DAILY NEWS

Stay Ahead, Stay Informed – Every Day

Advertisement
The Science of Rupture, Repair, and Reciprocity – The Marginalian



“A purely disembodied human emotion is a nonentity,” William James wrote in his pioneering 1884 theory of how our bodies affect our feelings — the first great gauntlet thrown at the Cartesian dualism of body versus mind. In the century and a half since, we have come to see how the body and the mind converge in the healing of trauma; we have come to see consciousness itself as a full-body phenomenon.
Beyond the brain, no portion of the body shapes our mental and emotional landscape more profoundly than the tenth cranial nerve — the longest nerve of the autonomic nervous system that unconsciously governs the inner workings of the body. Known as the vagus nerve — from the Latin for “wandering,” a root shared with vagabond and vague — it meanders from the brain to the gut, touching every organ along the way with its tendrils, controlling everything from our heart rate and digestion to our reflexes and moods.
One of Santiago Ramón y Cajal’s little-known drawings of the brain.
In James’s lifetime, it was believed that synaptic communication within the brain was electrical. But when neuroscience founding father Santiago Ramón y Cajal discovered a gap between neurons — a miniature abyss electricity could not cross — it became clear that something else must be transmitting the signals between neurons. In 1921, the German pharmacologist Otto Loewi confirmed the existence of these theorized chemical messengers by stimulating the vagus nerve of a frog and discovering in the secreted substance the first known neurotransmitter. Every thought, feeling, and mood that has ever swept across the sky of your mind was forecast by your neurotransmitters and executed by your vagus nerve.
A century after James, while working with premature babies, the psychiatrist Stephen Porges uncovered two distinct vagal pathways in the nervous system — the much older dorsal vagus, which evolved around 500 million years ago in a fish now extinct to regulate fear response and activate shutdown, and the ventral vagus, a uniquely mammalian development about 200 million old, controlling our capacity for connection and communication. This research became the foundation of polyvagal theory — the science of how the interplay of these two systems shapes our sense of safety and danger, shapes our attachment styles and relationship patterns, shapes our very ability to tolerate the risks of living necessary for being in love with life.
In the decades since, no one has championed polyvagal theory more ardently than the clinical psychologist Deb Dana. In her book The Polyvagal Theory in Therapy: Engaging the Rhythm of Regulation (public library), written for therapists, she explores how trauma automates our adaptive responses in a survival story that puts the fear-based dorsal vagus in command to induce collapse and dissociation, and how we can rewire our neural pathways toward the emotional safety of the ventral vagal state, where our capacity for curiosity, connection, and change flourishes.
Art by Sophie Blackall from Things to Look Forward to
Dana writes:
Connectedness is a biological imperative, and at the top of the autonomic hierarchy is the ventral vagal pathway that supports feelings of safety and connection. The ventral vagus (sometimes called the “smart vagus” or “social vagus”) provides the neurobiological foundation for health, growth, and restoration. When the ventral vagus is active, our attention is toward connection. We seek opportunities for co-regulation. The ability to soothe and be soothed, to talk and listen, to offer and receive, to fluidly move in and out of connection is centered in this newest part of the autonomic nervous system. Reciprocity, the mutual ebb and flow that defines nourishing relationships, is a function of the ventral vagus. As a result of its myelinated pathways, the ventral vagus provides rapid and organized responses. In a ventral vagal state, we have access to a range of responses including calm, happy, meditative, engaged, attentive, active, interested, excited, passionate, alert, ready, relaxed, savoring, and joyful.
