Objectivity means always proceeding on the assumption that things can be solved.

It doesn't mean that you already know how to solve it.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. — Pfhorrest

That would be incorrect Forrest. The synthetic a priori is the closest you can get to assumptions yet to be solved.

What does that even mean?

Things are either true or false.

Orthogonal to that, they're either known or unknown.

So they can be known true, known false, true but unknown, or false but unknown.

Whether you know it or not has no bearing on whether it's true or false. — Pfhorrest

Really? So life is all objectively logical? Surely you don't believe that do you?

Again, if you can answer that 'all events must have a cause 'successfully, then your argument becomes more persuasive. Or, in the alternative, if you can explain the metaphysical features of your own existence, you would even win a prize :snicker:

Point is, unanswerable questions can be rejected logically, but if those questions are about the nature of your existence (or any existence), they become unanswerable metaphysical questions. Therefore, why should you reject them, when they lead to other discoveries?

As such, if that were the case there would be no discoveries in physics, engineering, cognitive science, etc. etc. So your premise seems untenable at best. Actually, with all due respect, it's a bit ignorant.

Perhaps your still stewing over the failure of logical positivism, who knows...

But lets say that there are a number of ways to describe, what would those be? — Pussycat

Sure, phenomenologically? Example: the ineffable experience. Kind of a paradox, no?

dont think we can describe anything accurately, but even if we did, we would be talking about a correct/right description, and not a correct/right answer or evaluation. What does a right answer even mean or look like, in terms of love like you ask, anyway??? — Pussycat

Thanks I'm glad you appreciate my odd sense of humor :grin:

Anyway I'm not so sure about that. Of course if something questioned is not described correctly, then objectively it becomes a wrong description.

In terms of trying to describe love objectively; it would be wrong to say the existence of love can only be described objectively.

In cognition, obviously some metaphysical features we experience from love are primarily phenomenological. But the nature of love's existence surely cannot be described or explained correctly as objectivity could it?

What's new pussycat, [insert Tom Jones]!

Forgive me but I couldn't resist, I'm getting punch drunk.

If it only has to do with a description of a thing or object, what if I'm unable to describe the thing or the object accurately? Does it become right, wrong or something else entirely?

That we haven’t invented a scale to measure it by doesn’t mean that there’s no particular amount that you love it. — Pfhorrest

Does that qualify as an unanswerable question? It kind of seems so... Yet you would reject such a question. I'm confused. I thought you said objectivity solves everything,?

This is the problem. “Unknown” isn’t an alternative to “true” and “false”. Something can be true but not known. Unknown isn’t UNKNOWABLE or NO-TRUTH-VALUE. — Pfhorrest

Could that mean that it's metaphysical?

There are objective answers to questions about those things. Where have I ever said otherwise? — Pfhorrest

Great. I'll wait for your answers to those questions about the nature of those things we are parsing.

Asking why you have all those mental states is a psychological mental question. I don’t know the full psychological answer to them, especially because each answer would involve particulars about your life that I don’t know — Pfhorrest

Wait a minute I don't understand. I thought you said you knew everything objectively?

But that doesn’t mean the answers to them aren’t objective, i.e. there is one correct answer that everyone should give to the questions about you, even if the answers about themselves are different, even if they don’t know the answers about you, etc. — Pfhorrest

But would that not suggest omnipotence of some sort? Do you have that capability through your objective (analytical) abilities?

Not at all. I am 72 inches tall. That is an objective fact about me. It being an objective fact about me doesn’t mean that everybody is and always has been 72 inches tall. It just means that anyone who says I am a different height is wrong . — Pfhorrest

I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges as it were. Of course that's an objective fact about your material physical existence. How is that germane to the question about my love of ice cream?

Objectivists means that whether an opinion is right or wrong doesn’t depend on who you ask. It absolutely can and must depend on who or what (and what time and place etc) you’re asking about — Pfhorrest

That's another reason why it's not germane to the topic, yes?

And that would be an objective fact that you love i e cream just that much, just as it’s an objective fact that I am just this tall. — Pfhorrest

How is it an objective fact that I love ice cream just a little bit? Quantify my partial love of ice cream objectively.

would not call something that is only temporarily unanswered “unanswerable”, just unanswered. We can never know for sure if an unanswered question will ever be answered until it is, but my principle says to always proceed on the assumption that some day it can be. — Pfhorrest

But I thought I understood you to say you reject unanswerable questions? What does that really mean,?

