|
|
|
A Narrative of The Intersection of Individuation and Gender Differentiation  I wrote this article and cultivated it around 1993. Although I was generally aware that there were large conflicts of interests between White men and the YKW, that issue was impossible to address in the grad-school context I was engaged in - not all but some of my professors were Jewish and all of them were liberal and would have opposed broaching the JQ. In fact, race was nearly impossible. In fact advocating White men against feminism was almost impossible. Nevertheless, having to focus here on the history, implications and fallout of Western philosophy as it bears upon individuality, the maintenance of our European Cultural Patterns, Moral Order and Gender Relations allows for an examination of our part as Europeans in our plight - our blind spots and susceptibilities to the exploitation of other groups - including and especially YKW. As such, it remains completely valid and relevant, I am proud to say. I was told by my professor that this held together as a “Thesis” for me to enter the PhD program. At the time, I have reason to believe that it was shown to then Vice President Al Gore, though it was presented to him wrongly or came across wrongly to him, so he couldn’t absorb its significance in cursory glance. That’s an interesting story, as are the episodes that led to me not being able to follow through with a graduate career, operating on this thesis and related issues…
As this article examines processes actively constructing Modern and Neo Traditional Cultural Patterns of gender, it does not simply reinterpret their Stories Told but puts them at risk. With apologetic reticence if the reader would like to reconstruct Stories Told, for example, that male persons simply possess and act out from an innate constitution, say the larger hypo- thalamus and testosterone surges, directed toward derivative cultural patterns, such as religious repression or sexploit- ation, which have nothing to do with Stories Lived in interpersonal communication with female persons, read no further. While this article’s rendering of Cultural gender Patterns may appear in cursory inspection to model Traditional Stories Told of causal necessity, the premise here is that these are Social Constructions. Though not as easily transformed by the agency of person positions as are Altercast moments, Episodes, Autobiographies, or second person Relationships, with due respect for the profundity of their various features, these Cultural Patterns may be responsibly changed as well {1}. The following thesis cannot be enunciated in proper manner without its purveyors being ostracized by ordinary language philosophers - “Reflexive what? contextual force? What? I just want the straight facts!” This treatise uses Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. Readers unfamiliar with the theory are referred to the addendum where a synopsis is provided to clarify essentials of the theory and its terminological usage. ... This was really one of the most essential, original theses of mine even at the time, and it probably should have been mentioned more straight forwardly like this at the time as thesis number two; as it is housed within the first: 2018 update: Thesis - Cartesian Individuation of Self Actualization has Implicative Force (an upward impact, Reflexively Effecting, rupturing Cultural Patterns) to rupture Western group Social Classificatory Homeostasis which causes the “One Up”, Addressive Position of (White/Western) Females to Re-Emerge with Increased Significance - Several Charmed Loops (given the human perceptual need to classify - women, fire and other dangerous things - in order to make coherent sense despite their Cartesian prohibition and rupture, gender becomes the default classification where other group classifications are prohibited, therefore female becomes more salient a difference and they are pandered to from more directions; they become more motivated; more confident (sometimes overly, and prone to cursory pejorative conclusions), articulate and powerfully positioned gate-keepers; they are incentivized to maintain that, while their base female inclination to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) is pandered to - also rupturing social group patterns/coherence - there are loops that come into play with the high contrast tropism of White females and the atavism of blacks in this disorder as well) which keep that position and its liberalizing trajectory in place, abetting Systemic Runaway - i.e., this keeps a modernist loop in place, rupturing would be maintenance of European peoples and other traditional societies.. The cure to these pernicious loops and their runaway is recognition of key aspects [topoi] of necessity, use and enjoyment in a revised social paradigm of optimized negotiation and management of socialization, being, selfhood and self actualization; with that, recognizing moderating options for neo traditional and modern trajectories of both genders; finally, the homeostatic stabilizing of the social system’s human ecological bounds. [2018 update: I had articulated this thoroughly at the time, but it wasn’t forefronted in this 1993 version that I’m working from): Male Self Actualization, achievement, power, in position is sometimes and in part a result of Freudean/Nietszchean privation and deprivation of basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy and not only the result of fulfillment of basic levels - as feminists have been saying - and thus some will be punished for achieving despite privation, for their “oppressive advantage!” Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied.
On the other hand, the propensity of the sheer liberal and liberation paradigm will put some females into power, and gate keeping positions, where they are too liberal of boundaries as their basic needs have been fulfilled a bit too easily, overprotected. And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such]. Partition: Part One - “Theory” Section A. Correlates CMM actional terms to ordinary language (cultural terms) of agency in order to make CMM terminology and its communication perspective on the cultural gender separation of agency more intelligible; this also serves to deconstruct and transform the cultural terms into CMM’s alternative language game of Optimal Competence. 1. A Charmed Loop of Gender Differentiation inferred as a Telos 2. The Charmed Loop of Didactic Incitement which reconstructs these two positions to hyperbole (as opposed to their being delimited to reconstruct homeostatic Cultural Pattern - this parenthetic phrase added 2018) 3. The Cartesian Technology of Individuation (exacerbates the rupture of social Cultural delimited Pattern - this parenthetic phrase added 2018) 4. Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Individuation (also exacerbates in same way) 5. A Strange Loop of Individuation and Gender Differentiation (reconstructs the runaway) Part Two - “Practical” Section A. Diagrams a modernist male and female in episode B. Conclusion C. Recommendations
Section One: Hermeneutic Corollaries to the Ordinary Language of Agency To begin with, this article takes CMM and CMM compatible theoretic terminology and establishes corollaries to an ordinary language of Maslow’s “hierarchy of motives” as comprised by constituents of four cultural terms: Socialization, Being, Selfhood/Autobiography and Self Actualization. —-
Section One: Hermeneutic Corollaries to the Ordinary Language of Agency
Thus, Socialization, Being, Selfhood, and Self Actualization, in a Hierarchy of Motives/Needs {3} are obviously Not proposed as universals, as “real” dichotomies, nor are they meant to do interpretive justice to Maslow. They are appropriated first, because they well represent epochal language games of a useful hermeneutic point of departure - the Vietnam crisis as it evinced equiprimordially emergent facets of a paradox of gender differentiation/individuation. Inasmuch, they are verifiable to demonstrate ordinary workings of Enlightenment texts as their Reflexive Effects pertain to gender in Stories Lived. This connects directly to a second, and more important point. As there is no way to discern and reconstruct a pattern without difference, these terms are appropriated for their cultural significance, as they provide a customary “way of talking”, a context so that people know what we are talking about when we “Differance” from habitual usage (“Differance” is Derrida’s deconstructionist metaphor for a contrast internally related to its context). They provide embedded textual backgrounds from which Social Constructionist Differences of this article are made. That is, the human potential narrative of these four cultural terms in a hierarchy toward “Self Actualization” is taken as it exemplifies the socially detached, mechanistic, and causal notions of necessity germane to ethnocentric Cartesian texts, their obliviousness to the constructed reality of social rules’ crowning achievement, to be thoroughly deconstructed, while certain of its strands reconstructed through re-interpretation of any usefulness they may have in interactive practice. Against the linearity of these texts, we consider Agency possible because persons are variably entailed in and comprised of mutable and open-ended logics of meaning and action - paradoxically, pre-existent logics are funded by the affordance of interactivity to propel agentive constraint. And we define Agency as the Altercast Legitimation of flex-ability to afford and constrain, sometimes in bundles, tfg’s in using the inevitability of interaction to investigate variable entailings. However comparable to “The Hierarchy of Motives” metaphor then, the theoretic backing of what follows does not entail a fixed progressive order, but is differanced instead to a notion of all pervasive “rule-abilities.” {4} Though not affixing an order, internal relation of rules by their “rule-ness”, or their common nature as rules, always provide rule-abilities to order and make sense of events. These rule-abilities provide logics of meaning and action (or “grammars”) affording and constraining “flex-abilities” {5} for Agency - with immanent or “horizontal” rules of Agency normally Constituting flex-abilities for heirarchical Regulation of Agency. These are kinds of agency socially constructed and potentially changeable from moment to moment largely contingent upon what can be Taken For Granted through willing suspension of Belief or Disbelief. The horizontal (Constitutive) partition is here used similarly as Linda Harris’s model (14 p. 197 - 209) of Enmeshment Competence [Shotter would describe this as acting into the shaping and crafting of specificatory structures (our profferings in any interaction are only ever partly finished, and thus are available for farther specification - specificicty; in fact, we may here farther specify the term to “specificatory language games”, from which, enmeshment competence also entails the flex-ability to act out of)]. The Hierarchical (Regulative) partition is here used similarly as Koestler’s (40) citation of the two leveled “self assertion vs. self transcendence” [Harre would describe this as TFG appropriation of open-ended hierarchies of interpersonal dialogues for intrapersonal use] (these “horizontal/ lateral notions are heuristics - not literally separable, but connected and created by “rule-abilities”). Indeed, the reader should not want, in first reading, to enmesh too deeply in the perfunctory deconstruction/ re-construction of the four cultural terms (on the next page and a half) set out prior to any discussion of gender per se, as they encompass specificatory differancing in order to prevent their being used malapropriatiatively in the application which follows. This is a hermeneutic preparation so that everyday workings of embedded enlightenment text’s Reflexive Effects on gender, i.e., a narrative of equiprimoridally emergent “sides” of paradoxic agentive quests of gender differentiation and individuation, may be set, as it occurs, within a new language game comparable but differanced from Maslow’s hierarchy of motives metaphor, both in a more ordinary sense of the implications of its four corollary rubrics [Socialization, Being, Selfhood, Self Actualization - cultural terms corresponding with the static monadic tradition of teleology (see footnote #3 for elaboration) and farther differanced in a more rigorously theoretical sense [corollary content under those ordinary cultural rubrics culminate and are encompassed in Optima - theoretic moves corresponding with actional/agentive criteria]. Provisionally, Socialization and Being foster immanent agentive competence through action into (and out of) altercasting of specificatory langauge games conjointly constructed and coordinated from internal relation of mutable, open ended social criteria tfg of depth grammar. Basic levels typically Constitute and facilitate flex-abilities for Selfhood and Actualization’s more situation reflexive agentive competence in Regulating coordination of open ended tfg hierarchical grammars. Stories of Socialization and Being Constitute Flex-ability for Agency by Conjoint Construction Acting into (and out of) Immanently Mutable and Open Ended Criteria Coordinated of Taken For Granted Depth Grammars. 1 SOCIALIZATION: Liken enmeshment in Stories Told of Socialization (or Self Transcendence) to Praxis. At birth, as Rom Harre says, a “person position” enters into “the one a-priori context, molecules and persons in conversation - practically speaking, persons in relation to one another”; and beginning with mutually acted into Altercasting of parents and child is the socialization of agency. The awkward metaphor of “Position” is used to counteract Locke’s equalitarian idea of “perceptual neutrality”, situating persons in process and perspective, as opposed to rendering them equally valid judges of sensibilities irrespective of the quality of their involvement in discursive structures (e.g., the dubious, “even as a small child, I knew the evils of…etc.”). Stories Told of Socialization, then, is a notion of 1rst - 3rd person “Moral Orders”, in which Person Positions occupy differing privileged vantages having acted into Regulative positions through mediation of langauge’s consensuality and open-endedness in application to experience. Doesn’t begin with first to second person interaction? In this ecological view of socialization, the virtues of qualitatively patterned disbursement of differing flex-abilities are honored as being necessarily opposed to a single egalitarian standard. These Stories Told are socially constructed by corprisocial acting into and out of Stories Lived in Altercastings (joint 1rst - 2nd person interaction) of immanently mutable tfg coordinations of embedded depth grammatical rules. The jointly negotiated rules Constitute (determine how activities count) and Regulate Rights of Display (or not) agentive abilities in skilled performance of criteria accounted by consensus as [Legitimate, Obligatory, or Uncertain, and not Prohibited by a culture’s deontical requirements (with Uncertainty, these comprise four Deontic Operative Topoi “universal to all cultures” - V.C.]. Formally stated, Socialization is “Social Competence”; in Actional function, socialization of agency is expressed Cultural Pattern [CP] as Constitutive Rule [CR] of Contextual force over [Autobiography]. Being & Selfhood (or Self Assertion) are taken as two cultural terms corollary to ordinary usage of basic satisfctions on the Maslowian “Motivation Mierarchy.” Corresponding and differancing from these cultural terms in CMM actional terminology are basic flex-abilities for agency in Stories Lived - agentive rules for personal assertion of contextual force of reflexive effect of Autobiography. Being’s Agentive rules in Stories Lived are Constructed through the Conjoint Action into and out of Immanently Mutable Criteria Coordinated of Taken For Granted Depth Grammars. 2 BEING: Liken Enmeshment in Stories Lived through Being to Poesis. The Practice of Being constitutes an etiological organic tie to Harris’s model (10 p. 185 - 224). Being is socially constructed, continually corrigible, thus Socially Accountable. Being is not an etymological telos laid bare and maintained resolute. Nevertheless, after Narrative Postures of organic regulation are “calibrated”, the notion of Being is one of normally having the flex-ability to “feedback” on these patterned Stories Lived and to have them left alone. We cannot continually investigate everything but must be able to rest content Taking certain things For Granted as aesthetic technique facilitating experience. Aesthetic Technique facilitating experience would include rationality (making ratios as opposed to universals) and “understanding” - only, beyond understanding, which tends only to move away from discomfort, aesthetics qualitatively include an optimal amount of pleasure and pain, balancing between its thresholds in practical, non-cognitive judgment (as in A’s refinement of Epicurianism). Social Construction of Being - Where significant others Altercast from Stories Told Specificatory Language Games with sufficient Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy (ARF) - viz., temporal latitude of sufficient margin for error, time unconscientousness, personal (and momentary) idiosyncrasy, reticence with regard to practices/flex-abilities, and reservation of exclusionary rights of equal justice, then one’s Lived Story is afforded the ameliorative flex-ability to Constitute depth grammatical Rules of narrative constraint from which to take for granted the sequential meanderings of the CR’s optimal propriotorial, intrapersonal, and interpersonal flex-abilities. As these CR’s constrain the pejorative altercastings of non-negotiable accountability and afford “Right to Not Display”, their instantiated privacy Legitimates Regulative Rules of Release from from contexts where discrimination is ineffectual or release from a given pejorative story. The technique of these Regulative Rules may be used to afford and especially to Constrain Reflexive Effects of over-extension or impingement as they reconstruct Constitutive rules of Optimal flex-abilities. The formal statement of Being is Prefigurative Enmeshment Competence. The Actional function of Being is a ratio [CR] Prefigurative over Reflexive Effect of Contextual Biographical force. In this function as Altercast Biography, the Regulative Ability to Release (or stop short or move past) may make tacit use of pronominal directive; this first Agentive move in Constituting the Self Assertion of Personal Being is precursive to - Stories of Self Actualization Regulative Agency by the Conjointly Constructed Acting into and out of Open Ended Hierarchies Coordinated of Taken for Granted Grammars (differancing from regulated constraint) This cultural terminology of Socialization, Being, and Selfhood toward Self Actualization is hereafter taken to signify directions (Constitutive and Regulative Rules) of logical forces heuristic to the problematic intersection of gender differentiation/ individuation. As the reflexive effect of Modernity’s valuation of Implicative force, i.e., “Actualization’s” ability to change Cultural Patterns, increases the unbeknownst but necessary mutability of whatever relative stability of deontical order traditional teleology might achieve, there is no Cultural Pattern in which to practice the Satisfactory Competence of taking for granted enmeshment in one of these four facets on a regular basis (14 or 10 p. 204-205) (7). It is necessary to play a new language game.
