I am publishing Iain’s essay in the spirit of such debate, I have written my response to it in that spirit, and I hope that people will engage in that spirit with both sets of arguments. I wrote it to engage in the kind of debate for which I had hoped that Iain himself had written his book, and the RSA had held its workshop. But my post was written in good faith, and while critical of Iain’s thesis was also, in my eyes at least, respectful of his work. Whether I have adequately understood either is, of course, a matter for debate.
He seems to suggest in places that my original was written in bad faith and that I seem not to have not read his book or the RSA document. (And just to avoid any confusion, while I have set up the discussion in the form of two open letters, Iain’s piece was written as a straightforward essay, not in letter form.) I am slightly puzzled, as I observe in my reply, by the tone of Iain’s piece. I have appended my own response at the end. Since it is a long reply, Iain asked me whether I could publish it as a post, rather than as a comment, which I am happy to do. Iain McGilchrist has written a response to my post about his book The Master and his Emissaryand about the RSA workshop that discussed it.
0 kommentar(er)
