I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
"You have to have some swagger, for crying out loud. ... Not good.
ReplyDeleteSo we see that there is yet another problem with democracies. Because of their periodic elections, even relatively stable States such as the US temporarily lose their footing."
Bob, this seems a bit muddled.
You want Obama to have more swagger, why? To better scare off bad guys abroad, OR to better manipulate the American people into supporting huge diversions of wealth to friends in the defense industries?
And you suggest that democracies are more likely (than autocratic regimes?) to "lose their footing" (by supporting a waste of taxpayers' funds on defense? Sure we have a huge problem in the US that is noticeable worse over the Bush administration. But how can you with a straight face suggest that the problem is LESS under an autocratic regime, which would tolerate much less internal criticism to diversions of wealth used to keep themselves in power?
Bemoan our easily manipulated tribal instincts for hostility and chest-beating all you like, but please don't wish more of it, AND more autocracy as a cure, on us.