Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA18092 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:22:20 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Memes and sexuality Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:37:47 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEEGFCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <002c01bfef61$86ecdf40$c409bed4@default> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Kenneth wrote,
>
>Chris, you wrote,
>
>>' We' have gone past these gender differences.
>
>Mine idea too, IMHO we are at the beginning of a inter-sexual area !!
>That is, male and female are combining into one being.
>The result is an androgynous being, the complex consequences are
>immense...
There is a definite developmental path which begins at the physiological
level with an emphasis on structure and initially SAMENESS. This is the
world of asexual/androgyne reproduction (e.g. basic cell form. DIFFERENCE
emerges when these become particularised, e.g. skin cells etc) There is a
sense of immortality here but it lacks genetic diversity. We see this in
cancer cells where (a) they are 'general', they have lost, or oscillate
across many, particulars and (b) they are immortal as long as you feed them.
In the development of the species, the introduction of sexual reproduction
introduced DIFFERENCE and so genetic diversity.
At this level we shift focus to MENTAL development. Same process at work
where we move from singlemindedness (SAMENESS) to multi-mindedness
(DIFFERENCE). Thus the 'old' emphasis on male/female thinking has moved past
this distinction in that MIND is becoming more distant from gender; gender
and mind, once one:one, are now one:many.
At an even more general level of analysis there is the process of taking the
undifferentiated whole, differentiating it and then re-intergrating it. The
differentiation process act to introduce DIFFERENCE, it is like taking
something black/white and in the process of differentiation colour coding
the DIFFERENCES.
Note however that colour is a HARMONIC of vision (and at the species level a
late development). Harmonics are always SECONDARY when seen in a context set
by the PRIMARY, i.e. the 'archetypal' male/female, human, mammal,
vertebrates etc etc etc.
IOW DIFFERENCE reflects harmonic categorisations which is what we see in the
autistic as well as chicks (see previous emails) where the DIFFERENCE is to
RED (a harmonic).
Thus the male/female distinctions are harmonics of the species 'homo
sapiens' and in turn all of the categorisations of mental states are
harmonics of 'homo sapiens'.
As you express these colours, these patterns, so you identify DIFFERENCE
within the SAMENESS as well as patterns of SAMENESS within the DIFFERENCE.
When you apply dyes to the neocortex you get patterns of banding that
reflect the unique experiences of the individual but within a SAMENESS
context set by genetics. Thus the new-born infant is for nature a complete
form that is then molded further by nurture.
>
>>...background and so not be identified, not be revealed for ' who ' we
are.
>
>So, each of us, is making up a smokescreen where behind his or hers
>true identity is !?
Sure.
>So, the idea of re-identification is a false image, because the ' who ' you
see
>at the front is not the real ' me '. What about trust !?
SAMENESS reflects singlemindedness that manifests total trust in self.
DIFFERENCE reflects dualmindedness (Mine vs Theirs) and this can lead to
variations in trust to include total trust in others as well as self.
Re-identification is a SECONDARY process, you have to have an object before
you can 'modify' it. The object is YOU or your culture, species etc
(different levels). Re-identification reflects either defences systems (to
puff up or play dead) or sexual systems (to be more attractive, to emphasise
aspects of the self to aid in bringing-out the self etc)
Re-identification is species-wide but biases emerge where for us it is more
common in females (who are better at conflict resolution etc since
re-identification is centered in-between the dots, the objects).
Re-identification is linked to emotions and their expressions. In most
males, who are more single context in thinking, expressions of refined
emotions are difficult, they are more child-like until we get older. Females
develop these areas more easily and their expression can be far more
refined, more subtle but the price is that, as seen from a male perspective,
females are more into approximations than precision, in general they do
better in such fields as statistics than in pure mathematics etc; they are
better in social interactions and can often see past the expressions since
it is background that naturally attracts but a background in pattern
matching (I think it is a 'fact' that women usually dress for other women,
at times to a degree where they 'miss' the affect that this can have on the
behaviour of men! :-)) The female mind is more into qualitative precision
than quantitative precision; there is more of a sensitivity to
relationships, family etc etc. This is also a 'tribal' mind in that the
emphasis is on linkage, lineage, everything connected to everything else (as
in statistics! :-))
As we entangle these distinctions so we have those of object thinking
(usually males) but within a context of relational thinking (usually
females).
Science manifests this in the form of object thinking (male) as context
within which operates relational thinking (female). Thus we seek to discover
the algorithms and formulas (SAMENESS, basic male bias) BEHIND the DIFFERENT
expressions.
At a general level of persona categorisation this 'maps' to people who are
problem solvers. the SEEK solutions to problems by making distinctions of
'this' from 'that'.
A social bias that is the reverse of this is where the context is
relationships bias within which operates an object bias. This is the area of
security seekers, of , moralists who seek security but differentiating
'this' from 'that' but in a values way through emphasis of 'good' vs 'bad'.
They do this by detecting SAMENESS in expression within a DIFFERENCE
context.
Of the other two general categorisations one is Identity Seekers. Identity
seekers dislike SAMENESS in that they reject typologies since to be 'boxed'
means the boundary has been clearly established and so they have been
identified! These types (!) are aspect oriented, DIFFERENCE seeking. The
task of seeking identity is eternal and the establishment of any longterm
identity is a 'problem', it goes against the drive to keep re-identifying.
The final categorisation is Sensation Seekers. Very 'male', single context,
absolute. They assert their identity as the 'one' identity and so a bias to
SAMENESS. 'Hard' Science has a touch of this in that sensation seeking and
identity seeking are more fundamental. and Science comes out of sensation
seeking that has had some problems and so we build a barrier and we make
maps to 'solve' these sorts of problems.
Security seeking comes out of identity seeking that has had some 'bad'
experiences, although genetic diversity will allow for these types to be
born.
I think that as we develop as a species, centered in the development of
MINDS, we entangle these distinctions but only to some degree since our
brain structure is 'rigid' and that forces the 1:many distinction making (I
think hormones can vary this to some degree where some go for the one (SAME)
and others for the many (DIFFERENCE)).
>What about the true sexual appearance of an individual, where is the real
>' Male '; the real ' Female ' ..
>
Hormones have a bit of influence in adding variations to the physiological
differences both in the womb and out.
The male/female differences are not fundamental, the just 'prefer' either
the one (clear identification) or the many (RE-indentification). The one
favours the eternal, security in SAMENESS. The many favours begin/end,
security is in DIFFERENCE through being able to re-identify. Thus
re-identification is more dynamic. Sameness, the one, prefers to stick to
their position, take the high ground with a good view. Difference prefers
the jungle, to hide, to sink back into the context and so dissapear or else
to exagerate.
>
>In that respect, the Mardi Grass or the Carnaval in Venice is a principle
to hide behind >the masks and so to enjoy all of the perversities which we
can 't obtain
>if we were the real ' me ' ! I think I saw a program about this...
>
Yes, re-identification allows you to be someoneelse.
best,
Chris.
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 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 18:24:09 BST