naitche

1 hour ago, naitche said:

 

But what I tolerate does not dictate the position I choose to hold, and you have no right to force that. The results are not likely to be what you intend.

As above.

Correcting myself................

What I will tolerate does not indicate the position I will choose to hold. That doesn't give you the right to assign one on my behalf.

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

The point of being intolerant of white supremacists is to make it worse for them. 

Your example is a group of people who perceive a threat to their chosen manifestation of being, by another.

How does "making it worse for them " reduce their perception of threat? Doesn't that reinforce it?

Quote

Trump is tolerant of white supremacists. You seem to be on his side in that matter.

Intolerant of tolerance?  This may have been directed @dimreepr

But what I tolerate does not dictate the position I choose to hold, and you have no right to force that. The results are not likely to be what you intend.

As above.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Thanks for the platitude.

Sorry if you see  it that way. I think its more than a platitude. Because..

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Negative value? (doesn't make sense to me.

The question implies a positive value for tolerance. If tolerance has no value,  then it wouldn't much matter if I choose to tolerate intolerance, or not.

There would be no value to be gained either way.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think oppression is a rather strong word, perhaps snowflake or PC police.

If the goal is to reduce existing freedoms, I think the persons targeted would find that oppressive.

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

When did you last suffer because you tolerated?

If this was directed at me, I haven't so prefer to tolerate.

Up to the point where my freedoms and personal space, or other peoples, are threatened.

Why tolerate?

Because its intolerant to do otherwise. 

 To promote or increase tolerance with its negative value doesn't make any sense to me.

That doesn't mean we should submit or give way to intolerance, or expect that others should. Then it becomes oppression.

To demand others give ground or submit to intolerance is oppression. 

That is a different question.

 I would not like to be party to oppression in the name of tolerance. 

A backlash should be expected in that choice.

Would consciousness not be limited by identity ?

Dan Browns Davinci Code, if we aren't just talking classic.

I liked Catch 22, once I stopped trying to figure it out,  and let it play out instead.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It was a joke hence the wink  nudge nudge...

 

Ambiguous in the circumstances, but I appreciate that ^.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

I have no idea about your disability (I am not a mind reader) but I did attempt to be helpful and encouraging by explaining in detail what made each of your sentences incomprehensible. You could look at that feedback and use it to improve your writing. 

There seem to be two main problems:

1. You use pronouns (“it”) and verbs with no obvious referent so it is very hard to know what the “thing” is that you are talking about

2. You seem to use words in non-standard ways so it is completely unclear what you are trying to say. 

So: be more explicit about what you are referring to and check the meanings of words in a dictionary before using them

I agree. Sorry,  I hit further than I should have 

I  see what you are trying to do and will try to use the feedback.

As for my 'disabilities' they haven't been that usually. Here, its self evident.

The point I was trying to make was,  that is all we can go on here. The evidence.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Stop playing the victim, this is a discussion site and if you refuse to make any sense, at all, a discussion is not possible, whatever the excuse. 

I did. No one asked you to waste your time.

I would rather over think, than assume I know it all,  so theres no further need.

I thought behaviour had biological connections. 

Seem this forum does not encourage further thought after all, and no use to people who might otherwise make use of it, to discover value to themselves in science.

On 4/22/2019 at 9:19 PM, Strange said:

Neither is communicating clearly.

If thats what you'd   rather discuss,  I accept thats another disability I have.  I'm sure you have your own.

On 4/22/2019 at 9:20 PM, dimreepr said:

What problem?

If you're trying to make sense, please try harder. 

 

If thats meant to be encouraging, please try harder.

Otherwise, your meaning is unclear and it comes across as bullying on the basis of my disability.

I'm disapointed that a science forum would accept that, rather than encouraging people to explore ideas, even they have trouble expressing  them. 

On 4/22/2019 at 11:22 PM, dimreepr said:

People have faith because they believe in something unproven, not a problem; until the politicians see a way to exploit it.  

Politics? Its seems you have made associations or some sort of picture after all, that you would prefer to turn around.

Is sexuality fluid?  (Gender?) 

Or is it Identity that is fluid, and sexuality just a condition that manifests according to the  values, ( 'factors' or other  conditions ) brought to it? 

On 4/21/2019 at 1:51 PM, naitche said:

 

Because I think it indicates there are basically two ways to approach the problem. 

 

 

I should have have included  the 3rd approach, Of viewing every thing as either self ( identity, ) or environment ( the conditions we have )

Comments made by Eric H and others including myself seem to indicate that reduction is not always a result of faith. But the idea of blocking or shielding seems to hold.

If conditions are subjective limitations, over come through recognition and response, I'm going to say purpose gives direction (or dimension) .

Direction and purpose are  inherent to  biological identity for  its integrity. Much of its condition is also inherent, which affects Response. So maybe accepting or taking in  conditions  beyond the self , Conditions Response.

Redirects  response and purpose to upholding integrity of the secondary identity, and the conditions its founded on.

The most beneficial manifestation of 'Faith' in the Religious sense,  could be to block that secondary conditioned response. Keep it  open to diverse direction, and ability of response.

