If addicts recover, then they were aware, connected, and collaborative. If they do not recover, then any of the three systems might not have been functioning. Did I get that right? — CeleRate

To the extent that they’re failing or struggling to recover, they are likely unaware, isolated or excluded from a relation to their own potential, yes. You can’t force someone to be aware, to connect or to collaborate. But if we ignore, isolate or exclude them from these opportunities, then I’d say we’re part of the problem.

I'm taking your use of "essential" to mean "necessary". Addicts involved in recovery programs are routinely informed of alternative options. If awareness is freedom, then where is the freedom when there is awareness? Thanks — CeleRate

Not just awareness - also connection and collaboration. Being informed of alternative options is just the start. It’s all very well to tell someone they can take up a form of exercise as an alternative to drugs. They also need to connect with that potential information in some way that has meaning for them beyond their addiction. Addicts are no longer as diversely connected to the world as we might expect them to be. Their connections are often limited only to those that feed or enable their addiction. The isolation of recovery programs may help to decrease the value/potential of enabling connections, but those connections can never really be severed as such, so the effect is temporary at best. Addicts also need opportunities to build or rebuild more valuable connections with the world - ones that broaden and develop their perceived potential - otherwise it won’t be long before they seek out those addiction-enabling connections again, because they’re better than the alternative.

Addicts are especially limited in how they collaborate with the world, because they’ve been focused mainly on their own internal affect. Their collaborations are limited to those that feed their addiction. Collaboration is about working together to achieve something - the more broadly this achievement appears to benefit, the greater the perceived value. Addicts need opportunities to work with others on projects bigger than themselves, that actively appreciate and count on their involvement, whether it’s a family that needs them or a whole community.

Purpose: an explanation, cause or justification (ie. reason) for existence.

What is it in us that stands out? What among the things we're capable of that not only distinguishes us from the rest but also is something we can do extremely well, something we're best-suited for? — TheMadFool

The human organism has not evolved to maximise survival, dominance or procreation. What success we enjoy as a species, we owe ultimately to our capacity to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. This is what we seem uniquely built for.

*sigh* Yes - potentially, anyone is free. Even the addict.

You describe a problem of an addict failing to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with elements of choice, and you make a claim that the addict doesn't realize the need to critically examine oneself, but I do not see what is going on with the will. Where did the will go? The addict is not being coerced. Is the addict free to choose abstinence? If so, then why is the price so often death by suicide? — CeleRate

The will is the faculty by which we determine and initiate action via three conceptual ‘gates’: ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration. So increasing awareness of, connection to and collaboration with the potentiality of alternatives available is essential to the freedom of the will. Without it, the will IS pre-determined according to awareness, connection and collaboration with information from past experiences as well as genetic, chemical, molecular and atomic structures, and the addict is NOT free.

When no potential alternatives are perceived as available, ‘abstinence’ is equal to non-existence.

Does this mean that the addict is the agent directing these psychological states? In other words, they are ignoring, isolating or excluding elements of choice, but could choose to attend to or include elements of choice?

If this is the case, why do they seek out various addiction recovery programs? There sure are a lot of addicts saying that they desire to quit their vice. They express guilt. They commit time going to programs. Some even commit suicide. 25% of alcoholics and 20% of gamblers.

One would think that the friends, family, and professionals in the lives of these people might point out the other options. Yet, addicts repeatedly fall off the wagon and report struggling against thoughts related to their vices. But they're the ones in control, right? They can choose a different path. They know the better choice. They desire the healthier choice. They do things consistent with a commitment to a healthier choice. And still they struggle. Where's the struggle coming from? And to kill oneself over the guilt of being too weak to quit? Does the one-armed bandit actually hold a gun to the addict and demand that its lever be pulled? — CeleRate

First of all, I tend not to define an ‘agent’, because I believe all agency derives from awareness, connection and collaboration - in that sense, we are never wholly the ‘agent’ as such, but always a member in collaboration. Control is an illusion - even when we think it’s all me, that ‘me’ consists of a bunch of connected and collaborating biological systems that nevertheless have a limited perspective. The more we understand their potential, the more capable we are of anticipating and arranging the causal conditions for more desirable responses.

The addict can choose to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with elements of choice - but it’s not an easy road. Think of it as being asked to collaborate with a race of aliens that just sent you a text message saying they know how to ‘fix the planet’ - that’s about how frightening and unreal these alternatives may seem from their perspective.

Awareness of and desire for available options is only part of the battle. There’s a significant amount of humility, pain and loss to come to terms with in increasing awareness of where you really are in relation to where you want to be. Friends, family and even professionals are not particularly helpful with this. We lack compassion (which is not the same as pity) - we tend to live our lives around addicts according to the belief that our own humility, pain and and loss should be avoided at all cost, but theirs is different because it’s necessary, self-inflicted or deserved. If they’re struggling with this immense humility, pain and loss and lash out, surely we can handle a little humility, pain or loss ourselves before we feel the need to strike back.

Addicts may certainly be aware of a better lifestyle, and they may desire to live a healthier life, but their struggle often comes from a lack of connection to this better, healthier lifestyle as a choice they perceive themselves capable of making. They seek out and commit to addiction recovery programs, but in many situations they’re looking to be fixed by a mechanic, without realising that they need to critically examine themselves how they think about and evaluate everything in relation to their addiction, and then actively seek awareness, connection to and collaboration with the alternatives available.

Some addiction recovery programs are designed to help the friends and family feel better. Others are designed to help the patient emerge feeling better, or saying and doing the ‘right’ things. A few are designed to facilitate the addict’s own re-evaluation.

When you’ve reduced your perceived potential to the extent that most addicts have, and then you realise what little potential/value that amounts to - without guidance or inspiration towards greater awareness of, connection to AND collaboration with a broader potential/value - it can be hard to perceive any value at all in your life going forward. Suicide looms large at this point.

An addict, more than anything, needs people to interact with their potential and value beyond the addiction - to perceive them as more than an addict, recovering or otherwise - and to treat them accordingly. That can be a challenge if they have come to embody this limited potential and little else. But we develop an awareness of our potential and value most readily through the eyes of those with whom we interact.

Well, it seems like you haven’t really followed much of what I’ve written in this thread at all.

Well, this "capacity to restructure" must be observable right? Imagine that before the "restructuring" of our value system we had a particular set of wants, call it x. After the "restructuring" we should be in possession of a different set of wants, call it y. Now, if y is not different in the sense it contradicts or "goes against what one previously wants", x, then we wouldn't be able to call it "restructuring" right? — TheMadFool

No, a capacity is NOT observable, only perceivable. What is observable is evidence which points to that capacity, but is not capacity. Capacity refers to potential, not actual, existence. What you’re describing here is like pointing to a rendered drawing of a ball and insisting it’s a drawing of a circle that’s light on the top and darker on the bottom, nothing more.

