by Luke Weinhagen (via brandon hayes) The disconnect: One group of people views

by Luke Weinhagen (via brandon hayes)

The disconnect:

One group of people views ethnicity as identity. So, subjective and objective measures become personal. Acting on those measures becomes conflict – a discrimination against an individual’s existence.

The other group of people views ethnicity as a technology. So subjective and objective measures become diagnostic. Acting on those measures becomes resolution. Discrimination against the behavior’s existence.

–CurtD–

Analysis and Operationalization;

The use of ‘identity’ is a cover for ‘status and self image and the narrative and visions I have used to produce my self image, in pursuit of status – status I do not have, only aspire to – and is purely illusory mean of psychological sedation” Because those with Knowledge, Wealth and Power do not need to defend status or self image, only reputation from defamation thereby diluting their power.

When we suppress consumption of private and commons by one’s behavior – we force the individual to bear a cost of mindfulness: emotional, impulse, and physical self-regulation.

Individuals object to and resist bearing this cost. They resist bearing the cost to their self-image, resist the cost to their status; resist the cost of debts to the normative commons; resist the costs of self discipline; resist the cost of developing mindfulness (learning); and together they resist the cost of developing Agency.

Conversely individuals desire the least cost to their self image, least cost to their status; least cost to the debts to the normative commons; least cost of self discipline, least cost of developing mindfulness (learning), and together they resist developing agency.

The difference seems arbitrary, since the choice is simply (like all others) the difference in outcomes between the production of agency and normative commons, and all other commons that result – or non-production of agency, non-production of-normative commons, and non-production of commons as a result.

The individual may feel he is free to impose costs upon the commons if all others are – and this is why we must universally suppress costs to the commons.

The individual may feel that he has earned imposition of costs upon the commons by observance of some other conformities or goods – and this is why we must universally suppress costs to the commons, so that we never earn such impositions.

The Individual may desire to obtain attention (rebellion) by imposition of costs upon the commons – usually for his low status.

The individual may desire to impose costs upon the commons as an act of hostility against the investors in the commons – usually for his low status.

Cheers