Ian and Group Wed May 7 you wrote:
> 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 ? "We" the moqists needn't see through SOM's glasses that has - among other conundrums - created the nurture/nature one. That was the whole point. But regardless of our insight the world in general continues along the S/O track and keep asking: What determines our behavior, genes or memes? > 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). The point is that there is no such "both matters" balanced position, it's as much an illusion as the said pigeon-holing. No, they are not stupid, but without the MOQ at their disposal they are lost. By abolishing the S/O split the MOQ makes nil and void of this SOM-induced mess and offers a totally different explanation for our behavior based on the Dynamic/Static split? > 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". I did not mention stupidity or anything only that they are lost in SOM's impossible either/or labyrinth. But now it's quiz time. You see the MOQ resolving the issue. Please tell me how you see that done. 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/