In some situations, we refer largely to a logical value system; in others, a moral value system; others still, an aesthetic value system; etc - or a combination of several at once. All of these value systems interact within a broader conceptual system that represents our perspective of ‘reality’. What we refer to as ‘our value system’ is a reduction of those interactions in relation to a particular four-dimensional situation. What I mean by ‘restructuring our value systems’ - note the plural systems - refers to the way they interact in fifth-dimensional reality as our current conceptualisation of the world.

The lack of of free will is predicated on not being able to do the opposite of what we want, those wants that we're born with. Ergo, if free will is to exist, it must involve going against these congenital wants. This is a basic idea and I don't know why you insist the contrary. — TheMadFool

No, the lack of free will (as you describe here) is predicated on the false assumption that we are born with a particular set of wants (as an ‘objective’ structure of lack) that is somehow intrinsic to who we are, such that we are compelled to pursue some semblance of ‘completion’, only to discover more wants, more apparent lack. If this is a basic idea of the argument against ‘free will’, then I maintain it is fundamentally misunderstood.

We develop our sense of lack from interactions with the unfolding universe - in relation to this universe, we will find that we lack far more than we could ever acquire. A sense of ‘completion’ is not found in eliminating or even overcoming our unique perspective of lack, but in recognising that what we lack in relation to the potential universe is awareness, connection and collaboration with it, and all our wants are a symptom of this.

As for the fifth-dimension I don't see its relevance. I can come to terms with time being the 4th dimension but what is the "fifth" dimension? Is it time? Is it space? Neither time nor space has significance insofar as my argument is concerned, I neither talked about time nor about space. — TheMadFool

The fifth dimension is value/potential. This is why it is relevant, and why time and space have no real significance, except that you keep trying to reduce this value/potential to what is observable/measurable in spacetime.

It seems you ARE misreading me, or perhaps just overlooking some elements of my argument. You might want to read my reply to CeleRate above. I believe that we’ve structured our lives around a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for the will to be free. Exercising free will is NOT a matter of going against what one wants, or of self-denial. It IS about our capacity to restructure our value systems in relation to new information.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you view the fifth-dimensional aspect of metaphysical reality as something we’ve made up, something NOT real. You seem to dismiss it almost entirely, and focus on actual choice as the essence of ‘free will’. I’d like to clarify this aspect of your position before we get too much further along, because my understanding of ‘free will’ is that it operates irreducibly in this fifth-dimensional reality.

The freedom of the will exists ‘prior’ to the actual process of making a choice - the potentiality wave has already collapsed at the point you appear to be starting from. We have already effected a reduction of the will when we ascertain only three options. In my view, random selection is the same as ignorance, and there is no infinite regress because all value systems potentially interact in a timeless environment, so to speak.

So I agree with you that the wine lover probably wanted something else more,,, but I disagree that this leads to a dilemma in the way you have proposed, despite what we apparently ‘know’.

However, that doesn't solve the problem at all because your capacity to eat or the sample's capacity to make choices is still based on values/wants that they didn't choose and so, if anything is entailed through this exercise it's that yes we have a capacity to choose but these choices are not free in the sense that they were not influenced by things beyond our control. — TheMadFool

Influence at the level of potentiality is not control, it is simply potential to influence. If we are aware of this potential, if we are connected and collaborating (if we understand the conditions under which our relation to this value/potential influence is stronger/weaker), then we would recognise our capacity to alter these conditions and therefore its value/potential with regard to determining and initiating our actions. It need not actually influence us at all. To the extent that we are unaware/ignoring, isolating or excluding information regarding our relation to its potential, our act of choosing is not free.

which refers to the CAPACITY to choose an option from available alternatives, NOT the act of choosing itself.
— Possibility

This is a distinction without a difference. The capacity to choose must include the act of choosing. How would I know if you had the capacity to eat? By eating, right? The capacity to do x is inferred from doing x. How else would I know you had the capacity to do x? — TheMadFool

It has no observable/measurable difference in time, no. But capacity is a potential relation, as is knowledge. I infer your capacity to eat from the information I have regarding you in relation to the information I have regarding my capacity to eat, given subjective experience. I don’t need to observe you actually eating to be confident in your capacity to eat. This confidence has a degree of uncertainty, sure - but doesn’t everything?

But aren't cases like gambling addicts curious in this framework of metaphysical freedom? Gambling addicts are one group of individuals where it seems difficult to say that a person's will is free such that the person is the agent making the choices about what to do next. Can a person be free at the same moment they feel compelled to do something where no external enforcing agent exists? — CeleRate

They only ‘feel compelled’ because they are ignoring, isolating or excluding elements of ‘choice’ from their perceived potential, as either:
- the ACT of choosing;
- the variety/RANGE to choose from; or
- the specific ALTERNATIVES or options available to be chosen;
before they even determine their actions, let alone initiate them.

The metaphysical will is free - a person’s will is only free insofar as they are aware of, connected to and collaborating with all three aspects of choice. So a person’s will is potentially free. Every manifestation of that will in 4D (ie. determined and initiated action) is necessarily a reduction of that freedom in relation to perceived potential/value. Think of it as a collapsed potentiality wave.

The problem is that most people seem to conceptualise reality according to one primary value structure or system at a time as a four-dimensional ‘force’, which limits all the interacting values according to this one structure. @"TheMadFool” describes the way this structure is often perceived:

this, to me, requires a set of values which themselves must be chosen according to another value system and so on — TheMadFool

When this primary value system prioritises immediate and superficial reward for action such as gambling, their relation to internal affect assumes the highest value over long-term financial and social commitments for instance, and one can ‘feel compelled’ by the perceived value of this internal affect to do something where no ‘external enforcing agent’ exists.

This is a reduction of five-dimensional reality - of interrelating values - in much the same way as ‘time’ is a reduction of four-dimensional reality - of interrelating events. When we relate to a painting of a ball, the two-dimensional information is recognised as a meaningful reduction of three-dimensional reality. So too, our instincts, values and desires are reductions of five-dimensional reality - only we don’t recognise them as such. We tend to think of them as distinct four-dimensional ‘forces’ fighting for dominance over our actions, like ancient gods with petty ambitions.

But they point to a five-dimensional reality of interrelating values or potentiality, irrespective of time. It is how much we understand the five-dimensional irreducibility and relativity of these interrelations that impact on our freedom to choose from a range of available alternatives.

