MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Philosophy is not black and white

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 11:04 am Sat 22nd June 2019

The concept that the law is not black and white, confuses many people, especifically those that are just curious. They haven’t taken the time to work these things out.

Black and White is the foundation also of many liteary themes and a source of conflict in writing.

We misunderstand ourselves inside these processes.

From our origins in the apes developed a few human species that have now combined. In an age of many moons past, we did not all have the same skin colour but the genetic options were much closer. They produced a very narrow distinction between what was lighter and darker skin or darker and lighter skin.

The very white skin and very black skin we see today are both genetic mutations from the original gene set. The most likely source of this development is now thought to be food consumption rather than a response to sun exposure.

Not only in literary development but also religious development we see these distinctions contributing to inferior and superior positions.

This unfortunately can also be seen in our known philosophical development and our appreciation of each other. That may be the foundation of lost opportunity, that early explorers did not take the time to record the Mātauranga of the Polynesian migration and compare this as best we might to the early written records of older social groups.

I don’t have an issue with the exploration of Mātauranga but I do have a concern and it is this.

In the same way that religion interfered with the recording of past cultures it is likely that politics will interfere with the development and recording of Māori philosophy. Influenced by the threatening environment rather than a desire to recognise its integrity.

Like our original skin shades our relative cultural and philosophical positions are probably not that far apart.

But do we want to live in the past?

This idea of circular failure belongs to civilizations not to life itself. And that one circle is not alone, it is many rings that combine to make one. Is is not the law alone, or religion, or philosophy, or science, or biology, or economy, or enterprise.

It is cultures that must operate in an environment as best they can.

This was as much a failure of Brittany as it was a failure for Māori in the final destination of the Pacific.

US, if we cannot identity a culture for this nation, then we risk an inevitable and unenviable mess on a couple of islands at the arse end of the world. But if we played our cards right we could come out on top.

Is that too big a leap for the average punter?

Are we too ingrained in the past to make a future?


  1. The premises of your analysis seem to indicate you want to follow “natural selection” as the basis of your inconsistencies.

    Then you hide behind a critique of culture (polynesian, maori and such) and religion as a brake to progress and to the formation of a civilized society.

    Your conclusions can only be prejudicial… I did however look for positives… Haven’t found any yet…. But I am sure I am reading you with the wrong glasses.

    Comment by JustCurious — Sat 22nd June 2019 @ 12:12 pm

  2. #1  the basis of your inconsistencies

    Help me out here, my glasses must be fogged over today.

    Comment by Boonie — Sat 22nd June 2019 @ 12:39 pm

  3. #3,, depend on how thickly the bread buttered I thought…

    Comment by mama — Sat 22nd June 2019 @ 1:32 pm

  4. Is this a cooking lesson?

    Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 22nd June 2019 @ 1:57 pm

  5. Ah! found them….recipe was upside down…

    Actually, some pretty cool observations appear even though shadowed by suspiciously arrived deductions…

    This however is true #0:

    “US, if we cannot identity a culture for this nation, then we risk an inevitable and unenviable mess on a couple of islands at the arse end of the world. But if we played our cards right we could come out on top. “

    Comment by JustCurious — Sun 23rd June 2019 @ 8:29 pm

  6. There’s logical process and passages of derivation.

    Peer review in science or critique in literature is always essential to see what can be safety deduced from the process.

    Blogs sometimes tend more towards right or wrong.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 24th June 2019 @ 8:23 am

  7. Anarchy … a state of disorder due to:

    absence or non-recognition of authority or
    other controlling systems.

    I think there’s a fallacy here that the anarchist is a radical on the street who is antisocial and anti authority.

    If you look at the Feminist activism and manipulation of parliament and our state systems you could have a valid case for the anarchist being the authority or the shadow behind the authority.

    But women can do no wrong?

    And when their collective enterprise is threatened any existing allegiances get dumped and it’s all about the women tribe.

    Comment by Boonie — Mon 24th June 2019 @ 3:56 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar