RE: ::scr Re: doesn't have the morlocks

[Dan Argent <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> Ah! Nurture as opposed to nature?

Entirely! which co-incidentally also fits into the connectionist view of
devlopment and behavouir..

> I have some confidence in nature playing a role: I grew up 
> with my mother and 
> only met my father a few times a year, but have since found 
> that I am very 
> similar to the entire male line of my family.
> 
> When I first really got to meet them, it was like... coming home.

Sounds cool. However, I don't think I've experienced that sort of thing.
Although I know I am very much like my (male) grandparents, but never really
knew them due to death getting in the way, I still my nuture in a scientific
(i.e. father / mother) family made me the way I am today. 




> > > So it's not as simple as saying that I'd make a bad artist; I
> > > wouldn't be
> > > good at being an artist like most artists are, but I could
> > > probably bring my
> > > own worldview to art in a potentially useful way.
> >
> > Looking at that sentence again, it seems to be a bit contradictory.
> 
> Hmmm... how?

That you wouldn't be good at being an artist, in the same way artists are.
Artists are by defintion good at being artists, being good at art.
So if you weren't good at being an artist, then you are no good at art?

does that follow? 


> >
> > you've just said that you wouldn't be a good artist!
> 
> "I wouldn't be good at being an artist like most artists are"
> 
> Meaning: If I did my best at being good at art, I would be 
> good at art in a 
> different way to people who are *primarily* artists.
> 
> ABS

Yes, but would you be a "great" artist...