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...
I'm confused, is this: (a) a bum circle, (b) a poor excuse for a bonfire party, (c) a view from Zuccotti Park, or (c), all of the above? Or, is there a deeper philosophical point that you're trying to drive home?
ReplyDeleteDarn it, I want answers!!! ;)
Burn barrel. Just thought the flames looked cool.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes! I agree. I do a lot of camping in the summertime, and I often like to watch the campfire flames do their dance. While I don't have any pictures of flames, I do have a ton of photos of that big, burning ball in the sky. When I was at sea I would always take pictures of the sunset in order to attempt to catch the green flash in a photo. While I never caught it, I do have a ton of pictures of beautiful ocean sunsets.
ReplyDelete