Jump to content

naitche

Senior Members
  • Posts

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by naitche

  1. To seek the potential of its being. Response.
  2. The value of Domestic Dogs lies in their commonality and purpose to a diverse human environment, Not in a statehood unequal to that. Putting Form before Function.
  3. Neither. Logic and application of biological law. If you create an organisation for the benefit of the community, then marginalise that community to their accreditation, then that memberships purpose is corrupted. From benefiting the community, to imposing 'standards' of acceptability and recognition. Certification in this instance would be for the purpose of standardising responses, making them conditional. Not response, Conditions of response. You can be accredited as say, a Mechanic- but that won't have the same effect because accreditation is not designed to keep machines out the hands of non-accredited persons. The feedback and information flow between the environment and the accrediting body is intact since the service provided (purpose) remains to the environment. In that case, accreditation is to better serve the unaccredited. So accreditation isn't the problem, restricting familiarity to the accredited is. The purpose is corrupted when environment of the organisation is unrecognised. if all the value is placed in accreditation, the environment is discredited. Standards replace response. Familiarity is then to standards set as acceptable within the margins of accreditation.I can provide examples to demonstrate how it works in practice and has already damaged the human/dog partnership,but its a long story. Many working breeds are on their way out , or already failed to maintain their value and purpose through 'accreditation' of Breed or Training Standards when those condition fail to recognise the diverse environments that inform the purpose. Restricting resource access to those initiated into an accredited environment serves only that environment.Purpose and responsibility will be lost to the environment over time, not gained. Dog ownership become irrelevant to the broader community who may eventually refuse to support it. We have no disagreement on that point. I think responsibility of Dog Ownership depends on our promotion and demonstration of the benefits, not the costs, to others. Accreditation to experience any lasting personal value or real familiarity though can only reduce its range.The kind of accreditation you propose isn't based on value to environment, but value to conditional standards . There is value in accreditation subjective to Dogs and the people who own them. Value is always subjective. Accreditation before ownership though draws an objective line of value between the accrediting body, and its environment. It will object to its environment. Its object will be to impose standards. The value is being applied to the wrong subject. Same mistake as critical theory, with the incorrect application of value.
  4. Yes to the 1st line. Please No! To the 2nd. At risk of taking this off topic, Formalized qualification for Dog ownership will have the opposite effect to promoting responsibility, with fewer qualified to lower standards. Familiarity is needed for responsibility, not standardised responses to a diverse environment. (Dog ownership and husbandry) You can't legislate your way to responsibility, Only reduce responses available with out cost out weighing their value. More often than not, the standards proposed make assumptions of dogs, and their environments causing both to be reduced for the standard set. Not improved, eliminated along with any potential direction they could have taken. Its a action that takes Domestic Dogs further out of their natural environment. A process predicted by the Kennel Clubs refusal to recognise the species beyond their own breed standards. The 3rd line has reliability only as long as Dogs are bred for their success and ability of response in the environments they are being selected into. Australian legislation already promotes an expectation of Commercial motive and Codes of Practice that will heavily impact on the availability of Dogs to pet market and especially of larger breeds and working breeds that can not easily transfer to Commercial breeding standards. Selection is also badly compromised.
  5. Cancel culture seems to be the chosen expression of Critical theory for many. It looks like a zero sum proposition, to expect 'improvement' from reduction of what you have to work with. Purpose becomes secondary to arbitrary 'qualification.
  6. Yes. So you see how that aids extremism, and polarisation when identity is politicised. When characterisations and spread sheets decide where a person must stand, 'as opposed to' Humanity as a whole. How acceptance of a Characterisation reduces the diversity and response- ability of an assumed identity. Imposes additional qualification. To reduce diversity.
  7. I don't defend the violence occurring on either side, but but pretty sure 'cancel culture' and de-platforming played a huge role in what occurred at the Capitol, and will likely provoke more unrest and polarisation while it continues. If perspectives are denied as illegitimate, not to be voiced, there is going to be mistrust of the institutions allowing that to happen.
