-----Original Message----- From: Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad at gte.net>
>Now, how does all this relate to form and content, and a
non-cartestian
>way of presenting reason? Well:
>
>(1) Form is very much a function of our evolved nervous system,
derived
>via the backdoor of experience, while content is very much the result
of
>experience in the normal sense. Of course this is a rough
formulation,
>it's obvious that one can treat formal constructs as content for
>meta-level formal operations, for example, but in terms of where
things
>get started, it makes good sense.
is this a distinction between form and content or presumptions/history and experience/present? or, why is it form the thing that is embodied, and not contents also?
>LAKOFF
>Lakoff argues that both liberals and conservatives derive their
politics
>from family values -- only from quite different versions, what he
calls
>"Strict Father" vs. "Nurturant Parent." Lakoff argues that these
models
>of family values, roles and dynamics serve as the source domains that
>are mapped onto the target domains of political issues in general.
does lakoff have a take on Freud? or what would you think the comparisons might be?
angela