The year of the mama grizzly



We are witnessing the emergence of the were-mom, as across the land soccer moms are turning into mama grizzlies. There is nothing so ferocious as a grizzly defending her cubs. The unconsidered dynamic is that females have primacy and society is going to go wherever they want it to go. Males are being reduced to the natural order of things, providers of genetic diversity via sperm, fighting among themselves for the privilege of the occasional coupling. If a cataclysm were to occur and the population reduced to 100 males and one female man would go extinct. If the proportion were reversed we would have a viable population within a couple of generations. The foundation of society is shifting under our feet, marriage boycott, tea party, gay rights long entrenched encumbents falling before the onslaught.

“There is something happenin’ out there — on college campuses, at Tea Party and 9/12 meetings, in school board and city council races, inside and outside the political arena. Everywhere I go, right-thinking moms who had never been involved in politics before have come up to me to let me know that their increasing concern for their kids’ future — their safety, their education, their debt — has driven them to get involved. ” – Michelle Malkin

Sarah Palin is the formost of these mama grizzlies, described by the media as a pit bull with lipstick. They wish it were that innocuous. Palin

Consider another recent development, the emergence of the cougar, the successful female executive cruising the bars for boy toys. Don’t you feel the earth move? Type zero

7 Responses to “The year of the mama grizzly”

  1. walt,

    re the female thing, … let’s get ‘real crazy’ for a moment and go with the findings of douglas caldwell’s experiments in cultivating the evolution of multi-species bacterial communities. in these communities there is an observable phenomenon he calls ‘bidirectional innovation’ wherein the species the develop and persist are those which are in resonance with the community dynamic. it makes no sense, in this case, to talk about the health of the species as if it depended on what males and females of the species do, as if what they did determined their future.

    what determines their proliferation is not their reproductive habits but the opening of spatial possibility.

    in your note, you assume that the male behaviour originates in the male and the female behaviour originates in the female and that their reproduction (and thus the growth or decline of their population) depends upon ‘their actions’ (where we model them as ‘local, independently-existing organisms with their own locally originating, internal purpose-directed behaviours.

    that is a very big assumption. it is the Aristotelian ‘intrinsic final cause’ assumption, and it does not ‘fit’ with a lot of observations. first of all, it is silly to think that males and females of the same species just happened to ‘emerge’ at the same time as the new species emerged. how could it happen that the male or female of a new species could arrive before its opposite gender? similarly, how does it happen that sterile family members develop within insect species and the sterile members continue to evolve in a unique way even though they do not reproduce.

    it may be very difficult to ‘own up to it’ but there is lots of evidence besides caldwell’s actual experimental findings to support the notion that extrinsic shaping of organization prevails over intrinsic shaping of organization, in which case, we cannot make a simple association between ‘what the males and females of a species do’, and the growth/decline, health/illness of the species (and its numerousness/population); i.e. we could speak of the welfare of a ‘species’ in the same terms as follows;.

    . (a) “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” — John Lennon

    (b) “You can create the future of your dreams. This may seem far fetched for most people, but what they do not seem to realize is that their present is the future they created by their past actions or inaction. You are where you are today because of the decisions and actions you took yesterday.”

    the male and female of a species can be understood by way of the ‘backstretched connection’ (the pulled spring), like the high pressure and low pressure zones in the atmosphere. we can talk about their respective behaviours but what is really going on is just one thing that has two (e.g. male and female) visible manifestations. the understanding is ‘upstream’ from the male and female visual forms or flow-features.

    what people do to themselves does not determine how the future unfolds.


  2. ellocogringo Says:

    Hi, Mr Ted,

    There you go, waving that tunnel all over the place, mixing apples and orangutans. (see spectrum) Remembering that my worldview is that we have two cognitive minds, each with it’s own perception and logic processing, trying to make sense of what’s out there. (through tunnels) It’s not necessary that you agree with my worldview, only understand that it is mine.

    So let’s look through this particular tunnel. The view of the tunnel the mama grizzly/soccer mom is looking through is perceived as society/individuals. These are the endpoints set by the tunnel. This particular tunnel limits them to an extremely squish view of the Great Mysterious. (different tunnel) and has a less squishy relationship to the view through the genetics tunnel, or the evolution tunnel.