  8. I.Q tests are arbitrary, in deciding Human value potential. So is Race, and intelligence. We have diversity. I can't see any value to such studies other than to discredit that.
  9. The language behind Critical Race Theory tells us that characterisations of human conditions are essential for equality. We must be responsible for actively upholding that ideal in all facets of our lives. Refusing space, standing or recognition of value to those who refuse to recognise in-equality. Characterising that as a 'set apart' from Human values on the basis of racism or bigotry, in broad terms that affect every area of our lives.. That assigns a negative or contrary value to a broad range of people who may display 'Characteristics' Language is altered to reflect the new definition of bigotry more accurately. And allows its perpetration on the 'set apart' to enforce conformity. Assigning a negative or contrary value to broad range of the population based on characterisations. It looks to me this allows the idea of a biological space, and prediction based on mathematical laws. Equality comes at the expense of diversity. Diversity is our environment. You reduce environment and keep dong that as long as you try to measure its value by its diversity, rather than its fitness for purpose. It creates belief that clouds reason and an enemy of humanity if we look to discredit its parts. When we could contribute to them instead. Alter perspectives, instead of removing their positions in space.
  10. Yep. Just some times you have to sift through a lot of shite to find them.
  11. Yes. By reducing obstacles to qualification in Education. Not by singling out who should benefit more based on characterisations of their diverse conditions. That redistributes the obstacles, with out understanding the effects that might have, but doesn't create any greater potential for humanity as a whole. You are not qualifying Equality. You are qualifying more Humans, for education.Their equality doesn't come into it. Thats assumed. Better than assuming racism or bigotry for the discrepancies, as characterisations of human conditions demands.. Diversity is the antithesis of equality.
  12. You are still measuring equality, whether of races or opportunity. And making characterisations of broad and diverse conditions to do so. And because of that, the language used by many often signals the reverse of your intent. Racial or cultural headings are their own spread sheet.Their use is fine in anti discrimination documents, To discount their characterisation as anything other than equal in Humanity. But when we use language in a way that characterises race, gender or colour as 'oppressed', and characterises the 'privileged' as oppressors, You are discrediting one set of conditions, to give credit to another. There is no assumption of equality in that. Neither is there real recognition of diversity. Only spread sheets. You can't qualify equality. I did, but couldn't figure out the relevance at the time. O.K. Fish...... I will watch again, and 44:30 too. I might enjoy more, but time... I suspect the fish reference I made was miss-interpreted. I mean't to draw the margin of humanity. That being fish is not Human being. That was un-needed so, my own fault.
  13. Thanks for the clarification. As I read the definition though, I don't see a conflict, or anything to say that an act of discrimination must always involve injustice. It means, You can't measure the equality of a sum with out 1st dividing its parts. Equality need some thing the be measured against. it requires an opposition, and that has to be found before the measurement can take place. I don't understand why thats confusing. Its the mathematical explanation as I understand, it can't be done. If thats wrong, I'm happy to hear why. From a biophysical perspective, an identified organism I will call an Identity, is maintained from within its margins. Its function is preservation of its integrity. Its form or manifestation, Recognising only what is already contained within. The content of the form recognise a commonality of instruction, or DNA.But its maintains its margins or integrity from within. A closed and marginalised ecosystem. To be maintained as is, the equality of its parts must be assumed. The conditions and forms of an environment exist by what is brought to them, found or taken from the environment. The environmental conditions that have come together to support its being. Conflate one with the other and you are left with 2 opposing forces, each reducing the the other. Thats as simple as I can make it atm, No doubt semantics can be argued. From that, an Identity is both a form of its environment, and an environment or ecosystem in its own right depending on the perspective its being viewed from. So if we are talking about the equality of Human beings, as a human entity, surely that must be assumed objectively, not subjectively. Or our diverse cultures are behaving as genes fighting for dominance of selection, to decide a final manifestation and acceptable form of humanity. Deciding limitations rather than potential. Form before function. The line between the identity and its environment is being blurred, if we can't view them objectively rather than subjectively.The Human environment is not subject to our will, we and our cultures are subject of it. Equality can only be the reductive measure of a sum. It is discrimination, and the promotion of discrimination. .
