No need to go on, although your examples have little to do with my point, or from my perspective, Molly's. We are talking about a belief in one's own ability to acheive something through the power of positive thinking. In Molly's case, this attitude or "belief" worked to gain the healthy "experience".
We are not discussing the belief in a cultist's dogma, or the propensity of pedeophiles to attack young children, or that you should not condemn the belief or hunger of vile people with personal agendas that fly in the face of decency. Even though you have not experienced them, you have knowledge of the devastating effects of these events, and can therefore condemn them until you are blue in the face with my blessing. Such is not the case with Molly's assertion that a belief in something helped her to gain a positive result. You can say that her experience is quackery, or use any other adjective you like, but that does not impact her experience one way or the other. To refute someones personal experience simply because you have not experienced it, and to do so with the terms we are talking about, is something I do not think is right, and I am sure Molly is not enjoying it. On Aug 5, 10:12 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Hide 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