    So let the games begin. society/individual is inside the skull. SOCIETY/INDIVIDUAL is the projection of society/individual onto what we perceive. The duality if you will. If the universe is finite SOCIETY/INDIVIDUAL would be appropriate, which may or may not be true since the two cognitive minds can fully account for this duality. Else GREAT MYSTERIOUS would seem more appropriate. I suspect the latter.

    So what’s happening here? Patterns are forming and correlated in the right mind, and interpreted by the left mind as disharmonious. The reticulator, summing the aggregate and accumulate dis-harmonies adds urgency (bias) The ANN (overseer) notes the two outputs are increasingly not consistent and is impelled to action. For sake of discussion we’ll call the right mind “sarah”, the left mind “palin”, the ANN “Sarah Palin”

    So Sarah Palin morphs from a pit bull (individual) to a mama grizzly (resonant with other mama grizzlies) to effect change, realizing (squishy) that the aggregate and accumulate impact of mama grizzlies can “calm” the dis-harmonies. A built in feedback loop if you will, doing whatever minimizes the dis-harmonies. This is only for a mind uncrippled by ideology. The ABF has disabled this built in moderating function.

    I’m not talking about evolution, or genetics or the cosmos. I am talking about mama grizzlies. That is the tunnel I was looking through.

    So it would seem consciousness is an illusion

    We only think we’re thinking.


  3. walt,

    ok, i do accept your ‘model/s’ in the sense that i understand how the organization of the behaviour of groups of people can be shaped by such models. if i were of the amerindian culture, i would be living in a society whose dominant form of organization is ‘sovereigntism’, a ‘secularized theological model’ that reifies imaginary-line-bounded geographical closed form shapes and declares them to be local independent object-states within which organization is shaped by a supreme central regulatory authority which orients individual and collective behaviour to a notional ‘desired future’, policing against those who would overtly act in a way that could lead to a break-down of the model.

    there is a great effort on the part of the sovereigntist model-supporters, to regard the model as an absolute truth, to ‘truly believe’ in the existence of independent states and ‘the right of man’ to own notional imaginary-line bounded geometric tracts that the group superimposes over top of the unbounded habitat.

    the saving grace is in your phrase ‘it ain’t real’. the saving grace is in the amerindian’s call of ‘bullshit’ in the face of this sovereigntist make-believe; i.e. to openly recognize that ‘it is only a model’ and in fact, not a very good model since it is setting 195 states dreamily pursuing their own local self-interest, believing themselves defining themselves to be ‘independent’ in a world that is, by all experience, ‘interdependent’, which air, water, thermal energy and fields of all types permeate these boundaries, not only of the sovereign state but of the sovereign organism (the same model is used to declare the independence of the human organism), making a mockery of the ‘imagined boundaries’, but ‘belief’ in the ‘reality’ of the model is something that cultures indoctrinate in their children from birth, and the children are taught to ignore criticism or mockery of the models they are taught to believe in, since the power to organize and regulate society according to the model preferred by the founders either stands or falls on common belief in the model. nature doesn’t decree the model, it is just a ‘system of beliefs’.

    so long as the model is not confused for ‘truth’ in natural sense, the possibility remains that the ‘users’ of the model will one day say; ‘this model is crap’ and come up with something better. but like the man who gets a prestigious, empowering, remunerating job in an organization that is defined by a model, he tends to ‘become his job description’ and will answer queries as to ‘who he is’ by announcing to others that; ‘i am the quality control director’ ‘engineering manager’ or ‘i am an american’ (he effectively swears an oath which commits him to living out the definition or job-description that comes with benefits such as being able to remain a privileged member of the organization.).

    this is not ‘reality’, this is ‘playing a game’, but the rules of the game are that one must not admit that it is game, one must believe in it as if it were ‘reality’ and even give one’s live to its continuance or else one will be breaking the rules of the game and will be punished for it; e.g. the ‘privileges’ accorded to faithful believers will be withdrawn (in a sovereign state, to walk about freely is a privilege accorded only to believers and to those visitors formally given temporary privileges).

    ok, walt, i think we are on the same page as to ‘it ain’t real’, but the projections around this ‘grizzly bear momma’ trend (another ‘model’) are a bit much because they depend on the Aristotelian ‘intrinsic final cause’ brainfart; i.e. the grizzly-bear momma projection is another exemplar of the popular ‘intrinsic shaping influence’ model, which ‘ain’t real’.