The domain of philosophy isn’t “the unknown” or “the mysterious”. — Pfhorrest

Really? All events must have a cause. Is that true or false? And whether it's true or false or unknown, what kind of logic and knowledge is that?

I'm not sure (and I'm not sure if you're sure) whether you're talking about the fact that you have those states of mind, or a moral evaluation of the contents of those states of mind.

In either case, yes there is an objective right or wrong evaluation of them, that may or may not be practical to figure out, or in practice accessible to anyone but yourself. — Pfhorrest

Wait a minute, I thought you said you're sure that objectivity can explain those things that exist? I won't give you a free pass on that one so we'll come back to that.

In the meantime, you seem to be hung up on epistemology/ontology as an exclusive means and method for complete understanding about the nature of these existing things. Let's start with simple definitions again;

Love: ontological, epistemological, logical, ethical/moral, metaphysical, phenomenological?

The Will : [ insert domain's?]

Wonder : [ insert domain's?]

Causation : [ ?]

Sentience : [?]

So using your approach or default mechanism toward objectivity, tell me which domain can best explain the reason for my will to live or die?

Which domain can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

Which domain can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

Which domain can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

Which domain can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Take one at a time if you like, and we can parse which domain is most suitable in trying to explain the nature of those things in themselves.

It is a correct opinion that you love ice cream (assuming you actually do). Whether you love it or not is an objective fact. — Pfhorrest

But that would qualify as a subjective opinion that extends to arbitrary feelings of Love. If it wasn't it would mean the all people either like or dislike ice cream. Objectively correct opinions assume either right or wrong. You can't think of sensory perception as black or white like a priori logic and mathematics.

In other words what if I only loved ice cream a little bit. How would you quantify a little bit?

Just because I don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. That's the whole point of the principle this thread is about: never assume there is no answer, just because you don't know it yet. — Pfhorrest

But if I'm understanding that correctly you would reject unanswerable questions as a temporary state of existing. Alternatively, using modal logic or what are you thinking that might unlock the door to that unknown/mystery?

In other words what domain is appropriate for the philosopher to study here? Is it some sort of synthetic a priori knowledge?

an objective one, in that any claim about it is either right or wrong, — Pfhorrest

Are you sure Forrest? Is my will to live or die, love or not love, wonder or not wonder, for example, qualify as an objective " right or wrong " proposition? In other words, what kind of truth's do those things represent (?).

don’t know what some of those are, but the ones I do understand I would say are perfectly compatible with my principles here. — Pfhorrest

How so?

can’t understand this question. — Pfhorrest

What is it about my love of ice cream that makes it a correct opinion?

that would be a complex psychological question, and you’d have to ask an expert on that exactly how, but it would involve some kind of empirical observation like all scientific questions do. — Pfhorrest

Does that qualify as an unanswerable question? If not please provide an objective explanation for the feelings I have for the love of ice cream.

objectively true that I’m conscious. I suspect like kaarl you’re conflating epistemology with ontology. Just because you don’t know for sure what’s going on in my mind doesn’t mean there’s no truth about it. — Pfhorrest

Not so fast. If we're talking about the nature of your own conscious existence is that not a metaphysical truth?

sSory but I lost sight of this thread I'll be happy to debate EOG with you!

Because I expect it's not to most theists, who are not theists because they were convinced by faulty metaphysical arguments that there must exist some boring piece of metaphysical machinery to enable the existence of the ordinary universe, — Pfhorrest

Forrest!

Are you denying your own metaphysical conscious existence? Surely that could not be objectively true!

“I don’t know” is always an acceptable response, but “we can never know” never is. — Pfhorrest

Hi Forrest!

In what context are you referring? In other words, are you suggesting there is an objective standard that precludes mystery, arbitrariness, subjectivity, and/or the unknown? Examples that are too numerous to mention include but are not limited to: paradox of time and self-reference, conscious existence, cosmological existence, Love, metaphysical will, ad nauseum.

In that case, every statement that something is your favorite flavor of ice cream is objectively false. — Pfhorrest

But if it is subjectively true that one person does not like ice cream in general, how do you reconcile or preclude the arbitrariness behind the subjective truth with the objective truth of the statement? And even if one did like ice cream, how could you objectively account for the feelings that person has about his love for ice cream?

