[MD] Noncognitive babble

[Ian Glendinning]

Hmm dmb, you may choose not to understand, but I suspect you do really.

Dirty word - EvoPsych seems to come in for abuse as a discredited
view, often when I use it I can negative reactions. (Just like, say,
if I mention "game theory".) Dirty, discredited or not, I find the
term useful.

Bottom half - the lower two levels of static patterns Physical /
Inorganic and Organic / Biological.

Top half / top two levels - the Social and Intellectual.

The top two (humanity) grew (evolved) out of the lower two (the humus).

The etymology of the "hum..." words mirrors the rest of the MoQ directly.

But I think you knew that.
Ian



On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 3:12 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ian said:
> Etymology is a major reason I like Pirsig. In order to avoid the (dirty word) "evolutionary psychology" or EvoPsych, I would point out that the MoQ is "evolutionary" and the top two levels we spend miles of email debating are ... err ... "psychological" That dirt is the physio-biological bottom half of the story. Doh ! How perfectly the story fits.
>
> dmb says:
>
> What? I have no idea what what mean. Dirty word? Story fits? Bottom half? Shall I take this as evidence of drug abuse or just as an example of non-cognitive babbling?
>