For the moment let's stick to the multiplication of alternatives that awareness brings. So here is a person, awareness in hand, gazing fondly at the world of possibilities laid out before per. At one point fae has to choose and the way this is done is by weighing the pros and cons of each possibility (choice) and this, to me, requires a set of values which themselves must be chosen according to another value system and so on. Either that or we make a random selection. Both situations seem incompatible with free will; after all in one there's no beginning and in the other the choice isn't yours. — TheMadFool

.

This is the problem I continue to see with discussions on the existence of ‘free will’: a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘the will’ is on a metaphysical level. How quickly these discussions become wholly about the temporal ACT of choosing, and then we’ve lost the ability to discuss the freedom of ‘the will’, which refers to the CAPACITY to choose an option from available alternatives, NOT the act of choosing itself.

Prior to the act of choosing, the metaphysical will is entirely free. We are free to ‘choose’ between awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion on a metaphysical level in relation to the five-dimensional experience of choosing an option from available alternatives. This metaphysical ‘choice’ is made according to a conceptual system of interacting value structures in potentiality. It does not occur in time - so there is no beginning, and no infinite regress.

You said that awareness of our wants and preferences give us freedom. Consider a little thought experiment. Imagine a person X who's not "aware" in your terms and so is like a slave to his wants and being thus his personality, here being considered as determined by his wants, is of type P. He then becomes aware and he consciously alters the landscape of his wants, transforming into another personality, type Q. The problem is that we can't say for sure that X wasn't of type Q right from the beginning, simply defaulting to a type P because he wasn't aware of what his real wants are. It's a similar situation to a person who at a point in his past liked Coke but then, after becoming aware of other fizzy drinks, changes his brand to Pepsi. There's no way of knowing that he actually liked Pepsi from the start but was making do with Coke as a substitute and when Pepsi became available made the switch but, if you notice, there's no alteration in his wants at all; in fact his want was just waiting to be satisfied. Ergo, any change in our wants/preferences, even if it resulted from what you call awareness, can't be taken as evidence that we have free will. — TheMadFool

Let me start by clarifying what I’ve been saying: that it’s not awareness of our wants and preferences that give us freedom - it’s awareness of alternatives and of our capacity to choose from them.

Let’s take a closer look at ‘want’, to start with, which refers to awareness of an experience of lack. The implication seems to be here that each individual is born with an intrinsic and unique structure of lack that waits to be satisfied on an ongoing basis - their response to which forming part of their personality. So awareness, from your perspective, appears to be a matter of discovering this fixed structure of lack within ourselves, and altering our personality in a way that best serves to satisfy it on a daily basis.

This is not how I see it, but I understand how rational this perspective seems, given the confidence we tend to have in the conceptualisation of a four-dimensional, observable/measurable reality and Darwinian evolutionary theory. Lack is a fundamental experience of existence, but the reality is that we lack much more than we realise, and much more than we want at any one time. Our wants are limited not so much by our genetic makeup, but by our awareness, connection and collaboration with the potential and value of experiential possibilities.

We tend to understand awareness as discovering reality, but we also tend to assume that reality refers to objects in time. So when we talk about an awareness of wants and preferences, the assumption is that these wants and preferences are properties of who we are as objects in time. But we aren’t merely objects in time - our awareness of existence as human beings extends beyond the limits of four-dimensional reality, enabling us to develop awareness of, connection to and collaboration with potential and possible aspects of existence, from the Big Bang to a variety of Armageddon scenarios, for instance.

The awareness I’m referring to is the perceived potential and value of certain qualities of subjective experience, irrespective of objects in time. In this context, the awareness of Pepsi’s actual existence is arbitrary - it comes down to an awareness of qualitative alternatives in sweetness and flavour experience, subjective relations to brand identity, etc. In the same way, one can switch from Coke to Diet Coke based on perceived value that has nothing to do with the drink as an object in time, but with awareness of one’s potential, atemporal relation to the subjective experience of drinking cola.

So if we are aware of Pepsi but unaware of how the quality of our potential experience drinking Pepsi differs from that of Coke, then we are still not completely free to choose between these two alternatives. But my point is that the potential is there for greater freedom in our capacity to increase awareness.

It does seem that as the more aware we are, the more control we have over our behavior. Doesn't this then prove that we're free? After all we're able to do the opposite of what we want to do. Unfortunately no because this too is a clash between wants, one want being hidden from view and suddenly, with increased awareness, coming into view and then chosen over another. Basically, awareness doesn't change us in a free will sense as much as it exposes our other wants. — TheMadFool

It isn’t just a matter of being able to do the opposite of what we previously wanted, but about being aware of alternatives and our capacity to choose from them. When we find that we want Pepsi instead of Coke, we don’t lose awareness of our capacity to choose Coke, and we don’t suppress our desire for Coke by preferring Pepsi. Rather our relation to the potential value of both are integrated into our conceptual reality, and we reduce that information - we collapse that potential - into a determined action to choose Pepsi.

Yes. Indeed. One other component of metaphysical will in consciousness and/or nature would be intentionality. Have you explored that concept?

The metaphysical question would be something like: can we feel the phenomenal character of the intention in nature as a sensory experience?

Although a question like that would be a bit ambiguous, you would most certainly have to start with defining, what does it mean to have intention; what is our intention. — 3017amen

I will admit that I struggle with philosophical discussions on phenomenal intentionality: the linguistic gymnastics involved with attempting to formulate an ‘objective’ structural relation of intentionality without acknowledging five-dimensional relativity is almost laughable. I can imagine similarly ridiculous discussions on formulating a concept of ‘world time’ as train travel became popular...

The way I see it, intentionality is relative to all aspects of subjective experience - it refers to a sixth dimensional aspect of reality, what I tend to refer to as ‘meaning’, or what matters. It can only be understood in an ‘objective’ sense from a perspective beyond value and potential: inclusive of immoral, irrational, illogical and impossible potentiality. All other attempts to understand it are limited by subjectivity, or ignorance of five-dimensional relativity.

As an example, I used to be an artist, and during that time my perspective of the world around me was highly aesthetic: ‘redness’ became a range of values attributed to shapes and lines on a 2D plane. Perceiving ‘redness’ as a property of objects in space was often detrimental to my work. More recently, I spent three months travelling around Europe, and on returning to Australia I was struck by how ‘grey’ everything looked while driving through the bush. The relative ‘green-ness’ I had attributed to objects had changed, even in that short space of time. It took a few months to restore this particular value setting in my visual experience.

