Inferiority

The assertion of dominance is theme commonly expressed in the natural world.

The concept is flawed at its roots due to being derived from an observation that states because strength has been displayed here, it can and will be displayed again in a similar situation. The strength however, is always just a culmination of chance and does not accurately depict reality of the happenings.

This can be likened to two cats fighting. One cat will likely win the majority of the time, leading the assumption this cat is a better fighter and thus more dominant. The stated situation does not take into account circumstances in which the other cat would be favored.

Continuing, there are two type of dominance, in which either one or both can take place at a given time. Type one, the originator of an action views themselves as possessing an advantageous trait. Type two, the recipient of an action views the actions of another as an attempt to display a superior trait. Both types, result in the exact same outcome.

The action, regardless of method used will always result in a warping of reality. Primarily, the warping will effect any party playing into the idea that dominance exists but as said party will indefinitely act upon this emotion in some manner, it will go on to effect any other party related to the primary party(ies).

Directly analogous to the cats is the perception logic and intelligence have their outcome weighed in dominance. Often, people of heightened intelligences or those who view themselves as so, choose view a particular form of logic or type of intelligence as superior without taking into account the situation.

An example of this would be a professor of chemistry viewing a strictly scientific, observational based approach to the world as superior. The flaw in the chemist's perception is that observation does not always indicate reality. Thus, put in a situation where circumstances are similar to previously observed happening, they will act upon their observations. Cleaning their house might be a trifling experience using this approach as our chemist has observed that both bleach and ammonia clean well, however this observation did end well with there mixing. A different approach hinging in the trust of others statements (history) would allow for the chemist to prevent such situations, but defy his own definition of the superior approach.

All that being said, it is our own definitions of superiority and our own way of creating fluid distortions that give the unique prospective needed to build knowledge and work towards the truth.

For example, this post has been attempted to be formed in linear thought, however I not subscribe to the belief logic is the end all superior train of action. My perception is that logic follows a similar path to religion and those who believe in it too much end up radical and unable to cope with others misinformation relative to the a totally logical reality. I have therefor engaged in a form of communication I do believe in order to express my thought using standards more common.It is likely obvious to the reader that in practice I do not actually follow my own train logic entirely because by discussing this topic from a personal perspective I have admitted to doing all the things I have described above. My perception on reality though, declares that this is ok because I do not express my feeling of superiority or inferiority when discussing topics and instead strive to understand the writer and when reciprocating a response I work with them to try and understand them and express my own thoughts.

To view others thoughts, ideas, and logic as flawed is only human and it allows us to survive in our own environment (including the one internally), but to let this emotion precipitate to how one actively tries to view others and their attempts at communication, is to brand any advantage the other has as useless and unworthy.

Bickering is a hindrance in the search for truth. Care and/or respect for others are not needed to continue this quest, only a willingness to address others perceptions and a open mind to learn and change based on what is true to the reader. A belief is always strongest when stood contested and if one chooses to believe they hold the superior point of view, then prove it through expression of the thought, not accreditation to the inferiority of another.

The thought I have tried to express is that animals struggle to separate between the natural emotions that come with perceiving dominance and the reality that just because something appears dominant does not indicate it's superiority towards the truth.

For example, we have Thomas Edison vs Nikola Tesla. Thomas Edison was a proponent of direct current and was well respected but more importantly, persuasive and a great writer. Nikola Tesla, the brains behind alternating currents, was known for being a recluse and socially awkward. Edison established through preaching rhetoric and hard work, a total dominance over Tesla for a number of years where direct current thrived. However, it is now known that alternating currents is a far superior way to provide electricity. Tesla's idea under the guidance of a businessman (a change in circumstances) became much more readily accepted. We can further go on to state that Tesla, although less known then Edison and inferior socially, made more advancements toward with truth by laying the foundations for numerous concepts of the natural world still used today. The establishment of dominance is to fault for this outcome. Had people been whiling to objectively view Tesla's work, the outcome would have been different and thus progression towards the truth would have proceeded.

The paragraph above establishes two key points. One, the social constructs (Edison vs Tesla) of dominance are identical to naturally occurring ones (the two cats). Two, under altered conditions both parties exerted dominance due to separate forms of intelligence.

quote:

---

Your perspective is biased by the need to suggest that there is, in actuality, not a real dominance when dominance is suggested or implied. This is a total fabrication of reality. Dominance is a very real characteristic, and defining how it may exist in modern times is of more relevance than trying to state "everything is relative".

---

quote:

---

The primary problem with your post is you are mixing actual dominance by using strength and instinct and evolution and then trying to explain it from a purely social point of view. You should stick solely to "social dominance" and not mix it with the notion of actual dominance so that you can focus on what it appears you are more interested in talking about.