As much as you seem keen to extend these archetypes to masculine-feminine concepts in general, Mars and Venus isn’t about physical attraction or chemistry. It’s about communication. So your persistence with this line of questioning doesn’t make sense. If your aim is to discuss masculine-feminine archetypes or gender identities in general, be honest enough to say so. — Possibility

Well, that became an ancillary note to our recent discussion. However, it is worth parsing because it's part of the OP (please go back and refresh yourself if you will), that Eros has some sort of appeal to the sexes (whether it's intrinsic or innate to both sexes/I would welcome your theory).

I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being too analytical before! I’m pretty sure I’ve been clear about my distrust of binary systems, so I’m still unsure what you’re arguing against. What do you refer to as ‘success’ in this context? The phenomenon of ‘human chemistry’ can’t be determined by dating sites, not matter what criterion is provided. It refers to qualitative sensory relations that occur in person - which includes, but is not limited to, aesthetics. But I fail to see how this disputes what I have said. — Possibility

I'm basically referring to the dichotomization of your theory wherein you seem to overlook Eros (as stated in the OP) and/or the physical chemistry between the sexes. And so trying to exclusively put logic to this phenomena of attraction, seems incomplete.

Take the phenomena of love for example. How often do you hear an individual who says " gee, I don't know what it is about him/her, I just love him/her." What kind of scientific method would provide insight on that phenomenon?

How do we ‘cope’ with failure? By recognizing it as an opportunity to learn? By shutting down and avoiding future interactions? By devaluing or attacking the apparent ‘cause’ of our failure? It’s not simple when it’s about interpersonal relationships. Active rather than avoidant coping strategies are recommended, which brings us back to the scientific method... — Possibility

I refer you to my earlier statements/questions herein. Alternatively, indeed there are opportunities to learn by integrating, as apposed to repudiating, the yin and yang's of life. That's basically what I'm referring to when I say coping skills-dealing with the ups, downs, opposing forces of life. Closed doors happen for reasons; they are generally good reasons.

But it certainly is worth repeating that you raise a good point in our agreement of the Venus-Mars somewhat false archetype. And that is to say 'avoidance' or even 'acceptance' seemed to be a false narrative, paradigm or stereotype between the male-female differences given without such opportunities to change, growth, grow together, self-actualization, etc. etc..

Otherwise, if you could provide some insight on Eros/physical attraction/passion etc. from the foregoing, I would be interested in parsing that. I think that might end (perhaps) the dichotomous nature of the discussion.

It is persons are subjects of experience that they are designated 'beings'. And I maintain, beings are not 'objects' except for a metaphorical sense ('she became an object of obsession to him'.)

But designating 'beings' as 'conscious objects' is a disservice to both language and philosophy. — Wayfarer

Not to digress, but that's a great point that almost deserves another thread. Consider that Beings are in fact material aesthetic objects (Classic Greek Eros/objects of desire). I don't think that appreciating Eros is necessarily a 'disservice' in the original classic sense (not in the Platonic sense).

As it relates to English, it is not all that straight forward either. In English, the subject is usually before the verb. That implies subordination to the object, which in turn supports your notion that being the subject is only known in the first person. However, saying "John seemed tired." (the subject is 'John') and "I love Chocolate" ( the subject is "I" ), still subordinates the objects from the first person who perceives the actual object itself (in the first place).

That begs other questions like what does it mean to be a Being (?) and what is the nature of same. And as it relates to the primacy of subjective truth in this thread, is it Kierkegaard and Berkley who are ruling the day here LOL.

We are trapped in a subjective-objective reality.

Now I’m confused. If you believe that men and women generally want the same things, then why reify the archetypes? I keep suspecting that you’re using ‘Mars’ and ‘Venus’ as a smokescreen for a binary gender identification. I don’t understand why you’re so caught up on this pop psychology from the 90s, written by a ‘relationship counsellor’ with a correspondence course in psychology. — Possibility

No exceptions taken!

but learning how to access it himself by interacting with those who can demonstrate a right brain capacity and articulate their inner experiences — Possibility

No exceptions taken!

