Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Len Piotrowski (
Wed, 14 Aug 1996 22:22:01 GMT

In article <> Joel and Lynn Gazis-Sax <> writes:


>> *scratching my head*
>> The apparent connection between Chaos Theory as an explanation for
>> "phenotypic" variations (problematic and questionable given structural
>> constraints of real world ecosystems) and "nature" itself with the workings of
>> the "human mind" are hard to swallow.

>So you believe that you can expose any genotype to the world and precisely
>predict what kind of phenotype it is going to end up as just by looking
>at the genotype? I find /that/ hard to swallow.

I suppose you think Chaos Theory does - guffaw! Besides, what happened to your
"human mind" as fuzzy agent to your phenotypes in chaos?

>>If somehow purposeful, meaningful, and
>> directed human action is manifest in context through a chaotic process that
>> creates structures (organized phenotypes, organized personalities, organized
>> social types, organized cultural types, organized meanings, organized
>> nature?) I fail to recognize it. The value of a universal explanation for a
>> failure to create exact copies of anything in the human sciences is rather
>> dubious.

>If you take a look at most human societies, you will not find the complete
>orderliness you think must be there.

Boggles! Who said that anyway?

> Let's take a simple example: what
>constitutes a family residential unit:

I'm afraid to look ... the strawman cometh!

> House 1: A mother, a father, and two children. (Perfect!)

"Pefect" what?

> House 2: A mother, a father, and three children. (Still on the mark, slight
> variation)

"Variation" from what "mark?"

> House 3: A mother and a father and one children. (Pretty much the same
> pattern)

What pattern? Parents and their procreation? Can't wait ...

> House 4: A mother, a father, two kids, and a grandfather. (Hmmm. Well, the
> grandfather still fits.)

Fits what? You're gettin' fuzzy ...

> House 5: A mother and two kids. (Where's dad?)

... with granddad?

> House 6: A father and his four children. A cousin of the father. Two people
> who are friends of the cousin.

... family reunion?

> House 7: Two unrelated people who are just sharing space. One of them insists
> that his ten-foot long Python is his baby. (Ah, throw out the python.)

... house of horror?

> House 8: A mother, a father, and two kids. (Whew! Back to the "right" model)

Missed the original model (must have been fuzzy)!

> House 9: You tell me what is going to be in here....

House fuzz, dust bunnies, Goober's peas ... (?!?)

>Anthropologists run into this kind of pattern all the time. Note that pattern
>is /not/ the same as order.

Thanks for the lesson. Anyone else impressed?

>> In the area of human social-cultural life, meanings are emergent and sustained
>> through contextual encounters in space and time, each of which has a potential
>> for infinite and random outcomes. Yet what is surprising is not that
>> structured relationships evolve within these auditions, but that they persist
>> from encounter to encounter.

>Again, this may work intellectually, but in real life, you can assess probabilities
>but precise prediction is not possible. Every day, you gamble on your precognition
>to be right. And sometimes you miss the mark.

... your scepticism defies significance. At this point, I'd have to admit,
your somewhere out in left field.

>It is on the basis of this realization that some serious rethinking is being
>done by some of us at least.

Glad to hear it. Spare me the details.

>>This is primarily what most students of human
>> society and culture are interested in. How can Chaos Theory come to grips with
>> this aspect of human social-psychology?




"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
- perlstyle