[MD] Arlo

[John Carl]

Arlo,

Thanks for setting the record straight.  You're right, sometimes I'm a
sloppy rememberer.


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:23 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>
wrote:

> [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.
>


Jc:  Ye-ssss. But if you also remember, I went over it all again and
brought the point back to a dualistic terminology, no matter what the brain
looks like on the inside or how it connects up with the outside,  Art as a
distinction.  Then you defended the idea that it shouldn't be, by pointing
to Pirsig's saying that assembling a rotisserie is the same as sculpting.
And... we went on from there.

So catch up, will you :)

Arlo:


>
> 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.
>
>
Jc:  I'm sorry it took a while to get back to reading the links you'd
provided.  I was just surprised because they weren't saying what you seemed
to be saying at all.   My responding so out of synch probably confused you
so I'm sorry for that.

Carry on.

Jc.