As I’v said many times before, it would be very good for you to study basic neurology and psycology, as most of your posts has the same scientific height as medival supesticion.
Just take people with spinal injuries who lost the nerve connection from the neck and down, they still have all the impulses as they would supposedly lose in your drawing, so this drawing doesn’t make sense, and makes even less sense that a supposed enlighten person would ever post such on a philosophy forum such as this.
Chi/prana flows along meridians, not through nerves.
I should hasten to add that I don’t believe in its literal existence any more than you do 
Study psycology/sexology one should know that lust isn’t only placed in the genetalia, but the concept in itself doesn’t nessesarily have to manifest itself in sexual organs at all, but can be as much a stimulant through hearing, visual and touch.
I’m with Hex. This does seem a bit on the superstitious side…well, not “a bit”…it’s full-blown
opinion is not a virtue.
throat chakra virtue is obviously song and such. So art, in a more abstract sense.
“Wisdom”? I would say presence.
“Intellect” - is not a virtue either. Insight is.
Vigor, lust, these I like -
contemplation for the solar plexus seems strangely positive.
Passion, for the hear. I suppose that’s unavoidable.
Is it posible to cultivate such virtues by meditating on the chakras?
It looks like there are two main forms of rebuttal to this diagram.
1) The Soft Rebuttal: This diagram does not correctly match the Virtues to body regions, but it would be possible to do so with the proper understanding of neuroscience and physiology. There is/are region(s) of the body which can be correlated to each virtue, e.g. “People with spinal injuries are still able to contemplate, so GGs diagram is incorrect, and we should place contemplation in the head.”
I think the linguistic objections go in this category as well, e.g. “Lust is an archaic way of stating sexual arousal. We can pinpoint body regions associated with sexual arousal, but Lust has problematic connotations, thus GGs diagram is a linguistic medieval relic.”
2) The Hard Rebuttal: Whether the Virtues are pointed to the correct region of the physical body in this diagram is totally irrelevant. It is absurd to suggest that we can point to any part of the body and say, “There is Wisdom.” Perhaps it makes more sense to point to a book. The Diagrammer points to his own groin and says, “There is lust,” the Hard objection points to an attractive member of the opposite sex. This would be contrary to Identity Theory which says mental states (here: Virtues) identify 1:1 with brain states. Perhaps the Hard Rebuttal is more ambiguous in its stance toward weak versions of Functionalism.
I think this is where philosophy can be helpful, in deciding which of these Rebuttals to level against diagrams/models that we find fault with.
I lean toward the Hard Rebuttal here. I do worry that in taking a hardline Hard Rebuttal stance I might come off as anti-science, which I am not.
Holy shit people. Did you think I’m forming a dissertation or something? It’s a concept, run with it whatever way you want to. Improvise on it, contemplate. Philosophize. I didn’t claim any facts. Aside from that there is good feedback. Yes, finding a more appropriate way to arrange the diagram is exactly what I was hoping to see people do.
Hex, you are walking on thin ice with your Ad Hom garbage. Mr. Self awarded psychologist and neurobiologist. I took school, and you should too. Now stop targeting me with your crap or I believe we can have you banned.
[quote=“Gaiaguerrilla”]
Holy shit people. Did you think I’m forming a dissertation or something? It’s a concept, run with it whatever way you want to. Improvise on it, contemplate. Philosophize. I didn’t claim any facts.
That was what I thought aswell, but try to make it clear at the start, making statements based on assumptions like hex hammer, (from my point of view) is no reason to ban someone. i would not be liked to be banned for my posts.
Every believe is emotionally embedded, do not get surprised if you find emotional remarks when you attack them.
“point of view” was a good insert to your statement, Victorel. This has been going for some time now, and not just with myself. It may come clearer if you unravel the history of it.
I don’t want to look at this purely trivial, though. Think about the extent of art and literature speaking of the “heart” or the “gut feeling.” These are virtues they’re trying to convey, and it would be insightful for us to invite what kinds of virtues they are literally speaking of in those manners.
Consider psychology (yes! psychology). People accessing their higher reasoning typically look upward. People accessing their feelings typically look downward. Try it sometime and observe it with people. That indicates that there is some natural science to these “virtue” body centers, and not purely literary.
It really scares me that you take my posts in this thread as a totally unreasonable ad hominem, as the deeper point totally escapes you, further that you don’t understand why all the people rejects the idea totally and won’t help building on the idea.
…that truly scares me, and I’m normally a very very cold and cynical bastard.
For the record, I never claimed to be mr-know-it-all when it comes to psycology, I merely know a little and see that little I know greatly benefits me in various discussions.
Gaiaguerrilla, please tell me how you would deal with a person who would claim 2 + 2 = 5? …and even claim it has great relevance and we can build upon this assumption. That he claims it’s everybody else who is wrong.
Is this really about virtues? Or is it about feelings and sensations? For instance, wouldn’t a virtue such as “love” encompass all of these areas and far beyond? I’m afraid a marriage wouldn’t be very successful if love were too heavily identified with a particular location.
Good question, anon. Perhaps what I’m saying is that throughout the history of literature, the use of a body part as metaphore has been to illustrate the function of a desire. “Follow your heart” - we all have many subjective views about what that means. But we all tend to coalesce on similar things. It means look beyond just your intellect. It means take a chance even when it’s not fully calculated. Or “go with your gut” which means something fairly different than “follow your heart.” It means react immediately without question. Or make the indications bring you an intuitive guess without full investigation.
I suspect that these traits are not just a specific culture, but common amongst many cultures. Obviously, the sexual one is a no-brainer. And it is a virtue if we want to reproduce. Perhaps I choose the navel as “contemplation” because of the fact that the umbillical chord is the only original portion of the body that connects with its ancestry. Looking backward, sort of.
There are lots of ways to interpret this or to modify it. I would not want to expect anyone to choose a specific way.
The only redeeming thing I can say about this thread is that with recent findings that both stomach and heart does indeed contain neurons, which classical neurology has refuded, why the old sayings about heart would equal love and gut instinct holds a grain of truth, but that’s not the whole truth.
Heart and stomach only do a tiny bit of the cognitive abilities.
There’s a phenomenon called muscle memory, which neurologists point out is, contrary to the “misleading name”, still “controlled by the brain”. But the point is that “examples of muscle memory are found in many everyday activities that become automatic and improve with practice, such as riding a bicycle, typing on a keyboard…” etc. You could say the cognitive actions performed take place in the brain, but from the point of view of someone training in playing a musical instrument for example, the point would be to stop thinking so much, and just let go and play. Let the body do it - get out of your head and just do it. If you are a trumpet player, your teacher might tell you to think with your heart and your fingers, rather than with your head. In this context, neurology has little or nothing to do with it.
That’s what people do in various karate and kung fu systems, this indoctrination of body movements, it shold to my knowledge be the CNS and only partially a concious thing.
Where things becomes pseudo science, is the organ memory, many who have had organ transplans would supposedly have compulsions from the earlier owner, that be smoking habbits, eating habbits …etc.
What’s CNS?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system
Why can’t people on various philosophy sites, google veeeerry simple things?
It was easier to ask you. Thanks.
Yeah. But your steaming issue has a bit of a problem regarding PWAs . . .
Oh. PWA? I’m sorry. Did you have trouble googling that? Why can’t you just google PWA? Your problem was probably an ID10T classified.
Oh still can’t find it? Allright, fine then. I’ll give you the URL. Are you sure? Double-check before you untab. 