Boy, Cheerskep is so tough on poor little ity-bitty minds like Lehrer's. I'm sure I missed some of Lehrer's lazy uses of IS, but not so with Cheerskep. I'm not sure what other failings Lehrer is guilty of, but they must be serious...or perhaps not, as Cheerskep relishes any chance to proclaim the inferiority of another's little offering.
Never mind that the thesis of Lehrer's book is rather timid, aiming only to show the presience of some earlier artists in today's light of neurological science. His is no philosophical tract. It does help to alert us to the scope of original art that illuminates how we really think, and helps us to move aside those preconceived and faulty assump-tions. No one knows just how brain functions give rise to what we call consciousness. The problem may lie with the notion of consciousness which has never been defined with any exactitude. But one thing is clear: no brain activity at all, including "unconscious" stem activity, means that there's no consciousness and no life. It's reasonable if not certain, that consciousness requires a functioning brain...with all its troubling neurons wityh their electrical and chemical buzz and ooze. I don't know why Cheerskep keeps using popular naive ideas regarding a pain being, say, in the leg and not in the brain when even schoolkids know that nerves and muscles, etc., body mechanics, are felt in the brain and the brain's unconscious monitoring locates the source of whatever the body is doing, pain or pleasure. Again, no brain, no pain. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I have my own trouble taking Cheerskep seriously when he seems to insist on elementary physiological errors. WC --- On Thu, 12/4/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Lehrer and Whitman > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 9:44 PM > In a message dated 11/29/08 8:08:38 PM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes re > the Lehrer: > > > > > > "Tell you what: Let's get through the book > first, then return to parse > > and critique its writing. It's pretty quick going. > . ." > > > It ain't quick for me, largely because I'm > continually halted by what I > consider Lehrer's many inadequacies. When I read any > philosopher, indeed, any > alleged expert, if I become convinced he's just not up > to the job, I seldom > feel > like pressing on. I react the same to all genres of > "artists". If I read a > great > deal by a given novelist, and it all displeases me, I do > not feel derelict in > not reading all of his works before saying HE as a writer > is displeasing to > me. Same with a given novel; the phrase in publishing is, > "You do not have to > eat all of the egg to know that it is bad." > > Can this occasionally make for a "mistake"? Yes, > but with the limited amount > of time I always figure I have, I judge that the few > mistakes are far > outweighed by the time saved (and "aesthetic" > angst avoided). I know it's not > out of > the question that Lehrer may have some remarks to make I > may esteem, but if > his > reasoning does not improve damn soon, I'll judge he > will turn out to be a > great waste of time. > > (I realize I have not detailed here all my reasons for > judging him so. But > the point of this posting is solely to say, "This is > how I react, why I may > not > agree with Michael that I should push on through the entire > book. I'm a slow > reader of philosophy." WHY I react this way toward > Lehrer would call for > another posting, one that would be bound to be very tedious > -- and > time-consuming) > > > > > ************** > Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and > favorite sites in one place. Try it now. > (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& > icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
