Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA06076 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:55:07 +0100 Message-Id: <200007240053.UAA12647@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 19:57:39 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAEIGCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007222101.RAA18439@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
Date sent: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:38:08 +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 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 precisely and concisely than do women, 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.
>
But the point is that your avalanche of self-absorbed feel-good-
about-yourself verbiage with few discernible concrete points (and
most of those easily refuted by counterexample) is a shining and
sterling example of someone getting high on the screen presence
of their own voluminous script. You are male and that is, according
to you, a female trait. Q.E.D.
>
> > 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 enneagram 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.
>
Eight is not nine, but if it contradicts your a priori dualistic system,
you will find a way to disregard or otherwise explain away that fact.
Remember your Nietszche: "The will to system is the will to
failure." And why? because the point of no return is reached,
where the system means more to the systematizer than the data,
at which point round pegs are wholsale hammered into square
pigeonholes. Kinda like you're futilely trying to do here.
>
> 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.)
>
Einstein would roll over in his grave to have his work associated
with such things as the I ching and enneagrams, for the very good
reason that the only thing they have in common is that people have
thought of them. Besides which, when you introduce recursive
indeterminacy into a closed system (and thus open it), you go from
digital to analog, which means that ypou do not go from duality to
triads, but rather leave integer-based structions behind altogether.
>
> 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 loss in
> resolution, the price of getting more and more into a dynamic system without
> compensating for scale changes etc.
>
From 2*6 to 3*3? Why, you just lost half your power(s)! Besides
which, much more complexity than three elements is needed for
recursive indeterminacy; otherwise self-consciousness could be
reached by those with three interconnected brain cells.
> > >
> > > 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..
>
I figured there was no reason for just ONE of us to be pompous:
You seem supremely self-convinced of something I perceive as
riddled with errors and flaws, chief among which is the fact that
empirical data have to be shoehorned in after having their
inconvenient edges hacksawed off. We impose meaning upon
being, but when we are attempting to describe the structure of that
being, rather than prescribe what that structure should mean, we
should allow the structure to rise from the object, not be imposed
upon it, and where the two do not match, it is the model which
must change, not the object, which is what it is prior to the
imposition of any model.
>
> 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 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 24 2000 - 01:55:57 BST