I doubt John claimed
belief that Pirsig's classical and romantic modes of thinking are
neurological determined.
More like neurologically supported, predictable, consistent, consilient,
few things are determined in this world.
It is far from nonsense to to bring cross-discipline material
healthy scepticism is indeed a requirement of any worthwhile discourse.
But of course it's neither the point, nor the whole of such discourse.
Having cultivated a healthy scepticism, the point is constructive
creativity towards new meaningful hypotheses.
It's crude scientism to think the way to
Thought so ... in here JC says
bio-reductionism is seeing higher patterns as caused (dictated) by the
lower. I don't see things that way.
Me too. But lower patterns do support and static-latch higher patterns
in true Pirsigian style. Bio supports socio-intellectual.
(Just DMB being the
[Ian]
I doubt John claimed belief that Pirsig's classical and romantic modes of
thinking are neurological determined.
[Arlo]
No, you're right. He had reversed his claim into classic/romantic modes of
thinking causes left/right brainedness.
[Ian]
More like neurologically supported, predictable,
On May 30, 2014, at 5:53 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com
wrote:
healthy scepticism is indeed a requirement of any worthwhile discourse.
But of course it's neither the point, nor the whole of such discourse.
Having cultivated a healthy scepticism, the point is constructive
Ian had said:
It is far from nonsense to to bring cross-discipline material into the
discussion. In fact that's the very point of IAI (your link DMB). I
was at the IAI How The Light Gets In Festival last weekend and
earlier this week at Hay on Wye, and most sessions involved
combinations
Thanks Ian,
But maybe Arlo is right. Maybe if we'd just drop the divisive
terminology, we wouldn't have all the conflicts we have. So let's
ignore, male-brain/female-brain or day/night or yes/no and call
it all Quality!
Down with differentiation! Quality is all!
Quality,
Quality.
On
Ron. Ian,
I believe it is both, Ron.
Somewhat analogous to DQ/SQ
Both.
It's not an either/or situation.
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Ron Kulp xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
On May 30, 2014, at 5:53 AM, Ian Glendinning ian.glendinn...@gmail.com
wrote:
healthy scepticism is indeed a
Ron,Ron:
From the death of expertise
Having equal rights does not mean having equal talents, equal abilities,
or equal knowledge. It assuredly does not mean that “everyone’s opinion
about anything is as good as anyone else’s.” And yet, this is now enshrined
as the credo of a fair number of
dmb quoted from Peter Hacker's article, Why Study Philosophy?:
The study of philosophy cultivates a healthy scepticism about the moral
opinions, political arguments and economic reasonings with which we are daily
bombarded by ideologues, churchmen, politicians and economists. It teaches one
dmb quoted from Hacker's article, Why Study Philosophy?:
The only way to scrutinise concepts is to examine the use of the words that
express them. Conceptual investigations are investigations into what makes
sense and what does not. And, of course, questions of sense precede questions
of
dmb said to John:
...The problem space is SOM, the problem addressed by the MOQ, not
anti-intellectualism. Even further, the criticism is that your
anti-intellectualism is connected to your failure to get out of the problem
space. That is to say, you keep attacking intellect here in the MOQ
Michael,
I'll take up your offer:
It is commercially available - http://www.sheandibook.com - but I'd be happy
to send you and whomever else here a passworded .pdf .
I'd be most pleased to read anything you've written.
My only connection with Alan Watts is that the same teacher who
13 matches
Mail list logo
