The problems that he has studied include the mechanisms underlying the pacemaker activity in Purkinje fibers and in the sino-atrial node, overdrive suppression and overdrive excitation in different pacemakers of the heart, the action of the neuromediators norepinephrine and acetylcholine at a cellular level, digitalis arrhythmias both in vitro and in vivo, the ionic mechanisms underlying the oscillatory potential V_os and the tail current V_ex (I_os and I_ex, respectively), the effect of calcium overload on the electrical and mechanical activity of different tissues, potassium fluxes in the sinus node, atrial and Purkinje tissues, the study of different drugs as tools to understand cell function as well as their mechanism of action, etc.

The principal contributions of Prof. Vassalle and his coworkers may be summarized as follows:

1. The ionic mechanism responsible for the pacemaker current of fibers of Purkinje.

2. Mechanisms responsible for dominant and subsidiary pacemaker currents in the sino-atrial node.

3. The new sodium current I_Na2 at the plateau level.

4. The oscillatory pre-potential ThV_os and its role in the spontaneous activity of Purkinje fibers and dominant cells of the sino-atrial node.

5. The new sodium current I_Na3 responsible for the depolarizing phase of ThV_os in Purkinje fibers

6. Overdrive suppression: the inhibition of ventricular pacemakers by fast drive.

7. The mechanism of overdrive suppression (electrogenic extrusion of Na⁺ by the Na-K pump).

8. Modulation of overdrive suppression by different factors.

9. Postvagal tachycardia (faster sino-atrial node discharge after vagal stimulation) and its mechanism.

10. Control of ventricular pacemakers by the sympathetic system.

11. Stimulation of the Na-K pump by norepinephrine and inhibition by acetylcholine.

12. Actions and interactions of neuromediators in different cardiac tissues.

13. An oscillatory current (I_os) which is responsible for the after- potential V_os.

13. Overdrive excitation: the induction or acceleration of spontaneous discharge by overdrive in the presence of norepinephrine in Purkinje fibers.

16. Demonstration that calcium overload decreases force of contraction through a depressed production of high energy phosphates.

17. Mechanism of therapeutic action of low doses of digitalis (decrease of intracellular sodium and increase in force by decreasing calcium overload).

18. Demonstration that I_os is caused by calcium overload, depends on metabolism, is blocked by metabolic inhibitors, hypoxia and high caffeine doses.

19. Demonstration that I_os results from the diastolic liberation of calcium from a calcium overloaded sarcoplasmic reticulum that leads to an electrogenic extrusion of calcium by the Na-Ca exchange.

20. Demonstration that the decaying non-oscillatory potential V_ex and the underlying prolonged inward current I_ex are due to a non-oscillatory extrusion of Ca²⁺ from a calcium-overloaded cytoplasm.

21. Demonstration of sino-ventricular rhythm which occurs in vivo in high [K⁺]_o when impulses originating from the SA node are transmitted through specialized tissues to the A-V node through quiescent atria.

Many are pioneering studies, as indicated by the fact that the very terminology of some of those phenomena have been introduced by his laboratory (as in the case of overdrive suppression, overdrive excitation, postvagal tachycardia, I_Na2, I_Na3, I_ex, or sino-atrial rhytm). These discoveries have substantially modified our notions on normal and abnormal cardiac automaticity and his laboratory is recognized world wide among the leading labs in its field. 

The scientific activity of Professor Vassalle has not prevented the expression of other potentialities of his in the fields of poetry and philosophy, as witnessed by the four books of poetry, three books of aphorisms and one of philosophical essays that he has published to date.

LITERARY CONTRIBUTIONS

       As for the activity of Prof. Vassalle as a poet and philosopher, one poem (in Italian and in the English versions) has been selected from each of the poetry books as well as a philosophical essay.

C'e' molto abbandono

intimita'.

Rain

Colibri'

Seicento.

Il tuo piccolo

cuore

batte

seicento volte

al minuto,

in gara

con il vibrare

delle tue ali,

che, iridescenti

di nuovi riflessi,

ti tengono

sospeso

davanti

ad un fiore.

Quanto

piu' svelto

potra' mai

battere

il tuo cuore

quando

intravedi

chi ami?

Hummingbird

Six hundred.

Your little

heart

beats

six hundred times

per minute,

racing

the flutter

of your wings

that, iridescent

with new reflections,

keep you

hovering

in front

of a flower.

How much

faster

can possibly

your heart

beat

when you

catch a glimpse

of your beloved?

Il pupazzo

Riverso

sotto l’albero di Natale,

il cappello rosso

a punta

un po’ di traverso,

lo sguardo appannato,

le labbra

incurvate all’insu'

in un sorriso

un po’ ebete,

le guance rosse,

le braccia

allargate

e le gambe

inerti.

Lo so bene

di che si tratta:

ieri sera era

l’ultimo dell’anno

e hai preso

una bella sbornia.

The puppet

Sprawled down

below the Christmas tree,

the pointed

red cap

a little askew,

the glance glazed,

the lips

upturned

in a somewhat

silly smile,

the cheeks red,

the arms

spread out

and the legs

inert.

I know what

is the matter:

last night was

New Year’s Eve

and you are

solemnly drunk.

From "Penombre/Twilights"

Marea al chiaro di luna

Nel silenzio

trasparente

del chiarore lunare,

la marea

avanza

verso la spiaggia

lucente

in un succedersi

mormorante

di lunghe onde

d’argento.

Si solleva

dalla segreta

profondita'

delle ombre,

irrequiete

di pallidi bagliori

dorati

sotto la superfice

del mare.

Moonlit tide

In the transparent

silence

of the moonlight,

the tide

advances

toward the shiny

beach

in a murmuring

sequence

of long waves

of silver.

It surges forth

from the inner

depth

of the shadows,

restless

with pale glitters

of gold

under the surface

of the sea.

From "Non Sempre/Not Always"

Solo le cime

Nel silenzio

luminoso

dei primi

raggi obliqui

dell’alba,

le cime

delle montagne

rifulgono

di una fascia casta

di neve dorata

contro

la purezza viola

del cielo.

