Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Giorgio Menon ha scritto:
> Antonio Rossin wrote:
> > Well, I remember very well your insulting violence
> > in rejecting any antithesis to your theses as "prattle,
> > meaningless asininity, bullshit" and alike pleasantries.
>
> Antonio,
> you are a neurologist and no one better than you can let me
> understand what's happening in Georges' mind. I repeatedly
> read his insults and contempt toward anyone who disagree
> with his ideas. Then i read this:
>
> "1.I don't write TO PEOPLE, but ABOUT their massages.
> I'm probably the only person on this list who does not write
> ad personam. If it happened once or twice, show me where
> and I appologize in advance."
> http://groups.google.it/group/epistemology/msg/bce11ad48a47c984?hl=it&;
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards
>
> Giorgio
Giorgio,

In my humble opinion -- but also in my past experience
as a psychiatry practitioner -- it is a matter of one's brain
hemispheres working together to process some thinking
line.  The question is, re to a given input-idea-argument,
do the two brain hemispheres co-operate together in good
balance, or there is a strong, possibly absolute dominance
of one hemisphere over the other?

This question is intriguing.

In the past, we have been told about a "mono-cameral
mind" which, along with the evolution of  humankind,
is being slowly substituted by some "bi-cameral mind".

Let's suppose, humankind is still evolving from the
"one hemisphere only!" individual's manner to process
his-her believing-behaving procedures, towards some
"both hemispheres working together in good balance"
manner of thinking and behaving.

More recently we have been told by some "Shumacher
Society" that there are two different attitudes of  human
mind: the "*either/or*" one (which I would call "*either* one
*or* the other brain hemisphere!") and the "*and - and*" one
(which corresponds to what I would call "*and* one *and* the
other brain hemisphere tied together in a good balance").

Now, let me recall, it is not that us humans are so rigidly
divided into two strictly defined categories, the *either/or*
and the *and-and*.  There can be tendencies, nuances and
different inputs-ideas-arguments that can be processed as
well within one's thinking machine (AKA Logics) in this
or that ways -- likely enough, with the only exception of
the religious fundamentalist, whose mind is able to perform
the either/or manner of thinking-behaving exclusively, for
any input-idea-argument.

Practically, the "either-or" mind is far more precise than the
"and-and" one.  The "either-or" minded people don't bear
uncertainty, but absolute (i.e. unquestionable) truth only.
Equally, the "either-or" minded one does not bear dialectics
(which implies antitheses to one's theses as a methodology)
nor being questioned-criticized.

A question arises: is the scientific fundamentalist similar
to the religious fundamentalist?  I think it is, depending on
how the scientist behaves, i.e. performs science : whether
for the sake of the (absolute) scientific truth -- or for the
sake of  those of us who will follow, to wit, our children.

Clearly, the religious fundamentalist behaves for the sake
of  God, regardlessly for their children 's life.

Also, fundamentalism (religious or scientific, it does not
matter) seems incompatible with Democracy, even if the
fundamentalist claims it is.


However, I must remark, these different characters of
human mind do not present in a "pure" form", even.
The "either/or" and the "and-and" traits of the human
mind represent the opposite poles of a continuum with
countless intermediate positions, although each one of
us (our esteemed George Metanomski included) cannot
but tend towards either one or the other of these opposite
polarities...


Hoping this helps,

antonio