  14. A correction to my last sentence... Should read Critical Race theory. The flaw I see is in the promotion of Characterisation of human conditions. The language promotes reduction or restriction of environment, rather than addressing the actual problems it poses. Form before function. if you wish to address poverty, or lack of education opportunity, Race, gender, disability are relative.The form you recognise . But not defining of poverty or lack of education opportunity. Until you address those, other forms of discrimination will just take their place.
  15. Another attempt. Acceptance of a human Identity, in equality, is all or nothing. A human organism. That identity is marginalised by its nature. Its not inclusive of the environment its subject to.The margins are not yet 'fixed' while evolution is ongoing, To identify as human, fish are excluded. They contribute no value to legitimacy of that identification. The margins of accepted identity must be maintained as part of that 'being'. When 'no true Scotsman' holds true and been decided, so is its manifestation and evolution. We don't get to collectively choose who represents that condition of being until then.The margin is there, but not fixed while diversity is accepted. The function of a Scotsman is to live in Scotland or claim that heritage.. Nothing else. The commonality of perspective can't exceed that with out blurring the line between the identity claimed, and the environment. They are inseparable in Humanity. There can be no other characterisation, with out elimination of environment to maintain that 'truth of being' a Scot. So when I choose to 'identify' with one condition of humanity, and promote a common or characteristic perspective from that point, I must maintain its margins . It doesn't happen consistently or uniformly but does inevitably for integrity of that identification or 'being'. Its being is centred around the truths accepted for instruction of being. . But line of margin being maintained between the identity and its environment is blurred. Its no longer clear what is identity and what is environment. The line can't be maintained against the commonality of Humanity and its over all condition or manifestation. All these diverse cultural 'beings' are inevitably going to be bumping up against each other in the struggle to maintain a 'valid' localised perspective that takes no responsibility for the summation or whole Human environment. Identity is not inclusive of environment. Its purpose is to maintain self, Subject to environment. The manifestation of the human organism is not decided. Critical identity theory is seriously flawed in relation to the Human environment and the condition it finds itself.
  16. I should have said it may be seen as unjust, by the parred off. But there does not appear to be a conflict in my use of the word. There seems little point to this response, other than an attempt to discredit what I say on un-related grounds.
  17. I have lived at subsistence level for extended periods of time with various cultural groups. Its quite possible in smaller groups to live pretty autonomously with little conflict and no clear authority figure. Women would often carry hunting tools foraging with children. Opportunity doesn't care if you are a designated hunter. Children may may be 1st priority, and abilities hampered by pregancy, But the skills can be learned pre-child bearing to take advantage and some enjoy the hunt enough, or have the skills to relegate child care. None of these groups were Nomadic, and I under stand there are a lot of cultural differences. But my point is necessity is a great leveler.
  18. I see it more akin to a parring down. shaving something off. A reduction. Which will be seen as unjust to the reduced. But I will check the accepted definitions to see if they contradict that in any way. Thanks.☺️ Then money is a qualification or criteria for Education in those situations. The political discussion here invariably points to the obvious lack of critical thinking skills or any meaningful education in people entrusted with making their own political choices. So if education is in the interest of humanity and 'free will' it should be accessible to all, with out money being a discriminating factor. With out the money, the space is unavailable. It would be nice to work out better ways to finance that availability. While that holds true, I have no problem with that. While there are limitations on availability or acceptance, there will be some discrimination. Its the language that demands one valid perspective take universal precedence that I object to. That marginalise human conditions by assuming that a common perspective denied the rest of us must characterise that condition, and 'our' response, as opposed to, should be characterised to compensate.. Privilege and race are human conditions. We are not in opposition to Human conditions, or shouldn't be. They are what we have, in the space we have been given. Human conditions do have unique and diverse perspectives that we need to understand. To accept as human to respond to effectively. I agree! Familiarity, recognition acceptance and response to a human environment. I hope to answer this better, after working out a more effective way to demonstrate what I'm seeing.