---

What you have done here is tried to redefine my argument by defining dominance as superior approach or the truth, these are separate concepts that deal respectively with alternating one's approach to establish bettered outcome and absolute constants in the universe. I have defined dominance for the sake of this thread in my first post.

oh man i got to get out of here fast i think i might be able to delete my acount my self. jesus decius you sound like the village preacher of old ireland.

hey decius help a dude out delete me. i cant figure it out.due to my mental inferiority it is making it difficult for me to survive in this computer age. but hell maby i can my big ole ape muscles to bash my monitor. ok now i am just having fun

damn i need to learn how to spell and use gramar and stuff. oh well.

quote:

---

You defined your discussion of "superiority" as one relating to survival, almost absolutely, in your original post, utilizing the words survival, strength, superior, and later subtly talking about "truth" or knowledge as somehow being linked to the same concept.

---

This statement is false and incoherent.

quote:

---

Now you are redifining it as a discussion wholly about truth and that dominance has no real influence on what is true or not.

---

I have not redefined my portion of the discussion. I can state this as a matter of fact because

quote:

---

The thought I have tried to express is that animals struggle to separate between the natural emotions that come with perceiving dominance and the reality that just because something appears dominant does not indicate it's superiority towards the truth.

---

This is the portion of my second post dealing with my original post. The quote used is from a dairy entrance I had made and used as the thesis for the original post.The example below this in my second post is an example similar to those in my first post followed by a tying back into the post you had just made.

None of this stated anything (with the exception of trying into your post) that was not conceived prior to the original post.

The rest the seconds post dealt exclusively with addressing miscommunications in in your perception .

Me

quote:

---

The paragraph above establishes two key points. One, the social constructs (Edison vs Tesla) of dominance are identical to naturally occurring ones (the two cats). Two, under altered conditions both parties exerted dominance due to separate forms of intelligence.

---

In response to

quote:

---

The primary problem with your post is you are mixing actual dominance by using strength and instinct and evolution and then trying to explain it from a purely social point of view. You should stick solely to "social dominance" and not mix it with the notion of actual dominance so that you can focus on what it appears you are more interested in talking about

---

You accused me of falsely tying natural dominance to social dominance, I addressed this by giving you an example exactly like my two from the first post only closer to your laps in understanding. This was then followed by the two quotes I had addressed and lastly by an analysis. The quotes were not placed before the addressing because it was necessary that the reader understand the example was used to address the quotes.

You

quote:

---

It is your responsibility to admit your erroneous attempt at explaining yourself and your point, not to criticize the listener for doing their best to respond to your post in the best way they can.

---

In reference to my

quote:

---

Care and/or respect for others are not needed to continue this quest, only a willingness to address others perceptions and a open mind to learn and change based on what is true to the reader.

---

I did not state I would not criticize or agree with the responder.

I believe your inability to address my post is derived from the fact you took my post as a sign of aggression, which was not my intent, but as originally stated.

quote:

---

Type two, the recipient of an action views the actions of another as an attempt to display a superior trait ...The action, regardless of method used will always result in a warping of reality. Primarily, the warping will effect any party playing into the idea that dominance exists but as said party will indefinitely act upon this emotion in some manner, it will go on to effect any other party related to the primary party(ies).

---

Thus

quote:

---

a hindrance in the search for truth.

---

So are you saying that dominance does not exist? The idea that one individual can dominate in a large group of individuals?

Are you saying that dominance is an assumption rather than an action or state of being?

I agree that the tribal sense of dominance in today's society doesn't really apply to who actually ends up on top now a days. But that really just depends on who you are dealing with. If some one can attain the upper hand on you, in a financial, social, or physical sense and desires to use that upper hand to hurt you in order to gain something, and there is nothing to do about it, that is true dominance.

For instance, if you get mugged, or raped, or robbed (legally or illegally) or dumped by a lover, or any other instance where something happens to you that you can not prevent, you are being dominated by forces actively trying to dominate you. Like some one who has a lot of money and uses that money to make more money at the expense of financially less powerful people. Like governments or drug lords.

"The thought I have tried to express is that animals struggle to separate between the natural emotions that come with perceiving dominance and the reality that just because something appears dominant does not indicate it's superiority towards the truth."

But it does. Walk up to a 6'4'' 250 lbs muscle man and tell him that hes standing in your spot. lol

The truth is, we are animals, who do seek to dominate in a very competitive society. We just do it in other ways. Like through pride or ego. Through sexual "dominance". Or financial wealth.

Now, if a college student who wants to prosper says that he intends on dominating the game of life by studying chemistry so he can make a lot of money some how, he IS coming out on top BECAUSE of his position in a modern society, away from cats fighting in the ally.

Btw Decius, for what its worth I do appreciate your plight with people being mean to you BECAUSE of your intellect, (not that I am accusing any one I'm just trying to see things through D's eyes) and I do see how it prevents you from having an enjoyable experience.