Re: memes and sexuality

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Sun Jul 16 2000 - 21:00:49 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "RE: Memes and (truth and) sexuality"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA15750 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:41:00 +0100
    Message-ID: <002d01bfef61$87b649c0$c409bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEFMCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    Subject: Re: memes and sexuality
    Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 22:00:49 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Chris Lofting <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 4:12 PM
    Subject: RE: memes and sexuality

    > Kenneth wrote:
    > >
    > >Chris, you wrote,
    > >
    > >>From these very general descriptions have emerged 'us ', where we are
    > >>an entanglement of those properties. Thus most DIFFErence oriented end
    up
    > as
    > >>teachers, both male and female, but more female than male in primary/
    > >>secondary levels.
    > >
    > >IMHO, I do think we are more DIFFERENCE oriented in general than you
    > >realise. I think that males, and biological examples support the idea,
    are
    > be-
    > >coming more femanized, that is we take over more behaviourpatterns of the
    > >' pure ' female. Dragqueens, the katoi, ' beaucoup de beau garçons ', the
    > >more femanized way males dress themselves up, the way we move etc.
    > >are pointing in that direction.
    >
    > Sure, my emphasis is on 'pure' forms that over time become rare :-) If you
    > apply the dichotomy of male/female recursively then you get more and more
    > entanglement of both 'sides' and so closer to what we see but to get to
    that
    > you start with fundamental distinctions. Get those fundamentals correct
    and
    > the entanglement patterns will 'fit' what we see. Get the fundamentals
    > incorrect and you start to get confusion.

    << So, the idea of the androgyne concept seems not to be a bad one !!
    Thanks, I can continue now. >>

    Regards,

    Kenneth

    (I am, because we are)

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 20:45:47 BST