Marsha said to dmb:
Am I missing something about being a grandparent? I really wish you'd explain
the behavior you expect from a grandparent, and how Krimel is violating your
expectations? Sounds like a static social pattern? Marsha, the generationally
challenged
dmb says:
My expectations? Doesn't everyone expect grandparents to be mature? There is a
limit to how young a grandparent can be, see, and older people are supposed to
be more mature than younger people. But I think Krimel's style is childish and
painfully undignified. Go ahead, make a case that the following is not
childish... I also characterized it as "vague" and as "snarky bullshit", so
those descriptions are already taken. But if you have a better word for this,
please do tell.
Krimel said to dmb:
...You make James sound like Pirsig's John the Baptist. It is positively
Orwellian. Do you realize this is what you are saying or does that claim of
independence really sound coherent to you?
... Can you spell peer review?
... I never saw any of this as a problem until I started talking to you.
... That is obvious but hardly from lack of trying on my part. You keep talking
about Bolte-Taylor. But what you say about her TED talk makes it obvious you
did not understand it at all.
... You take this as new age talk when in fact it is derived from the cognitive
neuroscience and information processing.
... I am speculating here a bit but much of the touchy feely gee whiz part of
talk; feeling connected to the universe that appeals to you so much may have
been the result of seizure or effects on her temporal lobes.
... In your Oxford talk you mention two books on the neuropsychology of zen. I
really laughed at that since when I pointed this research out to you in the
past you dismissed it reductionist and irrelevant ...
...Your charge of "reductionism" is just your blanket term to justify not doing
your homework. You remind be of the drunk looking for his car keys under a
street lamp because there is light there to guide his search.
... In isn't just your lack of depth in your own field that is a problem, Dave.
It is the narrowness of your vision and your absurd rationalization for
clinging to ignorance.
... Whatever side of this debate you choose to be on you will not be taken
seriously if you dismiss the extensive research in the field as "reductionism"
or "SOM". .. Just your typical romantic dismissal.
... I am pretty sure he would take offense at your attempt to use his name to
justify ignoring the literature on neuroscience. ... James would not agree
with your position either ...
... few in the field take Freud's explanations particularly seriously anymore
and haven't for decades. I think that means you should study him more.
... Your idiosyncratic reaction to the findings of pretty much everyone who has
considered to matter for the past 50 years on the other hand might best be
explained by a Freudian although I would suggest medication.
... you seem genetically incapable of straying outside your comfort zone. But
to paint this "romanticism" as somehow moral or philosophically justifiable is
just a form of self delusion.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
