******
As I continue to read your book, follow the xmca discussions, and browse
through things I've been playing with, I am continually brought back to
what (to me) is a fascinating topic - the word "OR." If one tries saying
"neither" or "both" or "sometimes" or any other kind of non-forced-choice
alternative, the response is usually on lines of, "Quit being
unscientific!" I'm used to Talmudic logic, which is notorious for saying
things like, for instance, in the megadispute of Hillel and Shammai,
"These and those, both are the words of the Living G-d, but the practical
application is according to Hillel." In other words, they're both right
in principle. This type of thing seems to have spoiled me for a lot of
scientific discourse [at least in a psychonomically oriented department].
Has anybody done a serious study of this tendency of Westerners to
dichotomize everything? Perhaps explored its cultural roots? (Besides
Alan Watts and D.T. Suzuki, that is. Maybe I should go back and reread
them.) I'm not joking. I've observed professors verbally bashing each
other in class over this kind of discourse, not to mention the effect it
has on students who are prematurely forced to pick which horse to back.
Any advice or references?
******
Many thanks,
Rachel Heckert