Piu' sotto, nelle ombre

dei pendii,

le ultime falde

della notte,

riluttanti,

cedono

al chiarore grigio

della neve ghiacciata,

circondato

dall’immobile

avanzare

del cerchio

verde cupo

degli abeti.

Only the peaks

In the luminous

silence

of the first

oblique rays

of dawn,

the mountain

peaks

shine brightly

with a chaste band

of gilded snow

against

the violet pureness

of the sky.

Below, in the shade

of the slopes,

the last layers

of the night

reluctantly

yield

to the gray glimmer

of the iced snow,

surrounded

by the immobile

advancing

of the dark green

circle

of firs.

From "Le Radici del Cielo/Roots of Heaven", unpublished

Philosophical essay

The definition of reality may be deceptively simple. One possible formulation might be: "What we perceive of the physical world". Indeed, what we ignore (e.g., an undiscovered star or atomic particle) could hardly be part of our reality. How would we know that which we do not even know whether or not it exists (e.g., the undiscovered star), except in general category of the unknown? And, in that category, what we do not know may be unknown even to our ignorance (we may know that we do not speak a certain language, but there may be languages of which we never heard and that do not exist for us even as unknown). Furthermore, in order to perceive the mind must be conscious (there are no conscious perceptions and no reality during a dreamless sleep).

This already introduces the concept of the fundamental role of the conscious mind in the essence of reality, in that the real must be within the realm of the consciousness of the mind. During sleep, there can be only the fantastic reality of our dreams (if we remember them when we awake), dreams that are caused by stimuli that we do not fully understand. Without a perceiving mind, what reality can dawn or palm trees have in an uninhabited island?

But reality goes far beyond what the conscious mind perceives, since there is a very complex relationship between what we perceive from the physical world (the world of molecules) and reality as we know it. For I am dealing here with human reality, a reality that is different from that (infinitively greater) of God or that (by far smaller) of his other creatures outside humankind. For us, the human reality is the only possible reality. What do we know about the reality of a worm (what it perceives) beyond what we perceive of it?

This elicits a major question: "How does our reality (the reality of the mind) relate to that of the physical world?" (which includes our own body and therefore also our brain). The reality of the physical world is made up of molecules or their absence (vacuum is also real). An initial obligatory step in building the reality of the mind is the perception through our senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell). In this regard, one has only to consider how reality would gradually shrink if one were to gradually lose the use of one sense after the other. Or what reality would there be in the absence of all senses (as for a piece of wood).

Integration of perceptions and reactions of the mind to perceptions

 In a conscious person, different senses create different but simultaneous perceptions. For example, the molecular ensemble of a rose is a stimulus whose perception consists in an image that forms on the retina, a scent perceived by smell and a smoothness perceived by touch. When the sensory perceptions are encoded in electrical signals which are simultaneously transmitted to different areas of the brain, the mind puts them together and the whole becomes the perception of a rose in our mind.

But the mind does not merely register and relate the perceptions. The sensory perceptions are considerably modified by the attributes that the mind adds to them. The perceptions acquired though the senses are elaborated by the mind on the basis of memory, comprehension, affections, sensibility, inclinations, education, culture, mood, etc. Therefore, in our mind, the rose has a reality (delicate color, subtle fragrance, beauty, emotional meaning, remembrance of affections, etc.) that is far more complex than the sensations perceived through the senses. Furthermore, the perceptions are "interpreted" (correctly or incorrectly) as to the message that they might convey: in the same stimulus, one may see a hidden danger and another an innocent pleasantness.

Necessarily, the reality created by the modification of perceptions is not identical for every mind, because memory, comprehension, affections, sensibility, inclinations, education, culture, mood, etc., of each mind are different. And reality is not always the same even for the same mind, for the individual mind changes according to the stage of its development (age), quality of the input that shaped it (culture, education), its moods (elation, depression, melancholy, happiness, etc.), natural tendencies (mental outlook) or the influence of different environments. Certainly, the reality of the same person at the age of 5 and that at the age of 70 differs more than that of two persons of a similar age and of similar education and culture. A primitive person and one who has received a university education certainly will not similarly perceive and react to the same stimuli. What is a painting or a symphony to a savage or to a coarse person?

In addition, the reality of the conscious mind is affected by the subconscious component. The conscious component is the part of the mental reality of which we are aware (the part that is accessible to analysis and reflections). The subconscious component is the part (hidden in the depths of mind of the Self) that consciousness can not access directly and whose existence is indirectly deduced by some of our reactions. Similarly, we can access our visage on a mirror, but we are not aware of the liver, although it can be demonstrated in various ways, including surgery. As for the liver, the subconscious can manifest itself when abnormalities disturb the normal functions (e.g., jaundice and psychoses, respectively).

The component of the subconscious is the cave in which a part of our mind hides, often forced to retreat there by the rejection of what we officially (and even sincerely) want to be. Driven into hiding, but not vanquished. On the contrary, the subconscious component is a spring, tense and full of vitality, that propels us to take many actions that sometimes surprise us.

If the mind elaborates what it perceives, the elaboration also depends on the state and quality of the receptors as well as that of the different perceiving minds. It is true that the object "rose" begins to exist only when perceived by our mind, since color, shape, fragrance, velvety petals and the other attributes begin to exist only when the mind adds them to the perception of the rose. But then the reality of the rose can be modified by a host of factors. Some relate to a diverse states of senses and others to the different structure and states of different minds.

In the former category (different states of receptors), the perception of the same stimulus may be different at different times. If one has a bad cold, the rose may have no fragrance. If one is drunk or has strabismus, one may see two roses. If one is color blind, the rose is not red. If one pricks oneself with its thorns, one may instinctively dislike the rose. If one is allergic, the rose may just cause a series of dreadful sneezes. If one has rough hands, the petals may not be velvety. And if one is severely myopic, the rose may not be even seen.

