In article <363c978b.0 at ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> wrote:
>>>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <71gkgt$ibc at sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In <71cqlh$gol at ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>[...]
>>"complexity and elegance" I am re-reading The Neuron, Levitan and
>Kaczmarek,--how true this is.
And a simplicity beyond comprehension,
considering how much is done with how little
basic components.
Elegance has intrinsic simplicity of something of the beyond.
[...]
>>Let us not forget the many men (and women) who fought and bled, and are
>fighting and bleeding, over this question. We must all live together
>somehow. I am reminded of my son, age five, telling me, (he now chairs an
>humanities department) "Some people live in houses made of straw and some
>people live in houses made of sticks.
And some people live in the houses, made of playing cards.
And some people live in the houses, made of hard rock.
And some people live in the houses, made of gold.
> But it is all right because we are all
>members of the World Community." He picked up this nugget on early TV (West
>Coast) when all broadcasts were live.
>>(snip)
>>>Bottom line: no substitute for the painstaking moment by moment
>>analysis of develomental interactions.
Which is obvious to the level of profanity.
Every scientist does that.
But no analysis helps, unless you are capable of
seeing something, that doest not fit the party line
definitions.
It takes courage to enquire to the end.
It takes heart to feel and not fall prey to
the hard cold and dead "reason", and feel the
forever unfolding, all embrasive love.
And it takes intuition to trust something you feel.
>> Those who undertake this
>>analysis are not the strawmen Rickert imagines.
And what rickert imagines?
Can you even comprehend?
Is rickert invalid and YOU, suckazoid, are valid?
>These are my sentiments, exactly. But it takes a strong man to remember that
>both molecular biologists and sociologists are members of the World
>Community.
>>>(Bytheway: just what IS his point, anyway? In 50 words or less.)
>>Possibly politics. He is much taken by Rose (and Lewontin?), Marxists both.
>(Please, Please! I have absolutely nothing against Marxism, however DNA is a
>dirty word to some.)
What?
A slip of the tongue from the mouth of a new age priest?
>Ray
>Those interested in how the brain works might look at
>www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html
>>>N.B. For those too young to remember those early live broadcasts, I once
>watched a complete open heart procedure broadcast live in San Francisco. The
>camera was looking down into the chest cavity and I remember being startled
>as the lungs suddenly stopped pumping air as a machine took over the
>oxygenation of the blood.
And the moral of the story is?
