Hi Bo, I take it this is the unanswered question ... [Bo] > But now it's quiz time. You > see the MOQ resolving the issue. > Please tell me how you see > that done.
The question sounded rhetorical, because of the tone that preceeded it. I answered the tone of this response only - because you seemed to be getting into rant mode - attacking those souls lost in SOMism, rather than helping them. You didn't actually call them "stupid" I'd agree. What I did say was that "teaching them a lesson" in MoQ was probably not the best solution. Teachning by the example of using Quality thinking was the better answer - still is IMHO. But I can answer the specific question too. Almost too easy. The first split above "Quality" as our (chosen) metaphysical foundation is Dynamic / Static, rather than S/O .... need I go on ? The reason it resolves many of the dichotomous either / or issues that SOMists find themselves debating / arguing about is that they are really choosing between two seemingly objective alternatives, when we know that in fact they are not (need not). The view they are missing is typically that the options they are debating are two static patterns, and that the option they are missing is the excluded middle of some dynamic balance / interaction of those patterns - their patterns are rarely "wrong" merely historically static. The best way to find those dynamic alternatives .... need I go on ... participation ... etc. I know I don't need to explain MoQism to you. My comment to you is that the way to teach a SOMist that is not to "teach" them that. Show them examples, show the koans, lead their questions, help their answers. Telling them they are wrong, and you are right, gets nobody anywhere - just a recipe for war.. Am I at least addressing your question ? Ian On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:53 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ > 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/
