2
sushil_yadav, on May 6 2008, 07:59 AM, said:
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
You have not defined thinking, nor would most people agree with the premise that "A thinking mind cannot feel." In fact, one might argue that a non-thinking mind does not feel. Thus, if any reader were to disagree with your original premise, without further evidence or justification, none of your following research or argumentation will have any weight.
A major issue: You have already presumed what the results of your experiment will be. This would lead one reading your research proposition to expect that, rather than your premise being a hypothesis and therefore refutable if not true, the research given will prove exactly what it intended to--whether the results would actually support that evidence or not.
You choose tragedy actors? This kind of sampling will certainly skew your research as people who are trained in putting on emotion or in getting themselves to feel emotions that they aren't actually feeling could easily skew the tests. A wide range of people must be chosen to represent the whole range of the community (mankind).
A control? There should be a non-tragic film showed in the same way and the same emotions gauged in order to measure how useful your results are. Otherwise, it is impossible to tell which variable is affecting responses--the tragedy itself, or the slowness of the film.
And, again, you presume that listening to words = thinking = inability to feel emotion. That is a premise that needs proven before more research can be based on it.
sushil_yadav, on May 6 2008, 07:59 AM, said:
Experiment:
Subjects (preferably actors specialising in tragedy / tragic roles )
will be asked to watch a silent video film showing any of the
following:-
(1) Human suffering.
(2) Animal suffering.
(3) Suffering ( Destruction ) of Air / Water / Land / Trees.
Subjects will be asked to intensify and sustain the subjective feeling of pain/ grief for the sufferer.
The chemical changes associated with the emotion in the body(blood) would be measured by appropriate methods.
The silent video film will be shown at different speeds :
...
Results :
(1) Intensity of emotion increases with the decrease in visual speed.
(2) Intensity of emotion is maximum when visual speed is minimum (25%
of actual speed)
(3) The amount of chemical change associated with the emotion in the
body(blood) will be found to increase with the decrease in visual speed.
(4) The chemical change is maximum when visual speed is minimum.
(5) The amount of chemical change will increase with the decrease in
breathing rate. Breathing becomes so slow and non-rhythmic that it stops
for some time at the inhalation/ exhalation stages.
The above co-relations will be valid for all subjects -even for those who cannot feel pain/ grief. Such subjects will experience emotion associated with boredom/ discomfort/ restlessness/ irritability/ uneasiness. The chemicals released will be different but the co-relation between visual speed and amount of chemical will be same( the breathing rates will be different/ fast). All subjects will experience some kind of emotion.
Subjects (preferably actors specialising in tragedy / tragic roles )
will be asked to watch a silent video film showing any of the
following:-
(1) Human suffering.
(2) Animal suffering.
(3) Suffering ( Destruction ) of Air / Water / Land / Trees.
Subjects will be asked to intensify and sustain the subjective feeling of pain/ grief for the sufferer.
The chemical changes associated with the emotion in the body(blood) would be measured by appropriate methods.
The silent video film will be shown at different speeds :
...
Results :
(1) Intensity of emotion increases with the decrease in visual speed.
(2) Intensity of emotion is maximum when visual speed is minimum (25%
of actual speed)
(3) The amount of chemical change associated with the emotion in the
body(blood) will be found to increase with the decrease in visual speed.
(4) The chemical change is maximum when visual speed is minimum.
(5) The amount of chemical change will increase with the decrease in
breathing rate. Breathing becomes so slow and non-rhythmic that it stops
for some time at the inhalation/ exhalation stages.
The above co-relations will be valid for all subjects -even for those who cannot feel pain/ grief. Such subjects will experience emotion associated with boredom/ discomfort/ restlessness/ irritability/ uneasiness. The chemicals released will be different but the co-relation between visual speed and amount of chemical will be same( the breathing rates will be different/ fast). All subjects will experience some kind of emotion.
Then there is the fact that lack of emotion is directly linked to the destruction of nature? Thinking minds can't see the value of nature? Before writing the conclusion about how lack of emotion is ruining the planet, a) prove that you can't emote and think at the same time,
prove that today's society is destroying the ability to emote, and then c) prove that lack of emotion has any link whatsoever to the destruction of the planet. Yes, earth is going to pot, as they might say, and this is not a good thing. But you have not convinced me that this is because we are spending too much time thinking and not enough time emoting over the tragedy of the destruction of the earth itself. Nor have you convinced me that an agragarian society spent any less time thinking, or that they thought more slowly, than the current society. At least in pioneer America, surviving as you eked out a living in a hostile land with unpredictable weather and cut off from nearly all other people required a great deal of quick thinking, innovation, and survival mentality. Their minds were just as keen on thinking, or much more so, than today's modern entrepreneur who only needs to know their section of the product and who spends their time on the computer being entertained, developing a short attention span, rather than spending much time thinking at all. So, yes, I have some understanding of these things. Oddly, I used my scientific, thinking mind to understand them. There goes another tree...
And I still think it's ironic that you are using modern scientific form and thought to prove that thinking is destroying the environment... But obviously you didn't catch the irony in that one, eh?
Edited by jyoti, 21 May 2008 - 06:01 PM.
and Spiritual 
forum? We're first and foremost a travel site and, of course, India is the home of Yoga and spirituality, but any visitor to this site will think we're science and environmental boffins. Why don't you lighten up, have some fun on this site, and tell us more about yourself, where you've travelled in India, and elsewhere for that matter.
Although I must say, I do believe I feel as strongly about puri as sushil does about the environment. *grin* ) 
