What dichotomy would you propose? — Merkwurdichliebe

How about no dichotomy? There are differences in how we think, but those differences are not drawn accurately along gender lines, and to reduce this diversity of perspective to a single dimensional value is to exclude, isolate and ignore the complexity of information about who we are and how we think, particularly in relation to our potential as men and women.

No, it shouldn’t matter to this discussion, which is why I haven’t offered it. I like to think I don’t need to offer it in most situations - so long as you don’t assume certain information about me.

But there are a number of occasions on this forum where I have given personal information in order to dispel certain assumptions made about my particular perspective. I think when we feel the need to position ourselves in an argument as male or female, for instance, it’s often to address a degree of ignorance, isolation or exclusion in relation to that position. This may be the crux of what Athena is getting at.

The aim of philosophy is to approach a shared meaning in how all of reality interrelates. We can’t achieve this accurately if we ignore, isolate or exclude information that relates to the difference between my argument and yours. — Possibility

Oh yeah, I bolded what I am responding too. And I want to say something about being personal. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't being analytical and impersonal a bit male? Empirical thinking embraced by the US Military-Industrial Complex is dehumanizing and we are dealing with the consequences with that now on a national level and the global response to it.

For whatever reason being a good woman has meant being a caregiver and it is not very caring to attack someone for making a personal statement. For sure a personal statement is not empirical information, but that does not make it invaluable. Germany, that gave us empirical thinking as a national goal, did not take it to the extreme of the US. In Germany, students are encouraged to have different experiences and to share them. Perhaps we want to value each other instead of being overly empirical and dehumanizing each other. I think this is the value of the feminine quality and that humanity needs it.

Women who have chosen to follow the traditional values have faced isolation or exclusion in relation to that position. I went from being a goddess to "justice housewife" and now we all have the freedom of barbarians. Women and children are on their own, no longer valued and protected members of society. However, female legislators are trying to do something about this.

Our leadership has taken children from their families and has left them in a building to fend for themselves, leaving 8-year-olds to care for babies without the help of adults? Elenor Roosevelt played a strong role in Franklin's New Deal. Our present first lady is not the strong woman Elenor Roosevelt was. So much for "women's liberation". We have increased opportunities for women, but our national values appear to stink.

How about no dichotomy? There are differences in how we think, but those differences are not drawn accurately along gender lines, and to reduce this diversity of perspective to a single dimensional value is to exclude, isolate and ignore the complexity of information about who we are and how we think, particularly in relation to our potential as men and women. — Possibility

The potential for being a man or woman is directly tied to the genitallia one is born with. If one puts the chop to their phallus, they merely become a eunuch. I think that is a clear and already existing basis for a trichotomy.

First of all, acknowledging that women are not the only ones capable of ‘disarming’ violence with humour, hospitality and humility is an important part of this discussion. — Possibility

Yes, but they do it much more often since they faced less predation in evolution and instead stayed behind nurturing youth meaning not only are they physically weaker on average than men, but they also pity others more due to sympathy being more prevalent due to child-rearing. Both of these qualities, sympathy and fear (heightened danger means you fear more), combined, gives you more hospitable people.

domination is a pointless illusion — Possibility

Only a woman living in a hyper civilized super protected society built off environmental domination over millions of years could say that domination is pointless. You are both a pessimist and a nihilist. Spoiled brat.

For me, it is to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

You seem to look at "connection" from a religious standpoint. You negate the entire evolutionary process where those who fail to dominate their environment die off and are incapable of understanding why such "gentle", "kind" feelings to others remained. They didnt just fucking appear one day and everyone said "yay! Let's be nice to eachother yay!" They were tools that your ancestors used to survive, that then got carried into their offspring. That "connection" that you are talking about was used by the physically unfit to get help from others and survive. Your whole philosophy of value, that is to say, is built on TAKING, and not GIVING. The ethics of the parasite.

But I know you can't really help it. This is just the way you were evolved after millions of years of pressure and random mutation and elimination.

Oh yeah, I bolded what I am responding too. And I want to say something about being personal. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't being analytical and impersonal a bit male? Empirical thinking embraced by the US Military-Industrial Complex is dehumanizing and we are dealing with the consequences with that now on a national level and the global response to it. — Athena

First of all, I’m not saying that being impersonal isn’t ‘a bit male’ - I’m saying that it isn’t the essence of masculinity. There is a lot of merit in empirical thinking, but not to the exclusion of emotional intelligence - humanity employs both, not one or the other.