In the latter category (different structure and states of different minds), if one is coarse, the rose is not delicate. If one is in love, a rose can have a very special meaning and evoke delicate feelings. If one is depressed or dreadfully tired, a rose may be very little appeal. If one is practical, cold, insensitive or unfeeling, the rose does not have any sentimental or emotional value. If one is stingy, the rose may be just too expensive. If one is worried about something else, one can hardly notice the rose. If one is a refined aesthete, the rose may have an irresistibly delicate attraction. Therefore, the perceptions can be rather different depending either on the state of the receptors or on the functional structure of different minds.

In other instances, the mind is interested in certain perceptions and actively seeks them. For example, novelists have a keen and observing mind and they actively pursue and carefully analyze perceptions about human nature, since they provide the substratum for the characters of their novels. Therefore, their psychological perceptions are qualitatively and quantitatively greater and deeper than those of others. Thus, the reality created by the perceptions and by the reactions of the mind to them can considerably vary.

If a rose is not perceived by a mind, it does not exist as a rose (it is not a rose for itself, for another flower or for a tree). But the mind establishes that the rose exists outside the mind insofar as it is made up of an orderly array of molecules. And this can be verified experimentally. Yet, the qualities of size, shape, consistency, smoothness, fragrance, beauty, delicateness, sentimental value, etc. begin to exist when the physical ensemble of the molecules making up the rose is perceived through the senses and the above qualities are attributed by the mind to the perception of the rose.

If the attributes given by the mind to a perceived stimulus are different depending on the perception and on functional state and structure of the mind, the perceptions of the same stimulus are not arbitrary, since they are genetically determined by the basic structure of the nervous system which is shared by everyone. Everyone has sensory receptors, nerves and central nervous structures. If one does not, one is abnormal and has identifiable defects, such as blindness, color blindness or deafness.

It is such a common background that permits people to communicate. Indeed, it is impossible to communicate with a mad person, to talk about colors with a blind person, or of music with a deaf person. Thus, most people share both the basic process of sensory perception and the basic manner in which the central nervous system works. For example, everyone feels joy for his own successes and sadness for his own failures (and not the contrary, unless one is sadistic).

The basic functioning of the mind follows precise qualitative patterns determined by our genetic system, no less than the functioning of any other organ of the body. If the patterns are not normal, the mind is sick, as it can occur in other organs (e.g., anemia, hyperthyroidism or enteritis).

However, it is easy to see how dreadful it would be if all the minds were to react exactly in the same way, even if a pleasant one (e.g., all enchanted by a rose). We would become like an army of ants. The monotony of uniformity that would derive by the same basic structure and function is avoided by changing the mental patterns quantitatively (and much less qualitatively). Namely, the mixing of the genes in the fertilized egg leads to unique combinations, so that each individual has the normal "ingredients" of the mind in various proportions, distributed around a general mean varying from nearly zero to a maximum.

In the extreme cases, one can be "immune" (for example) to beauty or to religious feelings and another can be seduced by the fascination of beauty or by the mysteries of the spirit. This is due to the fact that quantitatively some of the attributes are minimally or maximally developed. This happens also for other attributes of the body (e.g., some people are frail and others athletic, short or tall, fat or lean, hairy or hairless, etc.).

A major conclusion is that the world of molecules (the physical world) provides stimuli that are perceived by the senses of all persons in a similar way (a reality common to all) and that are elaborated differently by the mind of each (a reality peculiar to each individual). The former includes basic characteristics that are similar for all (a rose is a rose for every normal person) and the latter (far more complex) reflects the characteristics added by the peculiarity of each mind (a rose has a special meaning for a sensitive person, for an aesthete or for a lover).

If the rose as such (the object "rose") exists only in the mind, one should not make the error of forgetting that if we perceive something, there must be something to be perceived that physically pre-exists to perception: if perceiving were to create what we perceive, we would perceive what does not exist, since that something would begin to exist only after having been perceived. This would mean that "real is what we perceive of what does not exist". The stimuli originating from the molecules create perceptions and therefore normally there are no perceptions without stimuli. The mind does not create the molecules that initiate the stimuli to be perceived. For example, one can not perceive a rose if the molecules of what in our mind will become a rose simply are not there (the ensemble of the rose is not physically present). And, if the molecular ensemble of a rose is physically present, it will obligatorily be perceived as a rose in our mind, and not arbitrarily perceived as a cow. If that happens, something went wrong in the perception process.

It must be realized that, when we speak of the physical world, we speak of the world of molecules that initiate perception. This world is made up of molecules that have a physical reality that can be determined and studied by the mind (e.g., one can chemically identify sodium or cesium). But while the mind can not create sodium and cesium out of nothing (nor gold for the matter), sodium, cesium or gold (and their characteristics) do not exist as such outside the mind (outside the mind, they are molecules, not objects).

How precious can gold be for a lion, a lizard, a cloud, a tree or a saint? And is it not gold abnormally precious for an avaricious or dreadfully poor person? The objects are created by the perception of the ensemble of molecules by the mind and their reality is the reality that the mind gives to them according to the way the mind is structured and works. That is the reason why the physical world is the same, but it acquires a different reality in each mind within the boundaries allowed by normality.

Naturally, there are not two realities (one objective and one subjective) to be compared. First of all, the "objective reality" physically consists of atoms and molecules that are not and can not be aware of themselves: what is the reality of a stone for a stone? The molecules acquire the reality of an object only when they are perceived. An undiscovered planet is certainly made up of molecules, but it begins to exist as a planet with definite characteristics (location, size, orbit, satellites, temperature, density, etc.) only when it is discovered (by us, since it was already known to its Creator). The molecules are needed for the discovery, because they provide the stimulus for our perception, but only when the mass of molecules is discovered the planet begins to exist (for the human mind), even if its molecules (not the planet) could have existed physically for millions of years.

Furthermore, in order for the mind to compare two realities ("objective" and "subjective"), both would have to be perceived, thereby both becoming "subjective". Thus, what is sodium if not what we know about sodium?