Mars is attracted to Venus and Venus to Mars because they’re different from each other. That’s all. — Possibility

Exception taken as noted: you still haven't answered the question as to why Venus is attracted to Mar's. For example, is it physical or metaphysical or a combination of both. If it's both (using that axiom) how would you describe physical chemistry(?). (I'm not clear whether aesthetics/Eros are important to you or are included in any of your theories.)

More than that - one must take personal responsibility for their prediction errors. — Possibility

No exceptions taken!

I’m not sure why you would label this approach deterministic. How does what I’ve written contradict what you’ve stated here? — Possibility

I labeled it as such because it seems too positivistic or analytical or even overthinking the human condition. As such, if you are thinking that a binary system of checks/balances will ensure success, I highly question the effectiveness. As a rudimentary example, think of dating sites. A website that only provides for written criterion which does not allow aesthetics' as a criterion of choice would not only be incomplete, it would not be as effective in determining the phenomenon of the thing called human chemistry-whatever that may consist of.

Aside from that, the context in which you were (initially) referring was this mitigation of suffering as you would phrase it. Accordingly, all I was suggesting is that having adequate coping skills to deal with failure's is really all that's required for the human psyche. Of course, this is more Freudian than not.

I believe that I do know myself, or at least that I am getting better at it, I just don't know how philosophy would categorize that. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Sure! Usually political/social/ethical philosophy are the domain's. Thomas Hobbes, Aristotle, etc..

Couple of interesting bullet points:

Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom- Aristotle

Hobbes commentary: .... [Hobbes] was responding to a popular philosophy at the time that you can learn more by studying others than you can from reading books. He asserts that one learns more by studying oneself: particularly the feelings that influence our thoughts and motivate our actions. As Hobbes states, "but to teach us that for the similitude of the thoughts and passions of one man, to the thoughts and passions of another, whosoever looketh into himself and considereth what he doth when he does think, opine, reason, hope, fear, etc., and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know what are the thoughts and passions of all other men upon the like occasions.

The irony is that as humans, we are consistently changing both physically and mentally, so of course it's an ongoing process to 'know thyself'. Whether it's studying others, oneself, or other philosophical and/or cognitive theories, it's just a means to an end. Wisdom or revelation may appear in the most unlikely places (i.e. pursuing an unrelated hobby or interest).

Anyway, back to your OP/concern...

nature/nurture is not a mutually exclusive dichotomy, — Possibility

Agree! Hence the discovery AND uncovery of Being. We are free to discover that which an external society can provide for us, while maintaining that same freedom to uncover our own unique or innate talents, gifts, wants and needs ,etc.. The two together represent an integration of, sometimes, two opposing forces (inconsistencies from rubrizing), yet still allowing for Venus to be Venus; Mars to be Mars.

But to exclusively follow a stereotype making it seem like one size should fit all (Venus should be Venus because that's what society says), would obviously not allow for any unique differences to flourish. So unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible) I would agree with your foregoing Einstein/Mozart analogy.

Why Venus desires Mars is irrelevant - as archetypes they only typify a simplified pattern in human experience, rather than reality. Human beings both desire and fear the challenges that differences in their environment offer the system’s capacity to integrate information and evolve - not just through their offspring, but through their own experiential Being and a relational Becoming that transcends the self. We become all that we could possibly be only by relating to what we are not, and striving to integrate the difference. — Possibility

Now there is where we disagree. Your denial of your natural attraction toward any given archetype is perplexing. The reality is, Venus is attracted to Mars, as Mars is attracted to Venus. Why? (You have not answered that simple question.) I don't see how your explanation covers this human phenomenon. Have you thought about it both physically and metaphysically?

Complete: having all the necessary and appropriate parts; entire, full; having run its course, finished.

Show me someone who considers themselves ‘complete’, and I’ll show you someone who is no longer willing to learn from experience. They interact only with their own conceptual systems, mistaking them for reality - effectively living in their own world. — Possibility

Of course, I get that. But having a bit of heaven on earth is worth the sojourn, no? Meaning, if Mar's is all left brain, without recognizing the virtues of his right brain, then he is not really complete. (Of course I mean that in a temporal sense.)

No, the differences between what men want and what women want overlap and intertwine to the point that there is so little mutually exclusive wants and needs they barely rate a mention. It is only when we construct a typical pattern of wants and needs that any dichotomous structure emerges. — Possibility

I must say that is confusing. It sounds like you are saying that generally speaking, men and women want the same things (I have no quarrel with that).

