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 mean you aren't willing to share?
ReplyDeleteI like to call it MY democracy.
ReplyDelete"Gene's democracy," I think you meant to say.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It's just as revolting as "We the People"', another phrase invented by conniving liars to facilitate their subjugation of the gullible.
ReplyDeleteNobody ever chose to be a part of the democracy, so your sentiment is correct.
ReplyDelete"Our" democracy makes it sound like they are not actually subjects of a system, and are rather the original builders of the system.
It's the same as people who say, "We won" when a national athlete wins the Olympics. They didn't win anything. They weren't there. They didn't jump those very high hurdles.
Well, that's not quite the way I was looking at it, bestquest, but welcome back.
ReplyDelete