[MD] Arlo

[Jan-Anders Andersson]

Yes Arlo,

The Romantic/Classic dichotomy can't be applied to the left/right halves of the brain. Just as it can't be applied to the difference between left/right hand capabilities. Some left-handed people's right hand are more sensible and useful than right-handed people's left hand and vice versa.

The Romantic/Classic dichotomy is more connected to the attitude of a person. Romantic people tend to wear fashionable and modern clothing while Classic-oriented people rather choose traditional wear like blue jeans and leather jackets, riding Harley-Davidson Motorcycles made before WWII. Extremely classically oriented people like Bukonons 
prefer the greek toga.

The split in attitude is quite connected to Time. Romantics cling to the status of the actual Now, the eternal change between before and later. Classics prefer to follow the eternal lines and stick to patterns which are unchanged during a long period of change. Patterns pointing to Newton, Plato and beyond ancient history.

The interesting point here is this:
How could Romantic and Classical attitudes meet if both carrier doesn't have the mental mirror, the conscious distance to themselves, if they don't understand that there is such a difference between them?

Jan-Anders

> 10 jun 2014 kl. 02:23 skrev ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:
> 
> [John]
> Asymmetrical responses? Wait, wasn't it you that said there was new proof that they were homogenous?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Sigh. Really? Really?? This is why its such a waste of time to respond to you directly, John. 
> 
> Every.. count them, EVERY... post I made about this (including the very one with all those citations), I have reiterated "of course there are lateralization differences". I have never said, nor even let open to implication, that the two sides were "homogenous". And yet here you are, despite all that in EVERY SINGLE POST, making this absurd response like "AHA! there are differences! and you said there were none."
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> So. For the record. YOU claimed that dominant "left-brainedness" and "right-brainedness" mapped to people who were "classical thinkers" and "romantic thinkers". I pointed out that either way you frame it, that classical/romantic thinking caused- or was caused by- left/right brain dominance WAS WRONG. Period. And the research backs this up completely.
> 
> And, in my very first reply I pointed out some of the lateralization they DID find, e.g. language tends to be left-lateralized. But this lateralization is UNIVERSAL. Language was just as left-lateralized for Einstein as for Picasso. And neither of them 'thought more with one side of their brain'. ANY lateralization effect found tends to be either universal in this way, or individually unique for people who have suffered some form of brain injury.
> 
> So, sure, the brain divides tasks around its infrastructure (again, as I have said from day ONE), but this division IN NO WAY AT ALL maps to the 'classical mode' and 'romantic mode' of thinking that Pirsig describes as competing ways of understanding the word in ZMM.
> 
> Either you don't read what I write, or you willingly twist it to create an endless shifting-sands landscape of shameless rhetoric. Either way, its a waste of my time.
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html