This biological need for co-regulation with others is not dissimilar to the concept of limbic revision — “the power to remodel the emotional parts of the people we love,” and to have our own emotional pathways remodeled by the people who love us. This is only possible in safe relationships, and it is the vagus system that governs our sense of safety.
Central to polyvagal theory is the distinction between conscious perception and what Porges termed neuroception — the conditioned way the autonomic nervous system responds from within the body, without our awareness, to cues of safety and danger in the outside world. Because our vagal pathways are shaped by our earliest experiences of co-regulation in the infant-parent dyad, ruptures in that co-regulation — whether by abuse or neglect — condition the dorsal vagus to become dominant and make a neuroception of danger the default response, storying reality away from safety, nowhere more perilously than in intimate relationships. Dana writes:
Co-regulation is at the heart of positive relationships… If we miss opportunities to co-regulate in childhood, we feel that loss in our adult relationships. Trauma, either in experiences of commission (acts of harm) or omission (absence of care), makes co-regulation dangerous and interrupts the development of our co-regulatory skills. Out of necessity, the autonomic nervous system is shaped to independently regulate. Clients will often say that they needed connection but there was no one in their life who was safe, so after a while they stopped looking. Through a polyvagal perspective, we know that although they stopped explicitly looking and found ways to navigate on their own, their autonomic nervous system never stopped needing, and longing for, co-regulation.
Art by Olivier Tallec from Big Wolf & Little Wolf
Because we are physiologies first and psychologies second, but we are also storytelling and sensemaking creatures, our minds naturally create emotional narratives out of these unconscious vagal states — stories that, if we are not careful enough and conscious enough, may come to subsume reality. Dana observes:
The mind narrates what the nervous system knows. Story follows state.
Our early adaptive survival responses of trauma train the autonomic nervous system on a default neuroception of danger, replacing patterns of connection with patterns of protection in a fear-based narrative. And yet these reflexes can be recalibrated by retraining our regulatory pathways.
Because the feeling of reciprocity is one of the most powerful regulators of the autonomic nervous system, a great deal of repair and rewiring can happen in relationships winged with true reciprocity. Dana writes:
Reciprocity is a connection between people that is created in the back-and-forth communication between two autonomic nervous systems. It is the experience of heartfelt listening and responding. We are nourished in experiences of reciprocity, feeling the ebb and flow, giving and receiving, attunement, and resonance.
Art from The Human Body, 1959.
But the great paradox is that if our earliest template of connection is marked by rupture and deficient co-regulation, our very notion of reciprocity may be warped, leading us to tolerate immense asymmetries of affection and attention, to mistake deeply imbalanced relationships for reciprocal. The grounds for optimism lie in the very real possibility of changing the template through safe and nourishing relationships — ones we may not so much choose at first, for trauma can taint our choices with unhealthy patterns, as chance into and only then choose to nurture. The payoff is a gradual transition from the dorsal vagal state into the ventral vagal, a gradual willingness to release the patterns of protection in favor of connection, allowing the kinds of relationships Adrienne Rich celebrated as ones “in which two people have the right to use the word ‘love.’”
Complement with the science of how emotion are made and how love rewires the brain, then revisit Toni Morrison on reclaiming the body as an instrument of joy, sanity, and self-love.



