Arlo:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]>wrote: > [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. > > [Arlo] > And, again, the studies DO NOT back this up. Jc: Of course they don't. I wasn't making a scientific point, I was making a philosophical one. Get off that horse you're riding and hear my point. Arlo: Even if you flip the cause and effect, it makes no different. There is no > evidence that people, anyone, is 'right-brained' or 'left-brained'. What > the studies DO show is that there may be universal tasks that correlate > with specific hemispheres (e.g. language to the left), but even this is > subject to neuroplasticity. > > That is the point. Your coopting a mistaken 'popular' belief and then > trying to apply it to normalize Pirsig's classical/romantic schism. > > Jc: I thought it was an interesting mapping of a higher (more abstract) truth. Duality is the ontological basis of human consciousness. That is, we wouldn't know what classical thinking (analytic, logical) unless there was another kind of thinking to compare. Thus intellect knows itself. Otherwise, it's a logical absurdity. That's my point, and the brain stuff was just a side issue, because I have an aesthetic sense that would be pleased at the symmetry if it were true. I keep trying to explain this, but you don't get it. > [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. > > [Arlo] > It is NOT. As I said, John, I'm not going to debate neurology with you. > Any genuinely interested in the research has easy access to it. > > Jc: I shouldn't have confused you. I won't use the term "right-brained" anymore. Let's see, you don't like "romantic" either so how about holistic-aesthetic? As opposed to logical-objective. You think there is a distinction between these two types of thinking? No? Well I do. > [JC] > You prefer to think that the behavioral distinction doesn't exist, if we > semantically ignore it. > > [Arlo] > Like Pirsig, I think the distinction is one coerced upon us by the > metaphysical ideas that underlie our culture. Jc: I can't argue with that. All distinctions are. That's not the question. The quesrtion is, does the distinction do work in experience, or not? I say it does. You say it doesn't. Why don't we argue that, rather than your scientific study? Arlo: > This was the point of ZMM. This distinction is ARTIFICIAL. I'm not sure > what more I can even say, John, this is like basic ZMM 101, its completely > disheartening to have to even act like this is somehow disputable. > > Jc: I agree completely, Arlo. I thought you understood the fact that just because our distinctions are artificial (in a sense) does not mean they are non-existent. For one thing, your "non-existent" relies upon an artificial distinction! So I don't know what your point is. You have an opinion and its based upon a scientific study, therefore it's a "real" distinction? Piffle. It's you who doesn't understand the MoQ if that's what you believe. > [JC] > So what can I conclude but that science marches on and the beliefs of > today will be attacked tomorrow. > > [Arlo] > You should conclude that our understanding of things is in a constant > state of refinement. People though the world was flat once too. > > Jc: Yes, that is my point. So hold on loosely, to the judgements of today. > [John] > only you can say, when you've had enough. I have a feeling I'm in for > some more. > > [Arlo] > Yeah, but consider this nothing more than a frustrated summation. > -- I can't imagine adding anything more to the points I've made. But as Platt always said, I could be wrong, 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
