This is exciting and revolutionary information, supporting retroactively the likes of Neville Goddard and many, many more.
I would suggest to commenter Ms. Stevenson: You want to offer counter-arguments but end up repeatedly proving the article. What
You contradict yourself, first denying the author’s premise and then nodding to it by pointing to individuals being, ahem, SHOWN (are there no words, then, in these movies?) something which ignites desire for change “…A Clockwork Orange, where minds were changed by seeing a reality and understanding their part in it…” What better example could you have offered to support the author’s explanation of current linguistic science?! Alex’s character wasn’t changed through some visually excited moral shift; he was brainwashed Pavlov-style through his eyes, ears and other senses into revulsion toward violence. And remember, eventually he returned to violence despite these external efforts, because they failed to successfully override that which he had accepted as primary internal programming. That processing area remained hidden and dysfunctional.
How could the brain possibly be the driver, as you suggest? It operates in a vacuum, then? Of what use and impact the five (six) senses? No; our output is dependent upon two things: input and the processing thereof. We mustn’t only guard our output (mouth) and count upon social pressure/socially determined “norms”; that focus been actively demonstrated by several societies past and current (and political parties/movements) to backfire into hellish repressive timespans and the effectively diarrheal responsive social movements then necessary to re-open minds and societal structures.
Checking input at the personal door of the five senses to the greatest degree consciously possible, and sending it through fully engaged processors, is the answer to productive output. Input and processing already happen by default, as the author notes within the basic premise. What will we create when we selectively examine the input, not to mention when we shine the light of self-awareness upon the processors, constantly detoxify their output?
“You are what you eat” applies to the intake from all senses, not just the mouth. Or, if you prefer these terms: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Phi. 4:8
The view expressed in your comment abdicates personal responsibility. Victims, we. The science presented in the article gives us instead a thrust at self-accountability. We are what we think about.
The power of words – their effect on the speaker and the hearer – has been known, discussed, written and preached about for as long as there has been language. Didn’t everyone’s mother chide “if you cannot say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”? While this article about the actual brain activity caused by hearing certain types of words is interesting, as humans we are not victims of the speech of those around us or of our own. We may get a certain involuntary neurological reaction to a word but we also have the ability to determine if what we hear is true or not by tempering it with our experiences, opinions and knowledge. To use the author’s example, “a caravan can be SIMULATED ss families in distress..” – yes, the word caravan can bring that picture to my mind; however, if with my own eyes, I observe something quite different I will accept the evidence of my eyes rather than the fabricated picture the word brought to mind. It seems that the author is proposing that by merely changing our language, we can change our behavior. Clearly not or liars would hear their own lies and believe them and become more honest. Any change begins in with personal desire; something — a loss, a gain, a painful or embarrassing episode, that shines the light of reality on someone personally — causes a person to say “I want to be better” nicer, kinder, more generous. Think Ebenezer Scrooge, or even A Clockwork Orange – where minds were changed by seeing a reality and understanding their part in it, and wanting to return to their better self or to be a different better person. People say hateful things because first they hate. “Sow a thought, reap an action…” Our brain is the driver, not our ears. This doesn’t mean we don’t need to guard our mouths – because we do; but notice WE must guard OUR mouths – guarding someone else’s mouth with laws or word police or classifying speech isn’t going to change people if they are not personally convicted to change. The best we can do is make it socially unacceptable – and that is “socially” (not legally) which can be far more powerful.
Comments are closed.