Krimel asked:
My question was what is the difference between "circularity" and "paradox" on
the one hand and "platipi" on the other? Also could you clarify the meaning of
this term you have taken to using recently: non-conceptual.
dmb says:
A platypus is an analogy for anything that doesn't fit into existing
categories. Circularity, in a context like this, is a type of invalid reasoning
wherein the conclusion is used as a premise to reach the conclusion. A paradox
is a statement that seems contradictory but turns out to be valid upon further
inspection. The fact that light is a wave and a particle, for example. In the
same way, defining something as undefinable only sounds like a logical
contradiction.
Non-conceputal is just another term for pre-intellectual, that idea we find in
ZAMM, Lila and James's radical empiricism where it is called pure experience
and the immediate flux of life. Northrop calls it an undifferentiated aesthetic
continuum. Dewey calls it "Had" experience, as opposed to "known", by which he
means conceptually known. That's all non-conceptual means. It just means "not
conceptual". Emotions, feelings, moods, intuitions, sensations, or anything in
the affective domain would count as non-conceptual. Some of it is unconscious,
not just un-conceptual. ;-)
Krimel asked:
If these "two competing ways of thinking and being" cannot be explained in
terms of the brain, why is he talking about the left hemisphere.
dmb says:
Because it's part of the story, part of the explanation. Reductionism is when
you take it as THEE explanation all by itself. Again, to explain cultural and
philosophical differences in terms of neurological processes or structures is
to REDUCE culture and philosophy to physiology. (There's no such thing as
Nirvana, it's just parallel processing.) And it is simply an error to treat
philosophy and culture as if it were just a product of biology. Cultures and
philosophies are not caused by brains or equal to brains or determined by
brains. Brains are a necessary but insufficient condition of cultures and
philosophies, which are evolved structures too, but they're patterns of a
qualitatively different kind with processes of their own. Yes, the brain is
more than just relevant to the story but the cultural and historical part is
every bit as important and the latter is actually the object of inquiry.
Understanding how the brain works is supposed to help us understand the meaning
o
f cultural flowerings, such as the Axial age and the Renaissance, and the
meaning of philosophical ideas, such as the distinction between static and
dynamic quality.
Krimel said:
As I said, the literature on this subject is rich indeed and from what I can
tell of McGilchrist's recent book may be a worthy addition to that literature.
But wouldn't it be easier and more productive to focus on a book like Jonah
Lehrer's "How We Decide" which you have cited and recommended to us, rather
than a book you know only from a radio interview and we know nothing at all
about? Or perhaps you could link us the interview. I have no wish to discuss
your impressions of someone you haven't read.
dmb says:
I haven't read either of those books yet. But I know enough to see that they
will be included in my bibliography because they'll support my thesis quite
nicely and neatly. That's just how you have to do it when you're pulling
sources together, which is what I've been doing. You investigate the things
that seem promising, read a few sections, scan the index, read a review or two
and I've found there is often a short version of the central ideas available
because they had been previously published as a Journal article by the same
author. That's super handy. Then you know for sure what you're getting.
Secondly, I think everyone knows that brain science wasn't invented yesterday.
Everybody knows the field has a history. But scanning technology has really
opened things up in the past few years. That's why it's so exciting right now.
Psychology and the philosophy of mind are equally exciting as a result. And
guess whose views are being vindicated by this new work? He he, ha ha, ho ho.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
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