The only realities that can be compared are those of different minds, since the reality of another mind can be perceived by ours. Hence, statements like: "He is a considerate man" or "She is a very beautiful woman". Of course, what we compare is only what we perceive of the reality of others. Hence, the deliberate and systematic attempt by some to project an image, that is, to project not their reality, but what they want others to perceive of (or as) their reality. And that could be only the manufactured tip of an iceberg, whose "real" reality is suitably hidden in the icy depths of a sea of deception. But, in any case, the different perceptions by different minds of the mental reality of another account for the difference of opinions (one may be a good person for some and a hypocrite for others).

What the mind does is to determine the physical basis of its reality, understanding the physics of molecules (e.g., a rose is not seen in the dark and this defines the role of light waves in bringing about the reality of the rose in our mind) and the mechanics of perception (absorption of some light wavelengths and reflection of other wavelengths by the rose, image on the retina, action potentials in the optic nerve, activation of cells in the visual cortex, etc.).

Again, no one outside the mind would know what a sodium atom is, not even sodium itself. And its reality is determined through chemical analysis, the experimental results of which (e.g., wavelength of the color of a reaction) are perceived by the mind. The reality of sodium is made up of what we know of the characteristics of that element, not the direct perception of the atom. Thus, the only (human) reality is that of the mind, which realizes that at the basis of its reality there are stimuli provided by the molecules of the physical world.

Perceptions are the first step in the building of reality (e.g., consider the progressive growth of reality of infants as their perceptions grow). However, perceptions can be acquired by special procedures. For this reason, technological and scientific developments ("progress") make a great deal of difference in the reality of the mind.

Perceptions can be augmented by magnifying the stimuli so that they can be perceived and become part of the reality of mind. For example, the telescope permits to perceive planets and their characteristics that could not be perceived by the naked eye. In other words, the telescope increases the visual acuity for distant objects the same way the microscope increases the visual acuity for very small objects. Both instruments do so by increasing the optical dimension of stimuli originating from objects that are too far or to small to be directly perceived by the naked eye. Essentially, discoveries increase the perceptions (e.g., the rings of Saturn) and therefore enlarge the reality of the mind. As the instruments become more powerful (e.g., electron microscope), reality grows.

With other approaches, the knowledge of the physical world is fostered by indirectly "visualizing" the origin of the stimuli. This is the case of chemical analyses of matter or the physical determination of subatomic particles. The stimulus is not perceived directly, but it can be identified and characterized through indirect perceptions. The correctness of the indirect perceptions can be verified through further experimentation. Whether direct (e.g., a rose) or indirect (e.g., a neutrino) perceptions are still essential for the build up of reality of the mind.

Reality is not made up only of perceptions (direct or indirect) and mental reactions, although these may be a large component of human reality. There are several factors that contribute to the building of our reality, which do not immediately depend on stimuli from the physical world.

One of these factors is the ability to reason. Namely, to establish relations and connections among the perceptions collected in the mind. Memory plays here an essential background role (one can not deduce from or establish relations between notions that have been forgotten). Obviously, there would also be little to reason about if all sensory input were to be eliminated. But once the information is stored in the memory, it becomes unavoidable to try and establish relations among the various information collected (e.g., how the reality of a rose is brought about). More generally, reasoning on what happened to us is the basis of "experience": for example, one does not need to drown to find out that one needs to know how to swim.

The analysis proceeds further by establishing relations among the relations. For example, one could reason about the various factors that lead to the construction of reality, trying to understand their nature. The process can become very complex to the point that a philosopher may literally become lost in thought.

This sort of mental (philosophical) activity not only does not require immediate external perceptions, but in fact is facilitated by the "silence" of the external world (no ongoing sensory perceptions). Hence, the image of the philosopher with the head in the clouds. Clearly, these secondarily developed reflections also enrich the mind by enlarging its reality. The elaboration of thoughts increases comprehension and therefore adds considerable perspective to our reality and its meaning.

Another powerful contributor to human reality is the emotional structure. The reality of the mind is profoundly modified, qualitatively and quantitatively, by our response to external or internal perceptions according to the emotive characteristics of our nature. If one is nervous by nature, this person’s reality is bound to be tense. If one is indifferent to everything, reality is bound to be rather plain and unemotional. The reality of an optimist markedly differs from that a pessimist, even if they are exposed to the same stimuli.

In addition, moods play a considerable role. For example, the shift from mental euphoria to depression drastically changes the meaning and value of the reality of the same person. Depression mainly deals with the desert of other emotions in a land characterized by an oppressive sadness. Perceptions lose both interest and meaning. One retires within the "objectively" unjustified desperation of one’s own reality.

Passions have an even greater influence, because of the intensity and persistence of the feelings that they cause. For example, falling in love adds an exhilaration that sweeps away the importance of other things and sharpens sensibility, so that it seems as if nature were blossoming even in the midst of the rigors of winter. The soul abandons itself to the intimate happiness of its elation. Of course, the exhilaration can not avoid dreadful emotive swings, but their rebounds can only increase the intensity of what one feels.

Another factor that contributes to reality and does not depend on immediate sensory input is related to the remembrance of our emotions. One can spend hours absorbed in one’s memories. That reality is so alive that it can cause the most various and intense feelings. For example, one may enjoy dwelling with cherished memories of one’s childhood, youth or successes, etc. As a rule, the original emotions are never lived again, and therefore the emotions evoked by remembrances are not the same as those that were elicited by the events now being remembered. For example, a past joy (being lost forever) may be remembered with sadness. A past sadness with tenderness (a sort of sympathy for our past suffering).

To appreciate the importance of the contribution of memory to reality, one has only to imagine what would happen if the memory of all notions, thoughts and feelings were lost (amnesia). One would not even recognize one’s own Self (complete loss of one’s previous reality). And perceptions would not help any, for in the mirror one would only see a stranger. That much for reality being the reality of the mind.