    let’s say that the women take over; they poke out the eyes of each male baby at birth and put them into stables and pens, guarded by women carrying weapons. they milk them for sperm and organize for themselves the administering of sperm into their own bodies. when they want to do things ‘the old savage way’, they can go to the stable and select the males they want and have the guards bring them to the house and be nearby to prevent the males from ‘getting out of hand’. once this ‘lock-in’ has been achieved, it will be impossible for the males to escape from it.

    this is the same model as you present, taken more towards the extreme but without breaking the basic architecture of the model you are implicitly using.

    foundational to this model is the notion of ‘male’ and ‘female’ as ‘local objects/organisms/systems’ notionally equipped with their own ‘locally originating, internal purpose-directed behaviours’. this is the same old, same old Aristotelian model that assumes that form and organization derives from intrinsic shaping influence (the acorn-to-oak-tree shaping influence).

    this model collapses if we assume that the ‘difference’ in gender is like the heraclitean ‘backstretched connexion’ (two aspects of the same dynamic in the manner that high pressure and low pressure anomalies develop within a common flow).

    of course, space as a participant, doesn’t come into the grizzly bear mama model. IN OUR MENTAL RENDERING there is only ‘female’ and ‘male’ and the behavioural trend that concerns changes in their relations, the one with the other.

    my claim is that it is always possible to ‘put flow into the model’ and get another view which explains more things than if we leave space as a non-participant. i am not arguing with your model; the more models that bring up different things, the better, so long as we don’t get hung up on ‘this is it, … this is the ultimate truth model’. recall that this was a basic difference between poincaré’s conventionalism wherein he maintained that models are devised merely for ‘our convenience’ and there is no other way to establish which is better than the other, apart from how they serve OUR PURPOSE. einstein, on the other hand believed that SPACE IS NON-EUCLIDIAN (poincaré stated that non-euclidian space is a mathematical language game and it is nothing like the space of our experience).

    anyway, moving on to put ‘medium’ into our game-play, the universe can be understood as an energy-charged medium, a ‘field’ if you like, and the things within it can be understood as arising from the dynamics of ‘field’ which are spatial-relational (e.g. non-uniformities/inhomogeneities in the energy-charged medium of ‘field’ induce movements in and amongst the visible features in the flow). the non-uniformities in the thermal field engender and animate convection cells as in the storm-cells in the atmosphere which emerge and move in the service of resolving the polar-equator inhomogeneities in the thermal field.

    in this model, … yes, its another ‘model’, … ‘local objects/organisms/systems’ become SECONDARY FEATURES, so that in order to understand ‘their behaviour’, we must also understand the source of their engenderment. in the case of the hurricanes, we will never understand their behaviour OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF THEIR ENGENDERMENT since there is really only one dynamic going on, the dynamic of ‘field’ which is both the source of the emerging local features and their behaviour.
    for example, we see four hurricanes raging in the atlantic and moving into the gulf of mexico and up the atlantic coast of north america. if we start thinking of these flow-features as ‘local systems’ with their own ‘locally-originating behaviours’, then we have ‘lost it’ because we have shifted the originating shaping source of the dynamic to the ‘local objects’ when the originating shaping source of the dynamic is in the non-uniformities in the thermal energy field (where the thermal field is pulled apart like a stretched spring between the polar and equatorial regions).

    now, these hurricanes are identified by the ‘low pressure’ in their centres and the overall dynamic can be explained in terms of ‘high pressure regions’ and these ‘low pressure regions’ (grizzly bear mamas), the latter whipping everything else around. what we started with was a ‘stretched spring’, one thing that we tend to see as two; i.e. a desire inbuilt in ‘field’ to restore balance in the continually evolving spatial-relational dynamic, that is characterized by the two pull-apart opposites which are not ‘real’ in the sense of ‘local, independently-existing entities’, but are virtual expressions that manifest in the restoring of balance. men and women making ‘the beast of two backs’ can likewise be understood as two aspects of a common evolutionary dynamic.

