- Joined
- Feb 23, 1999
- Messages
- 4,848
Two thoughts come to mind.
1- Argument from authority. Within a particular tradition, the argument from an accepted authority is often very powerful. For instance, on a issue of Catholic dogma, an official pronouncement from a pope might carry great weight in a discussion between Catholics. This form of argument loses much of its effectiveness if one of the debaters does not acknowledge the authoritative nature of the authority being used to bolster an argument.
2- How does modern neuroscience tie into this discussion? Understanding of the brain has come a long way in recent years and I have not kept up with it. However, there is evidence of a rational layer on the surface of the brain (the cortex) overlying more primitive layers. Many of the primitive levels are instrumental in decision making and action including physical movement, even in cases where we interpret our actions based on a conscious rationalization. I have had a couple of experiences where real-life danger caused a shift in consciousness in which learned technique became irrelevant. This was obviously associated with a physiological adrenalin dump. The subjective experience was – time slowed down, emotions like anger or fear were not present, energy patterns were experienced where people and their movements were like whirlpools and rocks in a river, people were depersonalized and it was just the situation to be dealt with. In each case in this state my actions were not techniques which I had studied, but they were none-the-less highly appropriate to the situation. In each case after the critical period was over the physiological results of the adrenalin dump were quite evident. I can vividly remember the onset of awareness of pounding heartbeat, heightened sensory awareness, etc. as the immediate situation resolved itself.
1- Argument from authority. Within a particular tradition, the argument from an accepted authority is often very powerful. For instance, on a issue of Catholic dogma, an official pronouncement from a pope might carry great weight in a discussion between Catholics. This form of argument loses much of its effectiveness if one of the debaters does not acknowledge the authoritative nature of the authority being used to bolster an argument.
2- How does modern neuroscience tie into this discussion? Understanding of the brain has come a long way in recent years and I have not kept up with it. However, there is evidence of a rational layer on the surface of the brain (the cortex) overlying more primitive layers. Many of the primitive levels are instrumental in decision making and action including physical movement, even in cases where we interpret our actions based on a conscious rationalization. I have had a couple of experiences where real-life danger caused a shift in consciousness in which learned technique became irrelevant. This was obviously associated with a physiological adrenalin dump. The subjective experience was – time slowed down, emotions like anger or fear were not present, energy patterns were experienced where people and their movements were like whirlpools and rocks in a river, people were depersonalized and it was just the situation to be dealt with. In each case in this state my actions were not techniques which I had studied, but they were none-the-less highly appropriate to the situation. In each case after the critical period was over the physiological results of the adrenalin dump were quite evident. I can vividly remember the onset of awareness of pounding heartbeat, heightened sensory awareness, etc. as the immediate situation resolved itself.
