Taxonomy of Expression

                                                                                                                                                                           

          ~Materio tanĝanta~

                    One, upon hearing the first world of the present title, may immediately think of this song which was brought to infamy by this video. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's play around with words a bit. Sometimes, when we replace a single letter of a word, its meaning is altered substantially. For instance, take the words five, a positive integer, and fave, a shorthand term for favorite. 

Now, sometimes it takes a little more cunning to play with words; for instance, it was noticed one day (in a fit of divine inspiration) by my colleague, friend, and frequent collaborator K. Flynn that the words innovator and imitator were too suspiciously (neigh, auspiciously) similar to be left to rot. So, it was in that realization, in an era somewhat now reminding me of a fever dream, that he drafted his magnum opus: a collection of alchemical treatises, practical advice, and notebooks that would inspire my thought more profoundly than the writings of any of my other peers at the time.

Around this time, I was interested in personality schemas; the writings of Jung, the Myers-Briggs test, and the enneagram. I could not keep up with the entirety of MBTI; the dominant, inferior, etc. characteristics of each type mounted atop one another until one could hardly "see the floor," so to speak.

So, I took it upon myself to develop a simple typology consisting of four quadrants:

Fig. 1

There were essentially two important distinct dichotomies to consider: the degree to which a participant (in a society, clique, company, etc.) tends to shift the Overton window (i.e., innovate) by, say, designing novel procedures or gizmos; and, secondly, there was the degree to which the participant tends towards realism; i.e., engages in the phenomenally concrete world. The first of these can be expressed by the (less nuanced) follower vs. leader dichotomy, whereas the second was akin to something like dreamers vs. 

We would have the shakers, movers, and producers (in other words, Hollywood-elite types) on the top-right quadrant; meanwhile, salarymen and the like would be on the top-left quadrant, fanfic writers would be on the bottom-left, and the luminary mathematicians and such would be on the bottom-right.

Concreteness

What is considered pragmatic here, are mostly the traditionally masculine things; the workings of a car, the greatest plays of a baseball game, etc., all fall under this umbrella. Meanwhile, the imaginative component has a distinctly femme flavor. Some pervert may like to inject a joke about that wording; but, I digress. This encompasses things such as psychic, soul-based workings.

Throughout history (at least in the Americas and Europe), women have fantasized about equality between the sexes. What would this look like? What would this entail? It is because of the discrepancies in the allotment of power between society's men and women that we have come to associate physics with penetration, and psychology with the penetrated.

Limitations

The downside to using this method of analysis is the age-old demarcation problem, which cuts twofold. Firstly, this is practically pseudo-science. It's not meant to be a science anywho, but party poopers will still point that out. Secondly, the actual dividing line between each of these quadrants is all-too spectral for my tastes; ideally, we'd have two binary classifiers which lumped people into these corners (that's the way uh-huh uh-huh I like it). 

tl;dr:

Imaginative v. Innovative

Imitator v. Imitator