Constructs abound! A local theater begins their showings with an announcement that we are on stolen land, and then they continue with the show. I consider that the first performative action of the evening.
Of course there *is* one grouping of humans into (only two) large classes that until very recently was based largely in "penguin like", immutable and clear characteristics. You *could* check the DNA and know with extremely high accuracy (apart from very few cases of chromosomal/genetic disorders) where a given human belonged.
Interestingly, it was NOT, for the vast majority of human history, a grounds for alliance building, tho it did determine labour/task allocation.
Even more interestingly, it has been recently redefined *explicitly and openly* as being based purely on belief, largely individual's belief rather than others', so one can identify oneself into the categories exactly like in your Buddhist example, and DNA check (or even anatomy/physiology check) will not tell an observer whether an individual belongs to class A or class B anymore.
I think the tension between individual's belief vs group/others' belief is really interesting (for any grouping), and the shift to the former from the latter is such a strong marker of our (postmodern? maybe modern too?) individualistic and up-in-our heads culture.
...No one knows what a species is though, including emperor penguins. Emperor penguins aren’t even technically penguins. We can agree they’re flightless birds though. So even on that level your analogy breaks down.
Thanks for your comment! I’d like to follow up. 1) Can you direct me to the best discussion of the definition of species? I haven’t followed this discussion since I was in graduate school, so it’s possible I am behind. (We used the notion of reproductive isolation, which isn’t perfect--for instance, what about asexual reproduction--but it did a pretty good job.) I’d love some direction about the best entry point into that literature. Still, it’s a fair point. See (3), below. 2) My understanding is that emperor penguins are in the family Spheniscidae. My further understanding is that animals in that family are considered penguins. Can you direct me to a source that can correct my understanding? 3) I might not have been clear. I was trying to draw a contrast, not an analogy. It might have been better to use a different contrast, such as elements. In that case, I think it would have been clear that one can determine the element if one knows the number of protons in the nucleus. That might have been a better contrast. I thought the notion of species made more sense, rhetorically, however.
Constructs abound! A local theater begins their showings with an announcement that we are on stolen land, and then they continue with the show. I consider that the first performative action of the evening.
Of course there *is* one grouping of humans into (only two) large classes that until very recently was based largely in "penguin like", immutable and clear characteristics. You *could* check the DNA and know with extremely high accuracy (apart from very few cases of chromosomal/genetic disorders) where a given human belonged.
Interestingly, it was NOT, for the vast majority of human history, a grounds for alliance building, tho it did determine labour/task allocation.
Even more interestingly, it has been recently redefined *explicitly and openly* as being based purely on belief, largely individual's belief rather than others', so one can identify oneself into the categories exactly like in your Buddhist example, and DNA check (or even anatomy/physiology check) will not tell an observer whether an individual belongs to class A or class B anymore.
I think the tension between individual's belief vs group/others' belief is really interesting (for any grouping), and the shift to the former from the latter is such a strong marker of our (postmodern? maybe modern too?) individualistic and up-in-our heads culture.
...No one knows what a species is though, including emperor penguins. Emperor penguins aren’t even technically penguins. We can agree they’re flightless birds though. So even on that level your analogy breaks down.
Thanks for your comment! I’d like to follow up. 1) Can you direct me to the best discussion of the definition of species? I haven’t followed this discussion since I was in graduate school, so it’s possible I am behind. (We used the notion of reproductive isolation, which isn’t perfect--for instance, what about asexual reproduction--but it did a pretty good job.) I’d love some direction about the best entry point into that literature. Still, it’s a fair point. See (3), below. 2) My understanding is that emperor penguins are in the family Spheniscidae. My further understanding is that animals in that family are considered penguins. Can you direct me to a source that can correct my understanding? 3) I might not have been clear. I was trying to draw a contrast, not an analogy. It might have been better to use a different contrast, such as elements. In that case, I think it would have been clear that one can determine the element if one knows the number of protons in the nucleus. That might have been a better contrast. I thought the notion of species made more sense, rhetorically, however.