NO, John is not 'print', he's  experimental evidence, and I am the only one
using an empiric approach.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:15 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> John/Gregg:
>
> This is *classic* . . . !!
>
> John is PRINT and Gregg is ELECTRIC.  Two different "sensibilities."
> How could they possibly "agree" on anything . . . ??
>
> The irony, of course, is that this is only happening because they are
> *both* now obsolete.  Both distantly in the "rear-view mirror."  Both
> looking backwards.
>
>  From an ELECTRIC standpoint, we all have different "language
> systems."  From a PRINT standpoint, we can actually try to sort all
> this out -- "scientifically."
>
> In both cases, the underlying "biases" are masked.  Neither
> standpoints recognizes that fundamentally different
> psycho-technological environments are at work.  And neither will those
> who participate in the "Canonizer" game.
>
> Crucially, neither wants to admit that DIGITAL brings a completely
> different sensibility to the "debate."
>
> Yes, this is classic . . . <g>
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. The irony is that a "Canon" isn't either PRINT or ELECTRIC.  And
> it cannot be decided by a "vote."  It is SCRIBAL -- as in "Canon Law."
>   What a world of surprises awaits us all.
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Canon-5Flaw&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=liZu1PIudVuCGmjsE9GbqAYr0y2OqjrUURySMh9-XlQ&s=6LaimFVFrpAJE-fcNiRoxup3P4z-C3rLwB9vJpzG8jg&e=
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1