Social Valences

                        I've had to throw out a couple of core concepts that I didn't preview in the first few pages of the book.

                        Social Recursion: The process of self definition by mutual exclusion, A.K.A "I am a straight submissive dominant hetero male bottom conservative Christian, searching for the polar opposite of me." {Not my profile / Just an illustration for what is the actual norm for most men. Surprise!} "I'm looking for a dominant submissive atheist/pagan liberal lesbian top." "Objective: marriage, (incompatible)." "I am this, then therefore you must be that." "I am then therefore not able to be all those other things for you, that I want you to be for me." "Will you complete me?"

                        Social recursion is fraught with self defined silly boundary definitions of unexpressed expectations and egotism. Most men, (in fact most people) are very hung up on fantasy expectations of dominance. "Men may initiate sex, (Especially if we are normal submissive dominant hetero bottoms,) but sex therefore is the woman's prerogative. As it is for us straight guys, top or bottom, we must be prepared to stop for the submissive or female at any time, we must defer to the person who is sexually most vulnerable. Ironically, most people want to believe that men never feel sexually vulnerable, (nonsense.) Social recursive phenomena are used to rationalize some very strange popular prejudices.

                        Socially recursive boundary definitions can be General, (infinitely reiterated, "Susan is smarter than me, but I am smarter than Bob who is smarter than Jennifer.") or Primitive, (as in the case of a one time absolute un redefined boundary, A.K.A. "Me Tarzan, you Jane.")

                        The Primitively Recursive one time compact boundary distinctions of your basic polarities are taken for granted and are generally assumed:
                        Boy / Girl
                        Young /Old
                        Strong / Weak
                        Top / Bottom
And so on.

                       The Generally Recursive social boundary definitions often come in the form of a "Family Tree.
                       I have two parents.
                       I have four grandparents.                      {Boundaries squared}
                       I have eight great grandparents.
And so on.
                       I have one spouse.                
                       I have two children.                              {Boundaries compounded factorially}
                       I have six neighbors.
                       I have twenty-four spheres of social contact that have there own independent boundary conditions.
And so on.

                       In examining Social Valences we will be concerned primarily with the Primitive Social Recursion Boundary Definitions. This is simply because that at the core of all self defined social distinctions even things like chains of command or even meritocracy can be reduced from there orders of succession and analyzed comparatively as polarities. All Groups and Group Dynamics can be viewed as a series of Dyads. Individual is compared to the group, the group is compared to the individual. And person to compared person within the group. This may seem like just so much public relations. It is. The self is always the most primary point of departure when we are identifying social boundaries.

                       Social Valences are most interesting when we come to "Opposites Attraction." The joys of living in a dynamic universe. Although opposites is relative, we must deal with the valences of others. Between any 2 people, one of them is always going to be more rational and the other one more passionate. Those values can change when those same two people are with someone else. Polarity is the key to understanding the asymmetry of Social Recursion and these charge valences of attraction. This is in no way limited to just sex or gender. It's just that gender is this first most primary of Primitive Recursions.