i don’t see using a definition of “female-analog” principal, as a possibility for generalized application. it’s because of its dual-nature.
on the one side of being universally accepting or accommodating, and then with a “roof” or “ceiling” in a matter of limits or scale. problem
being that for every instance or situation, then ……… that “ceiling” would have to have a meter-designation. i don’t know how or what meter you could
use for that, to set it as a general principal.
unless you worked in the realm of amplification/degradation in a directional sort of concept. but even the term “ceiling” is used for manipulation all over
the place, because of its ambiguous nature.
if you are saying that the aperture or “give” is relative, and designate a number of ‘cycles’ to the “ceiling” …. ? even in the form of a ratio or percentile ….
then could work.
like ……….. designation of female for kinetic-bound applications, would have a flexibility in variance for cause ….with restriction for effect designated as
a percentile of all probable reaction.
but then if you set that at say %70 ………. would have to coach it as anything UNDER a %70 acceptance rate, would then be non-female AND non-male. ?
like you have that hose, and its female docking-point. it has its limit, or ceiling, in PROPORTION to ALL possible male-counterparts. like say, that female dock
for the hose, is able to accommodate 70% of probable male threadings.
to say that it just has a limit on the percentile …….. as well as ability to, can only put the limit at ability to accommodate more than one size ….
but for sakes of simplicity ……. the acceptance of multiple variables ………..
looking at too loose a definition. pun intended. i KNOW what you are saying ….. i just don’t know that can sock it into English as a viable “digital” input
point for generalized application. don’t know how to do it without going-math nut and inventing a new symbol and just saying “that’s it.” which technically,
is already in force then with the “female” symbol such as is in use in zodiac purposes.
but for true definition ……… you could fudge it, and go Oz ……… but i don’t see a way to cement as a true formulative designation. well, it would
take a real mathematician …. but maybe if you take those dualities as a ratio. like say, something is female if the number or meter-value for accommodation in
ratio to the mean of that pool…. is greater than one.
but problem i have is that can’t apply generally, and only find it works when specific meters are in force. when i try to shift it from situational-specific theorization,
to generalized …. or guess you could say from a subjective perspective to an objective perspective ….
i come up to the wall of having no delineation for whatever ranges in accommodation (or listening-power) that we are looking-at. i mean, i don’t think anything greater
than one (accommodating at least more than one male variable) will do it, because then you have the area between 0-1 …… that again is non-male and non-female, thereby necessitating a third designation
and blowing the diametric-reasoning in the first place out of the water.
i think has potential …………. but for now don’t see how to apply in a language-studies arena. i’ll give you as close as i can get ….
female, or analogous directive or outcomes, vary from male in that they may preclude SOME male interaction, and yet INCLUDE several differing male variants. whereas
male, or digital directives/outcomes …. preclude specific female interaction, and include variants in a reversed correlation to female “exact match” counterpart…..?
i don’t know how to do it without having it sound like a cluster-fuck of redundancy. in biology, if you’re talking about a receptor that can accommodate many types
of substance ….. like how an estrogen receptor can accept some plant extracts as a ‘mimic’ for estrogen …. that sort of thing. therefore it is a female-type receptor.
which would then differ say from one that is substance-specific … like a dopamine receptor or something. but then you could not logically continue calling
that receptor non-female, or male …….. because you’re already calling the substance it is “recepting” as the male-counterpart.
so again …….. we’re looking at a third variable. why i tried to point out that you were formulating the theory within a very specific-paradigm to make it work.
we are left with a “qualified female” a “non-qualified female” and a “male.”
and in LIFE, you have talking, hearing, and listening. you have the ability of a receptor to NOT receive. with sight we do that by closing the eyelids. with sound
the mind learns how to “tune out.”
but the “talk” is a focused effect that has no “tune out” within its definition. and if you go into the aspects of digital as male for the sake of singular or small
tasks ……. as opposed to larger combinations that DO not or cannot be included as a subset into another set ……. not necessarily because of size, but because
the female or analogous set is a non-linear or …….oh hell, that term in biology where you can cut something in half and basically have it look the same …. like humans
are bi-lateral …. that’s it. so a set with NO bi-lateral or uni-lateral proportions to allow it to function in any digital fashion. in math you would call that prime.
so the definition becomes, neither one can perform the job of the other.
but ONE can perform parts of the job of the other. what you are doing, is taking set-models and applying them to a three-dimensional plane. where in that third dimension,
you have a variable of inclusion that is not present in the 2D. if you have two spheres as two sets ….. you are saying one sphere can be inside the other if on the
same linear path and viewed as 2 dimensionally capable of fitting one inside the other. that IF you were to move that smaller set into ANOTHER frame or state
of perspective, it could be shown as a probably part of that larger set. and that is mirrored then –not reversed but turned inside-out.
