Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Mon, 11 Aug 1997 17:56:37 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Denis Peyrat wrote:
> Denis:. Remember that at the beginning of
> knowledge was instinct...Taken literally, it also means that any
> subsequent discovery , whether of a scientific or profane nature, is
> likely to have estranged man from the knowledge of his own
> instinct.....This drift away from easily accessible wisdom to recondite
> theories which has been the alpha and omega of scientific pursuits, is of
> course not palpable in times of slow scientific advance. But it can become
> more tangible for the historian of science in periods of great scientific
> progress such as during the XIXth c. Rereading the recent history of
> science with instinctive acumen , one might realize that each time the
> progress of knowledge seems to have urged for a separation, a breaking
> apart of formerly inter-dependant disciplines, this split proved fatal
> for the comprehension of man's instincts
I believe this is very true, and specializaion in medicine and science,
which comes from rather autisitc-like behavior on the part of scientists,
is what perpetuates a split in instinctive and cerebral knowledge. I am
trying to publish a scientific paper in which I correlate established
neurophysiology with the validity of instinctive emotions as the source
of mental health.
My best, Ellie
|
|
|