What literature can you cite in the fielod to justify your conclusion that neurology hasn't contributed anything to aid artists or art contemplators?
I've cited people like Solso and Zeki and there are still others quite numerous and their ranks are increasing. Neurology is not the science it used to be. Along with the whole range of biological science, it is undergoing a renaissance, an explosive new era, thanks to new imaging technology and the gathering of outstanding intellects. WC --- On Thu, 12/18/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art" > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 5:10 PM > William writes: > > "I don't understand why some here are so against > neuroscience and take pains > to trivialize it.. . if neurology is too limited and > trivial, what, indeed, > what, is left and how do we know it?" > > William, please look again. At no point do I say neurology > is trivial. The > amount of pain that neurologists have prevented, stopped or > reduced is > incalculable. It's hard to think of any contribution to > humanity greater than the > reduction of raw human pain. > > It has been priceless at that assignment. But the > assignment of contributing > something of utility or enlightenment to artists and > contemplators is a > different task entirely. And I have not seen, nor do I > anticipate soon seeing, > anything like that from neurologists. I claim that to say > this is not to trivialize > neurology, any more than to observe that cardiologists > never treat "affairs > of the heart" is to say their work is trivial. > > > > > > ************** > One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, > Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. > (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& > icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