So, when someone decides to label me a ‘spoiled brat’ and use aggressive language, for instance, they’re making a range of assumptions about my position, and responding to them from a personally affected position. They may be unaware of this internal affect, and how (and why) it’s informing their choice of words - because as far as they’re concerned, they don’t get ‘emotional’ over stuff like this. That’s not how they see themselves. Whether they’re male or female is no concern of mine, and to dismiss or devalue this as ‘masculine’ behaviour is to stoop to their level of ignorance, isolation and exclusion, and thereby limit my perception of their capacity (and mine) to increase awareness, connection and collaboration.

The potential for being a man or woman is directly tied to the genitallia one is born with. If one puts the chop to their phallus, they merely become a eunuch. I think that is a clear and already existing basis for a trichotomy. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not all of this potential. If you take away their genitalia, they’re still men and women, still human beings. The only potential missing is sexual intercourse and procreation, and even that’s negotiable. If you think that’s the extent of your potential, then I’d be concerned.

Only a woman living in a hyper civilized super protected society built off environmental domination over millions of years could say that domination is pointless. You are both a pessimist and a nihilist. Spoiled brat. — BraydenS

No, I’m a realist. What you fail to see is that the majority of our achievements have come from awareness, connection and collaboration, not from so-called domination. It is this focus on the illusion of domination that is destroying the environment, not ‘protecting’ society.

You seem to look at "connection" from a religious standpoint. You negate the entire evolutionary process where those who fail to dominate their environment die off and are incapable of understanding why such "gentle", "kind" feelings to others remained. They didnt just fucking appear one day and everyone said "yay! Let's be nice to eachother yay!" They were tools that your ancestors used to survive, that then got carried into their offspring. That "connection" that you are talking about was used by the physically unfit to get help from others and survive. Your whole philosophy of value, that is to say, is built on TAKING, and not GIVING. The ethics of the parasite. — BraydenS

As I’ve said, it comes down to perception. Kindness and gentleness were not tools our ancestors discovered out of the blue and thought ‘ooh, this will help us survive’. Our ancestors recognised and exercised this capacity for reasons other than (and often counter to) survival, and were ultimately more likely to survive because of it. The difference is subtle, but important. The result is the same. There is no teleology in the evolutionary process.

Curiosity, wonder, creativity and critical thinking were not initially survival traits, either. They increased our awareness, connection and collaboration with the world, and that was what ultimately increased our chances of survival. Nothing to do with domination, I’m afraid. You see it as taking rather than giving, because you seem to believe one can only maximise their own value/potential by ignoring, isolating or excluding the relative potential/value of others. But all that does is limit your own potential.

That "connection" that you are talking about was used by the physically unfit to get help from others and survive. — BraydenS

It was used by all members of society. We're social mammals and our success is based on social skills and our large brains, it seems, evolved in part to deal with just how complicated social interactions are. Of course, domination (or aggression, defense, killing for food, killing members of other groups) all were parts of our lives) but it is certainly not just the unfit that benefitted or had these connections. A big reason why we are the apex predator on the planet are our connections with each and that we support each other, both men and women.

I am not sure you actually disagree. I went back through the discussion and still couldn't decide. It may have been a one off sentence that I am miscontexting, but heck, I thought I'd react.

but heck, I thought I'd react. — Coben

That's as good of a reason as any to respond, I think. Nevermind...

I think philosophy is the search for truth, which is a universally shared meaning in how all of reality interrelates. — Possibility

What exactly does that signify? The meaning of a hammer is a tool for driving nails. A few people perceive it as a weapon and then there is this one weirdo who uses it as the handle of his toothbrush. What would you make of that? How would that information in anyway be meaningful?

Or do you prefer to pursue the meaning of philosophically higher concepts? Then, what is the meaning of God? You look at the meaning for most people, for a few people and just for a handful, and then what? Maybe the concept should mean something that no one has ever understood? What do you get from this universal comparison of perspective other than a useful exercise for eliminating false views and find the one that’s closest to what you can subscribe to? What do you need this sharing for? It’s a step away from objectivity, isn’t it?

how we as humans construct reality is relative — Possibility

We don’t construct reality. Reality is. Our interpretation of it is of course relative to our perspective, but some perspectives are more likely to yield a more accurate interpretation than others. The perspective of the bird is probably more realistic than that of the frog (metaphorically speaking) and a philosopher should rather imitate the former.

