There are only three types of perception: rationalism, empiricism and faith/authority. Some outside-in concepts that masquerade as above-down ask us to reject the first two and utilze the third for the perception and acceptance of truth. That is not wrong in and of itself as long as the authority you are putting your faith in is a valid one. As in rationalism (deductive reasoning) if your premise is incorrect, your conclusions will in all liklihood be incorrect. Even in empiricism, your senses can be fooled. That’s why there is such a thing as “instant replay.” In certain types of New Age thinking, that authority is self and self, in this case, is not the innate mind but rather the educated mind. Calling it innate and claiming that what it/he/she told you to do must be right because innate intelligence is 100%, does not make it so. Emotions are not innate, they are educated and emotional decisions, intuition, inspiration, gut feelings, or so-called “innate thot flashes” come from the educated brain and may be good or bad, right or wrong, like any educated decision. When self or the educated mind is the authority, we must have checks and balances. In this country, we have the freedom of self-determination but the check is the law of the land (U.S. Constitution). In chiropractic our check is our objective and the philosophy that supports it.
Hey Joe,
Emotions are not Innate but are they a product of innate intelligence? Do you educatedly decide when to be afraid, when to get angry? I would wonder if emotions are not an intellectual adaptation that affects our whole system. Maybe species level intelligence?
I would suggest emotions are part of a survival mechanism. Isn’t it fear that launches the flight or fight response? Fear and anger and for that matter love can all have an influence on educated decisions. Does that necessarily make emotions an educated function?
Jay Holder DC MD, in his work describes the chemistry of emotions. They (the chemicals) are circulated in the CSF. Only animals with vertebrae have the receptors for these chemicals, therefore emotional responses. In fact his research suggests subluxations interfere with this chemical flow and foster addictions.
I know emotions were not the point of the thread, but I did use rationalism, empiricism and authority to explain my view
Joe,
I do wonder, reading this treasure of Chiropractic Philosophy interactions, thoughts and opinions (It has helped me immensely to check a slip), why some posts just ‘peter off’. The audience I know wanes, so that has some bearing, BUT, Anyway
JOE (that was to get your attention),
Could you answer Steve’s question, here, about emotion, for that matter (now I’d better not start rambling) consciousness, which in itself is a mystery and certainly has non-mechanistic overtones to it, meaning:
Yes educated intelligence is 0% at birth, but consciousness and emotions? That might be at 100% all expressed within a LOM. So,
Okay, 1 thing at a time.
Could you address Steves question or point here. It’s from yesteryear, true, but I still think valid, and I am interested in your remarks, Doc Joe đŸ˜‰