Imagination is another powerful factor in shaping reality that may be initiated by perceptions, but then it soars on its own. One can imagine in one’s fancy the sort of reality that one would like to be one’s own. This reality is especially fostered by our dreams, which in turn are the product of our desires. This is the reality that we would choose, if we were allowed to do so.

The strength of this component of reality is that one can forge it at one’s own pleasure in the absence of obligatory perceptions. Its weakness is that it might remain an unsubstantiated phantom forever. Nevertheless, it is characterized by complete freedom, which the mind cherishes as long as the dream lasts. Taking away this form of reality would result in a degree of aridity, the elimination of pleasant emotions and even a restriction of a delightful side of our freedom that goes under the name of "abandon".

If this component becomes exaggerated and dissociated from the rest of the reality, it creates a "dreamer", someone who predominantly lives in his own fanciful reality created by his mind and dissociated from the laws that regulate the physical world (like a philosopher may live in his own logical reality dissociated from the emotions that regulate the biological world). Sometimes, it is an escape into a congenial and pleasant part of the reality, away from a reality with which one does not feel at ease (or even intensely dislikes). A dreamer flies even without wings, but it is an uncertain flight that can end up with a fall on the hard rocks of a non-imagined reality.

Creativity requires imagination, but it goes beyond it in that the roaming of imagination is not an end to itself and instead leads to a personal expression of one’s feeling. In other words, it goes beyond the stage of feeling and dreaming to express those feelings and dreams in such a fashion as to create a reality that gives aesthetic pleasure. The esthetic pleasure of beauty, since art is allowed everything but ugliness.

Influence of perceptions on the mind.

Perceptions influence and modify the mind and its reality either at random or systematically. The random perceptions resulting from chance may considerably modify the perceiving mind. For example, a baby born in a slum is not going to be exposed to the same stimuli of a baby born in an aristocratic family. If one travels often, one is bound to acquire a vaster reality than a peasant who lives all his life in his village. A reality that may depend on the travel vagaries related to one’s work and not to personal preference.

As for systematic perceptions, one needs only to cite the influence of education in the shaping of the mind. If, for a strange twist of chance, one homozygous twin baby were raised in a slum and the other in an wealthy family (e.g., adoption), the role of the input of different perceptions in the development of their mind would be only too obvious. One would be dealing with two minds whose difference would include a very large acquired component, reflected in such things as elocution, manners, dressing, education, taste, bearing, interests, behavior, culture and self-perception. If the twins were to meet at an adult age, they might intensely dislike learning that they are siblings.

Influence of the mind on perceptions.

The mind can influence perceptions by actively pursuing them. For example, some enjoy reading and some do not care, or some enjoy classical music and others light music. This selection of perceptions substantially contributes to make different the reality of the minds.

Because the mind derives pleasure from some stimuli, it seeks those stimuli. Therefore, some will listen to classical music while others will prefer listening to songs. The consequence is that their natural difference in taste (in what gives them pleasure) is amplified considerably by the different stimuli to which they choose to be exposed. The diversity of the perceived reality (and therefore of that of the mind) is increased by the personal choice of the stimuli to be perceived (the ones that appeal to a given mind). The implications of choosing the stimuli are enormous. It suffices to consider that among the possible stimuli one can choose one of the many professions or to drink excessively, cheat, be a singer, eat too much, steal, etc. The choice may characterize a whole life.

The selection of the stimuli may be heightened by the moods of the mind. For example, if one falls in love, one wants to perceive one’s lover and one would not accept a substitute for any reason, even if in theory the substitute is better (handsomer, younger, nicer personality, wealthier, etc.). Similarly, when one develops a passion for music, physics, astronomy, science, literature, etc. one becomes predominantly interested in what one loves. In fact, the appeal of certain stimuli may determine the selection of one’s profession.

Furthermore, the mind itself (though its creations) provides stimuli for other minds, thereby changing their reality. The creations of the minds in specialized fields (literature, music, painting, physics, mathematics, medicine, etc.) become stimuli that are perceived by other minds. These stimuli are the result of human creativity and are the basis for different types of cultures. The achievements of a society are transmitted through education to its members, since a society tends to identify itself with the accomplishments of its best members.

The different reality in different minds is the foundation for the obligatoriness of Variety within the framework of Order. Variety and Order are the two pillars of reality.

Order. Different realities without Order would lead to chaos. The reality of others would be for us unpredictable, incomprehensible, unreadable, leading to a randomness of relations that would not permit either a normal function or growth. One needs only to consider what would happen if the minds were so completely different that they could not communicate. This can occur when the minds are so different as to be incompatible and therefore reciprocally unintelligible. But even then, the incompatibility may concern only a specialized subject (e.g., mathematics), but not other everyday aspects of reality (unless one is mad).

Generally, the compatibility is insured by the fact that the same genetic background permits all normal minds to understand each other, i.e., to be compatible transmitters and receivers. We may agree or disagree, but in order to do so, people must speak a common "language" (i.e., reason in a manner that is reciprocally compatible and intelligible). Of course, disagreement may be brought about by a misunderstanding. But misunderstanding is not a "structural" or systematic error, but rather an occasional problem that may be solved by suitable explanations, unless two minds are separated by an abyss of difference or by a deep reciprocal repulsion.

Variety. Individual preferences would become monotonously and dangerously uniform if everyone were to like (and seek) the same things. This would distort reality to its very roots, since its balance would be broken by a restricted number of preferences. For example, whatever were not liked (or whatever were liked by very few people) would not be manufactured. Not to speak of everyone wanting to become a surgeon or everyone being interested only in one type of music. And, if everyone were to fall in love with the same person, chaos would ensue. One has to consider the disorderly riots of the fans of well-known actors, singers, or famous athletes, even if they are not in love with that person. Art would be mutilated by restricted preferences, which might not even be the best.

If it is natural that every mind should create its own reality with its likes and dislikes within the framework of normality, it follows that it would be unnatural to try to impose by force one given reality to everyone. This is the major problem with dictatorships: officially everyone has to behave as if they liked the dictator. Out of fear, inevitably some will be forced to officially like what they inside intensely dislike and all the more so because they can not safely vent their feelings. The problem is that the natural diversity of the minds is forcefully thwarted. Some (who like the dictator) will be enthusiastic, but others may risk their life to oppose what runs against the tenets of their reality.

