naitche

I would also say acceptance is the answer. Of what? Of your existence? Like, instead of asking Why am I here? What is my purpose? Well, Here I am. How will I respond? What response makes the most of what I have to work with? Accepting what you are/have/been given- your condition, what ever it is. And your own ability to respond to to that. Or not. To alter your condition, or not. And the consequences of not exercising our ability to respond.

Viewing an identified subject as the environment for all it contains also allows for a greater understanding of the form, nuance and interactions between environmental expectation, demand, acceptance and rejection and the role of response and recognition. The properties of environment as a space, and of realising possibility and potential within an identified space. Recognition as a 'part' of some thing is not the same as acceptance and there are demonstrable effects that those terms should not be interchanged in social or cultural constructs. Social or cultural constructs can be viewed as as diverse parts working together to a common intent. Recognition of parts of the whole allows them to work together while maintaining independent response and can only be achieved through familiarity. Expectation is set by familiarity. Demonstration shows possibility and potential and is maximised by diversity. Acceptance implies a complete responsibility with out allowing for independent action of parts. Less autonomy or 'free will' if you like. Less diversity of response recognised to ultimately be accepted.

It does make it hard to know what science discipline this belongs to since it includes language, (re; the messages an identity is operating on) physics, biology, belief etc. seems a very unifying concept of multiple fields. The best analogy I can think of is to view an identified subject as as a biological body. The belief of 'self ' or foundation of that identity can be viewed from the same perspective as the selected genetics of a biological entity.

I've found very similar when looking at the 'culture' of the kennel Clubs via their written constitution, mission statement and rules to explain the the overall mess dog breeding Culture is in and the lack of 'environmental support' for breeders, and values of breeders. And wondering how to begin. Because it does work, and has implications ( very sure ) for any ongoing, identified, biological construct. Not so much new, but a different perspective.The basis being that an 'identified subject, or 'identity' is the environment for all it contains. held together by the homogeneous traits of common purpose/belief of self. What that identified subject is based on. It allows broad but what looks to me like very accurate predictions. The Mission statement of most Pedigree Dog registries is often headed with the statement that (basically) Dogs not bred to the pedigree protocols laid out as conditions of membership will not be recognised. There was an environment set up create more favourable conditions to support Dog breeders. But with that statement, they don't recognise dog breeders, they recognise only the limitations of their own identity. They don't recognise their environment- what they were founded on. Purpose and responsibility are lost as they discredit their environment (dog breeders) in favour of the Pedigree. A pedigree represents a 'Standard' An environmental condition. Limitation. The value in dogs does not lie in the pedigree. The show ring. It lies in Dogs bred to respond to the needs of their natural environment in all its diverse conditions, and the natural environment for Domestic Dogs is Humanity. Dogs bred in the environments they contribute to, for the value they offer. not a narrow environment driven by how predictably they conform to the conditions of the 'standard' environment. The K.C culture that has dominated for over 150 yrs does not recognise the diversity that could allow a viable response to the conditions of their environment and not the response that their environment demands.They don't recognise their environment- What they were founded on. If we consider everything not of our 'self', our environment, then how we 'identify our selves' in our environment has great bearing on how we will be excepted or rejected by it. Environmental conditions of humanity, or the 'Human condition' become sex, colour, race , religion, marriage. All are conditions of the human environment or the 'body' of our human identity. Are we part of it, or not? Are there conditions on our acceptance in that identity and and are we meeting them? Or maybe lowering expectations . Environment is the space we are given and the conditions that gave rise to our existence We can add value to that space through our ability to respond, our response -ability to it, or try to shape conditions to be so narrow and predictable responses become fixed. Denying an ability to respond in any other way. A narrowly defined identity is not diverse. it is anti diversity and unable to respond to changing conditions.