This is not just a visual phenomenon. I can also conceptualise the world differently as a driver than as a passenger. I’ve even noticed that I conceptualise the world differently at a subconscious level according to hormonal cycles: prioritising internal affect over spatial relations, for instance. This is just a small indication of the relativity of my individual intentionality.

I would rephrase it to say and confirm your notion of seeking understanding. Meaning, the distinction between creator and created is to strive for understanding of not only the self (ourselves/consciousness), but also the Metaphysical Will in nature (or Spinoza's Pantheism, if you prefer). — 3017amen

Getting past the distinction involves striving to understand not only the self as a unique manifestation of the Metaphysical Will, but the unlimited possibility from which this Metaphysical Will is a reduction.

But if they are 'relational concepts', in what way are we relating to them? For example, you seem to be suggesting there is an 'out there' to relate or interact with. What are 'these forces'? Is that another term of the emotive phenomenon of fear? — 3017amen

Yes. We’re not comfortable with the notion that energy as a relational concept points to ‘something’ beyond our understanding of a four dimensional universe - it’s the same with the Metaphysical Will. If there is indeed a fifth dimensional aspect to reality, then we appear to be no closer to achieving any form of ‘mastery’ over the universe than we were a thousand years ago. The humility of this realisation is part of the dread and anxiety that contributes to existential angst. We cope with it by conceptualising each relation as a thing ‘out there’ and relating only to that, effectively avoiding any relation to an entire aspect of reality that renders us humble by its complexity, and of which we are each a unique manifestation. The Will, Love, energy, potential, qualia, mathematics, language, emotion, logic - all of this points to a fifth dimensional aspect.

Great points. We talked about how awareness can be liberating. However, I'm a little confused by your aforementioned statement that we needn't actualize something... . Meaning, I agree ignorance is dangerous in that it doesn't provide for growth, etc.. But in this context, are you suggesting that all people are born with the same talents? — 3017amen

No - I don’t believe we are ‘born’ with talents, but rather born into environments in which our specific genetic and biological makeup enables the development of certain abilities or potential over others. Up to this point, each of us is a unique manifestation of a broad human potential, but our awareness is not bound by actuality. It is our ability as humans to communicate and interrelate abstract concepts, significance, value and potential in relation to past, present and future that enables us to understand what we are not. It looks like a ‘talent’ only in an environment where those around us are unaware that they also have this capacity, and so they fail to develop it.

The essence of what you've said can be expressed in the desire for freedom: awareness of factors that influence us are important insofar as we can resist them in order to gain control over our destiny so to speak. This is nothing other than a manifestation of our desire for freedom and that, it appears to me, isn't something we picked voluntarily. We are programmed to desire freedom and to the extent that is true, paradoxically, we are not free. Note that there is a choice between wanting freedom and not wanting freedom and ergo our personal want on the matter should've been considered. — TheMadFool

What does it mean to even have this ‘freedom’ that you desire? For every individual to be naturally unimpeded in their worldline, they must be a universe unto themselves. But without interaction there is no awareness of alternatives to even want. There is no worldline, no existence to speak of. This ‘freedom’ you desire is tantamount to non-existence. You do have the capacity to choose that. So is it really this ‘freedom’ that you want, or something else?

For me, it isn’t a matter of resisting influential factors, but of understanding them in order to connect and collaborate. Control is an illusion generated by ignorance, and destiny is a limited perception of potential. We are not isolated individuals, but possible manifestations of one unlimited will. Freedom as I understand it comes from maximum awareness of, connection to and collaboration with the possibilities of the universe. It’s not something we can just be given prior to achieving this. Our capacity for freedom IS there. We simply need to understand how to exercise it in light of our particular manifestation and perception of potential - recognising that, where we are limited, it is our awareness, connection and collaboration beyond that limitation that ultimately sets us free.

Meaning, you can't get inside of my head, and vise versa. For instance, I am male and you are female; the Doctor v. the patient, the artist v. the scientist, the teacher v. the student, ad nauseum. — 3017amen

Well then, it’s the one quote I don’t agree with - at least, not in the way you seem to be interpreting it. The way I see it, we can perceive to understand what we are not. That’s the whole idea of relating to the universe at a metaphysical level, and it’s the capacity we have as human beings: that we don’t need to actualise something in order to approach a more accurate understanding of it. It’s enough to perceive the potential, or even a remote possibility, to be what we are not, and to find value in what we learn from that. It’s fraught with uncertainty, sure, but that’s life - the alternative is ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

In pathology especially, I think this type of thinking limits our willingness to seek understanding of human motivations and behaviour that we find irrational, illogical, immoral, etc. By labelling these ‘pathological’, we isolate and exclude the information we might gain about ourselves and others if only we would include this potential within the scope of ‘normal’ humanity. This is why we are so often blindsided by seemingly isolated events - such as a man dousing his estranged wife and young children with petrol and setting them alight in their car on a suburban street. We call him a ‘monster’ instead of recognising that he was, until that moment, perceived as just another man - and in doing so, in concluding that we cannot understand, we limit our relationship with the potential unfolding of reality.

Anyway, the Metaphysical Will, I think, can be part of the philosophy relative to intelligent design. And our collective reasoning here thru induction, if I may say, has led us to the Will ( much like Love) seems to be that which requires understanding. A conscious phenomenon that acts on its own. The innate, a priori, thing from conscious existence that is part of our self-awareness. The natural need of doing or Being. Or, some say, the so-called tension of existence; conscious existence.

If that has any truth to it, then to define such a 'tension', could in-part explain the notion of existential angst in living this life. — 3017amen

I still get the feeling we’re not on the same page here. I don’t believe that either Love or the Will ‘act on its own’. They are both relational concepts that theoretically enable us to integrate all possible existence as long as we’re open to the information, not ‘forces’ that act in isolation. To explain the notion of existential angst, we need to seek understanding beyond these ‘forces’ we perceive, in the same way that we came to understand the interrelated processes of bodily systems and the seasons, for instance.

The term ‘intelligent design’ seems to imply a distinction between creator and created that we need to get past. Intelligence is a perceived potential to understand or comprehend, while ‘design’ is a perceived purpose or plan behind an action, fact or object. This is the extent of what is a priori - there is no knowledge or being, only capacity and intention for awareness, connection and collaboration. Whether we refer to this as the Metaphysical Will or Love or Enformation or ‘God’, it remains an expression of our relation to what we have yet to understand about existence - an acknowledgement of comparative ignorance, isolation and exclusion. The tension, the existential angst we experience, seems to me to come from a conscious effort to resist the fullness of that expression - in particular, to resist the inspiration to seek understanding, courage, wisdom, wonder and awe, etc from our relation. In doing so, we relate negatively to ‘God’ or the Metaphysical Will itself - to the relation as a ‘force’ - instead of acknowledging the infinite possibility of existence to which it points.