  19. Currently there are limited places available in education. If criteria or qualification is put in place to fill those spaces, there will be discrimination. Increase the available space to students. This can be done online and and I believe on-line learning will be used increasingly. Maybe opening a can of worms re-qualification for the established educational institutions, but I think it will be inevitable . Poverty can be reduced, with programs and policies. Lack of familiarity with educational opportunity and achievement can be addressed. They should be. There are human conditions that will affect a persons likelihood of experiencing poverty or their chances of gaining places in educational institutions among other things. Colour, sex, disability are some of them. They are not identities .They are conditions of humanities sum. Equal parts of that sum. The act of dividing that sum according to perceived differences in value is, to me, racism or bigotry. The poor are not lumped into a group identity. Poverty is seen as human condition. Not an identity that can be defined in any way other than the broad and diverse definition of the word itself. Conditions of humanity are fluid and diverse. They thrive or not based on environmental demands and expectation. Their definition and manifestations are clearly understood. there are no qualifications other than a loose but clearly understood word. We all know what poverty is . What white or black is. what sex is. or what illness and disability are. We know they manifest in diverse ways. Human conditions are evolving and not yet fixed, one would hope. Identities though are characterised. They have fixed margins. Those must be maintained to uphold the integrity of the identity. If you are going to assign characterisations to human identities they have to be maintained internally for the integrity of the identity.... No true Scott. But the line between what is environment and what is identity is blurred because there is no separation! Its a Human environment. Science is defined by its practice, what ever form that presently expects. A woman is defined by her chromosomes, however they manifest. You can address the conditions as they present, in poverty or lack of opportunity. I see no need to address a persons colour sex or disability as a problem in itself, or as in any way defining of a persons value or potential to their goals or the whole of humanity. Not even in an historic context, because that implies inherent inequality which is some thing I don't think we want to promote. I recall a post on this forum where a black woman was discredited as unrepresentative of her black identity, because she did not fit the characterisation we are being taught to accept as 'truth'. It went unchallenged. Yet clearly she is black. Clearly she is representative of a black woman. Identity politics can only divide and marginalise Humanity because thats what identity infers, margins of acceptance or qualification. I doubt any one can claim Humanity has become less divided with the promotion of identification with distinct human conditions, over humanity itself. Yet we are told to double down on our intolerance to Human conditions in opposition. And an identity separated or marginalised from the whole by our characterisations can only be maintained in opposition. As opposed to... Thats a rejection of our human environment.
  20. I would think it likely that these early people were often in small nomadic groups where co-operation was essential and a persons abilities were encouraged and exploited, regardless of the 'gender issues' modern man seems to assume are inherent.
  21. We owe a lot to that partnership. I believe there is still a lot we could gain from it, that its perhaps an essential connection for humanity to our environment, being lost with the divorce of canine development and evolution from environmental demands.
  22. Agreed. But I think it would make sense then to try to finding those signals that are most close to 'universal' . ie; sound- A hissing sound seems most often a warning. Rhythm, pitch and tonality can convey a lot of information. visually, the same can be said for characteristic movements. Though my point is more that a better understanding of 'alien' intelligence must help in any development of a universal language.
  23. Effective communication could well require practice closer to home. Our understanding of biological communications is not great, partly I believe, because we are intent on teaching language, rather than communication. As 'the intelligent' species, we put put the onus on the 'lesser' to learn from us. Understand our method of communication. Doesn't make much sense. Working with animals depends on understanding the signals being given behaviourally, and creating or giving back patterns that will be be recognisable. There are different kinds of intelligence that we can come to know, to a good extent. The basis of communication for what is in front of us relies on pattern recognition. It must help to recognise diverse forms of behavioural pattern/signals for their roles in language between an environment and its subject to understand the broad dimensions of language. Animal communication can teach a lot about the diversity of language.
  24. Doesn't seem so to me. Those populations though close to it, haven't been completely 'closed'. Even if they were, I would think effects to be cumulative, and still progressing
×
×
  • 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.