No-Know
I'm not sure I'm following.
"The model of Humans being an exception to the intra- model is wrong, given this, as Humans might consider out of their perceived group to be inter-."
Looking at the actual observations, aggressive behavior against the foreign percieved group follows the model for intra- behaviors. There was never a reason to believe humans ever were an exception to the intra-model.
"Survival is ritual in some cases to at least some cases of Humans. Survival can occure by..."
These are good examples of when survival and ritual cross, and perhaps why these were poor names for the two sets of behaviors!
Crimson Pheonix
"I didn't intend this thread to become a modern neurology discussion. What I intented originally is to drop some theories, from serious scientists"
Neurology doesn't count as serious science theories?
"why would you want to adopt low stances when everyone feels it's easier to be high"
I wouldn't. The behaviors associated with ritual/intra-species aggression are 'designed' to do two things - i) convey submissive/dominant posturing, ii) protect vital areas (in rats: face of attacker, back of defender). I'm not sure what characterizes, universally, the survival/inter-species behaviors, but it's not clear, or at least unestablished, that lowering of gravity is universal among them (submissive animals in ritual behavior certainly lower their gravity quite dramatically, for example).
"why some serious styles say 'blocks shouldn't be used'"
I don't think any style suggests an absence of handwork which provides defense. Variations upon what this defense entails are the variations by which we distintinguish different martial styles (in other words, it's not indicative of anything to notice there are different approaches here). If it's a timing, rather than technique issue, the idea of 'blocks shouldn't be used' means one doesn't fight with a block-strike-block-strike perfect tempo. Rather, one simply moves, which is the attack/defense. The reason for this is simply that it's the only thing that works. To para-phrase Erle Montaigue, "Just blocking someone is like saying, 'Hey, swing at me again!'" which isn't the message you want to be sending. More to the point, this kind of 'synchrony of action' or 'blurred timing' is not characteristic of one of ritual/survival, intra-/inter-species aggression. Watch, for example, a pack of scavengers around a carcass; the 'synchrony of action' is utterly beautiful/baffling. A dominant animal will lurch forward with a snarl simultaneous to the submissive animal lurching back with a crouch and snarling yelp - the action isn't "one, two!" it's "onnnnnnee" (to paraphrase my instructor). It's important to note here that even the "defending" or submissive animal in a ritual/intra- confrontation will be attacking/defending simultaneously.
"why hitting with open hands"
Again, we can expect variation in the perferred method of holding the hands among martial styles, void of any ethological concerns. Again, it seems like open hands is characteristic of the submissive side of ritualistic/intra- aggressive behavior, so it's unclear at this point as to how valid it is to associate it directly with survival/inter-species behaviors.
"We all know Newton can't stand the test of modern physics...yet, his theories remain totally functional in many systems...so I do not really want to debate whether Lorentz was right or not"
And in other systems, his theories don't remain functional. Which is why it's important to understand their failings so that you don't use them to uphold faulty conclusions in areas where they don't function. Questioning Lorentz based on more recent findings is this exact process. Anyway, you can't ask for a discussion where we all agree!
"I'm already aware there are many highly educated and intelligent posters here...so let's keep it martial, and not just debate about pure scientific theories"
I'm a little confused by this attitude.