It’s a bit like our understanding of energy. We talk about energy as a ‘force’ and define its relation to the observable/measurable universe in a variety of ways. But energy is not a thing, but an expression of the relation of observed/measured objects or temporal events to their perceived potential. We cannot measure or observe that potential, only the relation. And yet we can, to some extent, calculate or perceive it and strive to understand it - more so now with quantum mechanics. In quantum physics, energy is a relation, not a force. It isn’t a ‘phenomenon that acts on its own’.

Ignorance and awareness have a role in the variety of choices of available and the effectiveness of our decisions but our decisions will still depend on our wants/preferences which, as you already know, were not of our own choosing. — TheMadFool

The important point here is that they WERE not of our own choosing. But I would argue that we DO have a choice regarding those wants and preferences. Type 1 beliefs aren’t based on the ‘brute facts’ of the world, but only on our perception of them, which has been limited up to the point that we are aware of it, yet far from fixed.

Awareness of our wants and preferences are derived from introspection: we acquire this value and potential information from the response of internal systems to stimulus, and each of these systems in their response have a limited perspective of the organism, the universe and what it means to be ‘human’. When we take this into account, why do we prioritise the value of internal affect? The more we understand how these internal systems ‘perceive’ the limited information they receive, the more discerning we can be about the value and significance of their contributions to our thoughts, motives and actions.

I think this is a misunderstanding of what the will is. You’ve defined ‘free will’ as “unimpeded choosing of available alternatives in our worldline”, which suggests that ‘the will’ is the faculty of choosing available alternatives.

So what is it that impedes this faculty? First of all, it’s ignorance of the existence of alternatives at all. Secondly, it’s isolation from these alternatives, rendering them unavailable. And thirdly it’s exclusion, leaving us unable to choose the alternatives that would otherwise be available.

This doesn’t mean, however, that there is no such thing as ‘free will’. The will has a capacity to be free insofar as we increase awareness, connection and collaboration with a diversity of alternatives.

Let’s look at this example of the drug addict or ‘junkie’ already offered.

To give a clear example of what I mean, imagine a drug addict who recognizes that he has a problem with drugs. It seems like this drug addict desires to do drugs but has a preference to not be doing drugs. If you asked the drug addict to make a pros and cons list involving the decision to do drugs, they would argue that doing drugs has more disadvantages than advantages. Nonetheless, they may lack an urge to actually stop doing drugs and they may have a severe urge to continue doing them. So, there is a conflict between preferences and desires here. — TheHedoMinimalist

What if, instead of assuming a conscious decision has been made to ‘do drugs’ and asking them to make a list of pros and cons to that decision, you ask them to list alternatives to doing drugs, describe the perceived availability of those alternatives and what capacity they perceive in themselves to choose those alternatives - then I think you’ll get a clearer picture of this ‘decision’ to do drugs.

It isn’t so much about conflict between preferences and desires: it’s about awareness of, connection to and collaboration with diverse possibilities, or the perceived value and potential of alternatives. Whether you’re able to directly increase the value and potential of this diversity from the drug addict’s conscious perspective, or do so by corralling the causal conditions of their unconscious actions, the freedom of the will is more complex than simply ‘wanting what he wants’.

What is this ‘will’ such that only humanity has the capacity to enable its freedom, yet most of us don’t realise or believe that this freedom exists?

Determinism argues that causality is sufficient evidence to deny the existence of a will that is free. But if the will is defined as a faculty which determines and initiates action, then this same will is pre-determined as observed in time, and yet potentially free as perceived in a metaphysical sense beyond time.

Possibility, why should things be easy to understand? — 3017amen

I think that everything we understand so far points to the reality that it isn’t easy, that it never was easy, and never should be easy to understand. The idea that God could have (or should have) created a world without suffering is an expression of misunderstanding (and the suffering that comes from that): of God and of the reality of ‘creating’ a universe from pure possibility. The challenge of life and of consciousness is to understand all of existence - not as an individual, but as a possible manifestation of that existence in relation to its infinite diversity.

I agree with these quotes (not sure about Maslow’s, though - I might need some context on that one). I also think that the Metaphysical Will is real - though largely misunderstood. As the faculty of determining and initiating action, it is change itself: inclusive of cause and effect, stimulus and response, being and becoming, quantum decoherence and the collapse of potentiality waves.

As an individual, we relate to Schopenhauer’s understanding of the Metaphysical Will as a ‘force’ that we either succumb to or rebel against. But I think if we understand this Metaphysical Will instead as a relation of infinite diversity/possibility, and each of us as a possible manifestation of that in spacetime, then the Will is free insofar as each manifestation is open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with each other.

I do not think that aspiring actresses necessarily care much about that. If she is not attached, and not a virgin either, her price can drop very low. In fact, that phenomenon is not even limited to actresses. If she is thirsty, she may even do it for a glass of water; or if she is hungry, trade it for a hamburger. There is no bottom to the price, actually. — alcontali

This is based on your in-depth understanding of how women think and what they care about - or just on your wounded ego? Your understanding of women is clearly limited to media portrayal and the gripes of insecure men and wounded egos. It seems clear to me that you know absolutely zero about real women, and that you’ve narrowly escaped the incel culture in the West by seeking a niche where you can conceal your disrespect and direct your hatred towards ‘Western culture’, when what you really hate is how you saw yourself.

Most women would see your insincerity and contempt from a mile away.

Well, if a woman starts black mouthing you and even spreading outright lies about you, it can be very damaging to your reputation as a man. — alcontali

And vice versa. So what? Is this ‘reputation as a man’ going to affect anything except your ability to get laid?

These candidates could also have picked something else to do, instead of pursuing a career in which they would incessantly have to trade sex for opportunities. You can see the same phenomenon at the office. Sex is a powerful tool to convince the boss to promote you or just not to fire you. — alcontali

One should not have to trade sex for opportunities in the film industry OR in the office. Are you suggesting that women simply limit their potential to careers where there are no men? Better safe than sorry? Segregation is not the way towards peaceful co-existence. Surely we’ve realised this by now...

Well, you’re not living in the West by my understanding - your perception of it is serving to justify your rejection of it, so I’ll take that with a pinch of salt, if you don’t mind.

And you’re not addressing the supposed threat of women supporting each other against the violent and abusive actions of some men. You’re only expressing a general fear and misunderstanding of women - in the same way that women have expressed a general fear and misunderstanding of men for centuries.