Source link

Chelsea star could re-join former club in surprise summer move



Stamford Bridge exit gathers momentum
Chelsea striker Liam Delap is at a crossroads. His season has not matched expectations, and a return to Ipswich Town is emerging as a genuine possibility, according to Sports Boom.
“Liam Delap will leave Chelsea this summer for Ipswich Town if his former club book a quick-fire return to the Premier League.”
Photo IMAGO
That conditional clause shapes the narrative. Ipswich’s promotion push is now intertwined with Delap’s immediate future. It introduces a sense of symmetry, a player potentially retracing steps to rediscover form and confidence.
Ipswich ambition aligns with Delap opportunity
Delap’s previous impact at Portman Road remains relevant. “Delap contributed 12 goals for Town last term, including one in a 2-0 win over Chelsea.” Those numbers underline why Ipswich view him as a key component of their next phase.
Photo IMAGO
Their current trajectory adds weight. “Kieran McKenna’s Championship outfit lead the promotion race,” having secured a “2-2 draw at Southampton.” Momentum is building, and planning for a Premier League return has already begun behind the scenes.
For Ipswich, this is about continuity and familiarity. Delap understands the system, the demands and the expectations. For the player, it offers clarity, something that has been lacking during his time in west London.
Limited impact shapes Chelsea decision
At Stamford Bridge, the figures are more sobering. “He has scored only twice for the Londoners this term.” One goal in Europe, one domestically, neither enough to justify the £30 million outlay.
There is also a broader context. “With Chelsea looking to bring in a new manager in the next couple of months, expected to be old boy Cesc Fabregas, the 23-year-old striker will likely be deemed surplus to requirements.” A managerial change often accelerates decisions, and Delap appears vulnerable.
Photo IMAGO
Chelsea’s position is pragmatic. They “will look for a similar amount if they sell him back to Ipswich,” reflecting a desire to limit financial loss while reshaping the squad.
Alternative suitors keep options open
If Ipswich fall short, other routes exist. “Leeds United and Everton are keen,” while Coventry are also mentioned as a potential destination. This interest ensures Delap retains market value despite a difficult campaign.
Ultimately, this situation reflects the realities of modern recruitment. Players move quickly, expectations rise, and outcomes are judged ruthlessly. Delap’s next step will be decisive, whether it leads back to familiar surroundings or towards a fresh challenge elsewhere.
 
Our View – EPL Index Analysis
This situation feels like a familiar chapter in the recent recruitment strategy. The club invested in potential, yet the return has been minimal. Two goals across competitions does not meet the standards expected at Stamford Bridge.
There is sympathy for Delap. Adjusting to a new environment, especially one as demanding as Chelsea, can be difficult. Opportunities have been limited, and confidence can quickly fade in those circumstances. Still, supporters expect impact, particularly from a striker signed for £30 million.
The prospect of a return to Ipswich makes sense. He thrived there before, and a Premier League campaign with a club that trusts him could reignite his development. Fans may view it as a sensible reset rather than a failure.
Attention will also turn to Chelsea’s wider planning. If a new manager arrives, decisions like this must align with a clear vision. Selling Delap and reinvesting effectively will be crucial.
In truth, supporters want sharper recruitment and clearer pathways. Delap’s story underlines the need for both.



Source link

Regime Change: Powell, Chair of Mega-QE & “Ample Reserves Regime,” to Be Replaced by Warsh, who Wants a Smaller Balance Sheet


But Powell said he’d stay as governor until “the investigation is well and truly over,” and promised “to keep a low profile” and support the new chair.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

Powell announced during the press conference following the FOMC meeting that:

  1. This was his “last Press Conference as chair” of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; the term expires on May 15, and congratulated Kevin Warsh on being the next chair.
  2. He would not resign from his position as governor on the Board “for a period of time” until the investigation by the Department of Justice “is well and truly over with transparency and finality” – the same test he’d laid out at the last meeting – adding: “I am encouraged by recent developments and watching the remaining steps in this process carefully.”

His term as governor on the Board doesn’t end until January 2028. If Powell doesn’t resign from the 7-member Board of Governors by May 15, Miran will have to bow out to make room for Warsh so that Warsh can become a governor and chair.

Powell kept his departure date open: “I will leave when I think it’s appropriate to do so.”

At issue is the Fed’s independence, which has come under attack and is now getting fought over in the courts, including the Supreme Court. “I worry these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that matters to the public, which is the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors,” as Powell said that meeting.

Powell formulated his departure test during the FOMC meeting in March: “I have no intention of leaving the Board until “the investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality.” And he stuck to it at the moment.

When asked if he is confident Warsh would stand up to political pressure, Powell said, “He testified very strongly to that effect in his hearing, and I’ll take him at his word.” And he added, “Every administration looks at our tools and thinks it would be good to re-purpose those to serve other purposes. But that is dragging us into politics and fiscal policy, so we’ve resisted it.”