Optimal Competence has/uses Functional Autonomy to use/afford all four of these Agentive Flex-abilities: Socialization, Being, Selfhood and Self Actualization are thus used as four inseparably necessary agentive flex-abilities for Optimal Competence in Modern Society. With Modernity’s disorder, one must be “flex-able” to use these four aspects (perhaps with qualitative differances on Momentary, Episodic, Relational, Cultural Pattern or Autobiographical levels), and not be stuck fixedly overcompensating or reversing one of these two facets, if one, as practitioner, is to be Optimally Competent. Optimal Competence - the flex-ability to Constitute and Regulate Social Competence, Enmeshment Competence, Valence Competence, Creative Competence and Functional Autonomy (choosing to fit in or not) - by its conscientious participation in “Being/Selfhood and Socialization”, is distinguished from mere Self Actualization. Even so, just as individuals can be Minimally Competent, so too can social systems be. In those systems where Optimal Competence is Blocked, Optimally Competent individuals may strongly favor one facet. A critical point distinguishing it from Minimal Competence, which does not afford flex-ability to reconstruct given criteria, is Functional Autonomy. Optimal Competence can choose to not fit in a criteria even though it, Optimal Competence, does afford the flex-ability to participate. On the other hand, Optimal Competence, as it is not Obligated to be different (not obligated by the modernist paradox, “be different so you can fit in”), need not succumb to Modernistic “pangs of self loathing” for the appearance of conformity (including to one’s self interest), but can choose to participate in social criteria despite the fact that the criteria may not be new. If, e.g., the criteria is “the ability to judge the value of exchange”, then Optimal Competence, unlike Minimal Competence, and beyond Satisfactory Competence (which can only reconstruct stable criteria), can choose to exchange less or more than conventional requirements of exchange, despite the ability to judge an even exchange. Moreover, beyond the alienation of modernism, it can choose to make an even exchange though that may not appear novel (though it may appear conformist) (10 or 14 ibid.). Section Two: Obstacles to The Flex-abilities of Optimal Competence - A Hermeneutic of Gender Differentiation & Individuation Where many acts lead to equifinal ends Pearce and Cronen’s first hypothesis is for a Charmed Loop. Therefore, it is hypothesized that Charmed Loops (viz. of sex and the division of labor) of Gender Differentiation became inferred as a telos. This telos, separating agentive flex-abilities, presents the first obstacle to Optimal Competence and the central context for the ensuing four hypotheses of obstacles. THE CONTEXT OF TELEOLOGY 1 TELEOLOGICAL GENDER DIFFERENTIATION: Prohibits necessary flex-abilities; viz., separation of gender agency prohibits Optimal Competence by the very concept of teleology’s formal separations. The Practical Division of Agency Constructs Separate Gender Positions of Advantageous Flex-ability: It would make sense that in negotiation through practical activity of the pre-agrarian world, a gender role division was inferred of parturition divisions of agency and taken for granted as a Reflexive Need (read “Need” as rules based praxis!). Females were Legitimated in Taking For Granted Reflexive Effect of Contextual Force over Regulative Rules (because males evolved physically stronger and free to fight, while females were more vulnerable and ‘eggs are precious’, females were afforded the social taken for granted that their Prefigurative disengagement (disenmeshement) from competition was legitimate and that breaking the rule of this legitimacy was prohibited) in exchange for elevated, less brutal competition among males (Bowery’s thing about civilizational deal for boarders being taken care of in exchange fore less brutal male comp for females within); while males, because they were less vulnerable and encumbered, were obligated, thus (through “deprivation of feedback compulsion”) Reflexively Needed to prove (practices/flex-abilities) deservingess of Implicative Force on Constitutive Rules. Display of successful consequents despite sacrifice on antecedent social levels (contextual force of reflexive effect) was institutionally compensated with Stories Told of Self Actualization [comprised through Stories Lived of both (Maslowian) differentiation of fulfillment and (Feudian) sublimation of deprivation]. This augmentation to the lack of competition from females in conjunction with deprivation compulsion (prohibiting basic flex-abilities) disproporionately represented males in acclivities of Implicative force of Autob. on Cultural Patterns reconstructing through momentarily Altercasts (“content”). It also ostensibly Legitimated protecting the institution of Traditional Society’s Stories Told of male Actualization [Obligatory Reflexive Need of Implicative force] with Prohibitory moral orders of male Self Actualization [Obligatory Reflexive Need of Implicative force] with Prohibitory moral orders of ethnocentrism and supremacy (e.g., “god” as a punitive man; or “male morality”), and most radically, the Prohibitory (thus concomitantly Obligatory) moral order of Traditional ionic Teleology. [CP] Traditional Teleology, The TFG Depth Grammar of Cartesianism (or “foundationalism”) & Gender Differentiation: Traditionalism is a way of life made coherent by story of permanence; takes for granted that the perfect form of any earthly object substands at its ends, inevitably to be uncovered if only one is reasonable enough to pursue understanding of those ends by continually putting at risk to dialectical critique any taken for granted custom and habit of tradition. This Tradition Elaborated the gender division into Two Positions of Advantageous Flexibilities {8}: A. A More Addressive Position - “The Female Position” of Flex-ability among basic human needs. The rules directed actively of the female’s being left alone, if not addressed, provides them with basic means of agency; this, the “Addressive” position, would be the position more often of females in the activities of everyday situations. B. A More Hierarchizing Position - “The Male Position” of Flex-ability in quest of human achievement: Thereupon the rules directed activities of the female’s being left alone, if not addressed, facilitate, through altercasting of a more directive (as opposed to inquisitive) kind of address, hierarchical construction of male agency; this, the “Hierarchizing” position, would be the position more often of males in the activities of status situations. {hermeneutic continues after discussion of hyperbolization through didactic inctitement and Cartesian technology}
Didactic Cruelty: A typical means of the Prohibition and Obligation which reconstruct these two gender positions would be didactic incitement. Because, though obligation and lack of altercast legitimacy, positive “motivation” (agency) is arrogated with the didactic cruelty of incitement, one must justify the instigator’s hypothesis for abuse, and can, in addition, issue forth their practices/ flex-abilities to the instigator. E.g., “the ignominious bullying of initiator in the context of Naven Ritual rites of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males” {4a}.
[Note similar versions of this charmed loop that I’ve put on line at Majorityrights] The address, strict first person accountability/second and third person absolution, in quality (inciting and didactic), may be so unequivocal that the addressee cannot tell whether they are acting as an agent, or whether they are acting in accordance of obligatory conformity or “obligatory rebellion” (“disobey me” paradox). Hence, the agency of the addressee positions of narrower flex-abilities, in sharing or expending, or in trying to avoid sharing or expending resources/practices, flex-abilities, is arrogated. As the obligations and prohibitions from from the positions of wider flex-abilities (ARF) make it impossible for lesser positions to take these important relationships for granted as background issues, their agency is regulated by an inescapable {10} field constituted through reflexive recontextings of figure/ground in the charmed loop of Didactic Incitement - viz. didactic incitement contexts reflexive need for Socialization [obligatory/not agentive], reconstructs reflexive need for Being [obligatory/not agentive], recontexts reflexive need for Selfhood [obligatory/not agentive], recontexts reflexive need for Self Actualization [obligatory/not agentive]. With the Agency of their taken for granted backgrounding arrogated, the narrow position is obligated to the inagency of a “please spontaneously care/ please spontaneously don’t care paradox. A. “Please Spontaneously Care” - wanting spontaneous, ameliorative care - largely an unconscious, unarticulated, background wish (because if they don’t just do it, if you have to make them, then they don’t really care for your being, but what you do) - (modernist half - please care to participate in the coherence of change). In this instance agency of a person position of narrow flex-abilities is Prohibited and any agency from the person position of wider flex-abilities is Legitimated. B. “Please Spontaneously Don’t Care” - wanting to be spontaneously left alone from pejorative care (neo-traditional half - please do not care so that I do not have to devote resources to protecting the coherence of permanence). In this instance, again, the agency of the person position of narrower flex-abilities is Prohibited and any agency from the person position of wider flex-abilities is Legitimated. The person position of narrow flex-abilities is caught in a charmed loop wherein they must justify the abuse: no matter what they do, their agency is arrogated by the person position of wider flex-abilities. Beside destroying themselves, a combination of the four options taken to an extreme, the narrow position might attempt the following in reaction to Didactic Incitement: I. Do “nothing”, risk pejorative altercasting 2. Prove lack of agentive being/ justify non-accountability 3. Please spontaneously care to amelioratively altercast withdrawal/not pejoratively altercast withdrawal. The narrower position right act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement and risk instantiation of the pejorative altercasting by doing “nothing’ 1. in “doing nothing” the narrower position accepts the altercasting and in so doing proves their lack of agentive being/ which justifies the wider position’s non-accountable incitement (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive being) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] read as follows: Please spontaneously care to amelioratively altercast my withdrawal/ to not pejoratively altercast my withdrawal. 3. in accepting the altercast primary injunction of agentive being [morality of rights], the narrow position may have to live through pejorative (perhaps tormenting) {11} language games for an indefinite period and legitimates farther abuse (wimp).* * It is this option which produces the unwanted bodily reactions of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For an obligatory withdrawal to such an extreme, the organic constitution and hermeneutic counteracts, betraying one’s integrity, perhaps to one’s own surprise and dismay. *It is in fact this first option of withdrawal which produces the unwanted bodily reactions of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For an obligatory withdrawal to such an extreme, the organic constitution counteracts, producing the unwanted bodily and hermeneutic reactions which might betray even one’s own self. II. Risk resources/practices for understanding of a better altercast 2. Prove lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justify appropriation exploitation 3. Please spontaneously care to protect my practices/ do not care to appropriate and exploit them (to use them as I would not). The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by risking resources to appropriation in an effort to make it understood that they should not be pejoratively altercast thus. 1. In divulging resources/practices, the narrow position proves lack of agentive selfhood and socialization/ justifies wide position’s appropriation and exploitation (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive selfhood and socialization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to protect my practices as I would/do not care to use them as I would not. 3. In divulging resources/practices of agentive selfhood [morality of conative productivity] and in divulging resources/practices of agentive socialization [tribal/utilitarian morality] the narrower position may risk appropriation of resources before readied and without the sought for results - enjoyment of being, the practical uses of selfhood, the bartering of socialization and the distinguished recognition of self actualization. This strategy of acting-into the didactic incitement may construct the hideous experience of the narrower position issuing forth their best resources/practices to the person(s) treating them the worst (dupe).
The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by fighting into it. 1. Using reactive flex-ability to fight into it, the narrow position proves their agentive selfhood and socialization/ justifies the wide position’s directive control over the use of flex-abilities (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive selfhood/ socialization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would like/do not care to direct me and my flex-abilities as I would not like 3. In having their flex-abilities directed to fight in, agency may not languish in specificatory language games naively shared or pejoratively altercast, but the narrow position reveals their hidden lack of innocence, i.e., the “hypocrisy” of self interest, and is thereby subject to pre-emption of agentive selfhood’s incentive [morality of conative productivity] to enter into a temporal story, or pre-emption of agentive socialization’s acceptance of a discursive structure [tribal/utilitarian morality] (e.g., through “forced identification”). Unlike the pre-emptive antagonism of the incited narrow position, the wide position has orientation to make sense of retaliatory antagonism. Beside dignifying the wider position with unmerited consideration, this strategy of acting into the didactic incitement risks having flexabilities maneuvered into extremely narrow ranges of functional autonomy, obligating vulgar pragmatism or criterial genericism to an extent which might leave the narrow position susceptible to blackmail [undermining Warrant (and the ability to object)] or exhaust and prohibit easy reconstruction of flex-abilities (pig).
The narrower position might act into legitimation of the charmed loop of didactic incitement by transcending it 1. In transcendence, the narrow position proves lack of agentive self actualization/ justifies the wider position’s use of didactic cruelty (arrogates constitution and regulation of agentive actualization) 2. Their background hope [to TFG RC] reads as follows: Please spontaneously care to admit that this was not what I needed/do not care that it was not so bad that I could not get over it. 3. If the narrower position transcends the context of didactic incitement, they justify the altercst didactic incitement as being “not that bad”, at worst, if not a necessary lesson or even an inspiration which takes credit for the achievement. This strategy of acting into the didactic incitement pre-empts Agentive Self Actualization’s [morality of honor] effect on cultural patterns such that the better one’s accomplishments are, the more they justify the abuse. An effort to find background TFG in transcendence of even this final justification of the hypothetically necessary abuse might re-construct a loop of runaway aberration (permanent puerile initiate).
Legitimates imperviousness to the flex-abilities of Optimal Competence through the “unassailable god” and the furtive Prohibitive mechanism of provisionalization. As Implications of Self Actualization made teleology’s elusive quest more evident, technologies such as the following two moves of Augustine were apparently instrumental in facilitating the Cartesian mechanism which served to maintain the Prohibitory punctuations of teleology despite ramifications of infinite regress. First, rather than an immutable and perfectly aligned telos, he hypothesized to god an Archemedian point above good and evil. But instead of qualitatively social consensus, a sensible limit to extremes, in lieu the formal telos, the concept of “individual” was to be governor of ethics as the truth of god was relational and separate from them, not relative and connected in qualitative patterns wherein the virtues of flex-abilities were recognized as they were ecologically dispersed. Second, of this Archimedian schism he inferred a primordial relationality. Coherent direction of ethics toward this Archimedian point was to be facilitated by the mechanism of relationality as opposed to relativity. With this parceling-out mechanism, certain pejorative elements within an individual’s orientation, as in the most critical example of hypocrisy, were not the ultimate qualitative limitation to their moral orientation {12}. This technology likely hyperbolized the two separate gender positions of greater flex-abilities.
