naitche

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.

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. .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sorry, I can't verify the accuracy but I recall 2000 as a population minimum for longer term viability.

Then the following sentence with its implied biological laws clearly didn't 'strike your fancy'.

Heres one. Recognition of biological space (ecosystem or environment) with subject matter being its recognised and identified forms. Its referent points of perspective. Points of biological space and ecosystem, subject to the same laws of selection as the whole. 'Self' identification dependent and emergent from belief, in form over function, or qualification of form to function. Self identification including the ultimate entropy or death of a fixed or decided ( no longer evolving) form of life form. Consensus of selection process is complete within that identified subject ecosystem or space. Self identity a manifestation of belief, marginalised by measurement or qualification of 'self'. I predict a revolution for known science as a result with new clarity in almost all fields. Language, Social sciences, physics including quantum, philosophy, law and more.

No. I am saying they are not the same thing. I am saying putting a value on human conditions is wrong. The human condition is , what it is. But its only one thing. You can only measure the human condition from a human perspective. Not enforce your own perspectives on humanity because a few chosen truths are seen as universal. Diversity is not universal. Its not equal. It is environment. I would say identity is a point of reference. Quantification of environment is not possible with out entropy, Quantification is a belief, not a fact. And becomes a point of reference. because environment is potential and to measure it is to limit potential to measures..We each have our own point of reference that is our perception and our Identity. We are the measure of our human identity. Beyond that all is environment. Each person and organisation, colour and sex, class and preference. Its all environment unless we are presenting our perspective from another point.i.e if were speaking as an M.D. or in the purpose of one. Group cultures work to provide reference point or perspective to specific characteristics, purpose or locality in relation to the whole. Much like gene selection. Culture is not stable to measure, and able to evolve both at once. You won't get equality until you recognise and accept its truth. Equally. if we oppose privilege we are in opposition to privilege. Where do we draw the line of what that will mean as long we continue to measure it?? it requires an opposition to meet. So an equal and opposite reaction. Polarisation. Equal only in conflict, but never the collective point of reference that human race implies. If we want to see more of some thing out there, responsibility says We should put more of it out there to be seen. Not take it from its remaining sources and throw it into the wind. We might as well do that as throw it at a relative of the real problems. We are going to miss and can't predict the results. thats not effective ecology.

Yes. But if a persons short comings are so obvious, the evidence shows a dis-ability, Its better for a science forum to accept that at face value. Not assume less value to science until we explore what a tune up might do. See what we each can give to make it better. I would think that the responsibility of a public science forum, to science. Expanding its reach. The recipient has the responsibility of accepting that with out opposition. They have sought out familiarity, and made the 1st move. Ability is only partly inherent. The rest is learned. The opposition often displayed here to obvious disabilities, without any effort to understand them, is not a good look for science in the broader environment. It doesn't make the field of science more attractive to the broader environment. Thats a negative value to science- from the environment. A demand to meet the expectations of science when basics are lacking is unrealistic. The environment does not meet your demands. It accepts or rejects in various degrees, and according to the properties of its content. Alter the properties of its content. Not the diversity of its content. Apologies @MigL The above is not a criticism of your post, used for relevance to the point I'm struggling to make of how it works in actuality, according to biological laws.. And a net loss in performance, or value to its purpose. You can't qualify either diversity or equality with the other. They cancel each other out.

Of course it does. But its not inherently true that it will. That would be fine, but as an analogy its based on a lot of assumption. Racism to me would be attributing value to race based on its diversity. I believe it was wrong the 1st time and is wrong anytime. It has and continues to have a damaging impact on the whole of humanity. I just don't believe that damage can be nullified by repeating same the formula in reverse. It doesn't work. How do you measure 'equality' in a whole without dividing it? I now was not directed at me, but yes. But not regardless of outcome.The out come is inherently negative. By all means investigate.but if laws recognise equality, it is relative. not causative. I believe it allows for that. Kudos to your wife. Not just for the work, but for her recognition that Colour was relative, but the causes were separate. If this girl could change her colour the problems would remain. Removing barriers is good and society does and has played a huge part. Some times the barriers are gone, its what was left behind them that needs repair. My argument is that you can't throw out the problem part of a machine or refuse to allow its wrong movement without creating more problems. You are trying to achieve a better result with less value over all.

No I didn't. I said it was lazy to make that assumption. I don't believe minority is the problem either. Minorities exist because of conditions that affect all of us, as a collective. Thats why they are relative and why we should care to improve. Minority is an act of division from our commonality.. And can be an effect of those conditions. Again. Neither Minorities or privilege are subject to our 'self' conditions. They are conditions of our shared environment and when minority is a problem, there are reasons separate from minority itself as an entity and common to 'our' whole. This is what the language says in combination with accepted biological law. It does not negate your perspective in any way. It just says you are not seeing the whole object/environment/condition for all it contains. Its parts. You are seeing it as subject to your 'owned' environment. Its relative. Not subjective. There is more to the 'problem' than your own perspective allows if minority is all there is to it. You have identified a division/minority. Fine. You've set it aside. But you still haven't identified its sum. The division is not helpful in recognition of a whole. You still don't know what to do with it apart from making up for its deficit else where. Dispersing the deficit rather than solving it.

