RE: Gender Bias For Memes

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Sun Jul 23 2000 - 09:38:08 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Gender Bias For Memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA04675 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 23 Jul 2000 09:22:12 +0100
    From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
    Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:38:08 +1000
    Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAEIGCHAA.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
    In-Reply-To: <200007222101.RAA18439@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net>
    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: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Joe E. Dees
    > Sent: Sunday, 23 July 2000 7:06
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
    >
    >
    > From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
    > Date sent: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:41:18 +1000
    > Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    > [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > > > Of Joe E. Dees
    > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 July 2000 5:12
    > > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > > > Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    > > > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > > > Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
    > > > Date sent: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 05:06:26 +1000
    > > > Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    > > > [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > > > > > Of Joe E. Dees
    > > > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 July 2000 3:26
    > > > > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > > > > > Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > [snip]
    > > > > > Considering Chris' circumnambulent loquacity, one might wonder if
    > > > > > (under Chris' own categorizations) Chris is short for Christine.
    > > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > :-)
    > > > >
    > > > > Full name is Christopher John Lofting so 'you fail' Joe :-)
    > (or is that
    > > > > Joesephine?) Perhaps if you took the time to get out more you
    > > > would see the
    > > > > move away from rigid gender-typing and so open yourself up
    > > > more; come down
    > > > > from the safety of your ivory tower and at least take-off
    > your shoes and
    > > > > socks and feel the grass under your feet -- or perhaps that is
    > > > too 'female'
    > > > > for you? :-)
    > > > >
    > > > > best,
    > > > >
    > > > Then you are an exception to your own rule.
    > >
    > > Not at all. Apply recursion to the basic persona types and all
    > of the types
    > > we 'see' pop-out. Very simple stuff.
    > >
    > When you use a plethoric avalanche of fuzzily quasidescriptive
    > verbiage from which the claim manages to surface that men as a
    > rule speak more precicely and concisely than do womem, you do
    > indeed violate your own propounded rule.

    it is obvious that you miss the point. Women are better at qualitative
    descriptions, at narratives etc as are all others with a well-developed
    context sensitive mind. The women angle however allows for conversations to
    mean nothing other than the 'high' of having the conversation and so
    discussion about 'nothing'. The 'male' emphasis is to get to the point, to
    conserve energy with the minimum of expression.

    > And the personality enneagram has nine stations; apply dualistic
    > thinking to THAT.

    No problem. There are NINE states in the I Ching but EIGHT are concerned
    with change, the other deals with no change (T'ai Chi). There are NINE
    expressed states of the enneragram but of these one deals with no change,
    type 3. Type 3 appears to be the most changable in that all of the other
    EIGHT types transform into/outof it. The type 3 is thus a SOCIAL type -- an
    archetype where we have the archetype hero or archetype villain and thus
    reflects the T'ai Chi state. All of the other EIGHT will at some time or
    another 'slot' into a 3 and then drop out. This reflects the overall
    dynamics in BOTH the ennagram and the MBTI/I Ching etc.

    What is noteworthy is that the enneagram is a more dynamic system and when
    you move into dynamics you include indeterminacy. When you apply
    indeterminacy to the binary systems you move from powers of 2 to powers of 3
    and from these emerge frequency distribution patterns that reflect wave
    interference patterns; you are losing resolution. (see my websites about
    this and the EPR paradox etc where all of the related experiments reflect
    (a) applying a dichotomy with (b) a level of indeterminacy. ANY experiment
    that does this will generate implied wave interference patterns from the
    METHOD alone regardless of scale.)

    To see these patterns you have to go to at least 2^6 levels (64 symbols).
    When you add-in indeterminacy you move from 64 symbols to 27 where the 27
    manifests the emergence of threes. This emergence is due to a lose in
    resolution, the price of getting more and more into a dynamic system without
    compensating for scale changes etc.

    > >
    > > Facinating logic here Joe. You start with a false premise and
    > then expand
    > > into ga-ga land. You must do better Joe to be able to seriously
    > address the
    > > issues. Please make the effort since from my point of view all you are
    > > currently doing is embarrassing yourself. I personally dont
    > mind doing that,
    > > the feedback is useful and overall I have nothing to lose :-)
    > >
    > Those who have nothing in their favor indeed have nothing to lose, a
    > position that applies a forteriori to you AND your point of view. I
    > notice that your previous politeness dropped like a rock when your
    > fundamentalistic and reductionistic conception was credibly
    > challenged; I expected as much.

    very pompous of you :-) you are over confident in your position. A bit too
    rigid IMHO but then I can be that too! :-) keep it coming Joe..

    best,

    Chris.
    ------------------
    Chris Lofting
    websites:
    http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
    http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond

    ===============================================================
    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 23 2000 - 09:24:08 BST