[CP] Modernity (Cartesian) TFG Depth Grammar of Individuation: Modernity is a way of life made coherent by the story of change; it takes for granted that transcendent “mind stuff” (and later empiricism) found Archimedian logics which are inevitably to be uncovered if only people have courage to pursue them by continually putting at risk the taken for granted customs and habits of tradition.
[CP] Neo Traditionalism (Teleological Cartesianism): Neo Traditionalism is a way of life made coherent by the story of permanence; takes for granted that maintenance of faith in an Archimedian logics’s foundation of empiricism is what has been done by folks to successfully preserve them through history; thus, it will work again if only one has the will to not put at risk these taken for granted customs/habits of tradition (Neo Traditionalism must function in context of Modernity).
4 INCOMMENSURATE GENDER AGENDAS OF INDIVIDUATION & DIFFERENTIATION: Obliges Prohibition of flex-abilities through infinite regression of the paradoxic notion of “be different so you can fit in” (14; 51a), i.e., be a modern individual, versus the reflexive effect of ever more closed notions of neo-traditional gender differentiation (be the same as others so that you can fit in). The intersection of Gender Relations/Individuation reconstructs, at least in occidental culture, a symmetrical paradigm of Incommensurate Gender of Individuation. A) The language game of Neo Traditionalism tries to conform the technology of individuation to teleological gender differentiation, seeking to separate and protect 1) female reflexively effected contextual forces from 2) male reflexively needed implicative forces; while the language game of Modernistic males and females use the technology of individuation to differance from traditional rules of gender separation B) Modernist 3) females - overcompensate reflexively effected contextual forces or reverse to reflexively needed implicative forces of Autob. and 4) males - overcompensate reflexively needed implicative forces or reverse to reflexively effected contextual forces of Autob. Whether Neo Traditionalist or Modernist, gender agendas of individuation are likely to be incommensurate.
Through the temporal [in governing contextual force of Autob. (over RC through Alt Cn & reconstructing CP)], females were likely to become more: sensibly acute, happy, articulate, involved, caring and motivated than their compelled male counterparts [for many (Traditional) females, the indirectness of their reflexively effected implicative force (influence on Cultural Patterns) was relatively unimportant; that is, compared with their motive to protect context forces (Being/Selfhood)]. Self Assertion {14}: Addressivity of the female position, that is the Altercasting of specificatory language games, fulfills its basic flex-abilities for the agencies of being and selfhood, and creates flex-ability for strong prefigurative force [Self Assertion]. In this position she tends to prohibit “metacommunication” [talk about talk which allows for the power to clarify, revise and integrate one’s premises (65) Barnlund] as there is no immanent need to risk discursive practices/flex-abilities in that manner; moreover, high context orientation is abundant and uninteresting to her; further still, perhaps she has a vested interest in maintaining modernity’s disorder to sustain the advantage of the addressive position and its flex-ability to play males off one another - inasmuch, she dismisses the conversational implicature of metacommunication as weak or unmasculine. She is inclined instead to cursory pejorative conclusions (this overparticularity is discussed in note {15}), which, from the position of basic flex-abilities, tend to project justice, freedom and permanence. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional morals since, on an everyday level, more or happier opportunities exist to break its rules. This bias may construct cultural criterial narrowness and broad natural conservatism (especially in Modernity, when less can be taken for granted). Despite resistance to that bias, varying Autob.‘s (industrial epoch) outside of male prohibitions and control of birthing, diminish [Traditionally TFG] natural/social barriers to female Self Actualization into mere custom and habit - as opposed to practical necessity or supernatural mandate. Whether they were sensitized through violations of their [Traditionally instituted] Being/Selfhood, or they were sheerly perceptive, perhaps more females than previously recognized that Self Actualization [Autob.‘s reflexive need of implicative force beyond RC] was not vain, but essential to full competence in modern society. In compliment, rigidity and militarism which continued post World Wars constrained some Modernistic males from “rational blindness” {16}: I.e., they could not blind themselves to the fact that the Traditional TFG of 1) the young male’s sacrificed Being/Selfhood was too profound to be legitimated by potential Self Actualization; further 2) that the modernist/ethnocentric (paradox) position of Self Actualization is now obsolete, even abetting destruction of these premises - without (Autob. reflexively effected context forces) which, Self Actualization was improbable in the less outwardly ordered society of modernity. Without a story of intrinsic value, he still had to prove his practices/flex-abilities according to extremely positivistic and generic standards (e.g., enlistment) or risk insuperable loss of personal justice (even de-sexing); i.e., either exclusive intrinsic rights or credibility and status - the only apparent societal competition and means back to his early Prohibited Being/Selfhood. {17}
The Reflexive Needs of This Unwanted Repetitive Pattern - call it “The Strange Loop of Post Modernity” - Obligates the Prohibition of flex-abilties This Strange Loop of “Post Modernity” works within Strange Loop of Modernity* as described by Pearce and Cronen; the difference being that this loop functions as a relation between the Ways of Life of Modernity and Neo-Traditionalism. Modern and Neo Traditional accountability to the teleological context’s impossible quest for a complete and consistent theory can reflexively reconstruct a Strange Loop in perpetuity. As Accountability to Teleology implicatively forces search for non recursive separations (forms), the language games of Modernistic Individuation tend to harshly overcompensate and (then) or reflexively Reverse whatever TFG’s founded by the language games of Neo Traditional Differentiation [e.g., the language game of unhappy modernist female tends to fixate reversal to prefigurative contextual force or harshly overcompensate implicative force - by any way, the Autobiography of the Modernist must context Relational Characterization and vis a versa [i.e., the language game of Neo Traditionalism fixates its own harsh reinstantiation of gender (hierarchicization) - for a Neo Traditionalist, a Relational Characterization must context Autobiography]. As this context’s reflexive recontexting precludes taking for granted Satisfactory Competence through either the language game of Differentiation (incl. overcompensation) of Reversal, it is necessary to cure its snares with a new language game of Optimal Competence (e.g., for persons of either gender to have the flex-abilities of changeable enmehsment in all four forces). Although this loop is synonymous with the status quo of what is commonly called “post modernity”, it is actually used synonymously with the term “modernity”, for in absence the instantiation of stable, unifying Accountable Ways of Life (Autob., RC. and CP), we CMMists (13) do not presume modernity has been surpassed.
EPISODIC ANALYSIS: Discussing Consequents of “Taking The Ten” (in the prisoner’s dilemma) Although this analysis uses concrete elements, it is more a prototype episode as it does not situate an actual sequence of events, it only lays out a typical sequence of events. This proto-episode takes individuational language games from the Strange Loop of “postmodernity” and sets them out within a Consequent of the “prisoner’s dilemma” to illustrate an interaction between the language game of Over-compensating Modernist Male [OMM] and Female [OMF], showing how it reflexes a reverse in Regulative Rules - i.e., if they are to differance and thus fit in they must each become Reversing Modernist [RMM] [RMF], finally, in the last sequence, the cycle of the Strange Loop is completed as both start to adopt trappings of New Traditionalism. Note: Though the analysis of this proto-episode exploits coherence through the consistency of language games which, in this case, modernist types would use, another modernist female comes into play, taking the place of the Overcompensating Modernist female after the antecedent proto-episodes, and assumes the Reflexive Effect of that Episode by enacting the Consequent Autobiographical pattern, the language game of Reversing Modernist Female.
[A] Modernity [CP] Celebrative Change [CR] Be different so you can fit in [RR] continually put practices/felx-abilities at risk in quest of foundations. [A] Neo Traditionalism derives its Cultural Pattern [CP] from the Traditional [CP] Sacramental Form [CR] Be faithful to the permanent, ultimate, and authentic form of one’s existence (be the same as others so that you can fit in) [RR] find the will to refrain from putting practices/flex-abilities at risk.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma {62c; 51a}: As applied in this [Ep] - Does one act as a Neo Traditionalist and try to be fair, “take the five”, in preserving the “sacrament” of one’s anticipated “true love” [sacred RC contexts Autob.]? - Male takes the five of achievement, female takes the five of basic human flex-abilities. Or does one act as Modernist and try to bring the most to any anticipated relationship by “celebrating” life to the fullest, adopting pragmatic relationships along the way in support of individuational achievement [Autob. contexts pragmatic RC]? - “take the ten” prior to discovery of [permanent RC]?
Overcompensating Modernist Female [OMF]: Autob. continually put practices/flex-abilities at risk in the direction assuring basic human needs - Self Assertion [Contexual Autob. over Prefig/Practical force] Overcompensating Modernist Male [OMM]: Autob. continually put practices/flex-abilities at risk in quest of achievement - Self Transcendence [Implicative Autobiographical force]
[Ep #1 reluctant foil] 1. [OMM] in hope to retain at least the five of achievement [DO] Obligatory - Transcend Self, accept attribution men privileged/ women disadvantaged - [RR] Please Spontaneously Care that this (dilemma) is not what I needed. [Act] reluctantly overcompensate Sacral Form [CR] Patriarchy 2. [OMF] “Patriarchy” [CR] Prohibitive Male Morality - “Arrogant; pretentious” [RR] “not new”
1. [OMF] [C] [DO] Obligatory: In liberation from fetters of immanence, women need transcendent achievement [RR] Subvert obstructive patriarchy [Act] Take The Ten - [CR] “Sacred Ministry of Betrayal”: (obviously another male) [RR] .....”Not kneeling before a man, only kneeling before a symbol of virility.” By the act of taking the ten, the language game of Overcompensating Modernist Female Reflexively Effects [C] [DO] Uncertainty, Transforming a reversal in modernistic individuational quests. Read her contextual force over the modernist male as follows: Antecedent [A] “You will never inflict on me anything as hateful as I have already inflicted on you.”
Discussing Consequents of Taking Ten in Antecedent Gender Relations/Individuational Achievement {At this juncture the overcompensating modernist female of the antecedent episodes, having taken the ten, has moved on to bigger and better things, and a different modernist female acts into the discursive structure of the Reflexively Effected language game of reversing modernist female RMF, and thusly equipped, engages in episode the downed, and therefore reflexively reversing modernist male RMM} Autob. +10 Reversing Modernist Female [RMF]: [CR] “The right to do what I want” RR Change [CP] “Stable Heirachical Pattern of Patriarchy [Contextual Force] [Effect Implicative Force against it] Autob. -10 Reversing Modernist Male [RMM]: [CR]“Authentic rights have not been considered” [RR] search for Authentic foundations of “Being” [Prefigurative over Contextual force]
2. [RMF]: [C] - [CR] Talk about old girlfriend [DO] Prohibited [RR] not new, boring [CR] immoral [Act] “All they want to do is talk about their old girlfriends”....[Oblig.] [Act] (scream!) “You bore me!” 3. [RMM] - [C] [CR] insulated by Altercast [Antecedent] of permanence and tactlessness - [RR] Please spontaneously care that this isn’t what I needed: [DO] Oblig [Act] Assert basic right to genuine “feelings” 4. [RMF] [C] - [DO] Prohibited - [CR] male expression of feelings counts as manipulative. 5. [RMM] - [DO] Uncertainty [A] - [Autob.] [DO] Obligatory - search for the reason behind this insouciance [Act] - Try to reason things out through “metacommunication” 6. [RMF] - [C] - [DO] Prohibited by [Autob.] - [CR] metacommunication = controlling [C] [Oblig] [Act] (scream!) “Relax!!” 7. [RMF] [Antecedent] - [DO] Obligatory - [CR] - “Refreshing candor” of pragmatic directive - [Act] “Are you jealous? It’s just her prerogative. Get on with your life. It’s that way for everyone.” [DO] Legit. [RR] “Help to do better” - [Act] Wholesome and mature expression of delightful sexuality: “women have plenty of lovers, but they complain that men aren’t good lovers. Are you a good lover?”
[Ant] The importance of getting things right, “accurate and ameliorative”, become acute at this juncture for the [RMM], if, along with the incapacity to discuss the pejorative experience of his prior [RC] with his “girlfriend”, you add, say, his familial Relationship, characterized by pervasive negative Altercasting (also likely to be Prohibited by modernist and neo traditional discourse as controlling, manipulative, wimpish). With Depth Grammar’s potential for making incommensurate paradigms comparable, take the point of view then of the reversing modernist male: if he is to assert his basic flex-abilities, the Obligatory response to the Acts in segment 7 can accurately read as follows: 1. RMM: [CR] - Mechanistic, indifferent: Like telling a woman who has been violated (in some form) “Never mind him, he was just a pig; men have all the women that they need, but they complain that women don’t (expletive) them correctly” * [C] [Oblig] [Act] Rage * As if this “advice” is not bad enough, imagine the following scenario: Given the factors of pervasiveness and the hegemony of this CP [separating gender flex-abilities for agency] a good comparison would work like this - a rape which produces the unfortunate involuntary bodily response of an orgasm (only later to be interpreted for her as “consummatory bodily satisfaction”!), which, in turn produces a hysterical reaction (only to be later interpreted for her as “liberating happiness” !), which, in turn, Obligates an anti-rape crusade (only later to be interpreted for her as having been “inspired by the rape” !). 2. The RMM’s [Act] toward Caveat The RMF’s acts in segments #2, #6 and # 7 of Episode 3 exemplify ordinary everyday kinds of “didactic incitement.” Within this context [Enlightenment texts first to third person accountability (Are you jealous? It’s just their prerogative. Get on with your life. It’s that way for everyone.”)] of Cartesian Modernistic Individuation, (Garfinkel describes as) “rational blindness” to moral an factual indebtedness for the social construction of “individuation” [Autob.‘s] has created, by Episode 4, segment #3, an asymmetrical relation quantified to hegemony. It might be inferred that the foundational context’s quantifying absolution of forms (e.g., deprivation compulsion of didactic incitement), of positivistic individual rights, in connection with the rules directed activity of the female’s being left alone if not addressed (the addressive position increased with modernity’s disorder creating less need or ability to trust - in fact, a motive to perpetuate disorder in order to sustain addressive position’s basic flex-abilities, e.g., to play males off of one another), similarly as in this episode [its Prohibited against discussing past RC’s made more pervasive if it is Legitimized by power positions (e.g., a “therapist”) and/or comports contextual force over an additional Antecedent RC of a pejoratively Altercasting family], males (viz. more highly “class” dependent, and having a view toward a wider arc of contingencies and “farther reaches of human nature”) will “lose” to females disproportionately. This might make worse the incentive and the power structure. [this coming sentence needs work, but it seems like I was grasping at concepts like “hypergamy” though I didn’t have that word at time] A “polygny or hyperprogeneration of ameliorative Altercasting,” through which males not necessarily meritous are Altercast positions of influence (perhaps for fear of being left behind and susceptible to a hegemonic genetic “arms build up”), explains how this can happen. The concern of the worst case scenario being that if the more broad demographic of males continue to be taught to deaden their basic flex-abilities, and with that, their selectional bias (see note 14) is disproportionately Blocked, that as they attempt to appeal to Accountability to Justice, cast into the role of the oppressor of an all too talented lady, they will become demoralized. This possibility is not a matter of “human nature”; it is a matter of the logics of meaning and action. These are grammars, and where they prehend the interpretation of action, depth grammars of language games in which persons find themselves variably enmeshed, comprised and accountable (24 ibid). After the conclusion, in order to augment the proffered grammar of CMM’s Optimal Competence, seven more suggestions are going to be made to ameliorate the language games outlaid through teleology as described in this article’s hermeneutic.