If we predict that a woman wants to be hit on, but in acting on that prediction encounter a negative response, does the fault lie with the woman or her response, or is the error in our prediction or the details of our action? — Possibility

Correct...that is what I mean by saying one must take the personal responsibility for their own actions, as well as suffering any consequences from same (of both good and bad).

If we can employ the scientific method to the prediction-interaction process instead, accepting error and uncertainty as an opportunity to learn and refine our predictions, then perhaps we can become all that we could possibly be. — Possibility

I'm not sure I would completely agree with that deterministic approach. Quite simply, the soundness of that proposition only requires coping skills for an effective reconciliation. Through self-awareness, we can become (discover and uncover) who we were born to be. Of course, there is a balance between wishful thinking and all that is possible from our reality. But generally, the existential responsibility of Being, should not be subordinated by rubrics. Thinking outside the box has lead to many novel discoveries.

I couldn't even tell you where I fit much less anyone else. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Just as an aside, in paraphrase, it was Aristotle who said the greatest gift that we can give to ourselves (and each other) is to 'know thyself'.

I tend to the view that we are each entitled to our own opinion but that opinions are not either right or wrong, they are just opinions — Kaarlo Tuomi

Some say that only viz human sentience; feelings are neither right or wrong, they're just feelings.
The trick is to see what is behind those feelings. Usually there is some concept of truth (their truth) that is being projected. Philosophically, one could start with the simple parsing of objective v. subjective truth's. Truth can be quite an equivocating exercise to make sense of... .

they then go into a stage of calm and tranquility, a sense of freedom from the anxiety that they had from not being able to answer the question. — Have some tea

Pardon the interruption! But, I think that's called being in denial :chin: It's probably a Freudian thing.
Skeptics are usually stubborn and have tunnel vision. Some, not all, even use skepticism aa a sense of empowerment whereby they somehow feel important when they complain and/or argue.

Otherwise, consider that ignorance is bliss.

My general philosophy could be most succinctly summed up as the rejection of both unquestionable answers (answers that are not to be questioned), and unanswerable questions (questions that cannot — Kaarlo Tuomi

I think the first part he got right, the second part, not so much. If he's a philosopher, why wouldn't he want to question most everything(?).

In other words, I hold that there is such a thing as a correct opinion, in a sense beyond mere subjective agreement. — Kaarlo Tuomi

I would seek clarification as to what comprises a "'correct opinion beyond subjective agreement".

"I don't know" would have to be rejected as unanswerable. whereas to me, admitting that there are limits to what we can know is a large part of what philosophy is for, and questions that cannot be answered distinctly are often the most interesting. — Kaarlo Tuomi

Indeed! As an aside, in a pragmatic sense, just think about what our lives would look like if there weren't those who questioned things. Whether it's building engineering, aerospace technology, cognitive science, so on and so forth; asking questions (even to oneself) yields much revelation... .

"Subjectively", ask him why we should not wonder about things. (Is Subjectivity a bad thing?)

I’m aware of what Maslow says about self-actualisation - my own view is constructionist, so I don’t agree that we were born with an essential ‘self’ of definitive goals, wants and needs waiting to be discovered, nor that we start out as a tabula rasa. Being is the ongoing interaction of a self-conscious organism with their environment - we achieve self-actualisation when we can recognise our most effective path of interaction, but it’s not a permanent state. Becoming doesn’t end at self-actualisation - it is the process that maintains self-actualisation in relation to the unfolding universe. — Possibility

In your thinking, you would have a rather tall hill to climb in trying to reconcile the God given gifts from the Mozart's and Einstein's of the world, since I'm assuming your view of human nature is that everything is a learned response/the rubrics of society exclusively shaping one's nature. Accordingly, does this mean you would want Madonna to perform a heart transplant on you? LOL.

I think you are in denial of the what makes Mars-Mars and Venus-Venus.. You seem to obviate one's own personal responsibility for being all that they could possibly be. Mars should bring to the table not half a man, but a wholistic man who has the experience and Logos, enough to engage with Venus. Nonetheless, you still haven't answered the question as to (aside from procreation/offspring), why Venus desires Mars?

Life is complete when we die; the ‘self’ is complete when it ceases to be informed by reality. — Possibility

Can you elucidate this sense of completion and reality?