Highlights of what Powell said about these issues in his prepared remarks:

“This is my last press conference as Chair, and I will close with a few thoughts. First, I want to congratulate Kevin Warsh on his advancement out of the Senate Banking Committee this morning. This is an important step forward, and I wish him well as that process continues.”

“I welcomed the announcement last Friday by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that she had closed the criminal investigation. She also noted, however, that she would not hesitate to restart the investigation.”

“Over the weekend, the Department of Justice provided assurances that they will not reopen the investigation unless there is a criminal referral from the Fed’s Inspector General. And, absent that referral, if they do appeal the recent court decision, they would not seek as part of that appeal to restart the investigation or send new subpoenas.”

“I have said that I will not leave the Board until this investigation is well and truly over, with transparency and finality, and I stand by that.”

“I am encouraged by recent developments, and I am watching the remaining steps in this process carefully. My decisions on these matters will continue to be guided entirely by what I believe is in the best interest of the institution and the people we serve.”

“After my term as Chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time, to be determined.”

“I plan to keep a low profile as a governor.”

“There is only ever one Chair of the Federal Reserve Board. When Kevin Warsh is confirmed and sworn, he will be that Chair. Once sworn in as Board Chair, his new colleagues will elect him to chair the FOMC as well.”

“I am confident that the Fed will continue to do its work with objectivity, integrity, and a deep commitment to serve the American people.”

Then in the Q&A, Powell responded to some questions:

“My concern is really about the series of legal attacks on the Fed, which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors.”

“I want to note this has nothing whatever to do by verbal criticism by elected officials.”

“I worry these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that matters to the public, which is the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors. It is so important for our economy and the people that we serve that they can depend over time on a central bank that operates that way free of political influence.”

“I’m waiting for the investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency. And I’m waiting for that. And I will leave when I think it’s appropriate to do so.”

“I’m staying because of the actions that have been taken. I had long planned to be retiring. And the things that have happened really in the last three months left me no choice but to stay until I see them through at least that long.”

“My intention is not to interfere. I was a governor for almost six years. And the tradition is at the Fed that Governors, who understand how difficult the role of Chair is, and as a soon-to-be-former Chair, I do understand how hard it is to get consensus with 19 strong minded people. You work with the Chair. You try to be heard but also collaborate with the Chair and try to support the Chair when you can. When you can’t, you can’t. And I think that is the attitude that people generally take, and that’s the attitude that I’ll take.

“Every new Fed Chair has the same situation, which is you’ve got 18 colleagues on the FMOC.  Eleven vote during any year, and your job is to create consensus, talk to them, understand them, be inside their thinking, and be able to pull them together and get consensus and move. And that’s what every Fed Chair has to do. And I think Kevin [Warsh] has the capabilities and skills to be very good at that.”

“That’s something I’d never do, the Shadow Chair thing. I don’t know what the exact specifics of it will be, but I’m going back to being a governor. I respect the role of Chair.”

“I propose to be a very constructive participant in that process really out of respect for the office of the Chair.”

Regime change.

Powell was the architect of mega-QE during the pandemic, whereby the Fed purchased $3 trillion in Treasury securities and MBS in March, April, and May 2020, and then continued buying these securities at a rapid pace, thereby driving down the 10-year Treasury yield below 1% and 30-year fixed mortgage rates below 3%, triggering a massive asset-price explosion, including the home-price explosion from mid-2020 through mid-2022.

Powell was also the architect of the “ample reserves regime,” which the Fed formalized in early 2020 just before the pandemic. The purpose of the regime is a larger balance sheet than the Fed could have if it veered back to the old pre-QE system of supplying liquidity only when demanded.

Warsh has lashed out at these policies for years and wants a smaller balance sheet. He stuck to that even during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Banking Committee. Warsh will have to build a majority among the 12 voting FOMC members to change these policies. And that will not be instant. And any shift in policy is going to be implemented slowly.

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the mug to find out how:



Source link