The taken for granted depth grammar of both Cartesian modernistic individuation and neo traditional differentiation is traditional Ionic teleology. Within this ionic tradition, a telos of gender differentiation was TFG as its inference was made apparent by charmed loops to two separate gender positions of agentive flex-abilities which co-evolved through practical activity. This TFG teleology of two positions of wider agentive flex-abilities, viz., of prefigurative contextual force over reflexive effect of practical force as bequeathed to females separated from implicative forces reflexively needing prefigurative force as bequeathed to males, creates a framework which 1) prohibits optimal competence of itself 2) contextualizes a charmed loop in its reconstructive maintenance, i.e., didactic incitement, which hyperbolized to 3) the Cartesian technology of modernistic individuation’s imperviousness 4) reflexively effecting incommensurate gender agendas, their quests prohibiting coordination of optimal competence 5) which contextualizes prohibition of optimal of optimal competence through a strange loop of incommensurate gender agendas of individuation reflexively recontexting the “need” for neo traditional teleological gender differentiation and vis a versa. The notion of reflexively effected contextual forces as bequeathed to females and reflexively needed implicative forces as bequeathed to males contextualizes a great deal very radically. With parsimony, it frames ideas ranging from ‘female morality” (Gilligan 1982) - more positive as its basic flex-abilities for agency are more readily satisfied - to “male socio-pathology and male morality” (Kant 1785) etc. {19} Despite its efficiency, I shall take credit for inventing its formulation in application with Professors Vernon E. Cronen and W. Barnett Pearce {20}. [2018: The revised thesis statement above captures more vividly the original contribution: the technology and instigation of Cartesian individuaton instigated through didactic incitement to “self actualization” ruptures the homeostatic stability of social classificatory patterns, whereupon the basic one up position of females reemerge with increased significance, and charmed loops kick in to reconstruct this situation to runaway as she and her propensity to incite genetic competition is pandered to exponentially; part of his loop is the increasing preclusion of basic male ‘grumbles’ - male being, and the routine and sacrament -patterns good enough if not sacred - that allow for socialization and are necessary to actualization. This calls for a redefinition and reworking of the whole paradigm of self actualization - which actually began with Aristotle - with valuation and the use and enjoyment of the social classification, being/dasein (organic being among one’s folks) and selfhood and self actualization routine/sacramental episode - part of what would make the quest of self actualization less toxic would be its goal as contributing to socialization and its recognition as an episodic thing that can and should be relaxed after an episode; the valuation of the other levels will also allow people to step into them as need be without feeling that they will be left behind or exploited; these four elements are to be negotiated in circularity as need be, seeking an optimal management of them, as optimally reliant upon one another, as opposed to a maximization of one aspect - the paradigm is based on Aristotle’s assessment of human nature, that humans are biological creatures, concerned for relationships and needing optimal levels of need satisfaction.] Further, I should also add very fundamentally, that regarding the thesis statement itself, the 1993 version that I am using may not have been the only version from the time, since I was legitimately criticized (subtly mocked) for the form of the thesis and then adjusted it to two pithy theses - thesis one and two. A thesis statement is supposed to be like a sentence with a limiting condition that orders all subsequent paragraphs and makes the whole paper coherent - I will adjust this very piece later-on to the extent that it needs that, or maybe just revise the whole thing with a version 2018 (although the whole thing makes sense to me even as is and I can explain it, as is, for whom it may concern] RECOMMENDATIONS [in addition to Optimal Competence] 1. Prefigurative Language Games which foster the Flex-abilities of “Unused Potentiality for Change” A) A co-evolution of Sex as Celebration version Sex as a Sacrament {21}: An imperfect distinction of this kind “made common” might throw light on certain conflicts. Consider the rage of those who are perhaps young and not wanting its meaning decided for them, those who are perhaps struggling with daunting circumstances and not in a position affording the flex-ability to “celebrate”, or those who would simply prefer not to treat sex as other than a sacrament, only to find ubiquitous the celebrating debauchery of their would-be sacrament. B) Voluntary Secular Language Games of Single Sex Partner for Life Hopefuls. Public Recognition for the Legitimacy of activity chosen conjunction of negations (exclusive rights) - e.g., patterns, enclaves, signifcations, language games, or institutions of single sex partner for life hopefuls outside the constraints of religion might alleviate the stress of celebrative tropism in free society. This is not at all impractical. All that has to happen is for persons in public circumstances to mention this as an option. 2. Concerted attention to issues of physical appearance and bodily make-up. Problems of undue privilege with regard to consensually attributed “beauty” and “physical prowess”, and more importantly, abuses with regard to consensually attributed “unattractiveness” should be discussed more actively. It is probably too burdensome for persons, in the latter position especially, to make the case without well promulgated support. Perhaps this difficulty provides one explanation as to why issues of this kind, e.g., “looksism”, have incorrectly fallen under the rubric of “sexism” - As if females are not culpable of unjust physical discrimination. 3. Equitable trade-off of forces: As females justifiably need more Self Actualization there should be greater challenges to their Contextual Forces so that they might have a better appreciation of what of what they might be giving way when making decisions of Implicature. Conversely, and preferably as an emphasis, males ought to be granted easier means of Contextual Force so that they might have a greater appreciation of what they might be giving away when making decisions of Implicature. {22} 4. Distinguishing “Stories Lived from Stories Told”: When talking in terms of Stories Told, its third person panoramas, there will undoubtedly be cases in Stories Lived in everyday going on, of persons who are disadvantaged being sanctioned as if they are advantaged, and conversely, persons who are advantaged only to be compensated for Stories Told of their disadvantage. In this treatise application, males disadvantaged in Stories Lived, will be punished for Stories Told of their privilege; this will occur at the same time that females and males designated as underprivileged in Stories Told, who are actually quite fortunate in Stories Lived (perhaps even abusive to the designated “privileged” male), disingenuously use The Story Told to exalt over the “hubris” of the supposedly privileged male. [2018, though I’d articulated this thoroughly at the time, it wasn’t forefronted in this 1993 version that I’m working from: Male Self Actualization, achievement, power in position is sometimes and in part a result of Freudean/Nietszchean privation and deprivation of basic levels of Maslow’s heirarchy, not only a result of fulfillment of basic levels - as feminists have been saying - thus some will be punished for achieving despite privation, for their “oppressive advantage!” Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied. The YKW in particular will pander to the female position, saying that women are “oppressed across the board (ignoring basic need fulfillment) while also pandering to the propensity to incite the continued deprivation of basic male flex-abilities - being “a baby”, “not a man”, “get on with your life”, etc. On the other hand, the propensity of the sheer liberal and liberation paradigm will put some females into power, and gate keeping positions, where they are too liberal of boundaries as their basic needs have been fulfilled a bit too easily, overprotected. And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such]. Pervading American society are three Stories Told, which, in particular, seem to exercise strong enough contextual force to keep in place a stable hierarchy, diverting from and making challenge to the sort of problem mentioned above difficult: {23} 1. The Male “Permanent Puerile Initiate” 2. The Female “Panacea” 3. “Male Supremacy” A) The CMM Quaternary System: By breaking discussion of Cartesian individuation and gender relations into an internally related quaternary system, a way of talking is provided which is 1) simple enough to “make common” acknowledgement that not all males ought to be classified among a “patriarchal elite” deserving to be brought down; in connection with that, that not all females and designated oppressed males ought to be considered underprivileged (if that sounds simplistic, it should; it’s addressing embarrassingly simplistic and superficial arguments). This can alleviate the rage of those who are punished a second time for the Story Told - as revision of these stories would entail accountability for co-construction of the hierarchical male position 2) complex enough for the multiplicity of its interfaces to make its use alluring, while overly simple stereotyping is made virtually impossible. In all it provides a way of talking which can include a multitude of views without minimizing the integrity of their prospective agendas. B) A platform providing articulate critique of females: “Made common” ways of talk, entering among American Stories Told, which provide young males compelled to appropriate language through popular culture for their poor interpersonal conversational resources in Stories Lived, with a counteractive to overly ameliorative Stories Told of females (“Panacea”) are a necessary predation in an ecology of discourse. Disillusionment with contrasts between the Story Lived and Stories Told of panacea, permanent puerile initiate, and male supremacy may account for many of the Story’s hypertrophied extants (reflexive reversal of quest to Self Actualization and socially recognized esteem to social aberration instead) thereof of brutality. These Stories Told create an overwhelming labyrinth of all too readily available excuses. Inasmuch, these torrents of rhetoric make the initial abuse of the male and the ignoring of that part of the process, seem deserved. It might not be intolerable for the inarticulate male to find females as they can be within the Story Lived if there were better preparation through closer interpretation and critique of Stories Told. Within this grammar (see Burke, 10; 65) (not a placation of hard earned ideas, but such a thing as articulate critique (e.g., feminism might usefully be looked-upon as “inverted guilt”; another, e.g., the accusation of “homosexuality”, which may incite inarticulate young males to overcompensate, might be assuaged with a notion of homosexuals being less competition in the realm of sex {24}), anxiety which abets importunate vying for females may be moved to a better order of premises. He would have a permanent direction of growth to guard against the arbitrariness of her pejorative altercastings. He need not put hope in females to the degree of being unskeptical of negative customs and habits, or to the degree of unconsciously setting them above reasonable moral and ethical [‘ethnical’ was a happy typo] standards. The sought for result would be a more remarkable interaction and a more qualified participant. 5. As Cultures evolve in ecological circumstances through millennia, the Traditional notion that cultures are naive (though they can be) needs more critique. More Accountability to and of cultures than is currently afforded should be Legitimized. 6. Undoing Dewey’s notion of democracy as a way of life (it shatters and destabilizes necessary patterns) and placing persons first and making democracy the most important tool in their assistance. Returning money to its ancillary function as an abstract guideline for exchange. Socialism. Ecology. Two children. Hermeneutic turn. 7. CMM’s discussion of the importance of “Voice” in “Post Enlightenment Ethics”
{1} Of primary example, there are, of course, many women who favor “male morality” and men more disposed to “female morality”, etc. {2} Language Games are fundamentally actions. The ubiquity of rules guides immediacy of use. {3} Socialization, Being, Selhood and Self Actualization. The perjorative connotations of these static monadic cultural terms will only be adumbrated. Socialization as a science has been looked upon as a monolithic telos, the non-acquisition of which meant we were immature or physically deformed, and not perhaps constituted for other flex-able preferences. We were expected to transcend nature in genocidal collusion, as if our capacity for self trancendence to social criteria should be unlimited. Being, as I see it, the obfuscated agenda of the hippie-freak movement (witness semiotics such as Haight Ashbury “Be-ins”), was most acutely about the right of the male of the species “to Be” (and to be weird, thank goodness). Unfortunately, it became entangled with Heidegger’s rigid and anti-social reification wherein Being was to be pursued to its ownmost guilty, gloriously violent death. Selhood sounded like such a fundamental human right that perhaps many a “hard hat” fought mightily to reconstruct what could amount to an everyday kind of slavery. And Friedan, 1963, took Maslow’s story of “Self Actualization” to be imperative to the liberation of women. No wonder feminists actualized the nightmare of no alternatives by practicing language games every bit as prone to self righteousness and imperviousness as those of Neo Traditional women. {4} If it would make things easier for the reader, just think of “grammars” as rules, better, “rule-abilities.” These rule-abilities provide logics of meaning and action. Persons are simultaneously or variably enmeshed in these logics which have different entailments. These rule-abilities are internally related by their “ruleness”, or their common nature as rules. Because persons are themselves comprised of these rule-abilities, they are able to use them immediately, at least in some crude fashion. That is not to say that these Immanent Constitutive Rule-abilities are not Mutable and subject to various interpretations, affordance and constraint as Regulated through the logical force of Open Ended Hierarchicization. Language then, is socially constructed semiotics of “depth grammars” - immanently available rules (these embedded rules are also, of course, socially constructed). {5} “Flex-ability” is approximately synonymous with Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy [ARF] and the Deontic Operator, “Legitimacy.” {6} Being/Selfhood are Not too passively defined; prerequisite relations to these processes are amplified for the purpose of integrating the substance/context paradox, especially during early stages of “individuation.” Of course, you, young man, have the right to reject a woman on the basis of the men that she has dated. {7} Thus, for example, through Self Actualization might remain the most conspicuous, it is no longer simply the finest achievement. With the reflexive effects of modernity, Actualization’s criteria are transient and unpredictable. In absence the stable criteria of traditional society, Actualization’s need for Socialization, Selfhood, and especially for Being [CR] Reflexive Need for Prefigurative Contextual force are increased. Without those incorporations the modernist paradox makes Actualization prone to reflexive reversal or overcompensation to Social Aberration; i.e., to be Actualized according to Modernity is to be especially different - the modernist paradox (14; 51a: “Be different so you can fit in”). But again, it is not just Self Actualization which is dangerous. In tacit reply to Heidegger’s “ownmost being toward death”, Bateson observed that “nature rarely works within lethal variables.” Take that to implicate that any of these four notions quantified can be toxic. {8} This tradition Elaborated the gender division into two Positions of Advantageous Flex-abilities. In this contemporary language’s abbreviated way, this would read like two different “one-up” positions (and corresponding “one-down” positions), one with regard to the security of human needs, the other with regard to quests of achievement. The individual in position of wider flex-abilities has more affordance and Legitimacy with regard to their agency (in other words, a wider Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy (ARF), the position of narrower flex-abilities is subject to more Constraint, Prohibition and Obligation to their agency (narrower ARF). To avoid ordinary difficulties of gender comparison, unfortunately, this article feigns a quantitative scale. It postulates that identical gradients of “physical, emotional and intellectual” circumstances would produce a story of occidental females being (in “ordinary language!”) “one up”, i.e., having a position with greater flex-abilities (affordances, legitimacy, wider range of alternative acts) than do males in the significant episodes of initial interaction and partner selection. Problems of operationalizing and concluding from this postulate are appreciable - beginning with meaning clusters of its words and proceeding through issues of time, etc. This trichotomy may be impossible or unnecessary in determining gender positions of greater