They’re not supposed to unite, they’re supposed to become increasingly irrelevant in a successful union between two human beings, — Possibility

I'm not understanding your point. Why should Venus and Mars pursue each other?

There are differences, sure, but no ‘gaps’ between the wants and needs of men and women except what is created by this dichotomous structure. — Possibility

So, men and women want the same things, it's just that we are different (?)

not talking about giving ourselves permission to pursue wants and needs as it suits us - don’t go interpreting it that way. The ‘denial’ I’m referring to is in reference to ignorance, isolation and exclusion, not denying wants and needs. — Possibility

Forgive me but this sounds like a contradiction. It sounds that way because it implies Venus and Mars get together to help complete each other.
Otherwise please explain the differences between pursuing wants and needs to suit ourselves (self-help, self healing, self-awareness) versus pursuing wants and needs to suit your partner's need.

never said it ‘completes the Mars in Mars’ - that’s you trying to satisfy your own theories again. — Possibility

Forgive me again, but have you studied Maslow?
Self-actualization is the achievement of both the discovery and uncovery of Being. While during such discovery it is true we need others (other people in general/platonic relationships) to help achieve our goals, wants and needs, it is our own responsibility to uncover what we were born to do and be.

I’m not talking about ‘completion’ as such - that’s often what we’d like it to be, because it would mean an end to suffering. — Possibility

Can you explain what this suffering is... . Is it a type of existential angst? If so, how does or should our other potential or current partner eradicate or mitigate this suffering?

you’re asking why a self-actualising person would seek a partner, it’s because they are open to an ongoing relationship with someone whose difference and change is a continual source of attraction - challenging them to continue increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

This seems to contradict your definition of opposites and differences. Meaning it sounds like your theory endorses seeking opposites and differences from the other partner, in order to enhance their Being.

No physical connection necessary, and nothing to do with marriage. — Possibility

Forgive me again but this sounds like cultural pre-arranged marriages. Are you suggesting this is a better method for a successful union between Venus and Mars?

Short of procreation, you really haven't been able to fill the gaps between the wants and needs of the sexes, both physically and mentally. Your theory seems to suggest platonic friendships are all that's required for the discovery of each person's wants, needs, passions, desires, etc., by pursuing "an ongoing relationship with someone whose difference and change is a continual source of attraction ."

The only conclusion I could come to now is that somehow the very experience of your "suffering " (whatever that means, and I look forward to a better explanation from you) creates our wants and needs for the sexes to unite.

A relationship can then become similar to a ‘dance of opposites’, as the person in denial appears hellbent on possessing, controlling or fighting that aspect in their partner, sometimes in destructive ways. Alternatively, the relationship may be complementary, enabling them to eventually recognise and embrace their own sexual identity. If that is all they were attracted to in their partner, though, then the relationship may grow apart, losing significance, as they no longer need to relate to a sexuality that exists outside of themselves in order to feel complete.

A lasting relationship recognises both difference and change as continual sources of attraction and wisdom. — Possibility

I think there is progress being made there, only from the vantage point of opposites complementing each other. So all I will say there is that one should have the self-awareness enough to know that it is not virtious to deny themselves. In other words, allow yourself the gift of transformational self-awareness.

That said, if this self-actualization completes the Mars in Mars and the Venus in Venus, then it begs the question of why even bother to seek that which is not needed. Meaning if in principle, all pathology and dysfunction is removed from the individual's Being, then please advise as to why Mars would seek Venus?

And that Existential question is also a result of what you said here:

Looks fade, people change. — Possibility

And so if looks fade, people change viz the self-actualized person who has integrated and resolved the opposites/dichotomies within themselves (without help from their partner), what would be the purpose for Venus to seek Mars?

from an awareness that the relational potential between men and women transcends physical connection, property transactions and procreative capacity. — Possibility

Interesting. And so can you describe this sense of transcendence? In other words, if as you suggest, romantic love is no longer a want or need, what else is there?

What we also deny in ourselves, we seek in our relationships with others. — Possibility

What does that mean in comparison to what you said here:

But we are not opposites, and we shouldn’t be expected to ‘complete’ each other in the sense that our wants and needs are fixed into certain categories so that when we ‘have’ the right partner we can feel whole. This way of thinking ignores the capacity we have to learn from each other and integrate these differences in ourselves. — Possibility

What I'm trying to understand is, is what/how denying our wants and needs leads to learning from each other? In other words it seems to suggest a dependence on the other partner to gain wisdom. But what happens if we don't deny ourselves?

