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