naitche

So faith does not exist? White Nationalism? How would you measure that? The condition is data. Blocking its signal doesn't remove the condition. You just don't get it. I'm saying Faith blocks the signal of data. Nothing can be brought to Faith. Including measurement. Thats value. You want a measure of absence. I'm saying Faith is Absolute. Truth. Nihilism. Unsustainabillity. The opposite of measurement. An absence of possibility or direction. A lack of diversity and the blocking of any value that does not support that condition alone. To the exclusion of all other. It excludes value, in false 'support' of a condition, as a value in its own right.. Look to the lack of diversity in a Pedigree Dog. Or their breeders. Whats missing is an ability to respond. To anything but the validity of a Pedigree. The value of the dog is in its Pedigree. Never mind that it can't breathe. With out the validation of a pedigree a Pug is not recognisable as a Pug, to those who believe a validated pedigree standard is the 'true' manifestation of the dogs value. Faith is exclusive by nature. Those who value a Dog for other values, beyond that standard state and seek to achieve those are discredited, as are the resultant dogs.The message and data from environment are blocked. 'Improvement' of that state can only come through elimination to an optimal state. The measure of a space by an absolute condition, not its direction. Not by the data it might provide, but by conditions, that are not constant. Its reductionist of values.

The body was characterised by its limitations. Not direction or possibility, which is now seen to be inherent to the conditions.

@Strange from the percentage thread. If I'm not mistaken, its faith we are talking more than simple belief. It seems to work, for me, seeing identity as a space. Limited or confined to/by its common direction. That gives its 'character' or manifestation. A human is not a spider. The direction a human takes is limited to what can be characterised as human. What the human culture/environment accepts as part of its 'self' depends for the most part on what is recognised as ' Humane' or agreeable to the overall human condition. This debate seems to have reached agreement that 'faith' is essentially 'holding to a positional perspective'.If someone states their position, they don't expect to be moved. Faith seems to be when the value of a persons space (character or or identity) is seen to be dependent on the position they hold, or conditions they adhere to. Measuring the value of their space by its conditions. To do that seems to require a characterisation of that condition by other than its given definition. By perceived characteristics of the condition. What it means to the individuals character, or what it says of them. So their self belief or 'self reality' is dependent on holding to that perception of condition to retain personal integrity. Holding to that position has little effect mostly, on their environment depending on how the conditions they up hold for personal integrity are supported by the environment they find themselves in. Any costs are generally restricted to that person or their immediate space. Cultural conditions, to be identified with, are also characterised by other than than a strict definition. To give identity to women or Christianity for example require a characterisation of that condition and what it means to individual perception of self to belong. To retain identity, that characterisation has to hold true. To be an identity requires a positional perspective of self to be upheld. Its not based on commonality with the Human environment, but with what defines it as apart or as separate and distinct from. A space is defined by its limits or direction. Not by its conditions.To measure it by definition of its conditions can only limit it to those conditions. Conditions are limitations. Response of life overcomes limitation, and ideally gives direction or space to the identified subject. And ability of response, or response-ability depends on its diversity or what can be accepted as part of an identity. What is environment and what is 'self'. It seems to me if a cultural identity is invested in its position, or committed to its perspective, its direction must be limited to where they are unopposed by environment. To where conditional values hold true. Other values (or response) brought to subjective conditions must be discredited where they conflict with conditional value of the identity. It seems this is a contributing factor to the polarisation of cultural society we see today. Space is denied to conflicting cultural values of condition. Agreement is demanded for conditions of locality or position, rather than common direction. From my perspective here, This seems to be supported by physics, the language we use to describe it, and biological selection. ie cultural 'faith' does not recognise environment not inclusive of its conditions, or characterisation of being. If you can find fault with this reasoning it will be welcome. So far its only been reinforced in debate and thats kind of scary for its implications. Accepting characterisations as truth of identity must fix those in place, and to deny environmental input over conflicting values of condition requires reducing environment to what its able to contribute to the characterisation. Discrediting or eliminating conditions in conflict with the 'ideal' of characterisation. I tested this with the Kennel Clubs as the cultural identity. That body was set up to to create conditions more favourable to Dogs and Breeders as the subject. Then characterised by their own standards of pedigree with a statement that other manifestations of Dog or breeder are not recognised by the body of that identity. Its not parts of their environment they don't recognise. Its Dogs and Breeders they don't recognise. Those are valid to the K.Cs reality only if they meet the Pedigree standards of recognition. They recognise the Pedigree. The dogs become a representation of the standard, or invalid. The subject is still dogs and breeders. But the environment that enabled that body is discredited and reduced in an attempt to characterise what it means to hold that identity, and the result is dogs and Breeders being reduced by a process of definition or standards of being.

It looks to me like this is supported by physics, language and biology, but this is not the place to try and show why. Happy to be shown wrong, so I will try to answer in the Religon forum. ( What is faith?)

There is evidence surely in the impact of the politics of identity. Where value is placed on cultural conditions.

Enough to convince me, but after trying to come up with examples I see it takes this thread far off topic so would need to be a new subject. It would need a good look at the organisation as organism hypothesis, thought I see that hypothesis as missing the mark too..... (More like culture as organism) And to define 'belief' or 'faith'. In the singular I agree the effect is insignificant. When promoted culturally, not insignificant.

For the direction those take, Yes. Directions not seen because of common beliefs, either won't be taken in the 1st place or that direction will be blocked by common/environmental expectation. The direction of humanities Biology and evolution are going to be influenced by the beliefs Humanity holds. Belief limits direction.

I think belief and faith have much to do with biology and evolution....for their influence on direction in evolutionary terms. Limitations imposed by faith or belief on directions that might take I agree his focus on religious belief might be missing the mark.

Many of the reasons its 'not ideal' today, would not have been such issues in the past. With extended families, those children would have had an advantage that would also extend to perpetuating the genetics for longer life spans and familial cooperation.

Question yes. No, not exclusive. to one side or the other. A Human trait, to be aware of. If you place barriers to a persons direction, you can't hold them responsible for choosing another. They can't be held responsible for the direction that opened for the displaced. As for taking responsibility for Trump, looks like they have, if his antics are worth what they gained. You won't change peoples conditions by denying them legitimacy in the collective. That doesn't address the condition, or even attempt to change it to a better one. It just says theres no place for them in this space. Trump represents an alternative direction. I doubt many people actually see him as the example thats been set or the lead to be followed, as much as a direction left open for diverse perspectives not accepted else where.

The shame of it for the left is the idea that if you are not with us, you must be against us. Dissent with some aspects of policy on the left sees people shut out and silenced, denied any space there. There are really only 2 choices. Having good intention doesn't exonerate bad outcomes. A persons choice of which side to support, if a choice must be made, is subjective. I think its a huge mistake for Left thinking people to assume its objective. That the mass of humanity supporting the opposition in elections are supporting a similarly singular ideology as a fixed identity.

Yes.

This works, and can be clearly seen at work when you gain the perspective needed. Individual response-ability is crucial to the direction taken. Diversity maximises that ability for the cultural identity through demonstration of value, and where/how it can be found. Limiting what can be done is not a positive direction and can only limit environment in unforeseen ways.

While those institutions are supported to do so through the choices we as individuals make. Application of negative values can only reduce environment. Not increase it. Thats an attempt to reduce the environment to an optimal condition. Like pedigree dogs. Clinging to that idea can only continue to reduce . Its rejection of environment. Not a response to an environments to optimise its conditions. Its an inability to respond. Environment is what you have. You can work with it or against it. Working against it does not improve its condition. It reduces the conditions you have to work with. Thats if successful, in opposition..

Sounds like a central perspective of the same principles at work. Opposing cultures struggling for ascendance. Like genetic selection- which message holds most value. And what exactly is the new one? Maybe we should be discussing that. That remains to be demonstrated and the environment can't do that. We demonstrate it to the environment and so form the expectations it holds When we get it right, more of it becomes available for our use. Like when you clean up your backyard. Its all some ones back yard. The value demonstrated by that action increases the available space. As the share holders I mentioned did for their environment. As an identity in its own environment the company expects that will improve its prospects and potential. As parts of our environment, it has no value of its own.. Any value positive or negative is brought to it by how we respond to it, what purpose we can find in it. It gives me the idea idea of a multi verse. Every identified subject has an environment, but also is an environment for all it contains. The selection processes decide what it does contain.

Thanks, I' ll check that out. Yes. I think its possible yet to to speed things up though. By taking the actions we can as individuals we demonstrate value in taking them, and promote that direction. Play a part in changing whats expected , by what is seen.

The environment we have, including Govt and institutions are as they are because they've had the support to be. We get the conditions we best support. Negativity supports low to zero expectations of response ability, and leaves the environment to limit the response its getting.

I understand your position and would have followed that several years ago. Also your points made here and else where that its not a matter of capitalism vs socialism. But we are the tide. My own study and observation though all points to the idea that Humanity is a space, whos direction is decided by the messages its operating on. Collectively these seem to be driven by economy and consumerism that are said to drive economic growth and its connection to global stability. The human space has been 'conditioned' by those. They are the conditions we've been supporting for Humanities direction. If we are to support another condition in conflict with that message we do need a paradigm shift that can only alter that direction by supplanting the message we have been conditioned to Volume counts here. Parts of humanity can't alter direction for all until its gained acceptance. Not without opposition. Its a single space that won't be split without creating opositional force. We have just had a coal mining company announce caps on production and diversification into more environmentally friendly technology, driven by share holders. It still looks to me like its the volume of acceptance that will drive change upwards, that we get in governance and institutions what environmental expectation demands. What reflects the direction we have. Environment is does not respond. Expecting that Govt. and institutions will drive change is expecting environment to respond to our needs, instead of our own response shaping the environment. Any actions of Govt. and institutions, as parts of our environment, must have the support to be effective. Govt and institutions can only limit the direction we take, not change it. They are only parts of the direction we take collectively, parts of our environment. They can accept or reject our responses, not direct the form it will take.

Appreciate the link, thank you. I'd been lead to believe the carbon uptake in oceans was increased by the action of nutrients released into them. I agree with that. The last sentence most. I just think the pardadigm shift has to be whole community inclusive one, so its not just tiny handfuls of conscientious people ceasing use of plastic straws. Otherwise it looks too much to me like tweaking the margins, and that within a very narrow perspective of what I will call the political class. Who are mostly not seen to bear any of that cost personally. If humanity is going to change its direction, it has to recognise a new one and the value of changing it, before corporate interests and individuals are held accountable. It is a huge problem and so complex. Focusing on the negatives only, or costs, is not good marketing. There has to be demonstrated benefits to change. People recognising their own abilities to experience them . We need to find ways to give the new direction more value. Ways to demonstrate it. A paradigm shift that includes economies.

Yeah. I still can't understand why there is little to no pressure for Govt. to process and utilise sewerage, and maybe algae resulting from poor water quality. With world wide fertiliser shortages that are essential for farming and often land reclamation thats an area where govts. could 'take actions beyond the scope or abilities of individuals.' I think there are ways to encourage people to do more and remind communities of their more personal abilities to respond to the problems they see while helping to shift attitudes and awareness. With out imposing costs on those least able to bear them. An idea I recently heard of is creating 'Forrests of the dead' where I believe people can bury or scatter ashes on barren land and plant a tree with a plaque that will be tended until established. That idea could reduce costs of burial while creating public spaces, reclaiming lands at little cost. We don't promote the good ideas to offset climate change as much as we promote the urgency and cost. Its too complex a problem to expect simple solutions that can account for and address local conditions. Being willing to pay for action by others demands they prioritise and isolate problems that are not isolated, and by prioritising those we sacrifice environment. I'm pretty sure that encouraging individuals to take responsibility where they can, and to examine their own choices, making change where its within their abilities, is the only way climate action can be effective or 'real'. Anyone heard of the man who has developed a way to remove plastics from the oceans cheaply and effectively? Just a rumour to me but sounds promising.

I don't think climate change and the decline of 'natural' environments can be so easily separated. With those changes listed in the video Itoero linked would be increased carbon sequestration. Reverses in desertification do the same with better soil health,increased plant growth and more carbon taken up. Less use of fertilizers, pesticides and heavy machinery needed, And it seems much of the advise given to combat these problems is often part of the problem. Progress is being made, less from legislation than from individuals with a more intimate understanding and long term observations testing their ideas and sharing results. Some times risking prosecution and persecution to do it, because their actions may conflict with legislation introduced to appease city based activists with no real understanding of a problems complexities. Its starting to look like livestock can play an important role in preservation and improvement of grasslands. We build our cities on the most fertile lands. We consume what remains, and pump our waste into the oceans, depleting the soils and allowing them to flow into the oceans along with the artificial fertilisers that are needed to stay productive. We allow agriculture to become an industry operated more and more by huge companies who are about appeasing shareholders and assuring steady profits. Not preserving a future or providing a lasting legacy. More power to the money in how we consume, and what we consume. Mono cultures aren't the answer. It seems diversity is. Not just preserving things as they were/are, but increasing and maximising diversity. Yes the world can support a lot more people. It will cost us dearly tho', in quality and diversity of life, opportunity and potential and even our human diversity and abilities. Climate change isn't just about the carbon we release, it just as much about the earths ability to process it and 'heal' itself.

Yes. All the best. An experience to be missed.

Found this by accident and thought it was pretty cool. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nLmM9kcBKs&list=PLa7yKTU1TESVh7BRf8zX6PLDHKmnyZ5d7

Not a 'super brain', far from it, but before modern technology selective breeding over centuries was well on the way to creating a complimentary intelligence in Domestic Dogs. What could be done there with modern technology, information and greater ability to search out desired traits could be utilised to further that past section process incredibly, if it was still seen as beneficial. Not so common as to define the species by any means, but there were and are still (rarely) found , some amazing examples of intelligent responsibility in dogs. Environmental selection was hijacked by the Kennel clubs to meet their own conditions of physical conformity before environmental fitness and ability of response could be considered. The result has been a decline in mental and physical fitness, and response ability to environment that continues. So if you are talking human, I think it could be done, but eliminating environmental selection to do so would more likely bring unintended consequence. Appreciation, morality and other traits not considered, or their roles and manifestations not fully understood could see the benefits of this 'new race' become more a liability or responsibility than intended. Selection in the hands of a few rarely benefits the environment beyond their own understanding and knowledge. Losses of other valued traits happen more gradually and pass unnoticed with generational memory.

Looks that way to me, globally. Not sure if Its restricted to democratic politics or even governmental politics. Looks more like cultural politics in general, More noticeable in countries where cultural unity has been relatively unchallenged in modern history. The root cause must be opposition, surely? Equal and opposite reactions seen a single identified subject, being humanity. Working out its global identity. How that will be expressed, and how much freedom of expression that will leave. Some believe the expression must be uniform for equality in diversity, or to be inclusive of diversity. Others believe a uniform manifestation of what is humane doesn't allow diversity. Restricts the responses available to the more local conditions they are contending. That a uniform disguises diversity where it manifests, and limits responses. Historically, Cultures have been oppressed by other cultures depending on proximity, and how inclusive and/or their relative strengths. They operated with relative autonomy, in relative isolation. We are much more connected now. That increasingly no longer works as we become more connected. I think humanity as whole recognise that past injustice as an attack on the human environment that needs to be rectified for a viable future (of the human race). But are polarising on weather setting conditions gives us our human identity, or weather that hinders our abilities to respond to conditions presented, so they become whats required in a subjective time and place. So some where in the middle would likely be to recognise some spaces need to be limited to a uniform state for a common expectation to be clearest. Held to a reliable condition where thats essential. While other spaces need more freedom of expression or response to meet the conditions that manifest. I don't think the two cultural elements will progress past this by trying to eliminate expression of the opposition or we haven't realy learned from past mistakes. Or that there is a definitive demarcation between the opposite poles. I think we need to be familiar with both perspectives before we can see where compromise is appropriate. Sometimes context is needed. Sometimes its better to have a condition without context. Public vs private. We have to recognise a distinction. JMHO.