flex-abilities re: a particular situation. Presumably, positions of greater affordance and constraint might reverse or converge at certain gradients, and at certain junctures on the Life Span; they probably would change in moment and episode too, but the concern here is to characterize Cultural Patterns. {9} “Didactic Incitement”: Perhaps the crux of didactic incitement is antagonism for not adopting a pure first person account; i.e., strong obligation of 1rst person accountability coupled with 2nd and 3rd person absolution (either through prohibition of accountability or legitimization of non-accountability). Imperviousness and tangential responding being instances of Taken For Granted (making them all the more important) E-text pure 1rst person procedure. This incitement can take the form of anything from: boot camp, to the ignominious bullying of Naven Ritual Rites of passage producing harsh, overcompensating males; to shrill indignation to trifling indifference (the metacommunacative belch) [Legitimacy is neither antithesis nor indifference]. It can take form in condescending “tact”, it can take form of “humble” intervention of an supposed “absolutionist.” It can hold logical force though sheer power of obligation/ prohibition - in which case the nature of the address (inciting and didactic) may be so intense that the addressee cannot tell whether they are acting as an agent, or whether they are acting in accordance with obligatory conformity; or, paradoxically, obligatory rebellion; it can divert into stories of “primary process” [DO Oblig.], “orientative response” [DO Uncert], it can captivate by flattering one’s capacity for resolve, or through its interestingness - its intellectual bedazzlement as new tfg’s can always be provoked. This section perhaps separates matters too much. Further, this is not to suggest its constituents should always be as written here. The reader should consider the “Both/And” suggestion while reading this quaternary system. These are paradoxes, so options I, II, III, IV, can (and usually do), happen simultaneously (in different narratives or different “levels” - e.g., Alt, Ep, Autob, RC, CP) and can (and usually do) occur separately over protracted spans of time such that the dynamics of the loops are hard to discern. As G. Abeles, in her review of double bind analysis (57 p. 147) has observed, the investigator cannot parcel out factors and still have them work as they would, i.e., simultaneously and pervasively though time within the qualitative patterns of important relationships. “The double bind (we talk more in terms of loops here) is about background issues.” Any attempt to clarify them to the fore changes what the “victim” is attempting to do in their bind. They are having a difficult time protecting their resources/flex-abilities - the last thing they might want to do is clarify them to the fore. I.e., they might want to be able to take a relationship for granted. Nevertheless, in the qualitative setting of the loop, all attempts to [TFG RC] are subject to constant “figure ground reversals which prevent background issues from being background issues as their stability is continually put into question.” In Bateson’s model, the “schizophrenic” is “punished for being punished.” I believe that this didactic cruelty and the Cartesian mechanism are instrumental in constructing and abetting the “phony and crooked disease of quantification”, of which he spoke. “As teachers are we wise?” This is not a gender specific phenomenon. Indeed, it is harder to be a female from the standpoint of traditional (Kantian) morals, as more or happier opportunities exist to make mistakes. And as they are in a basic position of wider flex-abilities, at least on everyday levels, there are more or happier opportunities for females to exact this punishment for being punished. In this way, for example, males are made (constructed) “immoral” (giving females a wider Alternative Range of Functional Autonomy to exploit?) Note 23 retraces a charmed loop wherein, given that this is necessarily a just world (relatively to her), the suffering of the male proves his guilt and justifies more punishment (Scarry). The cycle perpetuates itself more as the disconfirmer has left herself susceptible to retaliation and must continue the disconfirmation with increased intensity (Lang). Pontifications: “Deprive persons (metacommunication) the power to clarify, revise and integrate their premises and they will suffer for it” (D. Barnlund). “The road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well” - “and it isn’t funny.” G. B. [Telos (“good intentions?”) separations constrain and therefore also abet competition and quantification; (subsequent to my initial writing of this treatise, Cucciari’s article in Ortner and Whitehead’s “Sexual Meanings” would lead me to add only this, which, should have been obvious)]. Though the scribe is not a Christian, the statement, “if you had known this, they ask for sympathy not sacrifice, you would not have punished the innocent”, is noble. K. Burke argued that we should seek a war so peaceful that it is more peaceful than what we now know as peace.” And he asked, “when is the teacher too harsh, the victory too easy?” ....“rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is ‘emptying”... “The Stoic acceptance was aimed at the transubstantiation of the excremental, in an attempt to proclaim even the repugnant aspects of existence essentially divine.” We should not construe a test for health with the means for its achievement. The sociobiologist David Barash contented, “scratch an altruist and watch them become a hypocrite.” It would seem, rather, that the altruist has just cause to be provisionally non-altruistic if their ability to carry on their good deeds are obstructed thus. See also Whitehead, 1933 p. 25 (63); human sacrifice and slavery are instances of religion aligning itself with the inherited brutality of instinctual behavior, which may happen too easily without the aid of speculation disentangled from current modes of behavior and conscious entertainment of ideas. Civilization is the advancement of persuasion over force.” {10} Read “inescapable” as “profound and complex”, not absolutely inescapable and leaving no agency. It depends upon contextual force of the circumstance, the position of wider flex-ability, hegemony.. {11} As language games afford and constrain the course of human activity, to be tormented by non-accountability (e.g., the non-accountability of “objectivism”) does not necessarily represent feebleness of thought. This may provide one account for schizophrenic voices; elaborated still further; since they are without the median feedback of socialization and perceive themselves abused or guilty, schizophrenic voices may be pejorative speculation as to what they might be “doing wrong” to deserve such altercasting. It is extremely difficult to judge how things count from this position. The “schizophrenic” may have a profound and complex sense of exposure: as they are apparently having a difficult time protecting resources protecting resources, incompetence might be one means of achieving those ends. From the schizophrenic point of view, when what little agency (prefer talk of agency to change for that word’s causal, inhuman implications) they do have is moved into causality, for what little orientation they have, possibilities that they may well be entitled-to are being removed. This wish to preserve the possibility from fatalistic causality, concomitant with the ineloquence of the predicament has been interpreted as “grandiosity.” To be sure, the complex bundling of their talk is, of necessity, highly symbolic, and likely to be wanting to preserve possibility) would be in addition to the phenomenon discussed by Watzlawick, wherein the schizophrenic is divided between the fixation of wanting to maintain the accuracy of their disconfirmed perceptions versus their wish for relational assurance. It is in fact this first option of withdrawal which produces the unwanted reaction of incontinence (1b) and hysteria. For in withdrawing to the extreme, the organic constitution counteracts, producing the unwanted bodily and hermeneutic reactions which betray even one’s own self. As a lesson in didactic cruelty, it might read like: [Act] A Rape [C] Female has an orgasm [CR] Bodily pleasure [C] Hyseria [CR] Happiness [C] The victim goes on an anti-rape crusade [CR] Inspired by the rape’s lesson. In that sounds perverse, it should. Yet that is the sort of logic which is being applied to males. And then people wonder why men are going insane and doing terrible things. {12} For the purposes of Stories Told this alleviation of hypocrisy remains a useful idea. However, these moves taking for granted Traditional Teleology have much to do with the notoriously impervious notion of coherence, and paradoxically, by adding the furtive mechanism of provisionalization, the brutal relativism of the enlightenment legacy within Stories Lived. For relationality is liable to ignore the Aristotlian non-cognitive feel for qualitative balance between extremes. {13} Context Force: Solicitation (Pandering?) and tolerated reticence not just from males; the contextual force of Autob. accommodates inquiry into its eloquence and influence (esp. Re: RC) recursively derived through other females and customary felicities, etc. “Addressivity” (like the original notion of altercasting - Pearce, Cronen, Harris, 1981, p. 210) does represent a narrative improvement over the Lockeatinism of Cissna & Sieberg’s confirmation/disconfirmation research (Wilder & Weakland 1981, 254 - 282); but, for its theoria outlook neglecting the multi-interactive qualities of poesis and phronesis to these contexts it does not address the kinds of stability and changeable complexity of various, simultaneously functioning narrative narratives as attempted, but not yet thoroughly described by Johnson, Cronen & Lannamann 1982. See our revised notion of Altercasting in the synopsis. The notion of “shaping and crafting” of specificatory structures - rough language games proffered for refinement comes from Shotter (24 ibid.). One can look upon female contextual force as, for example, being a contextual force over the species, or one can look at a group of secretaries exercising contextual force over employment candidates, etc. With S. Freeman, I’ve adumbrated a way of talking about this wherein it might be said that, even nowadays, females tend to be without voice on Actualized levels, but on everyday levels of Being and Selfhood, they might often tend to be more articulate than males. The interaction of these gender positions can provide an account for the social construction of the larger male hypothalamus and the more interfacing female corpus collossum. This can also provide an account for the apparent injustice of the traditional “double standard.” As it is qualitatively and quantitatively easier for females to valence partners., she is, according to tradition, conducting herself as a bully if she is lewd or promiscuous. Against those who might argue that “there is nothing wrong with it”, one might reply that there can be a lot wrong with injustice; there can be a lot wrong with confirming bad men (i.e., those whose considerations view a relatively narrow arc of contingencies). Perhaps this can add a clue as to one narrative at work where prostitutes are targets of serial murder (this is not an endorsement of the murder of prostitutes!). “They would call insolence good breeding, shamelessness courage, and extravagance good will” - Plato {14} Self Assertion: For purposes of comparison, contrast Gilligan (26), in her discussion of “Mr. Right and Mr. Wrong” p. 61 where she equates Claire’s going out with Mr. Wrong as an act of non-communication and devoid of Self Assertion. This view would hold quite oppositely that Clair was communicating, demonstrating strong Self Assertion in taking recourse apart from any direct conversation with Mr. Right. Had she given Mr. Right a chance to talk about talk, the she would have been enacting more a “Self Transcendence” than “Self Assertion.” Take note of the insensible if not brutal males that young females queue up for while blaming men for hierarchicization. This emphasis on “breaking the rules” might be looked upon as a kind of selection having particular bias toward narrow individualism; it may necessitate counter-rhetoric and perhaps forms of Prohibition at times - “the road to hell can be paved with bad intentions as well” ... “and it isn’t funny” G.B. Is it possible that females tend to select with a functional bias?, selecting males undaunted no matter how toxic the environment?, while males tend toward the subtle, formal, sensitive and cooperative? If so, whose bias do we prefer? E.g., what is the confidence which females seem to so strongly Obligate good for? I observer Milan’s team of Boscolo & Cecchin interviewing an “anorectic family.” In my alternative hypothesis, the father was very decisive, “confident” (and this was apparently the quality which his wife most admired in him). He Obligated his daughters to either stay or leave home (but he did not care which); the anorectic daughter, starving herself to death, was apparently looking for a caring situation in which she could Legitimately stay or leave the home for new environs. One (in this case the father) cannot care much for Consequents, if one is going to be decisive or confident - this is an extremely counter intellectual valuation. {15} Cursory Pejorative Conclusions: This is just a handle, really. This position is not so much prone to cursory, i.e., quick and sloppy conclusions as it is to conclusions which are quick and overly precise. The Addressive position of flex-abilities basic for self assertion constructs in females a tendency to “over discriminate and come to decisions too quickly” (applying Barnund p118). In Alternative requiremental criteria from females, males are expected to act into specificatory language games (see 24 ibid., for discussion of accountability to the constraints of addressive specificatory structures) highly constraining, (acute Obligatory and Prohibitions) with narrow alternative affordance of flex-ability Legitimate. Thus, from this position, she may have a predisposition to project quick, overly precise pejorative conclusions of justice, freedom and permanence (in the temporal, for males of her own group); as her basic flex-abilities of enmeshment/valence competence are relatively satisfied, the adroitness of her in/out skill may be presumed to be equally available to the male. And she may project permanence - the basic solidity in the contextual force of her self assertion may give her a tendency to construct (“perceive”) stable hierarchies; further, she has desire to assume credit for her justice and freedom, for her specifications (thus, that cultural patterns of everyday deontology are as they should be. Projection of permanence is also increased in that she might construe the comparative slowness of the male’s in/out skill as permanence (or intransigence). E.g., while the female darts in and out of stories, the male may not know what to make of it - though enough reiterations, eventually, he snaps. A concrete example of this would be a case where an Italian American couple are going on their third or fourth date. The female shrills critically at the male who recognizes this right away as traditional ironic Italian display of kindred friendship… and then, with him feeling relaxed affinity (Pearce 1994, 51c) citing Eric Berne - “Now I got You Son of a Bitch”) the female slyly makes the inflection serious. In position where her basic flex-abilities are relatively satisfied, she tends to Prohibit metacommunication (the flex-ability to “clarify, integrate and revised premises”, Barnlund 65) as there is no immanent need to risk discursive practices/flex-abilities in that manner; moreover, the high context orientation is abundant and uninteresting to her; further still, perhaps she has a vested interest in maintaining modernity’s disorder to sustain the advantage of the (“one up”) addressive position and its flex-ability to play males off of one another - inasmuch, she might dismiss the conversational implicature of metacommunication as awkward, graceless, weak and unmasculine. She can ignore processes and look only at ends. {16} The term “rational blindness” derives from Garfinkel (24 ibid), and describes means by which persons accountable to Enlightenment texts of objectivity must, for example, in regard to self ascription of individuality, blind themselves to its interrelated source through other people for whatever “individuality” which they may ascribe to themselves in order to affix a a theory of the transcendent sovereignty of their individuality. {17} 1. Take a) Bateson’s idea of a cultural bias being influenced by a peculiar agent/agency to a predominating side of a diachronic of revolutionary significance to people and b) Harre’s (1993) similar notion of “person position” given felicitous hermeneutic context, being able to issue forth a discursive structure to which then other persons are accountable; viz., given the hermeneutic context of Darwinian evolution, de Beauvoir was successful in establishing a speech genre positioning women as “The Second Sex” 2. Extend these notions - first, noting that de Beauvoir, apparently, at least in part, was responding with symmetrical cynicism to Schopenhauer’s Darwinistic and NeoTraditional complementary designation of women as “the second sex” in his article, “On Women.” In de Beauvoir’s establishment of a hermeneutical context of an Obligatory/Prohibitive agenda for female Implicative force to which others were then accountable, two intantiations were of especial significance: 1. de Beauvoir’s rejection of Aristotle’s “optima”: P. 672 - “this utility of the housekeeper’s heaven ... is why she adopts the Artistotlian morality of the golden mean - that is, of mediocrity.” This became a point of departure