[MD] Academy

[skutvik at online.no]

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