Still gives  me some concept of what a multiverse might be.

Needless to say, mathematics are not my strength and might explain  why I have so much trouble untangling and expressing the values I need @Strange

21 hours ago, iNow said:

More precisely, it’s from a reconstruction of the environment, after the fact

Yes, thank you.

15 hours ago, Intrigued said:

I suspected as much, but I'm not clear what point you were trying to make. I think most would agree that perspective can and often does influence the questions we ask as well as the answers we give. Many would say, and I would agree, that this is normal and understood and not necessarily negative. All well and good, but how are you tying this into the role, or character  of faith?

Because I think it indicates there are basically two ways to approach the problem. 

One is from the perspective of environment, and the other as identity. 

Environmental perspective would be

some thing adds value, subtracts value, or has neutral effect.

It does not respond. It can only reject based on those values. Support or rejection isn't from the 'area' of environment, its from the content of environment. Weather or not a condition can find support there for its values. Based on those it has, and their ability to recognise another.

A person who who does not 'identify' with that condition as 'Human' or part of a common Human direction (in evolutionary terms) is more likely to see it from that  perspective. The person who sees their identity as some thing other, or independent of that condition. The person who puts faith in their own conditions of being or identity as the 'correct' manifestation of Humanity. The condition that  'shields' their Humanity from these 'other' conditions or  harm. If their own conditions of being were universal to the Human environment, the threat of those 'other',  harmful conditions would not exist. Then they could recognise  a common identity as theirs.

So to varied extents, faith imposes its own conditions on its environment. As 'Right' for Humanity or Identity. And reduces its environmental diversity to do so.

The second approach would be to recognise a set of Human conditions are not what they could be, or not contributing effectively to the human condition and to find out why, and how  that can be corrected or improved at its source. What are those 'conditions' acting on? 

Because everything is reduced to identity or environment. Identity is what is accepted as part of self. What that self  takes response -ability for, or respond to, to uphold its  self condition.

From your point, or perspective, as a single human organism, your dimensions and conditions are decided, by your genetic make up or internal direction with external factors being affective to that condition.

But your genetics have for the most part limited your own condition or point and its evolution is finished. 

I think cultures do the same for humanity, and we need to be careful in how we allow a Human identity to define itself. Recognition of its parts does not mean acceptance of their conditions. Just recognition of them as something to work with instead of against, to establish mutual values that don't detract from either. That contribute to the available space of both through their interaction. like our own cells do for their body content and condition.

2 hours ago, Intrigued said:

It seems, from my perspective, that your views are more heavily weighted with perspective than mine. Can I justify this? I think I can.

In my post, which you addressed, you suggest that I have viewed White Nationalism (WN) as something to be accepted as rejected. I commend a second reading of my original post. Nowhere do I imply WN should be rejected. My interest, in that post and this conversation, is the measurement of WN; how might it objectively and quantitatively be measured. Such measurements could support condemnation/rejection, or they could identify for White Nationalists individuals sympathetic to their views. The measurement is independent of how it is subsequently used and it might be used to support, attack, or simply observe WN.

 

   Sorry. I see I did that, but it wasn't my intent.

Re: Characterisation of a condition. I mean the same as the accepted definition. Characterising a cultural condition by either  giving or deducting characteristics that don't fall within that conditions strict definition. Or Characterisation by association.

It seems to me we are in agreement that is damaging to the human environment. Then use characterisation to combat it. 

On 4/17/2019 at 5:11 PM, Intrigued said:

 

How to measure White Nationalism? For example, determine preferred reactions to hypothetical situations. Or, measure the degree of acceptance of negative stereotypes of non-whites. It should not be too difficult for a comeptent sociologist to come up with several protocols that would ahndle this.

Perspective is a big part of this.

The perspective chosen will have a lot of bearing on measurement, if  identity as a space holds up to scrutiny.

We can measure it from a perspective of environment, where its a condition to be accepted or rejected. Your proposed measurements seem to suggest that perspective. 

Rejection though doesn't just target White Nationalism. To be effective it would need to target the supporting or contributing factors that may not in themselves be harmful conditions . Being White is likely the main one. So that part of the Human environment is discredited. 

Or 'we' could view white Nationalism as a condition within the body (or 'space') of a 'Human identity', that unchecked,  is harmful  to that body. With supporting factors that could be known and understood, or recognised, and addressed.(response)

As a  perspective of being (human) that can be corrected.

Recognition of potential,  or response, would be the positive value to the Human space. 

White Nationalists are unable to recognise the value of other conditions.   What values or conditions are they perceiving,  and Why? 

Why do they feel they need the shield or faith of white Nationalism?

What messages are they acting on and why the need to bang on the walls to be heard? Devaluation?

On 4/18/2019 at 2:02 AM, Intrigued said:

Take your time. I'm in no hurry. Just make sure your terms are defined and that there are no ambiguous pronouns.

Thank you. 

I know I am well out of my depth here, yet this is where trying to solve a problem has brought me and its hard to let go.

It will need to be one piece at a time or it will overwhelm me.