for Friedan, 1963, who treated Maslow’s story of “Self Actualization” as being imperative for the liberation of women (and indeed, Friedan was a student of Maslow’s). And 2. de Beauvoir rejected “male morality” (e.g., Kant 1785) for what she asserts is its arbitrary chosenness posing as rationality: p. 681 - “...but she knows that he has himself chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend ... but she refuses to play the game ...she knows that male morality, as it concerns her, is a vast hoax” - which Gilligan, 1982, took as her point of departure. With that a story can be derived of: Equiprimordially Emergent Sides of a Historical Paradox of Incommensurate Gender Agendas of Individuation as Evinced During the Vietnam Crisis: 1. Because a) solicitation (pandering?) in the Addressive position increased the disorder of modernity; i.e., Altercast granting of being and “confirmation” of selfhood created a more articulate and morally forcible person in the female b) and with that, the fact that those abuses which are enacted against females tend to include kinds which are more physically manifest and easier to articulate than those typically enacted against males 2) Because self actualization was, in the context of America, a more socially acceptable objective to articulate [as of 2018, I would say quite obligatory in that context], and more consonant with the everyday language of the Enlightenment texts [2018: and in fact, self actualization itself derives exactly from Aristotle and his teleological background] to which persons are accountable 3) Because the mavericks of revived feminism adopted the ethnocentric modality in reaction to neotraditional male ethnocentrism, thereby making their argument more coherent as it was not troubled or risked with coordination (“reality testing”), the feminist agenda became the disproportionately promulgated side of the historical paradox - [Story Told, strictly dichotomizing an advantageous male position/ disadvantaged female position. E.g., de Beuvoir enviously interprets, as “adventures”, what might as easily be empty minded, compelled and harrowing activities on the part of men. Exemplary of her psychologisms, a male derives overweening confidence from his capacity to urinate from a standing position] - unfortunately, as the needs of the male were at least as important and perhaps more accommodating. In contrast, the male objective of Being was complicated to enunciate for its strictly “ontological” nature, for the uninterestingly basic or even stigmatic semiotics of its nomothetic motive - e.g., it seemed indolent within the freedom of America. Moreover, with all females “one-up”, and feminists ethnocentric among a complex of heterogeneous cultures and the many vulgar simplifications inclined from capitalist/democracy, the male became more entrenched in his inarticulate stupor. His objective did not correspond to those of traditional women, nor with feminists - also from whom these modernist males felt compelled to tolerate the bypassing of male reflexively effected contextual forces. For the feminist drama was no less the agency of revolutionary change - therefore, being “new” it was obligatory for modernist males to assent despite the fact that it precluded their well being; further, they were hated by neotraditionalists as putting women at risk to the ruthless. In the context of this precluded Story Lived, where there advantages and disadvantages to each gender position, an individual male could have the horrendous experience of finding himself in extremely brutal and tangled circumstances, but still punished for the Story Told - of his being at an oppressive advantage! This occurs while females and designated oppressed males, both of whom may be privileged in Stories Lived, unite in exalted triumph over the “hubris” of the supposedly privileged male. Perhaps he has “achieved” through sheer Obligatory desperation, yet he is contextualized as arrogant and overly privileged. For example, how do Italians and Poles play into mainstream American privilege and guilt? What if a person is half Italian and half Polish, and not able to enmesh deeply in either of their inherited cultures? {18} A loop of this sort might be look like: [A] [RR] “Men should be confident” - [DO] Obligatory: “confidence” - [C] [CR] confidence counts as “arrogance”, therefore, etc. Another loop might work like: [A] [RR] “Women like jerks” - [DO] Obligatory - be a jerk [C] I don’t like women who like jerks - [A] [DO] Obligatory - be a wimp. See W. Barnett Pearce / Sharon M. Rossi (51b) for a discussion of the “wimp/pig” dilemma within the problematic practices of feminism: Briefly, within the practices of feminism, a male can always be construed as either wimp or pig; if he treats a female as “one of the boys”, he is “a male chauvinist pig”, as he ignores the special quality of her gender; if he treats her gently, he is a “wimp”, and insulting to her individual autonomy. {19} CMM quaternary system of agentive flex-abilities, mutable through internal relation and open ended hierarchization thereof provides a clue to Harre’s (1983) research menu 9 #3 as to how two moral orders might function simultaneously. Immanent Depth Grammar’s internal relation extending into open ended Hierarchical grammars. In this treatise’s example, gender differentiation/individuation can reconstruct and internally relate alternative moralities to traditional discursive order. Grammatically, rules seem often to be Altercast in a manner of didactic incitement - obligating first person “behavior/cognition” (causal/mechanistic) acting-out of possessive selves (toward a third person passive) - apparently to display their abilities. Being prohibited from developing everyday flex-abilities through the manner of didactic incitement reconstructs a male who does not then “deserve” to participate in an effort to develop the lacking abilities for which he is prohibited. What if he does ‘get on with his life’? Not being Addressed confronts him with the self referential paradox [I am a liar (Russell & Whitehead proffered “Logical Types”; W - action and demonstration; G. Spencer Brown - imaginary numbers; Varela - ironic in/out movement; the Buddhist solution takes the stance that all propositions are artifices (lies) to begin with, so that designating one’s self a liar is not inherently problematic. If one claimed to be truthful, that would be problematic to a Buddhist)]. Applied concretely to these circumstances, it might read as: “if you are hurting so bad, how is it that you are able to etc.?” If he is not even being addressed in an inquisitive manner, how can he anticipate the other to be concerned enough to discuss complex issues (e.g., processes and not just products)? It is extremely difficult to judge how things count from this position (for what he knows, a wrong move might mean “hell forever”). Thus, he pursued the ultimate and the fixed outside of nature, an inasmuch, he probably reflexively implicated the “Cartesian anxiety” - the Platonic/Kantian morality. When it failed, teleology remained in the background of Heidegger’s obsession with Being (poesis) and his claustrophobia toward selfhood and socialization - (phronesis and praxis) - “enframing.” 6b. {20} Advocating the democratic notion of “Voice”, they have granted me voice. But I am accountable for my voice. {21} Sex as Sacrament - Legitimacy of serious Prefigurations are risky - but so too is its Prohibition. This is not to say that there are not myriad other ways of talking about sex. J. Money dichotomized a “universal” of “purifying love and defiling lust.”; sacrament vs. celebration has the advantage of not being quite so ambitious and thus amenable to narrative amelioration beyond moment and episode. Frank Zappa, for another example, discussed sex in terms of the neo-positivism* of “a normal bodily function.” That might be a more sane way of talking. But luckily for me, since I find it disgusting, it is not necessarily the real reality that Frank asserted. There are other stories to tell. Rather than engage in a censorship debate, it is preferable to continue with the theme of “making common” the alternative Voice of Secular Sacrament. Sex is sexy, therefore almost anyone can be sexy. If the voice of sacrament were more available, it would first help by maintaining that flex-ability for those who favor the story but consider it ineffable ...as it is sacred and not to be spoken of, stigmatized as the position of the weak, or because they, as individuals, do not want to put their use of the story at risk (toward that end, the central elements of sacrament, faith and loyalty, might well be accompanied by an attitude of tough, cool, a little mean pride - that I have the best, I don’t want to share or waste my time in furtive pursuit. I like exploring the world with my partner). Incidentally, monogamy and loyalty to one’s culture are not closed systems - life will still evolve, and perhaps this faith will allow for greater diversity (as opposed to the global baboon ideal). Second, attention to the disempowered voice of sacrament might throw light on certain conflicts. It is not hard to imagine the rage of those (perhaps struggling and in pain) who find radical disconcern for their rarefied preference placed against matter of fact celebration. That is not to say that sex as celebration cannot be an equal or, perhaps in situation, a preferable moral stand. It tends to be more tolerant, it makes more use of life’s possibilities, and it can open new possibilities (or is it that sacrament opens more possibilities?). However, being the strong tropism that sex is, especially for persons in the insecurity of interpersonal information poor environments, where compelling alternative stories are not available, sex is very difficult to mandate as a matter of individual will: “just turn the channel” or “say no to porno” are socially irresponsible suggestions. People should probably, somehow, have the opportunity to not have the taken for granted sojourning of dead metaphorization foisted upon them; they should probably have an opportunity, when they come of age, to treat sex as a live metaphor. It is risky, thus the distinction should be imperfect. * Harre has rightfully criticized the misuse of “depth grammar” as representing only one grammar. Internal relation also means that it is not necessary to learn from “doing” in the most overt sense of the word. There is an immediate social constructionist sense of “use”, but there is also internal relation to hermeneutic language, less bound to immediate physicality, which can also provide semiotics as to how things count and what to do. Internal relation, taken too narrowly, does lead to behaviorist positivism (and people are mammals, and mammals care about relationships more than episodes; further, deprive people of Autobiographical coherence, even a bad childhood, and you deprive them of their distinctive humanity - Taylor (59 p. 525), whereas language can construct differing units of analysis; e.g., casting “undesirable” traits into a different scheme (the “wimp” might have beautiful daughters). Perhaps the “desirable trait” is simply latent in the genetic past or in the phylogenetic past (as in the stunted growth of touch deprived infants; bronchitis from smoking parents) and due to resurface again at some future date if need be - or easily furtively interwoven through some future pairing [RC]. Perhaps it enables flex-ability to avoid being induced into a bad situation - or to cooperate in a group which is more viable overall. In the meantime, one can argue on behalf of Aristotle’s Optima for a distinctly human existence [a good life]. {22} As M. Mead said, given internal relation, “what is bad for one gender is bad for the other.” {23} These Stories Told: Perhaps opportunistic exploitations of capitalist democracy among heterogeneous cultures, or perhaps the vulgar inclination of low common denominator. 1. The male “permanent puerile initiate”: exploits/transforms female desire to actualize and compete - “intolerance/arrogance & solicitousness/dangerousness (male “animal” - Plato) “requires” to be interfaced with stern ethnocentric subreption (overdiscrimination and cursory pejorative conclusions). 2. The female “panacea”: exploits/transforms the male desire for simple access to being/selfhood (vs. transcendence of paradox) - “indifference/insatiability & impervious competitiveness/masochism” (female “animal”) “requires to be interfaced with intrepid use of practices flex-abilties (underdiscrimination and cursory ameliorative conclusions). 3. “Male Supremacy”: simple dichotomy of advantageous male/disadvantageous female position. Deviation counteractions 1) female impervious competitiveness/ masochism 2) male social impotence*/harsh overcompensation (* we should, of course, prefer the phrase, “social I don’t-want-to-ness, but everything is pressuring me to think I should want-to-anwayness”). As her basic wants are relatively satisfied, the story of “permanent puerile initiate” lends coherence to her projections of permanence, justice and freedom in gender relations. Thinking he is going to find easy access to being and selfhood he is instead pejoratively altercast. For the reasons mentioned prior, she Prohibits conversational implicature. The pejorative altercasting and incitement implicate a sacrifice of transcendent - i.e., not merely factitious - mystery, magic, and meaning. This incitement to mere action may produce an antithetical effect - mystification, a passive coordination of unassimilable precepts (social impotence) - or hyperbolous action, i.e., harsh overcompensation. With the ethnocentric teaching of othering and her perception of justice, permanence and freedom, a charmed loop is created in which the suffering of the male (“since his is necessarily a just world”) proves his guilt, and therefore justifies more punishment” (Scarry, I believe, on torture). This cycle perpetuates itself more as the disconfirmation with increased intensity (R.D. Lang). In the example of the young female, she often rebels against obsequious purity and into vulgar calibration of self protection (not sufficiently self corrective) - nevertheless toward Self Assertion, and usually toward organic need (eating disorders being a notable exception). The male often rebels away from organic need and into conceptual vicissitudes; this can produce a litany of destructive aberrations. A possible result on the social dynamic would be a reanimation of atavistic (not primordial, but antecedent branching of rude breakthrough compromises toward subtler gender assignments of first civilization) gender relations. {24} However, there is Legitimate reason for critique and Accountability toward the phenomenon of homosexuality. First, it seems given the fact that they do not choose to take up the challenge of heterosexual relationships that they might not empathize sufficiently with how difficult they can be. As a result, they may tend to gravitate toward easy liberal (i.e., causal) opinions; and concomitant with that they might abnegate a critical stance toward those who can be quite bullying and quantifying in the realm of heterosexuality. Further, they may be depriving the populace at large of their qualities - separating the genders and creating a more masculine populace where a more gender neutral and feminine populace might be preferable. Finally, if there is homophobia, some young males will overcompensate and do stupid things in order to prove that they are not gay. If I were a cynic, I would suggest that not unlike von Baer’s corresponding stages or Haekel’s recapitulation, that the younger female tends to choose partners who would have had survival value correspondingly ten thousand years ago. If I were a cynic, I would say that the reason Christianity has reined in popularity for these past few millennia would be because puerile females like seeing males with a view toward wider cultural patterns nailed to crosses. If I were a cynic, I would say that feminism is the institution of the celebration of the excruciating annihilation of ....(White, I didn’t write “White” then) men who aren’t cute enough, so that females can ...(I didn’t write miscegenate then, though I implied it) ..Big (Mulatto..I didn’t write Mulatto then, but I meant it) Bro is watching. I highly recommend her agenda. SYNOPSIS Think of rules (or “grammars”) as logics of meaning and action. Persons are simultaneously or variably enmeshed in these logics which have different entailments. Rules are internally related by their “rule-ness”, i.e., their common nature as rules. Through all pervasive rule-ness, persons have “rule-ability.” That is to say, because persons are themselves comprised of these rules they are able to use them immediately, at least in some crude function. That is not to say that these Immanent Constitutive Rules are not Mutable and subject to various interpretations, affordance, and constraint as Regulated through Open Ended Hierarchicalization (e.g., “some stories work better than others”). Language then, is socially constructed semiotics of “depth grammars” - immanently available rules. Internal relation of all pejorative rule-abilities, though not providing any strictly ordered rules always provides the ability, the rule-ability, to order and make sense of events (to construct language games) on the one hand, and on the other hand, these ordering language games, if they are of any complexity, cannot be both complete and consistent (or unambiguous). These pragmatic dual necessities, that a theory (language game) of any complexity must be either incomplete or contradictory, and are semiotic interactivities constructed of internally related, all pervasive rule-abilities, constitute the parameters of CMM as social constructionist communication criteria oriented in furtherance of practical action. CMM is 1. A method of investigation, a communication perspective, as there is no Archimedian overview - we live in communication. 