    i.e. in this view where ‘field’ comes first, the evolutionary dynamic and the behaviour of the emergent flow features is one dynamic that has different ways of manifesting that accord with our different ways of sensing/perceiving.

    but all of the above discussion serves only to get to the following point.
    where we understand ‘field’ to be primary and ‘local objects’ secondary (flow-features induced by inhomogeneities in the ever-changing field), the shaping influence is ‘extrinsic’. God is extrinsic (the so-called ‘outside intelligent designer’ to believers in monotheism). when we impute local organisms such as ‘male’ and ‘female’ humans to be primary, the shaping influence, aka ‘God’, is ‘intrinsic’ and works ‘out of the interior’ of the local human organism.

    now, there is a type of ‘madness’ or ‘insanity’ in the notion that females would take control over men, of the sort which would translate into one end of the spring taking over control from the other (relative motion would be subsumed by absolute motion). in the case of the atmosphere, the hot equatorial region would take control over the weather and eradicate the coldness at the poles (this is the insane assumption built into ‘anthropogenic global warming’ and into ‘greenhouse gas forcing of climate change’ and it associates with intrinsic final cause, internal shaping of dynamic behaviour/organization which ignores extrinsic final cause aka ‘celestial forcing of climate change’).

    my point is that ‘grizzly bear mama’ or the more extreme ‘females taking control’ notion depends, foundationally, on the intrinsic final cause modeling paradigm.

    i am not arguing that ‘it is not happening’. ‘sovereigntism happens’ because of human use of ‘mental models’ to direct their/our behaviour. i am just saying that there are models and there are models, and the ‘grizzly bear mama’ trend, to be understood as such, requires the imposing of the Aristolelian intrinsic shaping of form and organization model structure (paradigm). it takes the ‘extrinsic god’ of form and behaviour shaping out of the medium of space, and resituates it as an ‘intrinsic god’ of form and behaviour shaping, resident in each ‘living system’. that’s how we mentally separate the behaviour of male and female; i.e. on the basis of a notional ‘internal purpose’, … two different purposes, in fact, that we see as in conflict with one another, rather than as a unifying force (the restoring of equilibrium). when we ‘differentiate’ in this manner the primary ground; i.e. the field as a medium with its spatial relational non-uniformities disappears, and all that remains visible are the apparently ‘local independently-existing flow features’ with their positive and negative ‘gender’ signs.


  4. ellocogringo Says:

    Hi Ted,
    I’m not really sure where we disagree. I’ll have to re-read everything. But basically i’m saying that looking through a tunnel only gives a subset of reality, to which we apply two views. (for occidental non-idiots) The Amerind tunnel “appears?” to have a wide angle lens on it, with the input data processed by parallel and serial processes rather than boolean and binary processes. Unless, of course, you can fit the universe inside your skull (I would be interested in pursuing that line of thought) in any case here’s a link to an article on “stretching and twisting the rubber ruler” with only one comment that points out the bullshit of the discussion.
    Herschel Neumann Says:
    July 8th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    In a hydrogen atom, electrons do not “orbit” the proton. They do not orbit at any specific distances in any energy state. Energy levels are not distances. Muons don’t orbit, either.
    Electrons do not “orbit” the nuclei of any atoms.
    The orbiting model of an atom has been known to be incorrect for over 80 years.
    The orbiting model is NOT the “standard picture.”
    Herschel Neumann
    Professor Emeritus and former Chair
    Department of Physics and Astronomy
    University of Denver
    (he appears to be a non-idiot) – walt
    found here>

    what a bunch of bs


    • walt,

      i don’t think we have a ‘disagreement’ (apart from your comment re the restoration to health of population with major gender imbalance; mostly female or mostly male), all i am trying to do is to fit ‘the same data’ as you are using, into the ‘intrinsic shaping of form/organization’ and ‘extrinsic shaping of form/organization’ framework (formerly ‘celestially forced’ and ‘locally forced’). this perhaps LARGELY reconciles with your two-barrelled cognitive processing model but perhaps doesn’t fully reconcile with it, but i find it useful to run the same ‘situation’ through the extrinsic/intrinsic framework.

      so, when i read about ‘grizzly bear mamas’, my ‘comment’ is to say; ‘hey, we can look at that situation this way….’.

