> >I believe this is very true, and specializaion in medicine and science,
> >which comes from rather autistic-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).
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the split is good. I mean
that some scientists are so wrapped up in specialization that they are
unwilling to correlate their work with other disciplines, like looking
for validation in science for instinctive wisdom, which is what I have
tried to do. As you say, I am looking for a reality check in science for
the wisdom on instinctive living in the area of emotions. By "split" I
only mean that they look at their own viewpoint and separate it, i.e. not
correlate it with other views to arrive at the truth. I consider the
split is a result of their autistic like behavior, narrow focus, that it.
My best, Ellie