It’s a debilitating situation to suffer from predation and the dishonesty of a potential partner’s words. To feel that you are only ‘safe’ in the company of your own sex. This is what women have been experiencing for centuries. What is it you are protecting? Your monetary value? Your dignity? Your freedom?

You do realise that as women we understand this situation all too well. This is common ground. Why must we draw battle lines on the grounds of gender? Why can’t we dismantle the illusion that it’s the ‘opposite sex’ who is to blame, and instead strive to promote integrity, patience and self-awareness in ALL our interactions, particularly those of a sexual or romantic nature - regardless of gender?

From a pan-experientialist perspective, an atom is a manifestation of its entire universe - until the moment it interacts with another. In that instant, it encounters evidence that there is more to existence than this, here and now, and that integrating the new information will require attention, energy and effort - which is achieved only through interaction.

This is a form of ‘existential angst’: it’s anxiety or dread in relation to an indeterminate aspect of existence, and is experienced at every level of awareness. It’s undefined pain, humility and lack/loss in response to information that challenges a system’s manifestation or concepts of the universe. And it’s the Will that determines this response: limited to the system’s awareness of available/potential energy.

For those of us who are focused on the universe as physical, on the relation to our material existence, the difference is an understanding of what is mental, imaginary, uncertain, potential, etc. The angst is understandable - beyond this fragile, fleeting existence nothing can be observed or measured - nothing can be proven or verified or agreed upon. Where is the incentive or benefit then to seek understanding?

And yet we find value in knowledge and interacting beyond any potential benefit for this single, temporary organism, inspiring many of us to continue to seek an understanding of these uncertain, mental, metaphysical and potential aspects of existence - despite the angst.

Those of us who focus on the relation of our metaphysical existence to God/the All/infinity/all possible worlds experience a level of angst different to that of materialist nihilism, for instance. New information - as a difference that makes a difference - challenges our understanding of improbable, illogical, irrational or immoral possibility: imagination, falseness, evil, etc. Having recognised human existence as metaphysical in nature, we must contend with its relation to ‘evil’, for instance, as part of our relation to God. If we deny that God is inclusive of what we perceive as ‘evil’, then we must deny that God is infinite or absolute. And if God is not absolute, then what is God? Is anything absolute? Does infinity even exist? This metaphysical level of existential angst includes new atheism, antinatalism, brain-in-vat and computer simulation theories.

It’s a negative internal response to the possibility of existence beyond our subjective metaphysical perception. Beyond the good, the logical, the rational and the true can be nothing worth our effort, attention and energy, let alone the awareness, connection and collaboration of the Will.

And yet we continue to experience more to existence than our subjective metaphysical conceptualisation, and integrating this new information asks that we increase awareness, connection and collaboration with what we tend to believe is not worth effort, attention and energy except in eliminating it from existence.

The fear is that by connecting and collaborating with immorality, for instance, we are giving it the power to exist, when the truth is that it exists anyway - even if only as a possibility. Entertaining the possibility of ‘evil’ enables us to understand the causal conditions that influence its potential. When we do that, we are better informed to anticipate and change these causal conditions so that we reduce its potential from beyond time, instead of reacting to its occurrence in time.

Schopenhauer wasn’t far off. But he identified more with this metaphysical level of angst, rather than with what he referred to as ‘artistic genius’ - and even pitied the expressions of pain, humility and loss by those who were more aware and open to connecting and collaborating with the world as it is. He was unaware of the joy, wisdom and beauty they also experienced. The Will seems to Schopenhauer to be a meaningless, aimless striving of reality because he focuses not on God/the All/infinity/all possible worlds, but only on the difference between this aspect of existence and what he calls ‘Vorstellung’ or our subjective metaphysical perception.

So Schopenhauer’s exploration of the metaphysical Will falls short - he succumbs to dread and anxiety and retreats back to the individual notion of existence, convinced there is nothing that matters beyond, except this ‘meaningless’ striving of the Will.

They want all men to perish. Not all of these women, but most of them. Their hate is what I hate. They are violent in their writings, they just want to see blood.

You never encountered such rabid feminists? I would be surprized to hear you haven't. — god must be atheist

It is this assumption that I disagree with. They do not want all men to perish - that’s just your interpretation of their writings. I acknowledge that the majority of mainstream feminist writing portrays masculine culture as a harmful force in itself (which I don’t agree with, by the way), but that’s not the same thing as what you’re talking about at all.

You’re describing violent hatred towards an opportunity for women to experience cathartic healing from abuse and violence, because you recognise but refuse to acknowledge that behaviour supported and encouraged by masculine culture contributes to this. In my view, domestic abuse and violence requires both men and women to acknowledge their cultural contribution and collaborate to effect change. But whenever men assume the defensive position, angry feminists will fill the attack role.

Just as whenever women portray themselves as a ‘damsel in distress’, violent men will fill the role of defender and master. Behaviour supported and encouraged by female culture contributes to domestic abuse and violence, too - but men are not the ones at risk of perishing here, so don’t be so defensive. It’s not going to harm you to hear a verbal attack on masculine culture, and acknowledge the truth behind it.

Men and women are NOT opposites in fixed roles - this is the conceptual structure that causes the most damage. We are not two halves of one whole, or two ends of a spectrum. Gender is part of the diversity of humanity. Just as ‘race’ is no longer portrayed as a single value based on skin or eye colour, facial features, body shape, etc, so, too, ‘gender’ is not a binary based on genitalia or other bodily features, incorporating levels of spatial or mathematical ability, interoception, physical capacity or sexual appetite, to name but a few.

If you genuinely feel threatened by women supporting each other against the actions of some men, ask yourself why. Given that you would undoubtedly support and defend victims of violence if you could distance your own identity from the perpetrators, what is it about this situation that distresses you? Are you ashamed to be associated with men who prey on women and trap them in cycles of abuse and violence? Does it bother you that you struggle to distance yourself from them culturally?

I don’t refer to myself as a ‘feminist’ because I don’t support the current of hatred against men and masculine culture in general that appears to motivate feminist activism. But I will call you on your violent hatred against support for women recovering from violent and abusive behaviour, simply because you cannot dissociate your identity from the offenders. I am not plotting against you or against masculine culture, but against the violent and abusive behaviour it supports, encourages and defends. I will do the same to women who assume the ‘victim’ position simply because they’re female.

We need to be mindful of ignorant assumptions, and recognise that how we conceptualise masculinity can change without men perishing.

I'm trying to parse the nature of Metaphysical features from our consciousness. — 3017amen

If you want to parse the metaphysical features of consciousness, you first need to parse this notion of ‘physical’ into its four relative, NON-spatial dimensions of awareness. Distance, shape, space and time describe only a small part of how the universe interrelates at these dimensional levels.

