Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA29756 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:46:40 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: point of memetic saturation Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:02:35 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEHMCHAA.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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <002301bff283$43a09c20$6b0bbed4@default> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Kenneth, FYI:
At the time of answerinng these questions it points to a security seeking
bias. Moralist perspective. Zoom-in and the emphasis includes
preservationist/conservationist (providing the necessities of life) as well
as monitor-types (admin, management). You would need to answer a third
question to resolve this i.e. do you react to things more or do you actively
get involved? (REACTIVE vs PROACTIVE).
Overall the emphasis is seeing SAMENESS within DIFFERENCE and so, as I said,
an ASPECTUAL bias (where DIFFERENCE is the context); more social.
In the bind-bound-bond-blend development pattern you are 'in' the first two
(answer the above question to zoom-in on that). We can expand on this a lot,
just answer the above question and I can give you more particular details.
BTW in the recent discussion re genes, gender, and speech there is a
fundamental difference in that for some the act of talking acts to
socialise, to get a high off the conversation even if in detail the
conversation is about 'nothing'. Thus you can go to meetings for hours and
achieve nothing of 'fact' but lots of 'value'. There is not push for
closure, issues are passed on to the next meeting!
In the neocortex, the corpus callosum (CC - information highway between the
hemispheres) varies in size and there is a difference in size when we
compare male to female but also heterosexual to homosexual. The emphasis is
on a sensitivity to feedback where the RIGHT side is more feedback
sensitive, harmonics oriented, into exageration of boundaries. The better
you are at this sort of expression the more likely you have a more developed
CC. This does NOT necessarily mean that you are female or homosexual, the
results just show how these GROUPS do favour a sensitivity to pattern
matching, context sensitivities and overall value. (Most of these types are
better in management positions since they 'live' in-between the dots, in
social space.)
I would suggest that a study of all teachers etc would come-up with the same
differences in CC size compared to others since they too are required to be
feedback sensitive to their students. The bias to females is, I would
suggest, due to the emphasis on better pattern matching skills and context
sensitivity (note that most primary/secondary teachers are females. Males
only come to the fore when you get into 'fact' precision). The entanglement
of male/female leads to these skills breaking away from gender but still
noticable in gender studies.
The left side is concerned with EXPRESSION but the right side
encodes/decodes rich expression in the form of metaphors etc where there is
a strong bias to context linkage. The more context-sensitive you are ( or
more context-AWARE you are) I would suggest the more refined CC development
as well as emotional intelligence and refined use of language in that you
have to use MANY words to identify all of the aspects of something; all of
the nuances. Your average male is often more limited in the use of words;
they prefer people to get to the point! :-) The male emphasis is 'point'
oriented, the female more 'field' oriented; more group biased.
AS I said, ENTANGLE these distinctions and you get closer to what we see in
reality (in our culture I.e. WESTERN).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Kenneth Van Oost
> Sent: Friday, 21 July 2000 5:21
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: point of memetic saturation
>
>
>
> << Chris, you asked me this, I thought about it, here are my responses. >>
> >
> > Your emphasis suggests you seek DIFFERENT expressions, DIFFERENT
> sensations
> > which implies you are more ASPECTS oriented.
> >
> > To resolve these DIFFERENCES answer two questions (*think about them
> first*)
> >
> > (1)Do you prefer facts to values; would you easily surrender a value if
> > presented with a fact? (ans: FACT or VALUE)
>
> VALUE !!
>
>
> > (2)Do you prefer 'what WAS/IS/WILL BE' or 'what COULD HAVE BEEN/is
> NOT/COULD
> > BE'? (ans: WILL or COULD)
>
> WAS/ IS/ WILL BE !!
>
> 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 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 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 09:47:31 BST