Yes Arlo,
The Romantic/Classic dichotomy can't be applied to the left/right halves of the
brain. Just as it can't be applied to the difference between left/right hand
capabilities. Some left-handed people's right hand are more sensible and useful
than right-handed people's left hand and vice
Arlo,
Thanks for setting the record straight. You're right, sometimes I'm a
sloppy rememberer.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:23 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu
wrote:
[John]
Asymmetrical responses? Wait, wasn't it you that said there was new proof
that they were homogenous?
[Arlo]
J-A,
This, my friend, was absolutely fascinating.
The split in attitude is quite connected to Time. Romantics cling to the
status of the actual Now, the eternal change between before and later.
Classics prefer to follow the eternal lines and stick to patterns which are
unchanged during a
arlo
i wanna just quick check these souces you provide...
From
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/02/248089436/the-truth-about-the-left-brain-right-brain-relationship
Processing within each hemisphere relies on a rich, dense network of
connections. The corpus callosum that connects the
[John]
Asymmetrical responses? Wait, wasn't it you that said there was new proof that
they were homogenous?
[Arlo]
Sigh. Really? Really?? This is why its such a waste of time to respond to you
directly, John.
Every.. count them, EVERY... post I made about this (including the very one
with
[John]
Well clearly I was being ironic. I don't think that differentiaion is bad.
[Arlo]
Who said differentiation is bad? What you're doing is the reductio ad
absurdum, by suggesting that because Pirsig sought to fuse classical and
romantic modes of thinking (the result of SOM) into one, that
Arlo and John
5 jun 2014 kl. 17:19 skrev ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu:
[John]
Well clearly I was being ironic. I don't think that differentiaion is bad.
[Arlo]
Who said differentiation is bad? What you're doing is the reductio ad
absurdum, by suggesting that because Pirsig
Arlo,
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu
wrote:
[John]
Well clearly I was being ironic. I don't think that differentiaion is bad.
[Arlo]
Who said differentiation is bad? What you're doing is the reductio ad
absurdum, by suggesting that because Pirsig
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:10 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Ian]
Clearly short-hand naming of groups can be misused...
[Arlo]
Clearly.
[IG] Ha - irony bypass there.
[Ian]
... different people have different propensities to mental styles that use
the different halves.
[Ian]
... different people have different propensities to mental styles that use the
different halves.
[Arlo]
No. The research says exactly otherwise.
[IG] Evidence - ready when you are.
[Arlo]
I've already listed two different overviews of the current research. Each of
these has links to the
Ian and Arlo
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:10 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu
wrote:
[Ian]
Clearly short-hand naming of groups can be misused...
[Arlo]
Clearly.
Jc: Well clearly I was being ironic. I don't think that differentiaion is
bad. Au contraire - differentiation is
That's a politically correct cop-out John.
Differentiation is everything of significance, by definition.
Clearly short-hand naming of groups can be misused, but we all have
brains in two halves.
The two halves work in different complementary ways, and different
people have different propensities
[Ian]
Clearly short-hand naming of groups can be misused...
[Arlo]
Clearly.
[Ian]
... different people have different propensities to mental styles that use the
different halves.
[Arlo]
No. The research says exactly otherwise. The research says specifically that
'mental styles' ARE NOT
Arlo said to Ian:
...Are people brought up in a culture where science and art are not only
divorced but antagonistic? Of course. Has 'art' been devolved in our schools by
capital interests to a zero-value commodity? Of course. This was the problem
space of ZMM.Rather than normalize or
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
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
Arlo:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.eduwrote:
[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.
Arlo,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:11 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR
ajb...@psu.edu 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
[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. Even if you flip the cause and
effect, it makes no different. There is no evidence that
[JC]
Finally had time to sit down and glance through the article you posted. I
can't believe you think it supports the idea that left-brainedness and
right-brainedness, are not distinctive.
[Arlo previously]
... in reality these don't map to the categories you're still stuck in
(Pirsig's
Hi Arlo,
No, I'm not interested in a bio-reductionist view. I am interested in
basic duality of human perspective.
I had a personal experience with an on the job accident, 13 years ago,
where my median nerve was 99% severed at my left elbow. My Doctor
predicted that I'd never again have motor
[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
Finally had time to sit down and glance through the article you posted. I
can't believe you think it supports the idea that left-brainedness and
right-brainedness, are not distinctive.
It's absolutely true that some brain functions occur in one or the other
side of the brain. Language tends to
23 matches
Mail list logo
