Arlo,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:11 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > > [JC] > No, I'm not interested in a bio-reductionist view. I am interested in basic > duality of human perspective. > > [Arlo] > Huh? A bioreductionist view is just that, John. It argues (as you are) that > 'human perspective' or cognition is determined by neurology. You're > specifically stating that whether a person operates in the "classical mode" > or the "romantic mode" is determined by their left or right "brainedness". Jc: Nope, because I'm not arguing that the bi-hemisphericality of the human brain is the cause of dualistic thinking, I'm arguing that its the effect. And I'm not talking about causal relations anyway - I'm saying that human thinking is dualistic, no matter what structure the brain is. bio-reductionism is seeing higher patterns as caused (dictated) by the lower. I don't see things that way. Arlo: > > But let's set that misunderstanding aside. As I've said now several times, > current understandings of neurology DO NOT SUPPORT your belief. The article > specifically says this. > > It starts by repeating your exact argument: Maybe you're "right-brained": > creative, artistic, an open-minded thinker who perceives things in subjective > terms.Or perhaps you're more of a "left-brained" person, where you're > analytical, good at tasks that require attention to detail, and more > logically minded. > Jc: I don't care if right-brained is a physiological fact, or not. I care if the mental behavior we label "right-brain" is real. and it is. We can pick some other lable for it. I already said I prefer "romantic" but you don't like that label either. You prefer to think that the behavioral distinction doesn't exist, if we semantically ignore it. That's a pipe dream of academic intellectuals everywhere, but won't fly in the real world, Arlo. Arlo: > That, right there, is what you are arguing. Jc: You have been projecting your own strawman. You don't understand what I'm arguing. Or at least you didn't before. Maybe I've explained it sufficiently now. Just keep it mind, I'm not speaking semantics, I'm speaking empirically. Arlo: >That left-brained people are classical, and right-brained people are romantic. > Jc: Let me simplify it for you. There are so-called romantics and so-called classics. Men especially tend toward analytics and women holistics but both use both and those who are stronger in one side, need to develop more of the opposite. This is why intellectual ideas can seem so dynamic to artists and art seems so dynamic to intellectuals. Both extremes desire the other and there is no sharp division between the two so it drives analytical types crazy so they pretend there is no "real" differernce between art and intellect but they're wrong. There plainly is. Arlo: > Then the articles states: It turns out, though, that this idea of > "brained-ness" might be more of a figure of speech than anything, as > researchers have found that these personality traits may not have anything to > do with which side of the brain you use more. > Jc: And as a "figure of speech" is exactly how I'm using it. Arlo: > I'm going to repeat this next section from the empirical study because you > apparently skipped over it. > Jc: Don't bother. You're trying to prove the wrong argument to the wrong person. No, I got that wrong, you're trying to prove the right argument to the wrong person. > "In popular reports, “left-brained” and “right-brained” have become terms > associated with both personality traits and cognitive strategies, with a > “left-brained” individual or cognitive style typically associated with a > logical, methodical approach and “right-brained” with a more creative, fluid, > and intuitive approach. Based on the brain regions we identified as hubs in > the broader left-dominant and right-dominant connectivity networks, a more > consistent schema might include left-dominant connections associated with > language and perception of internal stimuli, and right-dominant connections > associated with attention to external stimuli. > > Yet our analyses suggest that an individual brain is not “left-brained” or > “right-brained” as a global property, but that asymmetric lateralization is a > property of individual nodes or local subnetworks, and that different aspects > of the left-dominant network and right-dominant network may show relatively > greater or lesser lateralization within an individual." > > So what they found was that there are UNIVERSAL HUMAN differences in where > different types of activity appear localized. You, me, Ant, Dan, everyone... > we ALL seem to have our language activity localized towards > left-lateralization. BUT, the authors themselves suggest even this is not an > argument for bioreductionism, that they are not arguing that the > left-hemisphere of the brain causes language. AND, as I mentioned, studies on > neuroplasticity demonstrate that injuries to the left-hemisphere can be > overcome by relocating the neural hub, even across hemispheres. > > NONE of this supports your argument that (1) the left-hemisphere is analytic > and the right is creative, let alone that (2) these two > 'biologically-determined' divisions create two different types of people > mapped to Pirsig's 'classical' and 'romantic' ways of thinking. > Jc: I admit I had suffered under a misunderstanding about the brain. And guess where that misunderstanding came from in the first place? That's right, an article about scientific research like you just offered. So what can I conclude but that science marches on and the beliefs of today will be attacked tomorrow. > [JC] > But however you wanna map it, there are two distinct ways in which we humans > process information and I think the labels "romantic" and "classic" work well > to describe these two different ways. > > [Arlo] > And this, again, was the PROBLEM addressed by ZMM. These categories ARE NOT > 'NATURAL', they are artificially-coerced ways of thinking resulting from a > problematic subject-object metaphysical view. Jc: Well at least now we are getting somewhere Arlo, you're nearer the heart of the real John Carl, with this because I see that stance as highly problematic. For one thing, there are empirical statistical differences in male and female thinking, and that didn't arise out of any SOM but biology. I think what SOM does, in effect, is try and wipe out the artistic and holistic ways of viewing things and make only analytical intellect "real" and that seems to be what you say the MoQ wants us to do. I think you might have a point, but if so, then it's a correction we need to make, not a precept we need to follow. And I've got lots of reasons why, just ask. Arlo: To use the language from the article (also above), "these personality traits may not have anything to do with which side of the brain you use more" but they arise as people are acclimated to life within a SOM-dominant culture. > > And, seriously, I think I've flogged this horse enough. > only you can say, when you've had enough. I have a feeling I'm in for some more. John 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
