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. — 3017amen
By the way, what's been your take on the Venus/Mar's thing? Do we all just want the same thing ( we just manifest them differently) or do we want different things? Perhaps in your earlier replies, you've suggested a combination or hybrid of sorts, based upon each individual's (their subjective truth) wants and needs... . — 3017amen
We not only want different things, what we want changes with our experience of the world — Possibility
All beings support yin and embrace yang
and the interplay of these two forces fills the universe
Yet only at the still-point, between the breathing in and the breathing out,
can one capture these two in perfect harmony.
There is no greater misfortune than feeling “I have an enemy”
For when “I” and “enemy” exist together there is no room left for my treasure
Thus when two opponents meet, the one without an enemy will surely triumph — Lao Tzu, ‘Tao Te Ching’
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
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
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. — 3017amen
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'). — 3017amen
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
Men and women are NOT opposites. — Possibility
Your preference for women you categorise as ‘feminine’ is conceptual. — Possibility
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
Men and women are NOT opposites.
— Possibility
In what ways are men and women the same? In their wants and needs? — 3017amen
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). — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
What we also deny in ourselves, we seek in our relationships with others. — Possibility
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 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
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
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? — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
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
Looks fade, people change. — Possibility
from an awareness that the relational potential between men and women transcends physical connection, property transactions and procreative capacity. — 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. — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
And so if looks change, people fade 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? — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
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
never said it ‘completes the Mars in Mars’ - that’s you trying to satisfy your own theories again. — Possibility
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
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
No physical connection necessary, and nothing to do with marriage. — 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. — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
If 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. — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
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
Life is complete when we die; the ‘self’ is complete when it ceases to be informed by reality. — Possibility
They’re not supposed to unite, they’re supposed to become increasingly irrelevant in a successful union between two human beings, — Possibility
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
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. — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
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 (?) — 3017amen
nature/nurture is not a mutually exclusive dichotomy, — Possibility
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
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
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
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
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 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). — 3017amen
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.) — 3017amen
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). — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
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
but learning how to access it himself by interacting with those who can demonstrate a right brain capacity and articulate their inner experiences — Possibility
Mars is attracted to Venus and Venus to Mars because they’re different from each other. That’s all. — Possibility
More than that - one must take personal responsibility for their prediction errors. — Possibility
I’m not sure why you would label this approach deterministic. How does what I’ve written contradict what you’ve stated here? — 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.) — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
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
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
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
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). — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
There is a common assumption that Eros is fundamentally unexplainable: passion, chemistry, love and attraction are apparently to be felt or excluded, but not understood. And yet a healthy dose of skepticism (not to be confused with risk avoidance) in relation to love and attraction can go a long way towards minimizing the effect of pain, humiliation and loss. Phenomena and intuition are indications that we are ignoring, isolating or excluding value/potential information that affects us nonetheless - interacting with a scientific methodology that includes this qualitative information may not result in objective certainty, but it enables us to improve our understanding of past, present and future interactions. — Possibility
I don’t think a person’s preference for psychic relatedness or objective interest is particularly innate to either ‘sex’. — Possibility
I know I've asked a similar question relating to Logos, but the concept of Eros seems a bit more nebulous. Can you expand a bit more on what you mean by this risk avoidance/loss phenomenon between the sexes? — 3017amen
Back when I was in graduate school, a guy in my psychology program asked me out on a date. I didn’t know him very well and was reluctant to go because, honestly, I wasn’t particularly attracted to him, but I had been cooped up too long in the lab that day, so I agreed. As we sat together in a coffee shop, to my surprise, I felt my face flush several times as we spoke. My stomach fluttered and I started having trouble concentrating. Okay, I realised, I was wrong. I am clearly attracted to him. We parted an hour later - after I agreed to go out with him again - and I headed home, intrigued. I walked into my apartment, dropped my keys on the floor, threw up, and spent the next seven days in bed with the flu...
Emotions are not reactions to the world. You are not a passive receiver of sensory input but an active constructor of your emotions. From sensory input and past experiences, your brain constructs meaning and prescribes action. If you didn’t have concepts that represent your past experiences, all your sensory inputs would be just noise. You wouldn’t know what the sensations are, what caused them, nor how to behave to deal with them. With concepts, your brain makes meaning of sensation, and sometimes that meaning is an emotion. — Lisa Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’
I don't necessarily agree with Jung's characterization of Eros being exclusive to women attributes. I believe that both men and women experience a type of Eros in their romantic relationships toward each other, which may or may not continue throughout such duration of same. For example, while having a passionate marriage that lasts for years can be a result of both an Eros and Logos connection (material and non-material agencies), the phenomenon of the initial (and/or long lasting) physical attraction is what both sexes seem to have in common in that as being physical creatures, we cannot escape physical appearances and the attraction thereto. — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.