Simple chemical reactions, for instance, are often a relation of distance (as ‘potential’ energy), and time (as relative duration), but not space. They are two-dimensional relations, but not necessarily in the spatial sense of 2D shapes. Rather they are temporal events in relation to one-dimensional atomic structures. The dimensional awareness of space in a chemical reaction is uncertain: it can only be described as possible or potential, relative to its interaction with what is external to the reaction itself - eg. container volume, ambient temperature, and all the conditions we control for in lab experiments.

How do you propose we understand this mental phenomena in a better way, from what we now know in the 21st Century? — 3017amen

When we approach the ‘physical’ as four interrelated dimensional aspects, then understanding the ‘mental’ becomes a matter of interrelating a fifth dimensional aspect (potential or value) in the same complex way - that is, without assuming a 4+1 structure.

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to understand your philosophy here viz the Will. Are you saying that there is an element of ignorance associated with making choices? Or are you saying the Will is an intrinsic fixed thing implanted in consciousness that keeps us alive? — 3017amen

Don’t apologise - there’s a lot to my philosophy that I’ve conceptualised, but not yet reduced to philosophical discourse, so this is very helpful - it just takes some time for me to reply. The meaning of words is easily misinterpreted at this level of thinking, so asking questions is the only way we can approach a shared meaning here.

Yes, I think there is an element of ignorance associated with the Will - which isn’t so much ‘making choices’ as the faculty of determining and initiating action. In my view, the Will operates at every level of awareness, but is only capable of being ‘free’ when that awareness extends beyond time - to consider value and potential in relation to the experiencing subject. The less ignorance, the more the Will is free.

But it’s more than that. The Will operates according to what I describe as three conceptual ‘gates’: awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion. These ‘gates’ apply to every interaction or relation in the universe, from quantum particles to the complexity of human interactions. They are mostly closed to all but a small percentage of possible interactions, in the same way that hydrogen and oxygen atoms will only bond (connect and collaborate) to create water molecules when they interact at a certain angle and potential distance/energy. But because we can perceive and interact with the potential of an action beyond ‘time’, we have conscious access to these gates when determining and initiating the potential of our own actions.

"Clickbait"? On an obscure philosophy forum? And you are making up a strawman. By orientating the education system to girls, boys are being disadvantaged. If you want think deeper about the topic, check out lectures by e.g. Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson, both who have done research about this. — Nobeernolife

The ‘click-bait’ was in reference to the articles from alcontali. But the system is not being orientated towards girls, but towards broader educational opportunities. From a girls’ point of view, there are so many doors open to them which were previously closed simply because they were female. From a boys’ point of view, they don’t want to explore these doors now open to them, because the new opportunities are seen as ‘feminising’. That’s their choice, but don’t complain because girls are willing to work harder in a subject that many boys manage to coast through without effort. It’s also becoming clear that the capacity for emotional intelligence and self-awareness are vital skills in a world where a moment of misplaced aggression could destroy the planet.

The arguments against ‘feminising’ illustrate the narrow point of view that is promoted as ‘masculinity’ - a point of view which celebrates ignorance, posturing and false bravado as worth fighting for. I disagree. But I’m not against masculinity at all. There is nothing wrong with making productive use of one’s physical strength, technical expertise or mathematical and spatial ability, if you have it. But not all boys have these strengths, and yet they all have as many educational and social opportunities available to them as everyone else. They’re just not using them. They’re too busy pretending they don’t want to learn or keeping their heads down, rather than developing their strengths in non-traditional areas.

Our current social concept of ‘masculinity’ doesn’t recognise abilities in self-awareness, social consciousness or critical and creative thinking. But these aren’t ‘feminine’ abilities - they’re human ones. Boys are effectively using these abilities just to keep up the ‘masculine’ facade and avoid learning, when they could be developing them into strengths.

Those boys who excel in traditional ‘masculine’ traits are not struggling at school. It’s those boys who would rather just scrape by at this false concept of ‘masculinity’ than strive to be anything else, and who compensate with posturing and false bravado - they’re the ones who are disadvantaged.

Sexist? I think I am still a bit sexist. I normally am not, but if you show me to a rabid feminist, then she will brand me as such. And then I see red. The most anti-feminist trait in me right now is a defensive reaction: when I see things like "abused women's circle meets here at 7 pm" or "poets against sexual harrassment" or "stop child abuse in the world" then I take it on me, and want to punch whoever is advocating the movement, because I feel it is directed straight at me: a fat, short, past middle aged male man. — god must be atheist

I understand the defensive position. The pendulum swing is a brutal action, and I’m well aware of women who hate. But it seems to me like you’re jumping to conclusions to react so violently to the existence of an “abused women’s circle”, for instance. Women who support each other through an experience of abuse, and even those who strive to minimise occasions of sexual harassment are not necessarily plotting your demise, and don’t specifically mean to exclude you. But if you jump to defend those actions or undermine their ability to be heard and understood, they will visibly turn on you, and with good reason.

I’m going to use stereotypes here, not because I think all men or women are like this, but because it’s a general misunderstanding between us. Women often want their internal affect to be heard and understood. Men seem to automatically translate verbal expression of this internal affect into a potential action - illustrated here by your wanting to punch someone, rather than acknowledging the feeling behind the potential punch. That you recognise your position as defensive is an excellent start. But logic should tell you that you needn’t mount a physical defence in response to emotional words. It won’t physically harm you to hear what they have to say, even though your body will feel as if a threat is immanent. They’re not attacking you - they’re expressing how they feel. There’s a world of difference.

If you can distinguish between the expression of internal affect and the potential action, then there’s hope for you.

This claim that we’re ‘feminising education’ is scaremongering and click-bait. The realisation is that ‘boys being boys’ are disadvantaged by a school system which models and strives to build their capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, instead of celebrating their anti-educational culture of ignorance, posturing and false bravado. This is not feminising, it’s simply EDUCATION. Boys do not have to limit themselves - they’re choosing to, based on cultural pressure.

What we need to do is challenge our cultural concept of ‘masculine’ to be more open to diverse awareness and educational opportunities, not limit educational opportunities to fit within the cultural concept of ‘masculine’.

I am also for co-ed schooling, but if you combine that with politically correct manipulation in order to achieve gender equality in outcomes (rather than opportunity), you get a disaster, and that is what is currently happening in many Western countries. — Nobeernolife

I’m not arguing for gender equality, but rather diversity. Any focus on achieving equality in educational outcomes is going to be a disaster.

But the topic here is not educational outcomes - it’s sexual ethics, which is the main reason I support co-ed schooling.