Reciprocally, democracy is a system where diversity of the minds is accepted and that allows the majority of those who share the same opinion to elect their representatives to govern the community. The next election is the time to verify whether or not the majority is the same. Thus, the government is the expression not of one mind (that of the president or premier), but of the majority of the minds. And such majority can change and give the opposition a chance to show whether the reality that it proposes is any better.

Therefore, the reality of each mind is conditioned by the qualitative and quantitative contributions of different components: (i) perceptions, random or actively sought; (ii) notions developed by logic; (iii) emotive components which include one’s emotional structure, moods and passions; (iv) memory; (v) imagination; and (vi) creativity. All of these processes remain within an orderly (and therefore, intelligible) framework as long as they develop within the rules of genetics shared by everyone.

All of the above contributors to reality are physiological, but there are also pathological components which are dissociated not only from the physical world, but also from the normal functional framework of the mind. Some of these pathological components are quantitative and can be experienced by everyone. In general, they are due to a pathological exaggeration of some of the normal feelings.

For example, a jealousy that becomes so obsessive and pervasive as to exceed one’s control. Then one imagines the worst things and sees ominous meanings in innocuous objects and events. The mind is defenseless against the onslaught of an out of control feeling and one’s reality becomes distorted by ravings. In other cases, an intense surge of passion (e.g., for an unrequited love) may even lead to murder. An extremely intense hatred can lead to the same result (since hatred is also a passion, although sometimes a cold passion: a passion that "plans"). These pathological components are characterized by the fact that if they subside (or at least decrease within "acceptable" limits), one returns to normality.

Among the qualitatively pathological components are the hallucinations. In order to have hallucinations the mind must be sick, either because of disease or because of drugs. In such a case one has perceptions originating in the abnormalities of the mind and not in the physical world.

Hallucinations are dangerous because they misinform the mind. One reacts to what does not physically exist. The worst part of it is that the mind generally is unable to verify the reliability of the information provided by the hallucinations. How could it, since it is not aware that it is experiencing a hallucination? Hence, reactions that are dissociated from the physical world and may result in serious consequences for the person having the hallucinations or for others in the vicinity. This is the plight of the schizophrenic, the drunk, the addicted to certain drugs, etc. Depending of the cause (e.g., drunkenness), the hallucinations may recede, at least until their cause returns.

Art (of which poetry is a daughter) is the component of human reality that adds aesthetic pleasure to the whole. The foundation of art is the human appreciation of beauty. An appreciation that gives a special meaning to many other gifts of God (e.g., reason, feelings, music, seasons, flowers, dawn, the snow, the sea, etc.) so that they brighten the life of our spirit. Without such an appreciation, what is beautiful in nature and in the human creations would be in vain. The mind (which is the greatest of the gifts of God) would be deprived of intense and bewitching emotions and of the variety of aesthetic pleasures. Without sensibility to beauty, the delicateness of the mind would be brutalized.

How then does poetry specifically fit in the framework of the components that lead to the formation of the reality of the mind? Essentially poetry is a special way to create beauty as it is conceived by the imagination of mind and realized through creativity.

What distinguishes poetry from other forms of art? One difference is that poetry (in contrast to music, sculpture, architecture, etc.) uses words as a means of expression. Words are a powerful means of communication in different fields, since they evoke images, teach notions and elicit feelings that affect our emotions and thinking in an immediate way. One has to consider in this regard, the influence of great orators (e.g., Demosthenes) on the behavior of people.

Poetry is different from oratory in that it does not incite to act, but, if anything, to dream. A poem elicits the images that give pleasant feelings to one’s sensibility. The feelings may even be sad, but they give pleasure because of the beauty with which the sad images are expressed. Poetry lifts the spirit above the prosaic aspects of reality though the fascination of beauty.

Novels also use words, but a major difference is that a novel aims at creating a world, and a poem only a jewel. There are poems that do create a world (as those of Homer, Dante, or Shakespeare) and the difference from novels is that they want to create a world of jewels. That is, they want to create a lyrically inspired reality, not an interesting story that explores the vicissitudes and the psychology of the human reality.

Poetry can permeate other forms of art as well. For example, there can be poetry in a painting, when it inspires delicate feelings (e.g., the birth of Venus by Botticelli). Reciprocally, there can be poems whose words etch their subject with the vigor and the vividness of a painting (see Dante’s Inferno or Homer’s Iliad). Therefore, one of the characteristics of poetry is the use of the words to express images in the same way as painting uses colors, architecture uses volumes, spaces and contours, or music uses sounds.

Because of its reliance on words, necessarily poetry has to use a given language. Therefore, to be understood it must be expressed in a language that the reader understands. This is different from other forms of art, which relying on sight (painting, architecture, etc) or sound (music) use a universal language that needs no translation (in operas, the words become sung sounds). This is a limitation of poetry, in that translating its words is easy, but translating what they express in the way they express it (i.e., translating an image and its poetical essence) is very difficult.

The difficulty resides in the fact that the translator tends to use his sensibility and aesthetic sense in the selection of the words of the translation and inevitably introduces in the poetry something of his own, which is not in the original. This is easily seen if one compares different translations of the same poem. It is impossible to keep the personality of the translator from the translation.

The beauty of a poem can be such that a translation can only indent it. However, much of the "flavor" and of the elegance of nuances of the original version that are appreciated by readers who speak the same language (e.g., Dante or D’Annunzio) may be lost in translation. This applies even to the translation by those who wrote the original version, but at least the translation originates from the same source (the mind) that conceived the original. This reduces the danger of translating feelings that were not there or that of introducing those of the translator. It should be added that what is lost in translation can be appreciated only by those who speak both the language used in the original and that used in the translation, and compare the two versions.