2. A Communicological method of investigation - Non-transcendence means that criteria cannot be homeostatic or self sustaining, which implicates ultimately, that there can be no private language. We must “live in communication” through a world “made common” in the etymological sense of the word communication. Communication is the primary social process. Thus, rather than focus on the products of communicative process, as if it were an absolutely stable reality, CMM uses 3. A social constructionist communication’s perspective - which makes its special contribution by focusing on those processes by which (acts, interpretations, stories and) practices reconstruct flex-abilities (and resources) in continuous reflexive creation and maintenance of social reality. Reflexivity of internal relation means that we construct and are constructed by our interpretation of procedures. Given the impossibility of detachment and continuous reflexive changes then, CMM uses discursive models of logics of meaning and action of a given language game as parts of processes orienting practical action. Therefore, CMM’s communication perspective is most fully stated 4. A social constructionist communications perspective oriented within furtherance of practical action. Although reflexivity - i.e., the changeableness and open ended relation of our heuristics resulting from internal relation, means that any perspective (including CMM’s) is, according to its social interactive use, a made common perspective, a language game, variably enmeshing with others, each entailing different potential logics of meaning and action, or grammars - provides the ability to move into another language game to reflect on antecedents, it also means that part of these grammars are and must be taken for granted; we cannot continually investigate everything, but must rest content taking certain things for granted as depth grammar, the unstated rules, mutable through all pervasive rule-abilities of internal relation, nevertheless, always providing logics of meaning and action. These made common perspectives are not mere hermeneutic interpretation; they are made real as they afford and constrain activity according to their social interactive use; these uses become more or less conventionalized as moral rules comporting logical force hierarchically ordered through the contextualizing capacity their enmeshings entail. Logical force is determined by rule-abilities of physics, biology (social constructionism is realist, not idealist) and, more especially, by how it is that those rules come to count. Because of the mutability and open-endedness in what are, for their internal relation, essentially heuristic topoi to begin with, there are a limitless possible number of changes and interpretations which must be negotiated in practical situations through social construction of de-ontological moral rules. As opposed to transcendent, universal ontological principles, deontics are non-universal moral rules which cannot be separated from the temporal; every act is a moral act. Nevertheless, internal relation’s mutable/open endedness, subjects even contextualizing capacity of topoi themselves to reflexive change in qualities, sometimes suddenly like a reflex, sometimes more slowly like a balancing effect, stifling, extending, or changing them as they enmesh into various other interpretive games. This mutableness and reflexivity give CMM its special mandate for rigorous attention to the two pragmatic actional topoi of making sense and getting along. Sense making and getting along with activities are problematized as reflexive tensions between Coherence and Coordination. Coherence are language games making sense through emergent constructing jointly acted into by differing person positions and viewpoints. As one cannot attend to everything at once, coherence is dependent for its construction on the joint action from different positions to cover lapses in attention. These coherent, joint conversations, are fundamental in a pragmatic sense and in a hermeneutic sense - the two senses being imperfectly distinguished as Stories Lived and Stories Told. Stories Lived make sense and are constrained from nonsense by confronting interlocutors with the brute pragmatics of physics, consensual usefulness, situational peculiarities and interpersonal differences in interpretation. Internal relation of language games to the social use of person positions makes them immediately accessible phronesis by which to make sense of The Story Lived in ordinary situations of everyday goings-on. Thus, internal relational also means that these coherences are mutable to the agency of person positions and thereby providing the means of liberation from logics too particular or too general to be useful - atemporal “snares of the language” - for it is Suspended Disbelief (allowing for Enmeshment) or Suspended Belief (allowing for Dis-enmeshment) in the usefulness of what Stories are doing in the first to second person activity called Altercasting, which, in the first place, generate conventions and contrasts of Stories Told, whether they remain useful or go on to become anachronistic folklore. However, as language can construct differing units of analysis, through Stories Told, heremeneutic Narratives maintaining continuity through non-attention to every little brute fact, joint notion, or mere convention, which might interrupt their Coherence, a second liberation is possible - i.e., from mere facticity, without that, “people would be little different than wolves.” Coordination is the flex-ability of people to use the co-evolutionary sameness of internal relation (of its sameness and differences) to get along despite differences in coherent Stories Told. People can make use of “conversational implicature” to agree upon taken for granteds in the discursive logics of their conversation, to clarify, revise and integrate their premises (D. Barnlund), but unlike the foundational modernistic notion of “metacommunication”, coordination does not assume that a singular vantage of a fixed higher level can be invoked, nor that there is a fixed, real reality, logic of meaning and action that can be understood of one another if that higher facility were invoked. These naivetes aside, Coordination is the ability of people to get along, to negotiate activities without having to put the interpretations, Stories, Practices, Flex-abilities and Resources of their Coherent interpretive procedures At Risk. Resources, flex-abilities, practices, stories and interpretive procedures can be “at risk” of being exploited before they have been fully cultivated. They can be at risk of being appropriated or expended without the sought-for result. The can be at risk of hyper-extension, making facile reconstruction difficult. Or, the coherence of these valued logics of meaning and action can be at risk to the Suspended Belief of those unsympathetic or even antagonistic. Related Story: Dark Side of Self Actualization & Incommensurate GenderAgendas Synopsis of CMM continued comment section - Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 26 Mar 2018 06:20 | # I wrote this article and cultivated it around 1993. Although I was generally aware that there were large conflicts of interests between White men and the YKW, that issue was impossible to address in the grad-school context I was engaged in - not all but some of my professors were Jewish and all of them were liberal and would have opposed broaching the JQ. In fact, race was nearly impossible. In fact advocating White men against feminism was almost impossible. Nevertheless, having to focus here on the history, implications and fallout of Western philosophy as it bears upon individuality, the maintenance of our European Cultural Patterns, Moral Order and Gender Relations allows for an examination of our part as Europeans in our plight - our blind spots and susceptibilities to the exploitation of other groups - including and especially YKW. As such, it remains completely valid and relevant, I am proud to say. I was told by my professor that this held together as a “Thesis” for me to enter the PhD program. At the time, I have reason to believe that it was shown to then Vice President Al Gore, though it was presented to him wrongly or came across wrongly to him, so he couldn’t absorb its significance in cursory glance. That’s an interesting story, as are the episodes that led to me not being able to follow through with a graduate career, operating on this thesis and related issues…
The biggest revision, a note really, that I’ve indicated already, has to do with Being and Socialization corresponding to Dasein and Midtdasein; and Socialization/Selfhood/Autobiography corresponding to routine/ and sacrament/sacral episode. .......
2018 update: Thesis - Cartesian Individuation of Self Actualization has Implicative Force (an upward impact, Reflexively Effecting, rupturing Cultural Patterns) to rupture Western group Social Classificatory Homeostasis which causes the “One Up”, Addressive Position of (White/Western) Females to Re-Emerge with Increased Significance - Several Charmed Loops (given the human perceptual need to classify - women, fire and other dangerous things - in order to make coherent sense despite their Cartesian prohibition and rupture, gender becomes the default classification where other group classifications are prohibited, therefore female becomes more salient a difference and they are pandered to from more directions; they become more motivated; more confident (sometimes overly, and prone to cursory pejorative conclusions), articulate and powerfully positioned gate-keepers; they are incentivized to maintain that, while their base female inclination to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) is pandered to - also rupturing social group patterns/coherence - there are loops that come into play with the high contrast tropism of White females and the atavism of blacks in this disorder as well) which keep that position and its liberalizing trajectory in place, abetting Systemic Runaway - i.e., this keeps a modernist loop in place, rupturing would be maintenance of European peoples and other traditional societies.. The cure to these pernicious loops and their runaway is recognition of key aspects [topoi] of necessity, use and enjoyment in a revised social paradigm of optimized negotiation and management of socialization, being, selfhood and self actualization; with that, recognizing moderating options for neo traditional and modern trajectories of both genders; finally, the homeostatic stabilizing of the social system’s human ecological bounds. 3
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:17 | # Clarification of a basic thesis point of mine:
Conversely, females will be better positioned to advocate for their interests in achievement and influence because their basic levels are more readily satisfied.
And males will be more insane, aggressive, overcompensating and violating of other’s borders, having been deprived and driven as such]. 4
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:59 | # Though I’ve said it many times before in permutations of this thesis, let me repeat here that the this thesis holds that tradition had legitimate reason to reserve some places for man at the top, and not just to honor their having proved themselves through harder test on basic levels, though there is that, but some will arrive there simply because they are excellent - in either case, the feminist disposition that you find in de beauvoir and Friedan is such that they are there, particularly as Friedan sees it, as a differentiation of fulfillment on basic levels and a merely corrupt, chauvinistic habit and tradition; as indicated, their is the aspect of deprivation and privation that feminists did not take into consideration - such as the deprivation of being/midtdasein in the draft to Viet Nam - and with that, there is the fact that this makes some men go over the top into social aberration as they are compelled to achieve and looked upon, ridiculed as privileged oppressors, despite basic deprivation, of needs that are in fact necessary to authentic self actualization. I will be addressing this in the context of the Mai Lai massacre and other atrocities of the Viet Nam war. ..there is also the issue of the conceitedness of first and second wave Feminism in not acknowledging female advantages on basic levels, on wanting self actualization for themselves, taking the one thing held up for males as incentive… The high grumbles (complaints of needs higher on the heirarchy of needs are called higher as opposed to lower grumbles) that these feminists were on about was torturous to a male perspective grappling with such low grumbles of their having no intrinsic value assigned to their being. Nevertheless, I do believe that there are fair ways of working this out fairly - but the crucial first move is to understand post modernity, its performance requirements by contrast to other forms and ways life. I do believe that women should be able to pursue self actualization should that be their thing and their talent but the intersection of gender relations and individuation has to be worked out fairly - first of all by understanding the crucial role that post modernity (proper) plays in reconstructing social classifications to protect their human ecologies, by negotiation neo tradtion and modernity - offering ways within the post modern paradigm for more traditional men and women and for modernists, whether they be inclined to overcompensate or to reverse in their differentiation. 5
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:55 | # What good is the confidence that females are so enamored of? It is rather a largely non-intellectual valuation. I.e. a platform in critique of base/puerile female inclinations/predilections and those who pander to it is eminently valid. And a question for right wingers who place so much emphasis on I.Q. - Are blacks and Whites with the same low I.Q. equally disposed to violence? My guess is no. And that sublimation, if not the essential matter, is a much larger aspect in contributing to the quality of way of life (or not) than right wingers give credit for by contrast to their emphasis on I.Q. ...and in fact, I guess that it is a precursor of higher I.Q. ...interestingly, this probably could be studied within Rushton’s framework: his talk of age of sexual maturity (obviously corresponding to degree of sublimation) in the different races; corollaries of sublimation (or lack thereof) to R and K selection will almost certainly be shown as well. 7
Posted by Aberration, reflex of OverValued SelfActualization on Thu, 05 Apr 2018 05:30 | # Social aberration, reflexive effect of over valued self actualization It is a central component of my thesis that the instigation to Self Actualization (be that quest for realization of full potential, authenticity, achievement, fame, fortune, and new break-throughs as per modernist instigation in valuation of the new, beyond and despite tradition) at the cost of sufficient Coordination with others within and without the group; in instigation of modernity’s narcissistic universal of all human potential in quest for the new and maximization absent respect and valuation of the optimization of: Socialization (accountability to a social group classification and its broad human ecology and boundaries) as it connects with (Routine/and the historically, time in memorial Sacral) and thus Selfhood (a Coherent, stable Autobiography, which values normalcy and balance in optima, not only achievement and new break-throughs of new bounds) and being/midtdasein (organic, meandering being, as poesis amidst one’s people, its bounds), can be particularly disruptive to social group homeostasis, rupturing its patterns time and again, and, absent sufficient accountability to these fundamental levels - socialization, being/midtdasein, selfhood (autob. routine/sacrament) can result in the reflexive effect of social aberration. ....“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns. That’s the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”
The greater level of violence among males is an indication that it is more stressful, that there is more pressure and burden to being a male in contradiction to what feminists have said, that males are sheerly privileged and occupy powerful positions from Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment of basic levels (as opposed to some measure of deprivation and privation of basic levels).
9
Posted by Car attack in Muenster on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 21:01 | # Telegraph, 8 April 2018: “Münster police search for motive of driver who killed himself after ploughing vehicle into crowd”
10
Posted by Muslim whips woman with belt on Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:32 | # Horrible: Arab/Muslim scumbag beats a woman with a belt in a way that even a dog should not be treated.
11
Posted by Big Problem: Anti-Racist White Women on Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:36 | # As ethnonationalists in service of human ecologies and their fair negotiation, this is one of the greatest and most poorly articulated challenges that we are up against - namely, the self righteous anti-racism (read, anti- protective, accountable classificatory bounds of human ecologies) of White females as they are pandered-to and empowered as gate-keepers of the liberal system; pandered to enforce its liberalism with the narrow, opportunistic incentive that the opening of bounds puts them in a increasingly powerful position as gate keepers; and makes them less accountable to the bio-system which, in fact, had exponentially more to do with whatever beauty and biopower that they might have than they do as individuals. This woman is depicted as a “hero” by the liberal system for beating another White woman, more at risk (because she is not as good looking), who is trying to invoke (perhaps in an inarticulate way) human ecological bounds.