      and what i was trying to say was that ‘the grizzly bear mama’ syndrome would be ‘nonsense’ without assuming ‘intrinsic final cause’; i.e. it is based on imputing ‘different purpose’ to male and to female which is the western tradition.

      the amerindian ‘strand-in-the-web’ model sees each different ‘form’ as fitting into the overall mutually supportive scheme (constructive interference/harmony/resonance in wave terms) whereas western thinking sees everything as having their own specialty role to play in some kind of ‘productive enterprise’; e.g;

      “In order for his society to be successful, Plato believes that all members must be productive, the women as well as the men.”

      this is the familiar ‘intrinsic final cause’ or ‘purposive system’ model that leads to the notion of ‘gender roles’ in a common productive enterprise, a notion that is very different from ‘strand-in-the-web’ mutual supportive harmony;

      “Gender roles are the particular sets of human behavior that the society and culture in which we are raised assigns to us and expects us to follow (there are also other roles which we are socialized to recognize, such as those associated with age and socioeconomic status). These roles are not necessarily based on the true capabilities of either gender; for example, gender roles in the US in the 50’s – girls who said they wanted to become scientists were laughed at and told to become secretaries, despite the fact that there is still no hard evidence that the capabilities of the genders differ when it comes to math and science.”

      the western sense of ‘gender roles’ implies that ‘different things are built (created) for ‘different purposes’’, or that ‘everything has its purpose’ in terms of ‘what results it can produce’, the imagery being that ‘a successful society’ is one which “all members must be productive, the women as well as the men.”

      in parts of the islamic culture (the WESTERN christian/islamic/judaic religious belief system), women are kept covered in public, they are ‘circumcised’ and they are not given an education as the males are. all of which tends to ‘lock them in’ to this patriarchal gender role modeled system. the ‘gender role model’ is ‘rational’ (based on a reasoned assessment of what a thing does or should do) and has nothing in common with the amerindian belief that everything has its place to take in the natural scheme of things (the idea is to let people find the niche that nature calls them to fill; i.e. to let themselves be orchestrated by the spatial dynamics they find themselves uniquely situationally included in.)

      in this we see the stark difference in the choice of intrinsic (western) and extrinsic (amerindian) organization-shaping influence. the findings in my studies of exceptionally performing teams showed that these teams let their individual and collective behaviours be orchestrated (extrinsically) by the spatial dynamics they were included in, in the manner of friendly drivers in the flow of the freeway, or wildgeese flying in formation etc. they did not define themselves on the basis of their own purpose as some kind of acorn whose blossoming organization pushed forth out of itself (was intrinsically shaped).

      so, that is about it.

      if the united states has a role to play in the world (the ‘intrinsic organization shaping model’) then it is important to have a strong purpose. this is where palin and cougars come in. they know what they want and they will work tenaciously to get it rather than sitting there like wallflowers waiting to be asked to dance. there is no place in this purposive role play model for non-rational stuff like, …. ‘let your behaviour be organized by taking your unique place in the natural unfolding scheme of things’. the positioning of women with strong purpose into the system where only men used to go is seen by some as a ‘political shift’ with women taking over the role that men have traditionally played; i.e. it is still about ‘role-plays’ wherein people define themselves and their actions intrinsically. they come with their programs in hand, programs that they will ensure blossom forth in the manner of acorns-to-oak-trees, without being shaped by extrinsic, unfolding-in-the-now influence (not knowing your own purpose, as an individual and/or as a sovereign collective is seen as a weakness in the western political view.) .

      the grizzly bear mama is another variant on the western ‘role play’ model where politicians don’t have to be wish-washy about their projected actions. the amerindian chief would promise to do his best to help organize his people to deal with circumstances as they unfolded, and his ability to do this well would define him as a chief, not the ability to be explicit about his purpose and to tenaciously pursue them regardless of what unfolds by forcing others into roles to operationalize the plans and promises.


      p.s. . you said; “If a cataclysm were to occur and the population reduced to 100 males and one female man would go extinct. If the proportion were reversed we would have a viable population within a couple of generations.”

      i would say that the gender-ratio doesn’t vary much because the stretched spring that seeks to return to equilibrium is primary; i.e. male and female are united by their backstretched connexion.

  5. ellocogringo Says:

    i’m talking about the article, not you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: