Jump to content

naitche

Senior Members
  • Posts

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by naitche

  1. What I assume, becomes part of my existence or being. My self reality is based on those assumptions. If they are not objectively 'true', or universal, I would be basing my existence on belief. Not truth, or science. If I assume bigotry or racism, Or assume their lack, I will act on those as truths of my being. I will be unable to effectively recognize evidence that contradicts my being. So I will assume neither if our Humanity is the object of my study. I can assume both the existence of unjustified discrimination, and its absence. But neither are objective truths of our shared Humanity until they are assumed inherently into its direction. Its 'in-formation'. I will not knowingly assume bigotry or its promotion. If Humanity is the Object of of my study, I can not then Subject that Humanity to an assumption of bigoty that directs our form.. Thats not science, its belief. A refusal to recognize or accept what contradicts my subjective reality. Diversity is the antithesis of equality. There is One. The Object of study. Humanity. I objectively assume the equality of its parts to 'in-form' that One manifestation. Our equality is not in the subjective. Our diversity is subjective. Objective and subjective are contradictory values. An object is reduced to its definition. Of being- no other value but one. A subjective carries the potential of any other. Blur the line of definition between the 2 and you will objectively reduce the subject to a uniform state.
  2. Language plays an vital role in biology and many other fields of science. I think its worth while ensuring we are speaking the same one. J.P has said that part of the problem polarizing society atm are that we are literally speaking different languages and this seems to be aptly demonstrated here. So yes, I think its very relevant, given the O.P. Objective- Value is to 'state'. It places the value in the object itself, discarding any influence beyond the measure of its being. The value is confined. It is objective, of environment. Its the single, stand alone value of a state- of being. The value is in its being, or objective manifestation. Exclusive of environment or other value. Subjective- Value is to direction, The value measured is environment, its influence on the subject. Inclusive of environment. Subject to.... Delusional people were the subject. Only delusional people. Many of whom have have issues with understanding who they are, or validation of self . I find it interesting you do not see Trans Gender issues as universal or majority issues. You don't see that Trans gender issues might affect any citizen of any country who could have family members wishing to transition, and could use with support. Not a majority or universal issue, but some thing 'other'. Both are environmental, to the human condition. Of mental health and transgender issues, I agree the 1st is more readily recognized and accepted as part of the Human condition. Transgenderism has a way to go yet. Its not familiar to most but getting there with more people willing and able to present as such. If you want to focus on that tiny ball of fluff, no, its not my focus nor that of the O.P. See above. So maybe we should look at the language.
  3. I haven't been able to catch up with this and would like the chance to address questions put to me that I feel are very relevant to the O.P. and perhaps also to the polarization of the political environment in general. SH*ts happening though and I'm so far unable to take the time needed.
  4. You still have not answered my question. Are you applying subjective or objective values. Because you seem to be stopped by the 1st identifier of Trans gender as objectively inclusive of any further identifiers, subjectively. Absolutely nothing, if you don't recognize mental health as a minority issue. So disagreement with your stance or said law could imply nothing else? None have suggested we do. Only that we don't support delusion at the expense of the person where that choice is applicable. Anyone assigned at birth is not the same as some or even many,. Some or many is subjective, of those who are, delusional. You do no favors on behalf of the trans community to ignore its subjectivity and entanglement with environment. Thats not recognition, thats increased definition and exclusion. Again, thats not what has been done here. 'Any one who' is not the same as 'some or many who' I doubt it. Rejecting argument on the basis that it must imply racism or bigotry does little to foster understanding. Subjective and objective values are oppositional . Application of both corrupts the language to opposition. Social justice is a worthy cause, but C.T has altered its language to an oppositional state, not an accepting one in a belief both subjective and objective values apply simultaneously.
  5. Ah, Yes. I see. Trans individuals! Yes, that has been suggested. And there is no reason they may not be... delusional, individually. Though none have suggested its implicit to the condition. You seem convinced there is only one answer to the question; Are Trans gender people delusional, so what value are you applying? Are you convinced from the Subjective perspective of a trans individual, Or the Objective perspective of the Condition?
  6. Thank you. Made my day better when I could do with a bit of that.
  7. Is that what you think any one one here, or J.P has done? Because many of us can't come to the same conclusion from the language used. I don't understand how that could be an objective assessment. You accept your bias when you accept that Trans gender people are objectively oppressed. The language is corrupted to that perspective. Critical theory may be well intended, its effects are anything but if its O.K to blur the line between objectivity and subjectivity 'in reality.'
  8. Since this is now in speculations, maybe we can speculate with out the need for language perfection in an area where it perhaps hasn't been perfected. If some one were trying to publish a paper as a respected scientist, these critiques might be valid. But I doubt very much this site would be their chosen medium. For those that have chosen this medium, I think its own contribution to science would be better served by trying to understand what the O.P is attempting to say, and offer corrections or alternatives. Increase perspective rather than imply the one presented has no foundation. Whether or not the idea has merit is objective, not subject to other qualifications. Familiarization is required for Recognition. Response comes from there. Rejection is not a response but an inability to recognize value to the subject (science). That it has none has not been established. Its assumption removes the objectivity of science and reduces its value to other environments - Limiting participation. Qualification is Subject to science and decided by contribution, not qualification. Qualification is simply a support construct extended to participants towards its purpose. Better to support that construct than deny those who come to science with out it miraculously intact. I agree to the extent that if consciousness is the measurement of being, then the world we as a species have inherited is the manifestation of the values we have applied in the past tense and continue to apply daily. Or maybe we just haven't sufficiently developed the understanding of how those constructs tie in to and govern our own biology. I think those things are important and would like to see 'the intellectual mediums' available equally. To date, their availability has been unequal to Humanity and we could certainly improve on that. The conceptual in-ability though, I see as more as miss- application of values and the instruction/direction taken from that. One of the hardest things I found here was my impatience and the frustration that generates. It can make it seem to the un initiated that they are being piled on. Too many questions at once from too many directions and your resources are over loaded. My back ground had partly prepared me for that. I sometimes have to sit back and gather my resources though, before I try again. Its worth what feels a trial by fire, even when people are being entirely fair and justly critical. I can expect to face it again, many times. What I learn from it has been more than worth its while.
  9. Agreed. I think it is mostly environmental, (The tools and language,tech. we have brought into the equation, raised from potential and direction) but the results in evolutionary terms have increased our available environment exponentially.
  10. I think we just have to learn to read the reality in front of us, through familiarization and all its relatives, and not assume the next One is just going to be just more of the same.
  11. Consciousness and Evolution and behavior interest me. I believe yes, its a continuum. The same laws repeated along the whole of the chain. I see consciousness as the measurement of ones being. So the measure of the being is heavily influenced by available environment. The usual environment would be unfamiliar, unknown and un-recognizable to such an individual who would be unable to respond effectively or contribute to its value. The person or organism (whatever One object you are seeing) would be missing the foundations required for optimal use and response. i don't think the software is inadequate, just under utilized in our understanding and application. We are not as familiar with it yet as as we might be, to recognize the full potentials, and response-abilities conferred. They are the working foundations of our biology. We don't operate with out them. I.Q is said to increase with each generation. I believe a search of I.Q enhancement should bring results. There is so much more though, packed into that proposal than could be adequately addressed by such a study.
  12. Objectively, Incomprehension is not refutation. Its a singular, stand alone value. One. If its value is dependent or entangled with another, separate One, its not gonna stand on its own. It has no value as a stand alone focal object. Objectively, You have the value of one, just like every body else. Your being One neither bestows or subtracts from any other One. In an objective statehood. Thats objective equality. You can just call me One.
  13. I don't know if its any kind of silver bullet, I do think it an important part of the puzzle. The Nationals here in Aus. have agreed to net zero by 2050 after holding out this long. I'm sure Farmers For Climate Action has played a large part, supporting that change. That information and more, like the feeding of seaweed to Ruminants, is being amassed by farmers eager to do their bit and contribute. The pressure applied to the Nationals from within is one result. Bottom up. Weather delegates are able to process the information provided well enough to incentivize replication and further innovation, new direction in farming remains to be seen. The top down solutions proposed by many seem to focus more on what should be discarded or made redundant, than recognition of that kind of response-ability and potential. What to sacrifice, not what can be modified locally, without the more intimate 'local' understanding of the bits discarded or any potential they may have had. . The puzzle is too big and complex to be seen from a single perspective. I hope the perspective generated by the conference understands that well enough to take direction from participants of the puzzle, rather than just promoting their redundancies.
  14. Do you mean how many subjects you can find ? There lies endless potential. If the ability to respond is there.
  15. And the entitlement to un-equal virtue.
  16. An interesting study. Would tie into positive and negative reward systems of training/learning cognition. Blocking of unwanted behaviors coupled with reward would seem far more effective than 'punishment' or devaluation, much less likely to provoke resistance and ties in with studies showing that value (of behaviors, goods etc) must be demonstrated before recognition.
  17. And no one left in a position where taking responsibility for that won't be blocked by very heavy resistance. Direction is to function, not to form. Form follows, or looses further environmental direction in favor of maintaining state.
  18. Equal to those who insist these Human conditions manifest in isolation, independent of the environment they are subject to, and attempt to subtract their way to an ideal state. Look to Pedigree dogs to see where that leads. Nothing left to work with.
  19. Because it is patronizing, and not done in recognition of an equal. Its a pretense to disguise inequality. Acceptance of delusion. whether or not its harmless is subjective. You make assumptions not borne out by other perspectives, and it sounds like with out a genuine attempt at seeing for yourself, though I may be wrong. I don't think his debate is with minorities or that he unwilling to address their issues, but that he recognizes the dangers of assuming an objective collective identity that justifies the marginalization of humanity. Because it does. His argument is with the those people who believe you can assign us all to our relative boxes, and address the box instead of the content. While ignoring their spill and entanglement. 'Racist' and 'Far Right' are also used in place of counter argument here as disrespectful dismissal. Bell curve applies to all conditions of humanity with overlap across the board. As such, Human conditions are descriptive, not definitive. Application of objective values to Human conditions is objective- of environment. Definitive, and a corruption of Human language. It can only subtract, or exclude from the description. Acceptance of an objective identity requires that it be defined, for recognition. To object to what does not belong. Environment. Thats your 7(?!!) people who have actual mental health issues, as well as the free loaders, the outliers at either end of the bell curve and any other not strictly 'definitive' . It shrinks. Like the Demon summoned to materialize in a pentagram drawn on its navel. These Human conditions are Subject of environment It is. The arguments are not mutually exclusive, though you read them that way. Most times your chosen pronouns should be respected as a courtesy in common. No disagreement. But no virtue I can think of should demand I express a reality other than the one my own reasoning shows me. No. J.P. has been standing his ground and refusing to concede. He is not 'forcing' anyone. He is resisting being forced. Uncle Tom? Far Right activist? My reality says otherwise. Racists wet dream? I've defended IRL, too many times, black public figures from these slurs aimed and un-challenged by people claiming to be on the virtuous side. Two black opinions expressed. The 1st arguing for reparations and reckoning of todays humanity for suffering inflicted. The 2nd arguing for help where its needed today, to address the ongoing effects. Like drug dependence, Poverty, affordable housing, education and health access. Issues that stand in the way of equals to participation. Both valid perspectives. Nothing in one should exclude the other. But almost always, someone who recognizes their own white privilege then uses it to discredit the 2nd with those labels. Both are black. Both are equally representative of black perspective.. I was told the 2nd was not. Its inclusion 'cherry picking' because the author was clearly advocating a Right wing agenda. Thats your white privilege in action, choosing the representatives of the minorities you choose to recognize. Pretty extreme and not an isolated incident by any stretch. This is how your 'outliers' increase, not decrease. Part of your answer above. No. J.P is arguing Transgenderism doesn't exist Objectively. Its subjective. Backed by science. The same protections should be afforded equally.
  20. So do I. It has made a huge difference to my little piece of earth that was once classed as 'Dryland' and and what I feel is a great example of bottom up action, doing what you can where you are-tackling the issues you see in front of you from that more intimate understanding. Big tech/corporations have a lot to answer for in modern farming practices and agriculture education- and no doubt too many other areas. I have little faith in top down solutions that view agriculture from a monolithic/objective perspective. Australian Farmers for climate action are ensuring the information has been made available. If its kept to hand we will have to see.
  21. As a child migrant to Australia I was reprimanded by my class mates for addressing my teacher as 'Sir'. I explained it was the norm where I came from. I was told you never address a person with a title of respect that is un earned or excessive to their relative position. As to diversity, I found Australians in general very accepting, but part of that expression included drawing attention to your difference, maybe with a descriptive nick name(though not in the case of more intimate difference) eg. He may be a block head but hes ours. I believe the argument here and and in general is not weather we improve conditions for minorities or not, But if that is best achieved by providing Direction ie. be mindful that the world offers us all a unique perspective and try to understand and accept those as equal products of our human environment. Provide a 'better' perspective where one is imposing on others. A biological definition of response ability. Or imposing a perspective or statehood that reduces environment to that state, so avoids that responsibility. Objective Vs subjective values. Objective is subtractive, of environment.
  22. Explore other philosophies. These ones could just as accurately be described anti-free will. The ability to decide measurement of being, or values. Value is always subjective. This objective application is based on belief, not philosophy. By applying subjective value beyond the margins of the subject.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.