It’s because our culture continues to celebrate and encourage the ignorance, posturing and false bravado of boys and men that the education of our boys is failing them.
— Possibility

That is a typical culturally-Marxist view on masculinity. — alcontali

Am I supposed to be offended by this extreme-right, neo-Nazi conspiracy-theorist label? I’ve seen enough examples of healthy masculinity to stand by my statement. Men are all decent human beings when they’re not resorting to ignorance, posturing and false bravado to conceal their fears of inadequacy. It’s pretty simple, really.

The simplest solution to fix the problem is conclude that the ongoing experiment of co-education has failed, to abolish it, and to go back to boys-only and girls-only schools.

It is trivial to achieve this simply by expelling the government out of education. At that point, parents become again customers who choose whatever service they prefer. As a parent, I do not want co-education. Therefore, I choose for my children another solution.

The government has spectacularly mismanaged education, and now they must go, or else, they will be made to go.

Furthermore, I can guarantee to you that we are not going to vote over this. If they want to force other people to swallow their misguided views on education, then they will have to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. — alcontali

Hmm, sounds you’re plotting something....

My experience with both single-sex and co-ed schooling prompts me to seek the co-ed option for my children, without a doubt. Fear of our own ‘sexual urge’ is like the tail wagging the dog. Yes, puberty complicates the education environment and increases risk, but it also provides countless opportunities to learn and test practical strategies for interaction with diversity that simply cannot be taught in a single-sex environment. What we can teach both girls and boys about integrity, patience and self-awareness, and about their capacity for kindness, gentleness and generosity in sharing a classroom with the opposite sex can be extrapolated to influence their sexual encounters. We shouldn’t be afraid of that, but rather rise to the challenge. Forcing young people to learn this outside of school is a far greater risk.

What a Faustian pact: destroying the boys because that makes the girls look better. — alcontali

You haven’t even read any of the articles you referenced, have you? The term ‘feminising’ is employed as click-bait in most cases - any implication that boys learning self-awareness, patience and gentleness is somehow ‘destroying’ their masculinity is ridiculous. The techniques employed to successfully re-engage boys in learning are NEW - not revived from old-school methods - and they should be employed for the benefit of BOTH boys AND girls, because not all girls learn the same way, either.

It’s because our culture continues to celebrate and encourage the ignorance, posturing and false bravado of boys and men that the education of our boys is failing them. The cognitive dissonance between their capacity and potential as taught at school and how our culture demonstrates their role is the prime cause of problems for boys. Another major factor is the lack of diversity allowed for in education - from achievement rates to teaching and learning methods, the ‘one size and shape fits all’ mentality results in students experiencing either humility or stifled potential. It’s the humility that the male social identity appears to struggle with the most.

Yes, older men are failing to offer enough useful examples of what it means to be a man without resorting to ignorance, posturing and false bravado, or violence, anger and oppression - nothing to do with being ‘feminine’ at all.

It’s important to note that that the intention in education has not been to ‘feminise’ boys, but to address the imbalance that has been disadvantaging girls in education for centuries. It’s true that we haven’t got the balance worked out yet, but it’s also true that while single gender education can assist academic progress, it can be harmful to a boy’s (and a girl’s) capacity to interact effectively in the real world. This is particularly relevant to sexual ethics, because much of it has to do with how we conceptualise ‘biology’ and ‘acceptable’ behaviour, both in gender-specific and ‘mixed’ company.

The only means are men who are NOT feminized pushovers. So, yes, keep feminizing the boys and see where you will end up. — alcontali

Oh, please do clarify ‘feminise’ for me - I’m curious what it is exactly that you think we’ve been doing to these boys that is such a travesty.

The practice of recruiting security personnel from the same male demographic that the cultural Marxists are incessantly seeking to feminize, is why the fortifications on the Rhine river were abandoned in 406 AD, allowing tribes of more virile, Teutonic "rapefugees" to cross in to Roman empire to molest and manhandle on a catch-and-release base whatever prey they could lay their big, breast-fondling hands on. — alcontali

It’s telling that you need to reach that far back into history for an argument. What saw the Vandals and Suevi through those fortifications was fear and desperation, not virility. Behind them were the Visigoths, followed by the Huns. Of course, they wouldn’t admit to this as their motivation. Ignorance, posturing and false bravado brought about the demise of the former Roman Empire. Notably, Constantinople escaped the onslaught during this time: defended first by a woman, and then later by some clever negotiations - not, as you might assume, by male virility.

It is still civilized here; much more than what it will most likely soon be in your corner of the world. — alcontali

I notice you’re justifying the position I’ve described, rather than disputing it. And with deflection, assumptions and more ignorance, no less.

Maybe explain to those guys about "ignorant and primitive concepts of male biology". They are known to thoroughly molest loosely available "prey" on a catch-and-release base, which they usually don't kill but just leave behind for dead. Also, better don't count on the feminized pushovers to lift a finger, if in the meanwhile they still have one. That is the generalized nearby future of the West. — alcontali

Am I supposed to be afraid of these guys? To run for cover? Don’t worry about me - I may be ‘feminine’, but I’m no ‘pushover’. We have our means. Might be a while, mind you, as I’m neither in the Americas nor Europe. Still, if you don’t think that similar levels of corruption, abuse and molestation occurs nearer to you (or me), then you’re deluding yourself. It’s nothing new, really. It’s just structured differently. In many cases, it only appears more ‘civilised’.

You might be surprised how much ‘respect’ these guys would show their own mothers, sisters and wives. They know how to treat both men and women with dignity and can exercise patience, integrity and self-awareness when it suits them. That they often don’t is a question of ethics, NOT biology.

Sex drive. That is entirely biological.
And do not mix that with ethics. Ethics comes into play when society is involved. — Nobeernolife

No, it isn’t entirely biological at all. Sex drive is the desire to have sex. Most factors that influence sex drive are social, psychological or medical. Testosterone is one of many influences, but you do realise that women have testosterone, too, don’t you?

There is nothing to conceptualize. It just is what it is. — alcontali

I don’t doubt that your ignorant and primitive concept of ‘male biology’ seems to be working for you personally in your isolated little corner of the world. No doubt you’ve gotten yourself into a position where you can lash out with some well-placed aggression to bring everyone back in line, or exclude (ie. run away from) any part of the world that doesn’t pander to your every whim.

I think many older males with a similar concept of ‘male biology’ would have carved out a little niche for themselves in the world by now - a castle/fortress in which they can live out their days in relative ignorance of a reality that everyone else is gradually coming to terms with, despite how they like to think the world works.

Anyway, if anyone here is genuinely interested in discussing sexual ethics, let me know.