What attracts me to the male form aesthetically has changed over the years, according to the perceived value/potential of my self and my interactions. — Possibility

Very intriguing. Could this explain why people grow apart? For example, our perceptions of love change from say, in our teens to adulthood and beyond. Also, what is perhaps even more intriguing is your view of aesthetics evolving over time. And it implies that any object of desire may not be as desirable at some future point in time.

for what we want, I think we all want to interact with the world in a way that ultimately increases our ability to minimise suffering, given that we’re going to interact with the world anyway. Whether we identify ourselves or others as particularly ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ has a much smaller impact on this than you seem to think. — Possibility

Just for clarification, are you saying that men and women get together for emotional support, more than anything else? Does this deny or subordinate the physical connection? And if so, how does that square with romantic love?

It is that science cannot explain consciousness, therefore dualism. — Kenosha Kid

Good point. Arguably, much of logic would be different if we knew the true nature of our existence. Synthetic a priori knowledge, from consciousness, exists for that' similar reason. In principle, if we knew the answers we wouldn't wonder about them.

For example, the Kantian synthetic a priori statement that all events must have a cause, is a synthesis between induction and an innate (a priori) metaphysical sense of wonderment:

Wonder: A metaphysical feature of consciousness with no explanation as to why we actually wonder. Other analogies include the color red, the phenomenon of love, the will, sensations of time, etc..

Most all discoveries in physics involve synthetic judgements. (Logical positivism failed in that sense.)

think truth must be objective, this is what is true for everybody. If something is true for you and not everybody else it wouldn’t be a fact and the truth of it would literally just be in a few people’s heads maybe. The world is bigger than your head we reason, so the truth of the world must be objective. — Maya

The short answer is both. We live in a subject-object world.

Consider the differences between the common phenomenon of love ( a truth) and an objective mathematical truth. Love appears to be both a subjective and objective truth because it's universally true that everyone wants love (most human's) yet there are subjective elements relative to cognition and psychology. Similarly, mathematical truths are universal and objective, yet still depend on subjective analysis during its application.

Taking it a step further, perhaps the more intriguing questions about love and mathematics, relate to their true nature of existence or their experience. Are they both a variant of some sort of metaphysical language? They both speak to a universal truth that describes how the universe works and are abstract... .

I would consider embracing the douchbaggery.
Both literally and figuratively, there is no escape from either one. Remember that there is a time for all seasons.

aware of your accusation, but I didn’t dichotomise agency - that was you. ‘Material agency’ is a term used in reference to historical and cultural objects, not people. In that sense, material ‘agency’ is a misnomer — Possibility

You can be in denial of that and that's okay. And neither are you reconciling your definition of material agency. Materialism comprise material agencies. You seem to be in denial of that fact as well. Further, using your concept, if a family portrait or photograph is a "cultural object", then you would be mistaken. Logos is intellect; Venus and Mars are objects (mental agency and material agency). So it's not a misnomer.

Men and women are NOT opposites. — Possibility

In what ways are men and women the same? In their wants and needs?

Your preference for women you categorise as ‘feminine’ is conceptual. — Possibility

Quite honestly I see you as conceptualizing too much. You seem to be denying the aesthetical appeal from the opposing sexes ( women's innate desire for a masculine man and men's innate desire for a feminine woman).

There are certain differences and aesthetics that have the potential to attract my attention and effort, but to say that I’m attracted to ‘masculine’ men would seem to dichotomise my own identity as ‘feminine’, and imply that those men I’m not attracted to are somehow ‘less masculine’ in some objective sense, when it’s only that I categorise them as such. — Possibility

I'm left with your logic that seems to suggest that all men should be attracted to butch looking women. Otherwise, and similarly, you seem to be saying you're attracted to feminine men, if I'm understanding that correctly. How's that define the fact that men and women both want the same things?

The nature of existence.

