Hello Chris
On 6 May 2008 you wrote:
> Is there anybody here who happens to be filthy rich? Because I think we
> should start an academy.
> And then, two thousand years from now - bang! Everybody will think in terms
> of MOQ.
> It worked before =)
It would be quite a school with teachers differing wildly about the
subject. But you are on to something I will apply for an "eremitus"
position.
What I wanted to speak to you (all) about was your opening remark of
instances where the MOQ brings light where the SOM is lost. These
days the family tragedy in Austria is hot stuff and along with it the gene
versus society problem is raised - at least around here. Is behavior
caused by heredity or by culture?. This is the "nurture/nature"
conundrum which is an offshoot of the S/O dichotomy and again and
again the issue surfaces and again and again some claim that genes
dominate while other claim that culture is the decisive factor, in the
said case - Austria have some national streak that produces Hitlers
and other monsters ... etc.. Then the wise guy arrives who "settles" it
by saying that none are dominant, it's a combination. This latter
position sounds obvious, yet it's impossible to find how such an
interplay takes place, one must be the REAL cause Right now the
nature (gene) camp (Dawkins) dominates, but just wait and see, the
nurture (culture) camp will re-emerge sooner or later. This SOM
pattern is like all other S/Os a constant see-saw - one goes up while
the other goes down - because the subject/object split is inferior
compared with the dynamic/static one.
Bo
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
