1
   

The Major Importance of "Minor" Elements

 
 
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 11:44 am
Hi everyone! One of my favorite topics (besides philosophy) is the intersection of anthropology/race/genetics. To most people in this field, the genetic makeup of Europeans is well known, and often studied.

Most - if not all - Europeans, although primarily "caucasian", usually possess anywhere from about 1% to 5% "non-caucasian" or "non-European" genes. In the East and the North, these are usually Asiatic genes, and in the South, they can be anything from Sub Saharan African, to Arabic.

The same thing usually applies around the World, to a varying degree. Middle Easterners tend to have some minor amount of Asiatic or African genes, East Asians tend to have some minor amount of European genes, and so on and so forth.

Although to most people, 1 to 5% is "irrelevant," let's consider the following idea/theory, for a moment :

Every second of your life is made possible by 100% of your genes. You're not a hybrid car, where you can just shut off the electric part of the engine and run on gas, or vice-versa. Every moment of your life, you live with that 100% of your genes, and without even 1%, you aren't really "you." This idea can be applied to things beyond ancestry. Your computer, your TV, any electronic device or functioning organism, can only really be/exist/function as a "100%" element, right? 99.9% doesn't cut it.

Simply put: without 100% of your parts, you're nothing. You need every "piece of your puzzle."

So, what I'd like everyone to opine on is:

What do you think of this idea? What are the implications, if we choose to accept it as valid?

Should 1% of you be equal to your sense of identity as 99% of you, just because you need that 1% to function, or because that 1% is consistently present? Or should it at least be "elevated" from "seemingly irrelevant" to a more respectable place in your identity/who you are? If so, should Europeans feel more "non-European" because of their minor, non-European elements? Or anybody else feel more identified with "something minor in their genes" for that matter? Should your Great, Great Grandma be more relevant to your identity, if we accept this "1%" notion? Should a small, seemingly worthless chip in a PC or TV be given more credit? How does the relevance of 1% of a society, versus the relevance of 1% of you, measure up?

Thanks!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,264 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
imans
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 01:40 pm
@DannyBorkowski003,
i wish i could make across my reaction to ur idea right

the example is very much alive of what i always mean being wrong ways of meaning

my answer first,

if u admit else through the recognition of whatever that one percent is, then u can b u hundred percent independantly of ur genes that u would accept too as else then
but does it mean that u would invent another being without genes?? of course not
u would simply learn slowly how to realize urself right through else objective existence, which would makes u knowin how to deal with else in normal basis like quotidiennement while at the same time ur free sense of truly being would increase makin u discover ur true self from what u are really enjoyin freely understandin it and recognizin it perfectly since from what u realized and did hundred percent objectively

the idea is that, urself is not ur ways nor ur constant state, urself is ur true identity so ur superiority so through only what u succeed in realizin and doing alone, urself belong to self justification being freedom exclusively
so only ur free wills are the assets base of urself objective existence

and when truth is superiority then urself superiority will always be limited so not superior but it would b u objectively through ur choice which cant b true but from superiority concepts to realize that exist since existence is true

so no i disagree, minors dont matter

one is freedom which is absolute result of true superiority so the only matter in truth

the only thing for true existence to b now is lies so resolution of individual free existence that are not right

what is relative dont matter only absolute result matter

u should learn how to realize smthg with else, u r not ur different parts
u r the result of ur different part one reality as constant being together result

0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 04:21 pm
@DannyBorkowski003,
Quote:
Your computer, your TV, any electronic device or functioning organism, can only really be/exist/function as a "100%" element, right? 99.9% doesn't cut it.

Wrong ! That's the simplistic view of a materialist/determinist. You are begging the question of what "really exists" means.

Behavior (including cognitive behavior) = physiology + socialization (neither of which takes precedence within a state transition process). The analogy with machines is flawed because without the assumption of software, hardware is irrelevant. In short, what we call "genetics" may be necessary for development of a platform for behavior but not sufficient to account for it.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 04:46 pm
@fresco,
Excellent response. fresco.

I'm still mulling over mine.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Why Race? - Discussion by snood
Im white . - Discussion by shewolfnm
what are you? - Discussion by dyslexia
Be Black - Question by Victor Murphy
Fear of a Black President - Discussion by snood
Ten questions about race - Discussion by nimh
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Major Importance of "Minor" Elements
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/22/2020 at 11:14:35