So this space of identity. I will define it as the area or environment of its being. 

Its conditions and dimensions decided by Response ability. What it can come to know, recognise and respond to.

Does that make sense?

On 4/18/2019 at 12:33 AM, Intrigued said:

I found my question relevant to almost every point and question in DrmDoc's OP, but I'll just select one example. DrmDoc said this:

"What have you observed, experienced, or accomplished that supports your faith?"

If an individual believes that faith has predominantly, or even exclusively positive and profound benefits this will provide a justification for their faith. If they do not hold such a view, then we must look elsewhere for the source of their  belief. Consequently I was interested to learn what EricH's position was on this. (And still am!)

I agree with both of these comments. I think perspective is a limiting factor of identity.

I will answer a lot more.  I've little time over Easter.   

On 4/18/2019 at 12:39 AM, Strange said:

I suspect that any negative effects of faith are only perceived by other people.

For example, someone might consider it to be a negative effect of faith that a Jehovah's Witness can't have a life-saving blood transfusion. But the JW would not see this as negative, just a "fact of life".

And, I suppose, a person of faith might go further and say that the negative effects only exist in the perception of the outsider.

1 hour ago, Intrigued said:

Exactly so, and thus having faith, would become a self-reinforcing, positive-feeback, unchallengable position. "Faith consistently supplies positive profound benefits, therefore faith is a good thing and since it visibly does this it is obviously something to accept and believe in unreservedly."

Thank you for your detailed response. If I understood what you meant by it I would be happy to reply, either agreeing, disagreeing, or questioning. Unfortunately, while I understood all the words and the superficial meaning of each sentence, I was unable to assemble the whole into a coherent point of view. I've struggled with several of your earlier posts. Please attribute this to my poor English comprehension* if it makes you more comfortable, but also consider the possibility that you are not as clear in your exposition as you imagine.

*As a native English speaker and occassional teacher of communication skills, I'm usually quite good at distilling meaning from word salad.

Sorry. I know I am not doing this effectively. 

I try to give too much information at once among ( lots of ) other things. I will try to do better. Its been a very long day and I'm not fit for it now.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Yes. But also irrelevant to the point being made. (I tend to think the positives outweigh the negatives, but I don't have any evidence for that!)

I think it can too, for those who follow its direction rather than trying to decide its condition. When its directions don't insist they are the same thing.

The un-corrupted or characterised message of religion could be to take responsibility for some thing greater than ourselves, for 'eternal' life. Continued evolution.Just not our own.

The K.C identity is an  extreme example. Their ability to recognise environment is Nil. 

Say Identity is a space. If you measure a space by a characterisation of its condition , or data, you are not reading it correctly. You are not putting value on what it says .in the moment. You are depending on past perceptions. 

The values of space and condition cancel each other out. No signal. Biological selection reflects this.

6 hours ago, Intrigued said:

This appears to contradict itself. In your analogy of the Pedigree Dog, the pedigree particulars are specific and quantifiable. The breeders focus on these quantities, rather than, as you claim, blocking all others. Indeed, they have to "measure" non-pedigree features in order to determine that they are non-pedigree.

How to measure White Nationalism? For example, determine preferred reactions to hypothetical situations. Or, measure the degree of acceptance of negative stereotypes of non-whites. It should not be too difficult for a comeptent sociologist to come up with several protocols that would ahndle this.

Yes. They are specific and quantifiable conditions. There are directions to meet or ensure them.  But those conditions are characterised, by what doesn't belong.

Not just for what those conditions could provide. Not for the value that could be found in them. They can't be anything that isn't already there. They are measured in the show ring. Not against unverified mutts. There is no measure of non Pedigree features. They are non -pedigree if they have no certificate of pedigree to say they are. The pedigree is the value.  The conditions set out in the statement and constitution are just that. conditions. So why are they measured in opposition to what would have been beyond them anyway?  Then measured the space their members, as an  identity would occupy. Those conditions are now to a defined space. 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

I agree. But naitche was trying to say that faith is "supported by physics". If that were so, then it would be possible to measure and model faith, make predictions, etc.

 

Measure no. Except by loss. Thats a prediction. As is discrediting environment when the identity formed is unable to meet  demands of environment.. I've provided a classic model in the reduction of Dogs for any who want to look at that. 

Language comes into the signals or data we receive. The direction we get is corrupted.

There is no value in a condition. Biological response-ability is to find value to self in varied conditions, seek it and manipulate it. Its subjective. To respond to conditions in way to maximise their own potential there. Its demonstration is copied.To measure the value of a space/identity by conditions, which are not stable, requires the organism to restrict environmental conditions to those that support the condition. Not recognise an ability to respond to  potential of those in conflict...

You don't measure a space by its condition, but by its direction. The evolutionary direction of an entity is decided and finished, when its condition is decided. The direction of an entity is decided by its content.

You haven't had an answer because thats like asking how many factors contribute to who you are. How your being expresses itself. As a constant. Or like How long is a piece of string?

How identity  expresses or responds depends on whats brought to it. What values are you are measuring?  There is no value with out recognition. If you don't see it you can't know it.