William wrote:
The real point here is an embarrassing absence of respect the listers have for one another. I think Lehrer is denounced because I suggested the book, although it was Michael who suggested an online debate.
Perhaps many of us fall rather easily into the rhythm of debate, quarreling and rebutting point by point, rather than engaging in a conversation, which Barzun called "a sifting of opinions" about a topic.
As I read Lehrer's book, I was struck by two things: one was his central point, that creative people described in their work or lived out in their lives some aspect of what recently has come to be accepted as proven neurobiological facts. The other was a troubling sense of post-hoc congruence. Perhaps it's just easier to see the obviousness of the route you are taking by looking out the rear window: the road ahead is always filled with poorly-marked turns and forks. It also seemed that in each chapter, Lehrer gave us a lot of parallel scientific activity, which seemed to draw the focus away from the creative person and toward all those James-Burke-like connections.
In any event, I had to put the book aside for a while to attend to other things, and just a couple of days ago resumed it. I'll return with more highlights and comments.
BTW, Lehrer was a lab assistant in a neuroscience lab, so I accept his qualifications to speak intelligently and reliably about the science side of his theme. I'm still "weighing and sifting" his opinions about the artists he writes about.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