This is a challenge for ethnonationalism as its hard to not get caught up, even for fairly sensible White males, in order to do politics with this sort, to try to bring her and keep her on “our side” - you may find that the price of getting through her gate is to espouse “anti-racism” - i.e., the liberalization of bounds and borders; the increase of genetic competition; the unaccountable trashing of people who might be quite decent, but arbitrarily marginalized for the time being, particularly as the modernist juggernaut runs rough-shod over traditional and inherited forms and ways.
12
Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 15 Apr 2018 11:10 | # How would Ms Dagg have reacted in this situation? “A woman who was talking to her friend in Spanish was attacked and told to speak in English in a racially aggravated assault. Two women shouted at the twenty four year old when she was on a Central line train on the London Underground on the 7th April, police said. The victim was pulled around by her hair, which resulted in injuries to her scalp and cuts to her face. British Transport police said the women were black and had braided hair. They are believed to be in their late twenties and one was wearing a brown jacket, while the other was wearing a black jacket. A police spokesperson said the women shouted at the victim, saying she should be talking in English when in England”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43766985 Cerebro derretido ? 13
Posted by It's a way of life on Sun, 15 Apr 2018 14:16 | # A way of life that every mudshark deserves to be a part of…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te-35uzV8UA
..and don’t you just fancy black women in exchange for White women and White way of life - good deal, huh?
14
Posted by Sheboon on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:33 | # Marcinblack: I doubt that it would be Ms Dagg’s instinct to fight the sheboones; and she’d be better advised not to - they don’t have a lot of beauty to lose in such confrontations… Post a comment:
Next entry: Story of Intersection Individuation & Gender Differentiation (another old version, probably better)
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 25 Mar 2018 12:19 | #
I’ve got to complete this paper in the footnote section here a its word count exceeds the maximum text allotted for main posts; thus resuming with the SYNOPSIS of CMM theory:
Note: As it is a very important idea, the notion of “flex-abilities”/practices/resources being “at risk”, if reified, can become a blueprint for artificial possession and paranoia. Further, it is a culture specific notion of a post modern condition. By contrast, Modernist communication treats all people like Natives, continually putting Resources at Risk (even to the detriment of Coordination) in quest of universal foundations. Ethnocentric (Neo Traditional) communication does not put Resources at Risk, buffering itself through strict notions of moral order (such as the “places of each citizen) and formalized procedures for dealing with Non-Natives. Monocultural (Primitive) communication does not put its Resources at Risk since they are not brought to the fore; as it does not recognize other cultures (interpreting them according to a singular criteria), it does not see the need to coordinate with Non-Natives.
Practical Theory: The reader has gathered that CMM rejects foundational theory. However, in using Aristotle’s classification of Poesis, Praxis and Theoria, it retains an approximation of “Theoria” with topoi, taking it into the realm of Praxis (open ended social patterns, contingent but making sense of interaction with others for the sake of practical judgment - Phronesis): That is, CMM takes the ironic stance of “practical theory”, treating theory as socially constructed with others in interactivities having practical limitations. Thus, unlike traditional theories, CMM valences internal relation’s reflexivity: The continual incompleteness, ambiguity, and/or contradictoriness of classifications, their context contingence, variable enmeshings, limitless possible interpretations, and their embeddedness; with that, it readily acknowledges and actively engages interrelation to the subjects of its practices and is Accountable for its Reflexive Effects. Despite changing analysis upon its enacted engagement with other sense making, agentive creatures, it also recognizes that some classifying of patterns which make sense must be taken for granted if we are to get on. Further, some of these schemes will be more useful than others in their power to contextualize and make sense of events in practical negotiation - i.e., phronesis. The more useful schemes in aid of phronesis become Topoi - orientative heuristics acting as hypotheses and specificatory structures that help to locate, shape and craft according to the qualities of circumstances in the narrative form of deontic enthymemes what the data of circumstances are doing.
Deontics - Analytic Topoi: Deontics are CMM’s most elemental Topoi for Analysis. Unlike ontological moral rules, Deontics do not impute transcendent permanence or universality of themsleves, but function within praxis as open ended, context contingent and socially negotiated moral rules of “Deontic Operation” [DO]. In the realm of human agency DO’s can Block, Extend or Confuse interaction. Deontic Operators are formed into Constitutive Rules [CR], which, similar as calibration reads like “counts like”, and Regulative Rules [RR], which similar as feedback reads like “then this makes sense to do.” These rules have logical force - reads like “downward” (interpret the subsumed activities under these rules), Implicative force reads like “upward” (change the interpretive rules of the context), Prefigurative force reads like “because of”, Practical force reads like “in order to.” Constitutive and Regulative Rules contextualize Deontic Enthymemes of Antecedent [A], Action [Actn], and Consequent [C]. Enthymemes are like syllogisms, only, again, they function within the realm of praxis as open ended, context contingent, and socially negotiated if/then statements - if (counts as) then (this makes sense). Deontic rules are used to afford and constrain “Rights of Display” (next pp), empowering some Voices and disempowering others according to their “Position” in discursive order (Harre & Davies), and according to their momentary interactive position (Shotter); Voices are points of view Warranted symbiotically through Legitimized Accountability of Attributions (Biog.) to their corporeal Person Position and Accountable Autobiographies asserted by their private corporeal Person Position from public Narratives. As these Voices occupy differing Positions, different forms of Consciousness [———-] are reconstructed according to the embedded discursive structures that they afford and constrain. These forms of consciousness become observational topoi.
“Observational” Topoi - Altercasting (Alt), Episodes (Ep), Relational Characterization (RC), Autobiography (Autob.) and Cultural Patterns (CP):
Altercasting - is the Minimal Topoi of observation. It is this conjoint first to second person interpersonal unit of language game which provides the first differences necessary to make sense of interactivity. Rather than confirmation or disconfirmation of immediate Lockeatine perceptual truth, Altercasting makes a more modest claim as in Brownwyn Davies (anti-cognitive developmental) notion of acting into “Rights of Display.” It is also approximately synonymous with John Shotter’s notion of “Addressivity”, i.e., the interpersonal co-construction of enmeshment rules - “specificatory structures” to be mutually acted into. But in contrast to Shotter’s notion, what is Altercast are specificatory language games - like specificatory structures, these profferings can be “shaped and crafted” for their “specificity” (only partly finishedness) as they are “acted into”, but provide implications which, unlike Addressivity, grant alternative ranges of functional autonomy [ARF] [flex-abilities] that can be taken for granted and used (when afforded rights of display) beyond singular instantiations and within the intentionalities of various stories. Nevertheless, Altercastings, having the multi-interactive qualities of praxis, are always mutable and incomplete constructings, which will mesh in other narratives simultaneously, sometimes in conflicting ways. In addition to this mutableness of internal relation’s variable entailments, Altercasting always assumes that reflexivity can change in an instant an act’s meaning by casting it within the scheme of a different context. Still, reflexivity and internal relation can also facilitate instantiation of very stable language games which resist pejorative or ameliorative Altercastings.
Though the Altercast moment [Alt] is the minimal unit of observation, again, these conjoint actions cannot be analyzed with less than the enthymeme’s sequential unit of three: Antecedent - Act - Conseqent. When these Altercast language games of analysis are hypothesized into discursive models of a situation isolable, more temporally durative span, the observational topoi are called Episodes. In a non-isolable, still more protracted span, they are called Ways of Life. Though CMM actually finds Episode [Ep] to be the most useful primary contexting of observation, it is invariably necessary to take into consideration something of other contextings. Hence, the Antecedent - Act - Consequent of deontic enthymemes are indicated as being “in the contexting of” - [ ]. The language games of the more protracted spans, called Ways of life, are known as: Cultural Patterns [CP], Relational Characterizations [RC], and Autobiography [Autob.] - these latter contextings can function as the primary unit of observation as well. With these discursive modelings taking the conjoint action of Altercasting into the variable enmeshments and hierarchical orderings differently entailed, simultaneous conversations, CMM can both proximate the complexity of ordinary interaction and avoid the limitations of positivism by constructing differing units of observation as language and narrative afford. E.g., as opposed to the trivializations of positivism, acts can be recognized as “confirmation and disconfirmation” at the same time “as they usually are” (Ken Johnson).
Thus, CMM is concerned with the quality of Stories [e.g., whether agentive or causal (as in the case of “anorexia” being treated as “a disease” - i.e., caused)] and CMM is concerned with which Story contextualizes which. The higher order Stories being those which are more resistant to change and available to rearrange subsumed Stories.
Finally, the discursive structures of these contextings can be Commensurate or Incommensurate (criteria which do not mesh or jibe, such that what is important and what is trivial will be different, and perhaps even so much as reversed, by the two criteria), but they are always potentially Comparable as they are constituted of depth grammars through practical activity. Thus, any contextual topoi can be analyzed with the narrative diagrams of the deontical enthymeme in order to Compare and estimate not only the praxia necessities of their Regulative Rules, but changes in Constitutive Rules - i.e., Reflexive Effects and Reflexive Needs.
Change in Discursive Structures Entail Reflexive Effects & Needs:
The deontic enthymemes of these contexts comport Reflexive Effects, i.e., the Unknown change or the change Legitimated in the contexting as a result of the activity, and Reflexive Necessities, i.e., Obligations and Prohibitions of activity as a result of the contextings change (Besides the personal agency which facilitates Coordination and Coherence as explained above), Reflexivity can facilitate Loops, Dilemmas, Stable Hierarchies, or Tangles. Loops are contexts of contexts the equal contextual and implicative forces of which reflexively recontextualize the necessity for one another in perpetuity - enactment of one context reflexively recontextualizes the necessity for the other (Charmed Loops are characterized by multiprimordial acts continually re-contexting the need to equifinal ends; Strange Loops are characterized by an act recontexting the need for its opposite act and vis a versa). Dilemmas are simultaneously relevant but mutually exclusive contextual forces (characterized by a learching back and forth). Stable Hierarchies are strong contextual force over weak implicative force. Tangles are complex contexts where there might be several Loops, Dilemmas and Stable Hierarchies at work simultaneously.
Agency is possible because persons are variably entailed in and comprised of mutable and open ended logics of meaning and action - paradoxically (two facedly), pre-existent logics are funded by the affordance of interactivity to propel agentive constraint.
Agency is defined a Altercast Legitimation (conjointly intersecting with the other end - of pre-existent physical, corporeal being) of flex-ability to afford and constrain, sometimes in bundles, tfg’s in using the inevitability of interaction to investigate the entailings of variably enmeshings.
Provisionally, consider this Altercast flex-ability to afford and constrain investigation of tfg logics of meaning and action to include:
The realist tfg’s - physics - 1) Physical level (Bohrian and Heisenbergian), and of the biological sort - 2) biological (Maslowian) level [at the other end of Altercast Legitimacy, i.e., pre-existents, esp., corporeal individuality (the exceeding of its rule-abilities meaning death)]. It is due to the constraint of pre-existent corporeality, the largely constrained, multifarious flex-abilities of its fleshy and mobile make-up that locus of individual agentive assertion (incl. memory) is provided - e.g., the assertion of autobiographical criteria (Harre) constraining accountability to coherent narrative individuality. So, for humans, the physical levels do not entail a fixed progressive causality: Persons are internally related beyond their largely constrained corporeality, finding themselves first and foremost “corprisocial.”
This means that despite even the most legitimate warrants of individual locus, Accountability, Agency, Emotion and Memory and Memory are always more or joint creations. As opposed to a strict Maslowian order then, a person may be deprived of “basic need for affection and good nutrition” and only more determined to fulfill their “esteem needs”. For in addition to “brute facts”, there are the grammatical (or hermeneutic) sort of tfg’s [from which one may Suspend Belief/ or Disbelief] depth grammatical (or hermeneutic) sort of tfg’s [from which one may Suspend Belief/or Disbelief] depth grammatical tfg’s of internal relation’s all pervasive rule-abilities - that is a 3) depth grammatical level of internally related “rule-abilities.” - Constitutive Rules characterize as “lateral” and “mutable” (adjectives correspond to immediacy and readily available use); and the more situational reflexivity of tfg open ended hierarchical grammars (language games) - That is a 4) reflexive grammatical (Godelian) level, its semiotic language games, Regulative Rules characterized as “hierarchical” and “open-ended” (adjectives correspond to heuristics and their potential for differing units of analysis).
To Elaborate this notion of Agency then - Agency is possible because persons can use the inevitability of interaction to investigate more than one taken for granted mutable and open ended logic of meaning and action which they are variably entailed (enmeshed) in and comprised of. Specifically, agency depends upon interaction, Legitimacy as Altercast with others, affordance of entropy, then choice and coherent maintenance and coordination. Thus, there is not pure Agency - it is socially constructed and changeable from moment to moment depending upon what can be taken for granted with Altercast Legitimacy. It is this allowing of entropy and interaction to propel investigation of variable enmeshments which is paradoxically the source of agentive constraint - i.e., agency.
One can then use pre-existing and emergent logics of meaning and action in the Altercast Legitimacy to afford and constrain (or Suspend Belief/Disbelief in) one another tfg flex-ability etc. On a physical and biological level: the sense of countervailing (cybernetic) action against the opening rifts created by affordance of Bohrian irreconcilability (wave/particle) and Heisenbergian (uncertainty) in previously established structures creates the ability to use these impetus’s as agentive constraint, again, by means of affordance behind the two extremes of the rift’s opening once they have been moved back from. This counterbalancing apparently works into the hermeneutic level as well. As opposed to understanding’s tendency to move only away from pain, aesthetic technique includes and balances an optimal amount of pleasure, use and reverence, both through the mutable, lateral tfg’s of depth grammars and in the differing units of analysis of reflexively open-ended hierarchical tfg grammars to manage the flex-ability of Agentive Competence in enacting Coherence and Coordinations.
CMM uses three topoi for the flexabilities of this agentive competence (which can apply to individuals or to larger patterns): 1. Minimal competence has little ability to control enmeshment, to valence (reconstruct a desirable pattern), and is given to Unwanted Repetitive Pattern [URP] or random systemics. 2. Satisfactory Competence cannot always control enmeshment but has the ability to valence (go into and reconstruct) stable patterns and has some creativity within those patterns. However, in being dependent upon singular patterns, satisfactory competence lacks the ability to negotiate variable enmeshments, therefore, like minimal competence, it is susceptible to the interenactment of URP’s 3. Optimal Competence uses the flex-ability of its functional autonomy to control enmeshment in many stories and it can valence reconstruction with creativity (with the reflexive disorder of Modernity, there is no satisfactory competence; one is either minimally or optimally competent).