Homo-chirality – When molecules could come as twisted either right or left, they spontaneously get naturally produced either right or left all the time. (ie, theoretically sugar molecules could have been twisted both right and left, but when produced without human intervention – they come always twisted to the right.)
Here’s a possibly Good-Enough explanation –
A single Chirality, right or left handedness, comes where a certain standard comes required arbitrarily. ie, for navigating on a planet like earth, it helps to have longitude and latitude lines. While the latitude lines were easy to do since the planet has an equator line independent of humans, the story with longitude went very different. Since the UK cracked how to do the longitude, we got a certain standard, a stable agreement, where the 0 longitude runs through a uk landmark. If the mongols, or yanomami did the longitude discovery and had the power to let everyone else know about it, we might have had the 0 line going through somewhere in the amazons or ulaan-baatar.
Point? The 0 line has to go SomeWhere according to human rather than planetary circumstances.
of stability helps to think less about something that would have been good-enough either way.
of times when you twist a key to open a door. Most locks twist away from the closure-line to Open, and towards the closure to shut. How fruitlessness frustrating it can feel when that kind of standard comes different in certain locks.
Afterall, the key has to twist somewhere. The sugar molecules have to turn some direction, like with the key – any directionality will do.
Once we get into kinds of twists, ways of going this direction or another, i think we get Diversity.
may feel initially like a challenge for standards stability – however, has nothing of the sort, unless we say that a certain diversity requires specifically plurality of standards.
Where we get into standards of child circumcision, or killing certain animals for food, i think we get a curious example of differences between plurality and diversity in relation to standards and stability.
While we tend to fancy many different religions living cool with each other in our civic oriented socio-political bodies, there are some places where this diversity of beliefs, questions the very stability of the standards which allow plurality to thrive.
These spaces come where the Plural has to question stability for being itself. ie
in some religions, I think islam and judaism, some people might think that if they didn’t prepare their meat in a certain way, the whole foundation of their religious lives might become impossible to maintain. In case their standard way of doing something comes in a way that is un-acceptable by the standards of a certain civil socio-political body, the whole composition of their religious life alters.
yet – however, in case we get stabilized around making animal products illegal. That kind of a standard will question the plurality of ways human eat within that society. Not just a diversity of eating, but the possibility of being a stable socio-political body with different standards operating along each other.
The question of difference between
plural and diverse might seem minimal, and it is in some cases. However, i think it can illustrate the kind of difficulties we face when pushing for one diversity or another.
for example –
In terms of relationship, the push for diversity faced fear/concerns that many kinds of relationships will make union such as marriage, unstable. However, to my personal disappointment, it turns out that many people of diverse relationship – actually fancy getting married! In some ways, reinforcing the universality of marriage as a stable standard. Sure, wheat we get comes as plurality of unions. We don’t have marriage as the single standard, we get civil partnerships, and other kind of relationship unions recognized by the socio-political body as offering stable standards of intimate unions between people.
Justice for Diversity and plurality may challenge standard stability, but it doesn’t always follow.
I think it’s an idea to consider when approaching people because we have enough fear in society. I doubt we need to introduce more.
Respect that which you ignored fearlessly?