathy.
VI. The Template
Strasberg emphasized the feeling, and Meisner said to focus on the other person. Method-System seeks to create a theatrical realism that resembles reality. In a manner of speaking, Method-System seeks to create reality. He stitches together detail after detail about one’s life, external detail, and internal, histories, emotional connections, intentions, and expectations. He asks the same questions a Homicidal Detective might, even more specifically than members of a Grand Jury, and imagines them more graphically than newspaper journalist trying to get the scoop. The actor chooses the arsenal of techniques and factors that will influence his behavior most at a particular exchange. After engaging with the doors of perception, and learning what to perceive about the circumstances the actor performs with his senses sensitive to what happens moment-to-moment. He behaves spontaneously. His brain has formed a neural template that exercises his preparation while he performs. The possibilities that may happen are as deep as what he had imagined it was going to be, or as sensitive as he is to what he may imagine or feel in reactions. His attitude, his desire, his entity and identity become about something in the pretended reality of the play.
Philosophy is the study of the foundation of reality and existence. Acting has evolved to be the foundation of creating a reality or existence, “theatrical realism,” so in turn, the debates of what is acceptable and what is not are philosophical debates that depends on the view that one takes on how the foundation of behavior, the deep, deep world of the mind operates. Every style suggests empathy as a start, because it is how people learn to understand other people. Empathy is the basis of Method-System Acting. It is also the bases or our lives. We are reminded that the Art is a creative discipline and a stand to make connections from the imagination out. It’s a Reductionist’s dream, and an Idealist’s reality. “Neuroscience explains well what is in its domain: the brain…but we are whole persons, embodied and embedded in an environment…no explanation scientific or otherwise, that stops short of this embodiment…will be a complete account of our mental activity.”[23] All the world is a stage, and we are merely players. When we learn to play with Empathy, we save the grandest theatre yet: the world.
The Dalai Lama says that when we relate to others on the basis of common humanity, there is a sense of freedom that on a practical level raises basic trust to overcome problems like prejudice, or lack of the sense of community. It begins with that special sacred thing. It begins with Empathy.
VII. Appendix
Bibliography
Bstan-‘dzin-rgya-mtsho, Dalai Lama XIV, and Howard Cutler. The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World. London: Coronet, 2009. Print.
Letter by Martin Luther King, Jr., 1967. “Nomination of Thich Nhat Hanh for the Nobel Peace Prize”. Archived on the Hartford Web Publishing website.
Thich Nhat Hanh, The Miracle of Mindfulness: a Manual on Meditation. London: Rider, 2008. Print.
Gallese, Vittorio. 2001. “The ‘Shared Manifold’ Hypothesis: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy.” Journal
of Consciousness Studies 8, 5-7:33-50
Heeger, Alan. “Linking Visual Perception with Human Brain Activity.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 1999 9:474-479.
Newberg, Andre B. Eugene G. D’Aquili, and Vince Rause (2001). Why God won’t go away: Brain science and the biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books.
Blair, Rhona “Cognitive Neuroscience and Acting: Imagination, Conceptual Blending, And Empathy” TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 53, Number 4, Winter 2009 (T 204), pp. 92-103 (Article), The MIT Press.
Kamien, Roger. Music an Appreciation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992. Print.
“Poetics Of Music In The From Of Six Lessons : Igor Stravinsky : Free Download & Streaming : Internet
Archive.” Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine. Web. 22 Jan. 2011. <http://www.archive.org/details/poeticsofmusicin002702mbp>.
Krasner, David. Method Acting Reconsidered: Theory, Practice, Future. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.
Moore, Sonia. The Stanislavski System; the Professional Training of an Actor. New York: Viking, 1974. Print.
Moore, Sonia. Stanislavski Today; Commentaries on K. S. Stanislavski. New York: American Center for Stanislavski Theatre Art, 1973. Print.
Johnson, M.K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality Monitoring. Psychological Review, 67-85.
Harold Clurman, “There’s a Method in British Acting,” New York Times Magazine (January 1964): 62
Meisner, Sanford “On Acting” A Vintage Original, 1987, New York, print.
Baker, Rudder Lynne “Neuroscience and the Human Mind” Presented at a Seminar on Creating Mind, Harvard Center for the Study of World Religions, February 23, 2001.
“Meditation is the sense of total comprehension of the whole of life, and from that there is right action. Meditation is absolute silence of the mind…Only in that total, complete, unadulterated silence is that which is truth” – J. Krishnamurti
[2] Bstan-‘dzin-rgya-mtsho, Dalai Lama XIV, and Howard Cutler. The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World. London: Coronet, 2009. Print.
[3] Letter by Martin Luther King, Jr., 1967. “Nomination of Thich Nhat Hanh for the Nobel Peace Prize”. Archived on the Hartford Web Publishing website.
[4] Thich Nhat Hanh, The Miracle of Mindfulness: a Manual on Meditation. London: Rider, 2008. Print.
[5] Gallese, Vittorio. 2001. “The ‘Shared Manifold’ Hypothesis: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 8, 5-7:33-50
[6] Heeger, Alan. “Linking Visual Perception with Human Brain Activity.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 1999 9:474-479.
[7] Newberg, Andre B. Eugene G. D’Aquili, and Vince Rause (2001). Why God won’t go away: Brain science and the biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books.
[8] Blair, Rhona “Cognitive Neuroscience and Acting: Imagination, Conceptual Blending, And Empathy” TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 53, Number 4, Winter 2009 (T 204), pp. 92-103 (Article), The MIT Press.
[9] Newberg, 2001
[10] Kamien, Roger. Music an Appreciation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992. Print.
[11] “Poetics Of Music In The From Of Six Lessons : Igor Stravinsky : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive.” Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine. Web. 22 Jan. 2011. <http://www.archive.org/details/poeticsofmusicin002702mbp>.
[13] Krasner, David. Method Acting Reconsidered: Theory, Practice, Future. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.
[14] Moore, Sonia. The Stanislavski System; the Professional Training of an Actor. New York: Viking, 1974. Print.
[15] Moore, Sonia. Stanislavski Today; Commentaries on K. S. Stanislavski. New York: American Center for Stanislavski Theatre Art, 1973. Print.
[16] Johnson, M.K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 67-85.
[17] Krasner, 2000, pg 43, Gordon, Marc “Salvaging Strasberg At the Fin de Siecle”
[18] Krasner, 2000, pg 47, Gordon, Marc
[19] Harold Clurman, “There’s a Method in British Acting,” New York Times Magazine (January 1964): 62
[20] Krasner, 2000, pg 47
[21] Krasner, 2000, pg 16, “I Hate Strasberg”
[22] Meisner, Sanford “On Acting” A Vintage Original, 1987, New York, print.
[23] Baker, Rudder Lynne “Neuroscience and the Human Mind” Presented at a Seminar on Creating Mind, Harvard Center for the Study of World Religions, February 23, 2001.
© 2024 Honors Thesis Colloquium 2010-11 Powered by WordPress MU
Entries
and comments
OceanWide made by Romow.com. Hosted by Macaulay Eportfolio Community