There’s a tendency in American culture to polarise: freedom vs governance, black vs white, red vs blue, masculine vs feminine, dominance vs submission, etc. American culture identifies itself in a defensive position against a worldview, even if they deign to acknowledge an element of it as necessary (a la yin-yang). The yin-yang symbol can be mistaken as a call to surround and control this opposing element, and to ‘rescue’ those of our own trapped on the ‘other side’. As a result, the subtle subversiveness of ‘fifty shades of grey’ has been almost completely overlooked. — Possibility

Of course. This is one of the main tenets of Maslow's existential ethos. Rather than repudiate the opposites, one must not dichotomize but instead, integrate them.

Quite honestly, it is easy to fall into this trap. With all due respect, in the objectification of women thread, you did exactly that. You dichotomized mental agency by repudiating material agency. You seemingly renounced one in favor of the other. Don't mean to put you on the chopping block, but instead, wanted to make you aware.

Men and women are alike in some ways and different in others, but there is no defensive position to be constructed that protects your identity as ‘masculine’. — Possibility

In what context are we referring to? Meaning if one were to seek integration of opposites (the virtues of and the male appreciation of, femininity in a woman) is that not a good thing?

On the other hand, some men are attracted to tomboy's or women who are less feminine ( I'm extremely attracted to feminine women). And too, if one were to adopt the belief system that we all just want clones of ourselves, then seemingly we are back to "we all just want the same thing" and the Venus-Mars archetype goes away (or at least its significance is diminished). That all seems so paradoxical, no?

In other words, existentially, do our masculine and feminine features simply provide for the attraction to our objective agency/reality, along with our (existential) wants and needs remaining basically the same (?). And in that sense, our mental agency/immaterial reality seems to be related to our hormonal idiosyncrasies that simply requires understanding (or using your term 'decyphering').

You seem to be advocating for classic yin-yang of the Tao.

Perhaps, a dichotomous disparity between the sexes that nevertheless seeks unity, or a harmonious enigma that requires understanding.

In either case, this seems to be paradoxical. Why should opposing forces attract (?). This would violate the universal laws of attraction. Metaphorically, the saint would not want to be the devil. Nor would the devil want to be the saint.

Or, maybe not :chin:

We not only want different things, what we want changes with our experience of the world — Possibility

Not in the philosophy of Chrissie Hynde:

So, if you're mad, get mad
Don't hold it all inside
Come on and talk to me now

Hey, what you got to hide
I get angry too
Well I'm a lot like you

Thank you for your observation. I agree. If the logic of language is synonymous with the notion that philosophy lives in words, this seems very limited and dichotomous. But of course as William James has suggested, truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed that verbal formulation/that sense of logic.

think there’s a difference between creative catharsis and ‘just emoting’ - it’s in how we direct our interactions. By ‘just emoting’ I’m referring to a failure to make any conscious choice in how we act out, particularly in who bears the brunt of our emotional outburst and why. — Possibility

I think you would be surprised at the fundamental similarities of expressing emotion. The expression of emotion can be manifested in different genres (angry metal/happy pop), and also in another way it can be manifested by random free ranging improvisation. In both cases an emotional purging is experienced from both the performer and listener.

With respect to communication, tolerance, etc. relative to the so called extraneous deciphering... , points well taken Possibly!!

Ha! That's a whole nother confounding correlation of causal associations!! LOL

But I am mostly a left brain thinker. So, the PM writings that I've seen just make no sense to me. Maybe I need "Queer Eye for the Straight Philosopher". :joke: — Gnomon

Royal and Imperial political & religious systems tend to adopt an autocratic stance of “my way or the highway”. Whereas, In more democratic and egalitarian systems, the marketplace of ideas will determine truths and values. — Gnomon

I suppose the irony would be that the left brain my-way-or-the-highway persona would be considered deficient and/ or not normal in their way of thinking :chin:

. It is at least highly intriguing that the only place where conditions approach those of the early (Big Bang) universe are the interiors of black holes, and maybe even moreso the fact that a time-reversed black hole (i.e. a white hole) looks eerily similar to the Big Bang itself. — Enai De A Lukal

In you all's learn-ed opinion, since science namely theoretical physics, seem to be split on what existence was like before the Big Bang, could multiverse theories be an attempt to explain causation prior to the Big Bang?

Because multiverse theories cannot be falsified, I realize that it seems the floodgates tend to open-up allowing for all sorts of radical ideas. I'm in the process of studying this a bit more, and was also wondering how it could possibly square with the concept of eternity, Platonism, and unchanging timelessness.

As a very rudimentary example, what in theory, would exist outside of the block universe?