[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Krimel]

dmb says:
That's about what I figured. James was objecting to train and chain
analogies WHEN and IF they are used to construe flowing consciousness as
chopped up in bits or jointed. This can not rightly be used to condemn
Pirsig's use of the train metaphor simply because he and James are still
saying exactly the same thing. The boxcars and their contents are discrete
concepts in Pirsig's description too. The cutting edge of experience, the
perceptual order as James is calling it here, is out in front of the engine
and all the other cars pulling the whole thing along. These James quotes
only support my position and it is rather bizarre of you to suggest
otherwise. 

[Krimel]
Pirsig's metaphor is particularly inappropriate in this context. The leading
edge of the train is following a predetermined path of rails that must be
equidistance from each other. The perceptual order is thus not dynamic at
all but rigidly static and any deviation would result in a collapse of the
whole. Streams flow and over flow their banks and there exists a dynamic
relationship between the water and the environment. 

dmb says:
You still haven't explained what it is you think I do not understand or what
I have misrepresented. What are you objecting to, exactly? What do you think
my point is in making reference to her case and what's wrong with that
point? Like I said already, "Your complaints are too vague for me to know
what you're talking about, what it is you think I don't understand." 

[Krimel]
That's a bit hard to answer since no matter what I say your only comment has
typically been, "That's reductionism...blah, blah, blah." Talk about having
to deal with really vague complaints... I truly sympathize with you there,
Dave.

dmb says:
Research data is never reductionistic all by itself.

[Krimel]
Then why do you insist that it is? Or is it only so when someone you
disagree with brings it up?

[dmb]
See, I think the findings of brain researchers are very exciting because of
the way they can be used to help explain what James and Pirsig are saying.
But you've been using it to explain it AWAY. That's all the difference in
the world. We are reaching the opposite conclusions about the same set of
facts. The facts are not in dispute. It's all in the reading.

[Krimel]
I am not going to spend the next hour or so reviewing the archives. But here
is my recollection of our past conversations. You are welcome to consult the
archives to correct my impressions.

Specifically, I mentioned Damasio's research and pointed about that emotions
being required to make decisions in the context of what Pirsig wrote about
scientists claiming that effective decision making requires the removal or
discounting of emotions. I believe my point was that this is no longer so.
Damasio was making Pirsig's point. Two years later you replete the same bit
of research in the same context as evidence that I am a reductionist.

You have mentioned Bolte-Taylor in connection with her "nirvana-like"
experience of a sense of unity being much like mystical experiences. I
pointed out that the unity of her experience is still composed of... what
were the terms she used? Oh yeah, parallel processes. I have also pointed
out the stroke is not a path to enlightenment that most would choose for
themselves. I should have pointed out that the reason Bolte-Taylor was able
to give a TED talk and write her book is that she spent seven years of
exhaustive effort to regain the capabilities you seem to be advocating that
we give up voluntarily through years of exhaustive effort.

When I first mentioned Davidson's work with Buddhists monks and Davidson's
conclusion that practice and experience changes the brain, you again
screamed reductionism without even looking at the research. I believe your
claim was that if the researchers don't meditate on their own their work
wouldn't count for much; that their data would be tainted somehow. I mean,
that would make Damasio's research on stroke irrelevant since he hasn't
suffered from stroke. Ludicrous as your claim is, you sort of offhandedly
repeat it in your Oxford talk.

dmb says:
Yea, okay. But WHO ever said brain states were irrelevant? 

[Krimel]
I don't know, Dave. What does the term reductionist mean to you? Atta boy?
It certainly seems to be your typical means of avoiding thinking about
something you don't wish to consider relevant or which challenges your
worldview.

[dmb]
I didn't say that and I certainly don't think that. So what are you talking
about? This is the kind of comment that makes me think you don't understand
what reductionism is. I mean, anti-reductionism is definitely NOT the view
that brain states are irrelevant to states of mind. It simply opposes the
reduction of the latter to the former. It seems you want to use this science
to mock the aspects of James's and Pirsig's work whereas I see this same
data as profoundly supportive of what they're saying. Our readings are so
different that you can even conclude that I am ignoring it. Nope. I'm just
not reading it like you are. Obviously, I think you're reading it badly. 

[Krimel]
Our discussions have never once progressed past you reductionism fetish.
Never have you said, "Well, Krimel, interesting bit of data you present here
but I think your interpretation of the meaning of that data is different
because my theory suggest this and yours suggests that." 

Not once.

[dmb]
Check out Wiki exerpt. There's yet another book about the brain that I find
very supportive of Pirsig's work, although I only know about it from a radio
interview with the author....

[Krimel]
Now you spout off a Wiki about an article about radio show about a book.
Jesus Christ, Dave. Most of the research I have cited here for the past five
years has been in support of Pirsig's work. The fact that this has never
even occurred to you speaks volumes. 

And you have the audacity to wonder why I get snarky.