Where have I suggested it doesn't? It does and is one of the properties of the object you are looking at. Depending on conditions internal to that object. But you are looking at it subjectively, in relation to yourself and your perceived privilege. It is not subject to your privilege or your self. Its parameters move independent of your privilege. Its external to your "self.' Its relativity is in its common purpose. Not the similarity of its parts and conditions. Environment makes demands. We either meet them, or we don't. Making demands of your environment seldom works to do anything other than reduce available available environment and responsibility.

I think theres a huge difference. If the problem is an excess, you equalise by elimination. And lower the median measurement overall. Its a reductionist solution, based on negative values. Privilege = bad. Remove privilege and ability of response to conditions faced. Assigning negative value to beneficial conditions (of your perspective or position )will lessen those. If not in your life time, in human evolutionary terms. If the problem is a lack, you add value. And increase 'privilege' and the median by which its measured. In my world there are people, who don't get good jobs because they are not positioned to attain that function. If I can understand why, the factors that position them there, or what is lacking, I might not be able to alter their position, but I can almost certainly add value to it. I think its lazy to say the guy down the back isn't up front because some one else is.The fact is one is in a prime position and another is not. Those positions or points exist. Eliminating any of them does not add value to the score. You can assign positive and negative values to diverse conditions, and eliminate the negative for a net loss. Or we can find ways to add value. To improve functionality to purpose from the points of reference we have. Improve diverse conditions for a net gain. Form follows function The above link shows that as a collective we have diverse points of reference or perspective to the purpose or function of throwing an object into a basket. Some favourable, others less so. It doesn't help us understand or utilise those points, or to maximise their function or purpose. There is no value to any of those points but what we assign. They exist only in relation to the function or purpose at hand. If 'we' identifies a collective. So yes, if your purpose is to equal - outcome, or functionality, diversity of form or function is a hindrance to those predictions. Form would decide function if thats the measure you use. Its hindering that equal-outcome if you think the form of your privilege and position gives you greater value. And you think you can correct that by making the value a negative. That does nothing to increase response ability for whats needed. If your goal is reliability to function, you need to look at and understand the individual points of reference. (or diverse parts ) Their conditions and position . Their properties and relativity of purpose . How the the overall conditions of that space are affected by position, relative to the other points of its existence. You are searching and reaching potential in those actions. Maximising abilities of response to a changing environment. You are more familiar and have more knowledge of @VenusPrincess than I have. You are looking at their post from a different place than I am. I saw no argument against equality of value. Only an assertion that measurement of equality against conditions, or points of perspective implies one. What is the measure of equality? Nothing.

But they aren't caused by privilege.

I have a lot of problems with the idea that promoting 'our' privileges does anything whatsoever to help those less able, other than to increase their sense of helplessness, and the numbers who will qualify as less-able. If privilege is the problem, All you can do is reduce the problem. Privilege. Disabilities, like privilege, aren't a single thing that can be simply addressed by broad group classifications and redirection of resources to 'classes' of need. It ignores problems faced. This idea doesn't ask us to recognise the problem in front of us.. Only a classification we are asked to compensate. Not help overcome. We just work around it and hope to make it less visible. It doesn't value diversity. It promotes an idea that everything should look the same where ever we stand. Its a promotion of negative values and expecting a positive result. A rejection (get rid of it) of environment instead of recognition ( what can I add to create a positive value.). The reality of whats in front of me to deal with, I'm expected to base on beliefs about classifications of people. And what compensation I owe for my greater value. My own understanding of biophysics and the language that expresses it says this ideology or biological message is faulty and counter intuitive to further evolution. Potential is subject to how we respond to the conditions we are able to recognise. Which requires we first come to know them. Familiarise. Recognise as part of our own conditions to accept and improve. That says conditions should decide our responses, instead of us responding to conditions. That the value is in our own condition, and not our ability of recognition and response. So its now a question of how to repeat your own conditions universally. Anti-diversity. Conditions decided based on value belief. It is backwards to me. Imposing singular perspectives of conditions, whether or not they apply to the reality in front of you. Its the same as Pedigree Dog Breeders who like to say "form follows function" So decide the form and wonder why function doesn't follow'. There is cognitive dissonance on one side of this argument or the other. You see value in form. I see it in function.

Not the full answers you are looking for, But I remember a talk given by a a geologist of his trip to a recent (under 10 year old) volcanic island and the teams excitement at finding the 1st plant. Much fuss and conjecture trying unsuccessfully to identify the species . One of researchers wives solved it. It turned out to be a tomato plant growing out of the excrement of one the research team. Bird/sea mammal droppings, and ocean borne seeds and weed (coconuts etc) combine to start the process.