Hi Bo, I'm baffled that "we" need to see nature / nurture (genes / memes) as a dichotomous conundrum any more. We don't - both apply in layers and cycles of interaction within and between those layers - that much we MoQists and enlightened scientists already well know surely ?
Dawkins has been out of the gene camp himself for 30 years ... he's in the meme (nurture) camp, along with Pinker where it matters, and in the gene camp where it matters. These are not stupid people. They are just being misrepresented by slogans and pigeon-holeing in "camps". There are no camps in real life, only in debate - see the Blackmore debate on faith (on my blog). As you say "we" know that the issue is best resolved by demoting the S/O split, others may not have that language yet, but it doesn't help to paint them as dummies in invented "camps". Ian On 5/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ > 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/
