>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

Ellie:
>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.

But, Ellie, you surely don't consider the "split" is a result of science,
do you? As frustrating as science can be at times it is not the cause, but
the effect of the split--an overall _good_ effect IMO. The human ability to
abstract has had few reality checks in history, and one assumes, in
pre-history. Science, at its purest, serves as the best reality checking
system ever evolved, and you and I both will be rejoicing (won't we?) when
science takes a serious look at human alimentation (as it now seems to be
doing in fits and starts).

The world isn't flat, and stars are not tiny, and illness is not caused by
demons. Humans are much more than instinct and I for one am delighted that
this is so. The nature (and nurture) of the "split" is near and dear to my
heart, but simple science-bashing gets us no closer to the truth.

I feel Denis' absurdly simplistic view tells more about himself than about
history, instinct, or science. Your paper is _much_ more useful and will
sooner or later see the light of day. Working within the framework of
science, as you have, is a very needed skill. One Ellie who publishes her
paper (or even is rejected) is worth a scad of Denis' making puzzles out of
"trundle bed philosophy" to show how terribly clever he is...

Kirt Nieft / Melisa Secola
[log in to unmask]