Even more difficult is the translation of rhymed verses. If the translation also uses rhymed verses, first of all, the translator must also be a poet. And then the necessity of a rhyme can hardly fail to change some of the text. If the translation is not rhymed, some of the rhythm of the original may be lost. But even if the original is not rhymed, the sound of the words may have a music that is nearly impossible to retain in the translation.

While logic components add new thoughts and notions to the reality of the mind, the emotive components (sensibility, imagination and creativity) add beauty to our reality. The emotive components (like the other components) are present in everyone and may be differently developed. But they are essential requirements for any artistic expression.

Sensibility insures that the stimulus conveying beauty (e.g., the moonlight on a calm sea) is perceived as beautiful, sometimes so beautiful as to pain one. The role of sensibility can be seen in that one can be enchanted by the orange glow of a sunset, while another may only see in it the consequences of the pollution of the atmosphere (helped in this by lack of imagination). Imagination is responsible for our personal reaction to beauty and goes beyond the perception of the stimulus to elicit feelings and images that are peculiar to each mind (the intense beauty of a moonlit night may make us dream). Creativity is the ability to create beauty in response to a perception that is deemed beautiful by sensibility (the "inspiration"). For example, most people find beautiful a beautiful sunset. Creativity may find a way to express in a highly individual manner what everyone feels as beautiful. This expression is personal and original and, if it is beautiful, is poetic as well. Beauty may inspire the imagination and creativity responds to it by expressing a beauty that did not exist before.

Necessarily, the emotive components are individual and therefore different for each person. This results in different forms of poetry that reflect the characteristics (sensibility, imagination and creativity) of the personality of the poet. The poetry thus created is differently appreciated by different readers for the same reason (their different characteristics). However, personal preferences are not unintelligible to one another, for (while people can disagree on what is beautiful) nearly all appreciate one form or another of beauty. Because of this, we are ready to accept the preference of a different taste, although it is true that sometimes we characterize it as bad taste for the very reason that is different from ours.

Thus, sensibility perceives the beauty that is present in some stimuli and imagination makes their beauty blossom (we revel in it). Of necessity, sensibility and imagination vary quantitatively and qualitatively in different individuals, since they depend on congenital and acquired characteristics of the individual mind.

This applies not only to the stimuli perceived, but also to the different appreciation of the works of creativity: different persons appreciate different forms of beauty (e.g., poetry, novels, music, paintings, etc). And, even within the same form of beauty (e.g. poetry), they appreciate different types of creation (there were nine Muses for poetry and they were all daughters of Zeus). Furthermore, within the same type of creation (e.g., lyric poetry), different persons appreciate different works by different authors and different poems by the same author according to their own (the readers’) characteristics.

For example, among those who enjoy a certain kind of poetry, their sensibility is subject to the influence of their mental and emotional profile. If ten people read 100 poems, the poem that one of them likes most is probably different from the poem preferred by the other nine people. This is so also because some poems may reflect a personal experience of the reader and therefore may have a special meaning, resonance and attraction for him: they may express what the reader feels. Or simply one is attracted by the beauty of one poem and another by that of another because of the preferences of their taste. Not differently, if ten people go to buy a suit or a dress, it is very likely that each of them will select a different one among the hundred available.

Therefore, the variability in the components that result in the creation of poetry account not only for the diversity of the types of creation, but also for the diversity in the appreciation of the works of beauty. And this applies even to classical works that are generally agreed to be beautiful.

The nature of beauty

A normal person may enjoy reading a poem once in a while, if nothing else for a temporary escape into the reality of beauty from the "enforced" reality of routine activity. To restore a balance in the economy of the mind, not unlikely what one does by viewing a motion picture or listening to music.

But then one should ask: "What is beautiful?" In view of the disparity of opinions about works of arts, the answer appears to be elusive. Even among those who agree qualitatively ("Yes, it is beautiful"), they may be quantitative differences, facilitated by a lack of a unit of measure. Still, the answer may not be too different from those to the questions about what is moral, exciting, good, generous, right, honest, etc.

Most people are repelled by what is cruel without necessarily knowing how to define cruelty. It is obvious that such qualifications (cruel, good, bad, generous, exciting, etc.) are related to our genetic make up. What significance would these same qualifications have for a giraffe, a sparrow, a wave, the wind or a star? Does a lion feel cruel when it grabs by the throat the calf of a zebra? It does not and it should not, at least if the lion wants to survive and not starve to death. We may find it cruel (maybe because we eat the calves of cows and not of zebras).

Genetics certainly shapes the structure of the brain: how would it possible that genetics should shape in a consistent way the structure of the brain but not its function (that depends on the structure)? Indeed, if a certain structure in the brain is destroyed, the related function disappears. Certainly, the relation between function and structure is not left to chance in any other organ of the body. If this is true for the intestine or for the heart, why it should be any different for the brain, where a dissociation between structure and function leads to disastrous consequences?

No one would propose that having or not having moral convictions (no matter what they happen to be) is a matter of personal choice for a normal person. One can be immoral, but one can be so only if one recognizes the existence and validity of morality (a thief or a murderer feel guilty). Similarly for beauty. We generally agree that the sight of a dilapidated slum is likely to be ugly and that of a beautiful person to be pleasant. We may differ in what we consider beautiful, but not on the fact that there is beauty and ugliness. Similarly, we may disagree on a particular religious faith, but not on the existence of religious feelings in most people. Some like certain foods and others different ones, but we all agree that there are good foods.

We all share a similar number of red cells, as we do share the values of the mind. One can have too few or too many red cells (which beyond certain limits is pathological) and, likewise, we may have little sensibility to beauty or absolutely be fascinated by it. Therefore, we are the result of the factors that shape us according to the laws of genetics. We generally consider beautiful (or moral, or honest or generous, etc.) what genetics makes us consider so. For example, stealing or killing is a crime in any society (even in a primitive one), because it goes against the values given to us (one can call them instincts, but, of course, genetics give us instincts too). If we disagree on specific instances, this is because the mixing of the genes makes us uniquely different and education, environment, upbringing, traditions, etc. contribute to amplify that diversity.

Personally, beautiful is what gives us esthetic pleasure and beauty does just that, provided we have sensibility and good taste. If we do not have good taste, we may still feel esthetic pleasure, but for that which is not beautiful.

But to state that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is not quite correct and at most it should be restated as "We like what we feel is beautiful" (and might not be so, for example, due to lack of good taste). In the eye of the beholder is what one likes, not necessarily beauty. We have the right to our individual preferences about what we like or dislike, but not, for that reason, to make it beautiful or ugly, respectively. What sense would have good taste if something were to be beautiful just because one likes it? It would be aesthetic anarchy. Instead, genetics gives a universal value to beauty (no less than to morality or to justice) through basic organization of the structure and function of the brain by the means of genes.

The mixing of the genes and acquired values are responsible for personal aesthetic preferences (correct or incorrect), which contribute in an essential way to our unique identity, but our identity (precisely because it is unique) does not have a universal value. Subjective liking (what appeals to us and which our identity is entitled to like) should not be confused with objective qualities (what is beautiful for all, beyond space and time). Beauty will never be a hostage to personal liking. The laws of genetics find individual expression in the mixing of the genes, but the mixing does not abrogate the basic laws.

If one does not like the poetry of Dante, one should not conclude that it is not beautiful, but that one’s personal preference likes other forms of beauty, or simply that one has no good taste or has an insufficient education. Beauty is a general entity appreciated by most minds. What we like may be a selective preference among what is beautiful or it may be a personal view of beauty, a view that may be right or wrong (that is, true or untrue). Beauty does not need to be conditioned by truth in the sense that it deals with its own fantastic world, but whatever is created has to be truly beautiful in order for it to belong to art.

This relation between what we like and what is beautiful is essential for the simultaneous presence of variety and order. Order is secured by the constancy of the laws of genetics (what was beautiful for the ancient Greeks is also beautiful for our epoch). And variety is secured by non-parthenogenetic reproduction (mixing of genes) and the influence of different external environments. An essential advantage of variety is that of being indispensable for the creation of original forms of beauty (as well as the appreciation of different forms of beauty).

But variety has also other functions. With each new generation, variety creates (and appreciates) what is different, but not necessarily what is beautiful. The fact is that what is different characterizes and entertains an epoch and makes it unique in its expressions. And what is beautiful survives it and becomes the heredity that an epoch bequeaths to subsequent epochs. In every epoch, the numerous attempts are the children of the variety of the individual expressions and the fewer successes the children of beauty. Furthermore, beauty is appreciated more at the comparison with what is not beautiful.

Beauty begins to exist the very moment is created, but it becomes classic when what is only different sediments in the depths of forgetfulness. Only what is universally recognized as beautiful remains to be taught, appreciated and enjoyed by the new generations. Variety is seduced by diversity of fashions, aesthetic pleasure by what is enduringly beautiful. Naturally, from an aesthetic point of view, what characterizes the merits of an epoch is the ratio between what is beautiful and what is only different.

Poetry is created when perceptions inspire the expression of personal feelings. The reality that seduces us is transformed into the reality to which we abandon ourselves, as to a dream. And the created reality is then perceived by us and others and evokes different emotive reverberations. Not differently from the fact that the same sound evokes different echoes depending on the structures that receive and reflect it.

In a poem, there is the translation of the emotions of everyone in an individual expression, which if it were not expressed, would become a lost emotion. Furthermore, the expression in turn creates emotions that enrich the spirit of those who are exposed to it. A poem cultivates the gentleness of the spirit, the need for something that gives an esthetic pleasure. A "luxury" that everyone can afford and that dispenses with immediate material usefulness. An obligatory "luxury". After all, happiness can not be purchased, also because it is not for sale.

Naturally, one can live without that sensibility that is or should be in each of us. But not to one’s advantage. One perceives then an "objective" reality (that of the retina) that can also elicit emotions, but not of beauty. One records only what one sees. What is missing is the reaction of sensibility that creates the "fantastic" reality, the one that entertains our mind and enriches it with special nuances. With flashes of colors that, no matter how briefly, make the gray background of aridity vanish.

That fantastic reality that is based on the expression of our relation with the physical world, so that its events become the vicissitudes of our soul. Life palpitates of waves of emotions that often must be seized in a fleeting moment, before they break up and become exhausted at the end of their run, becoming lost forever on the shore of forgetfulness. Followed by new different waves, without pause. Each one risking to dissipate its beauty to no purpose with the dissipation of the mist of its foam.

How does poetry fit in the context of our daily life? It fits those patterns the same way as other forms of art. Namely, art adds to the reality created by God the component created by the human mind. Although art is often inspired by nature, the rendering by the mind of what it feels is not a mere translation of the beauty of nature, but the creation of different forms of human beauty. To underline its role, one could say that science, philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. discover the work created by God whereas art adds to it the work created by mankind.

Art enlarges our mind (created by God), but not the way education does (it makes us know more), but rather by adding a component that makes our soul gentler (it gives us delicate emotions). It gives a pleasure that fulfills our longing for the seduction of beauty. The grayness of routine will never subdue the intimate glow of poetry, its ability to open us to a world whose reality may be for our spirit more real than what we see. Poetry balances the world of logic with the world of magic.

Note: This general theme has been pursued in the selected excerpts on several topics (including "Art") printed in the book "The Reality of the Self: Aphorisms" (Italian version of the excerpts is printed in "La Realta' dell'Io" published by Editing Edizioni, Treviso, Italy). Most (but not all) of those excerpts were translated from the "Diario di un Fisiologo del Cuore" ("Diary of a Physiologist of the Heart").

From "Non Sempre/Not Always" 

Copyright © 2004 by Mario Vassalle

      Tre dei libri sono stati pubblicati in versione italiana in Italia: "Non Sempre"  e "La Realta' dell'Io" da Editing Edizioni, Treviso, e "Foglie d'Autunno" da Maremmi Editori, Firenze Libri, Firenze.