naitche

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.