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
[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,
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
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 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
Arlo said to John:
...You're making a very specific claim, in order to reduce Pirsig's problematic
classical/romantic schism to one that is determined by neurophysiology. I'm
saying, the current research does not support that at all.What's critical
here is that you're not making the claim
