Received: from mail.freesurf.fr (mail.freesurf.fr [212.43.206.50])
by mill.venus.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18582
for <moq_focus@moq.org>; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:21:38 GMT
Received: from freesurf.fr (du-fr0-0669.freesurf.fr [212.43.209.161])
by mail.freesurf.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7250B13610
for <moq_focus@moq.org>; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:21:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <3837F2C8.B83F8074@freesurf.fr>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:25:28 +0100
From: Denis Poisson <dpoisson@freesurf.fr>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [fr] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: moq_focus@moq.org
Subject: Re: MF Nature Vs. Nuture
References: <0.70f05a45.2565d26f@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi, Jon and alii
Back from the army, I'm catching up on this month discussion (with some
pain, as shown below). Hope you're all doing well.
[Cntryforce@aol.com]
>
> Hello Foci
>
> Sort of a dry, confusing topic this month.
>
Reading this month archive, I had the same feeling. I really couldn't
think about anything positive to say or add. I spent two evenings on a
post and finally deleted it : too off-subject. In fact it was about a
misunderstanding on my part of this month topic. I thought it went :
where does the MOQ find validation, since SOM does in the objective
realm ? When I saw it was *explanation*, my whole post went "poof" !...
:(
> So the MoQ rejects the SO division as fundamental, according to Bo. Then
> where does the MoQ look for an explanation?
>
> I'm not clear as to how the above question funnels into the nature vs.
> nurture debate that is seems to have turned into.
>
Same problem for me. The Nature/Nuture debate was closed as soon as it
started because the MOQ answer is so startingly simple and clear there's
really nothing to debate on. In fact, as Horse said, even the SOMists
came to a MOQ conclusion : it's both.
> Because I am confused, I will keep this short. The MoQ looks to Intellectual
> (dynamic as well as static) Quality for an explanation. This may involve SO
> division, but only when the MoQ deems a SO division necessary.
>
OK, I've nothing to say, so I'll criticize you instead (always a good
way of filling this two-posts-a-month clause). ;o)
I cannot see why a MOQ explanation would ever deem a S/O division
necessary. A S/O division means you're going to categorize the
phenomenon you're explaining as an objective fact or a subjective one.
People tend to like ice-cream ? That's subjective. People fall ill in
winter ? That's objective.
This kind of categorization and judgment of facts is valueless in a MOQ
framework. Instead, the MOQ will try to fit the facts under the purview
of one of the levels. That's were most of the fighting occurs in the MOQ
: which level should we fit this or that into ?
The DQ/SQ division is more something of a moral imperative than a useful
categorization tool : if it's DQ, you shouldn't be able to categorize
it, and if you can, then you've just transformed it into SQ.
I'll follow your example and keep this short, Jon. Comments are welcome
(as usual).
Be good
Denis
"All you ever get is mirrors", RMP, 'Lila'.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST