[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01343: Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

From: Giorgio Menon <giorgio.menon(at)pd.infn.it>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:49:32 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

Hi Antonio,
intriguing issue, the bi/monocameral mind. I'm not sure this is the
right place to discuss it, but there are several social/political
threads attached.
One question: do you think that the "evolution" (yuk!) that brought as
gift the bicameral mind took place when agricolture was adopted?

I've never heard of the Shumacher society, but i've heard about the
logical and the contemplative mind. We too often use the logical mind
(any action MUST contain a goal, anything has an explanation) and leave
little or no room to the contemplative one (you do it because you like
it-ie no goal- and things simply happen).

I have the strong impression that fundamentalism is not only religious.
Scientific fundamentalism is far worse simply because is not commonly
sensed, covered as it is by tons of scientific propaganda. The
abovementioned "evolution" is a clear example of this. The invention of
linear Time and measurable (thus sellable) Space are milestones that has
allowed to create the technologies that lead Western values to spread
all over the world and rule it. Denying their meaning, their sense and
acknowledging their ultimate goal (power/profits) is something that very
few have dared to do and is still topic of profound discussions among
philosophers of science, historicians and anthropoligists.

You write:
"fundamentalism (religious or scientific, it does not
matter) seems incompatible with Democracy, even if the
fundamentalist claims it is".
I've tried many times to make clear that Democracy is an invention of
the elites offering the illusion that common people are ruling their
lives. It's never been so, certainly not in ancient Athens nor now, as
the Biggest of All Democracies (BAD) keeps showing us. In a recent
survey nearly 60% of American citizens are dissatisfied with their
political system (democracy, exactly). Had they the power to change as
clearly stated in any democracies' plans, they'd do it. Unfortunately
they can't. That's why i say that Democracy is perfectly compatible with
fundamentalism, being ruled by numbers as it is. Ruled by numbers, not
by people, please notice. It doesn't take into any account "who will
follow, to wit, our children" which is (and i hope you agree here) the
one and only valid reference. The world to come has little importance to
the democratic rulers, busy as they are to assure higher and higher
profits to the multinationals that are paying their bills.
This thread is getting too heavy, so i better stop here.

Ciao

Giorgio


Antonio Rossin wrote:


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


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]