I don't believe I've ever been angry with you for saying I was moralizing. I don't happen to think that morality/ethical-political thought are 'bad' things. And to be told I'm moralizing doesn't bother me because my critic is usually moralizing as well. My critics, however, always seem to want to evade that retort from me. So. Besides, if I were angry do you honestly think that I would have spent hours and hours corresponding with you off list about things I don't especially care a great deal about but that I thought I should at least try to learn about just a wee bit? Doyle that would be silly and/or perverse of me. Well, maybe I am perverse. Why I think I actually am and I do like it that way. So.
Again, you seem to be eager to avoid obsessive compulsive behavior, no? You seem to want folks to understand how the brain "really" works so that we can ground our principles and strategies for revolutionary social change in a much more scientific and accurate understanding of the brain. As such we will avoid o-c behavior which is the result of sectarian idealism which is the result of attaching strong feelings to rules. In any event, any way you slice it Doyle. You think that o-c behavior isn't a good state to be in, therefore if you suggest that someone is o-c or exhibiting o-c like behaviors you are, implicitly, suggesting that this is not a good thing. And thus, you've deployed o-c in precisely the same way as Jim deployed blindness, irrationality, etc.
As for the rest of the post, I really don't understand a word that you're saying despite all my exchanges with you. All I know is this.
1) Jim would like to be able to claim that sightedness is preferable to blindness, to not be called on the carpet for it, and to claim that this is an objective (intersubjective perhaps?) truth which is to say that most people would agree given this historical moment.
2). You would prefer that Jim doesn't make this claim because you disagree that sight is preferable to blindness, you gave historical examples of when this wasn't so. And, you want him to refrain from using metaphors of disability as the margin between normal and deviant.
If Jim thinks his claim is an objective truth and you don't, then how is it possible to have both your views respected? I believe that it is possible w/o recourse to ontological acrobatics and without dissembling. I simply asked you what you thought.
Besides, Doyle, you should appreciate me much more than you do: Who else gives you all these opportunities to expound on Neuroscience, ey?
SnitgrrRl
SnitgrrRl
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/19981121/99dd5d3b/attachment.htm>