ie: men can be women, but women can’t be men.
my problem is i need more electronics education on the exact relationships between “digital” and “analog.” so far only seems that manufacturers throw the terms
around however they like. but as far as a ‘digital’ signal verses an ‘analog’ signal ………. you are looking at smaller data streams for the digital, because any
repeated elements only need be “spoken” once and have a factor applied.
that’s my understanding …….. but once those factors are applied, do we have an analog “product?” sometimes yes and sometime no. when it’s no… the “product” maintains
digital-application ability ……. you have a program.
that’s what a program IS ……. but then what happens when you use a program to build a program? it touches principals of infinity for effect. when i saw the first
video games that were interactive … i thought, shit — they have programs writing programs now. why is that a problem? other than the fact that if you decide
on infinity and you’re pointing in a wrong direction, you can get really fucking lost. but it turns out they built only 2 or 3 models on that, and are just using them over and over for every video game. so the “product” is analog in nature, and whatever created it is NOT in force anywhere that i can see. you know, like a bear dumped three times in the wood, but you see no hide nor hair of the bear anymore.
(if they were creating actual games from the ground up, you would not see all the mis-matches between handled objects and placement within the games. it’s like three dolls they are dressing up over and over again and sometimes the clothes fit better than other.)
but if you apply male/female to the aspects of digital/analog …….. in otherwords, try to make opposed sets where one is a subset of the other ……… does digital
and analog “fit” that? yes. and i see how that works then to tie the hose-threading as male/female in that sense. but again, have to look at the hose-threading
as a man-made device BASED upon natural communicative dictates in creation. so …. you are looking at nature, creating something, and then going “wow! this looks just like nature.”
it’s the same damn way they took the mechanics for measuring DISTANCE …. a wheel with gears that marked off each time it turned ….. THEN applied those
mechanics to measuring TIME in increments, and THEN wowing themselves that distance has a relativity to TIME. and it’s one man created in the first place, by
using that which measures distance, for that which measures time which IS distance then according to a meter of LENGTH within an orbit and spin — whatever. but REAL
time, if measured properly ……. is done on a sundial. where the number of increment for daylight remain constant, and the AMOUNT of each of those increments
changes according to season and longitude/latitude.
you have a third variable.
2D to 3D. going from a sundial to clocks was BACKWARDS in aspects of precision. AND creates all kinds of fucked-up when comes to a person’s perceptional values of their “day” as well
as their ability to even think in 3D. that’s
a pet peeve and beside the point.
now, it can be helpful to take something 3D and express it in 2D formats for those who cannot “fit” the 3D into their head. and i’ll admit, i just BARELY can
fit 3D into my head …. every other weekend and on tuesdays. so condensing concepts to diametric opposition for purposes of instruction …. can be a worthwhile endeavor.
yes, the parallels between male/female and digital/analog are THERE, but that’s because they were BUILT to have them there.
don’t get yourself too ‘wowed!’ by revelations of man’s ability to fit himself into his creation.
ALL ….. and i mean ALL ……. is based on, a factor-of …… FEAR. if you map how something works, you can PREDICT how it WILL work. a soothsayer. where we
get the problem, is when that FEAR creates such a great need to MAKE something work the ‘same’ each and every time — that we ignore and do not document the times
that it DOESN’T. (when ‘behavior’ is not a matter of repeated mechanics — they call it mental illness and say you are WRONG for not fitting into that abstract paradigm)
when you get smart enough to ‘explain’ any behavior post hoc– you either tire them out or fuck them in the head for trying to take away your freedom for action. or that’s
what i do now when i get tired of dealing. thing about LIFE, is that often you NEED to react without thinking. without plotting and planning and making sure it is EXACTLY
what you are “expected” to do. sometimes your life is dependent upon the ability to “perceive” a necessary action — endpoint — without having each and every point TO
that action plotted for the “explanation” to others. i like Sheldon’s remark “what is life without whimsy?” fact is, that often-times, it’s death. you only have to screw
up once. screw up and not react once. so i would rather err on the side of freedom.
i know i’m preaching to the choir ………. important thing am saying, is to differentiate between that which is man-made definition of the abstract, and man-made
charting of the real. and never let the twine meet.
because our friend ‘Oz’ will change the definitions on the abstract — turn the world upside down — then tell you you’re wrong. sets, subsets, all math are definitions
of the abstract. they are taking something, copying it, and then going “wow! my copy has this awesome correlation to what i saw!”
it’s not terribly impressive in the grand scheme of things. a way to pass the time …. highly entertaining. yes. but don’t then USE that as a program to build
a program ………
because if you’re not pointing in the right direction …… that infinity can get you really fucking lost.