Re: MD MOQ and Human Variation

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Jun 19 2004 - 17:41:12 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD MOQ and Human Variation"

    Hi Platt, and all,

    Thanks for the Tom Wolfe. I too like him a lot. But for the beauty
    of the written word, I gotta go with Thomas Wolfe, or Faulkner, or
    the early Styron in "The Confessions of Nat Turner" or "Set this
    house on Fire." Anyway, maybe this outta be in the Art and Beauty
    thread.

    Some comments interspersed below...

    On 19 Jun 2004 at 10:38, Platt Holden wrote:
    One of my favorite authors is Tom Wolfe. In an article entitled
    "Digibabble, Fairy Dust and the Human Anthill," he wrote:

    "But in the twentieth century, the Darwin story of human life--
    natural selection, sexual selection, survival of the fittest and all
    the rest of it--had been overshadowed by the Freudian and Marxist
    stories. Marx said social class determined a human being's destiny.
    Freud said it was the Oedipal drama within the family. Both were
    forces external to the newborn infant. Darwinists, Wilson foremost
    among them, turned all that upside down and proclaimed that the genes
    the infant was born with determined his destiny."

    msh says:
    Yes, Freud and Marx were wrong insofar as they discounted or denied
    or ignored the effects of genes in determining intelligence, etc.
    But, remember, they didn't have at their hands the same science
    available to Wilson. It may or may not have made a difference, but
    we might give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Insofar as Wilson or anyone claims that "the genes the infant was
    born with determined his destiny," this is utter nonsense. Clearly,
    society plays a vital role in determining one's destiny. You can be
    born a Bush and end up in the White House; or you can be born a
    genius in El Salvador and end up on the end of a bayonet.

    ph:
    An interesting viewpoint. But, more interesting is the idea that our
    human response to Dynamic Quality is genetic. In speaking about
    "internal forces" in a new born baby, Pirsig wrote:

    "From the baby's point of view, something, he knows not what, compels
    attention. This generalized "something," White-head's "dim
    apprehension," is Dynamic Quality." (Lila, 9)

    This would, of course, apply to all humans regardless of race.

    msh says:
    Don't see the connection to genetics here. It seems to me that all
    babies will respond to DQ in this manner, and that, as environmental
    factors take over, some will become more or less responsive over
    time.

    Best,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    --
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com

    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
    everything." -- Henri Poincare'

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 19 2004 - 17:37:32 BST