This is a nice idea, Deripsni, and I can see that you mean it with the best of intentions, but I'm afraid it's utterly fallacious. Allow me to demonstrate.
I could condemn the beliefs of the Jim Jones / Heaven's Gate (insert suicidal death cult here) group as lunacy which led to their demise, but I'll reserve judgement since I haven't experienced it. I could condemn the hunger of Pedophiliacs and Serial Killers as socially destructive, but I'll reserve judgement since I haven't experienced it. I could condemn the dogma of The Lord's Army of Uganda / The Islamic Jihad / The Shining Path / Aum Shinrikyo as religious madness which has directly led to the deaths of millions, but I'll reserve judgement, since I haven't experienced it. Need I go on? On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:49 AM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would dispute that it is only an "IDEA". It may seem this way to > you, thus the "quackery" terminology. Homeopathy may be "utterly > ludicrous" to some, while others love it, although I am not sure Molly > was generally talking about homeopathy, although some of the methods > she brought up may fall under that broad heading. > > I would suggest that, in the case where something has not been > experienced personally, that it should not be catagorized emphatically > as bunk with less-than-rosey adjectives, but maybe one could state > "This is not my experience" or even "Until this happens to me I won't > believe it" etc. Lack of personal experience does not render anothers > experience obsolete or irelevant. > > On Aug 5, 8:20 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Calling an IDEA quackery is exactly in keeping with our debate format. > Attack the idea, not the person. I find the idea of homeopathy to be utterly > ludicrous. I would not, however, personally attack a member of this forum > for espousing it. > > > > > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:deripsni <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" > <[email protected]>Date:Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:41:37 -0700 > (PDT)Local:Wed, Aug 5 2009 6:41 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Non Medical > Healing - The Non-Science of Life? > > > > Thanks for the welcome, although I'm not sure why someone who has been > > posting 10 times a day for 2 months needs welcoming ;-] > > > > If you think calling somebody's words "outrageous, quackery and juju", > > is classified as "reasonable debate", you are free to do so. Sounds a > > tad more like outright dismissal with a topping of spite. Molly's > > personal characteristics have nothing to do with my determinations > > about the subject. I did not agree with her because I find her "an > > intelligent, well rounded thinker" [ I don't even know what she looks > > like ;-], but because I have been practicing what she is talking about > > for decades. In my experience, positive thinking has affected my > > physical health. > > > > To clarify what I meant when I said that I was "surprised at the > > resistance"; I am not surprised that many do not accept her words, > > doubters in this area are a dime a dozen. What did surprise me was the > > harshness of language spoken by those who have admonished me for > > pointed wording that I rarely use in my posts, although typically > > directed at abusive types, and not someone reasonable like Molly. In > > fact, Molly's responses to these personal attacks have been very > > reserved as I am sure she would have loved to return the volley in > > kind. > > > > Like I said, must be something to do with the moon ;-] > > > > On Aug 4, 11:39 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Welcome to the Minds Eye, Deripsni. ;) Rigorous debate, especially in > areas > > > of study which may be scientifically immature (as has been suggested by > > > some), is the norm. What would be more surprising around here would be > for a > > > "New Age" type idea to sail by unchecked. I find Molly to be an > intelligent > > > and well rounded thinker, who is capable and articulate when > verbalizing and > > > defending her viewpoints, and I'm sure she's not surprised at the > > > resistance. Rational thought is something we value here, so any idea > which > > > doesn't seem to sit right to any one of us according to our own > rational > > > understanding of the available data will be fully analyzed and chewed > on. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I support that analysis, and am a little surprised at the resistance. > > > > > > On Aug 4, 6:09 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There is a link between neurochemistry and emotion, Chris, but the > > > > > direction of cause is in dispute. Basically happy people have a > > > > > balance in body chemistry that reflects that. Constantly angry > people > > > > > have a body chemistry that reflects that. Two different body > > > > > chemistry balances in many ways. Are you saying that the chemistry > > > > > drives the emotion? Because I think it is the other way around, > and > > > > > that we can learn to maintain emotional health just as we can learn > to > > > > > maintain physical health. > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 5:38 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > The reason I come back to injections, Molly, is because we know > that > > > > > > chemicals control moods, shape them. Seratonin, dopamine, > oxytocin, > > > > > > adrenaline...these are the building blocks of our emotions. Our > moods > > > > do not > > > > > > create them...they would not exist without them. Outside stimulus > will > > > > cause > > > > > > response, and with conscious effort, we can indeed learn to, in > some > > > > small > > > > > > way, mitigate their production, but it is not circular to > recognize the > > > > > > causal nature of neurochemistry to mood. The injection experiment > would > > > > be > > > > > > empirical proof of this; if your mood was capable of mitigating a > > > > > > contradictory dosage of neurochemical cocktail, it would provide > > > > scientific > > > > > > evidence to support your statement. > > > > > > > > But then, according to your post, this isn't about scientific > facts, > > > > this is > > > > > > about individual truths (read: faith). > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Molly Brogan < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Again, the which came first circular argument. I am not saying > that > > > > > > > neurochemistry does not exist, Chris, only that it is not the > whole > > > > > > > picture. And this is not the first time you have suggested > that I > > > > > > > inject something to prove your point (or Ian's). I guess you > didn't > > > > > > > understand my post above when I said that is up to YOU to prove > to > > > > > > > yourself, not me to prove to you. I have already proved it to > myself. > > > > > > > I have learned with much contemplation and self examination, to > > > > > > > regulate my moods and emotional responses. You may take a pill > to > > > > > > > regulate yours, I don't know. As I say, to each his own. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 5:15 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > It's easy enough to test your theory, Molly. I can inject you > with > > > > the > > > > > > > > chemicals which WILL alter your mood, and you can attempt to > combat > > > > them > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > willing your mood to change the chemicals. > > > > > > > > > > How can the mood exist outside of the chemicals? The mood IS > the > > > > > > > chemicals. > > > > > > > > Neurochemistry is not some dark and unexplored science. There > is > > > > much > > > > > > > > research available. Here's a good start > > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=b... > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Molly Brogan < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > While chemical balance is one part of our "health," > claiming that > > > > it > > > > > > > > > the entire picture is a very narrow focus. You seem to be > > > > presenting > > > > > > > > > the premise that our chemical balance produces our mood. I > > > > suggest > > > > > > > > > that our mood effects our chemical balance. Quackery and > juju > > > > works > > > > > > > > > both ways, and simply can't get away with it anymore may > also > > > > apply to > > > > > > > > > an outdated medical model. The paradigm of science itself > is > > > > > > > > > changing, although mainstream is slow to catch up. > > > > > > > > > > > Orn, you did mean posters and not posers, I take it. Very > funny. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 4:32 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The body can heal itself; this is not a revelation, it > does > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > continuously, every day, with the production of new > cells. The > > > > > > > operating > > > > > > > > > > factor and scope for variability, and there is only one, > is the > > > > > > > chemical > > > > > > > > > > balance of the body in question. Mood is part of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why try to dress this up with quackery and juju? You > simply > > > > can't get > > > > > > > > > away > > > > > > > > > > with it any more. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