The meaning of a hammer is a tool for driving nails. A few people perceive it as a weapon and then there is this one weirdo who uses it as the handle of his toothbrush. What would you make of that? How would that information in anyway be meaningful? — Congau

Understanding how a hammer can be used as the handle of a toothbrush and a weapon as much as for driving nails increases the possibilities of the hammer’s meaning. If you ignore this broader sense of meaning, and only see a hammer as a tool for driving nails, then you’ll be unprepared for situations where it may be used as a weapon, either by you or against you. Or you may make assumptions about the presence of a hammer in some guy’s bathroom that has you labelling him a ‘weirdo’ and running for the police. This is prediction error.

Or do you prefer to pursue the meaning of philosophically higher concepts? Then, what is the meaning of God? You look at the meaning for most people, for a few people and just for a handful, and then what? Maybe the concept should mean something that no one has ever understood? What do you get from this universal comparison of perspective other than a useful exercise for eliminating false views and find the one that’s closest to what you can subscribe to? — Congau

As for the possibilities of the meaning of God, understanding what conceptual relations contribute to your meaning of ‘God’, and why someone responds so negatively to references to ‘God’, enables you to still interact with them in the same conceptual space - ie. still talk about what you call ‘God’ - without necessarily using the term itself.

What do you need this sharing for? It’s a step away from objectivity, isn’t it? — Congau

It’s a step away from certainty, sure, but not objectivity. If your aim is objectivity, then your view must include an understanding of how and why alternative views are false, inaccurate, limited or misguided in relation to this one you subscribe to - not just ignored, isolated or excluded as such.

how we as humans construct reality is relative
— Possibility
We don’t construct reality. Reality is. Our interpretation of it is of course relative to our perspective, but some perspectives are more likely to yield a more accurate interpretation than others. The perspective of the bird is probably more realistic than that of the frog (metaphorically speaking) and a philosopher should rather imitate the former. — Congau

That’s probably a poor choice of term on my part - we do conceptualise reality, though. My point is that if you’re going for maximum realism, then the aim of the philosopher is to conceptualise a structure of relations between the perspectives of the bird and the frog (metaphorically speaking), rather than subscribe to one and exclude the other.

It’s a step away from certainty, sure, but not objectivity. — Possibility

I see. If your notion of “shared meaning” is only intended as a pedagogical device, I entirely agree. Sure, we should look around for all possible perspectives and it is certainly instructive to learn how different people see the same things differently. In fact, we should even go further than that and not end our inquiry by only paying attention to views that are actually held by someone. We should strain our imagination and be open for any conceivable perspective. Most of them would be outlandish, but a few may happen to contain some truth even though no one has yet captured it in thought.

That’s why I don’t quite understand your use of the word “shared” in “shared meaning”. A perspective may be interesting even if it’s not shared by anyone. Fictional characters who have been raised by wolves or monkeys for example, offer an intriguing viewpoint and do feel free to come up with any tale of your own. We absolutely shouldn’t let our mind stiffen to the degree that we can only imagine our own narrow perspective.

But our “open-mindedness” should not be expanded to a point where we think we see multiple truths, and that’s where I think modern popular philosophy has gone astray.

There is a lot of merit in empirical thinking, but not to the exclusion of emotional intelligence - humanity employs both, not one or the other. — Possibility

Unfortunately, our institutions are not in agreement with what you said. In the 60'tys we began training teachers to be impersonal. Government controlled agencies are firm about people being "professional" and enforce emotional distancing and even encourage using drugs to manage emotions. Drugs and being a social worker go together. The drugs help people by "professional".

Autocratic industry is a hierarchy of authority and separates management from labor. A person can be fired for fraternizing with the wrong people.

At the lower levels of labor, life can be brutal. Social status and self-esteem here, depends on being tough enough to handle abuse and on being abusive. It is learning to hold your tongue and be subordinate, and then going home and demanding instant compliance with demands.

Only a woman living in a hyper civilized super protected society built off environmental domination over millions of years could say that domination is pointless. You are both a pessimist and a nihilist. Spoiled brat. — BraydenS

I would love to have the authority of a moderator in my threads. Posts that are disrespectful would be returned to the author for correction. In this case, all that name-calling would have to be deleted before the post would become public. I want my threads to be safe and that means everyone is respectful and protects the dignity of others. No personal attacks, no name-calling.

It has been my experience males do not agree with my feminine concern but tell me I need a tougher skinned. Alligators have tough skins and very small brains. The question of this is, might the world have come out differently if the voice of women had always been as strong as the voice of males and civil meant having good manners. What kind of society do we want to create?

I see. If your notion of “shared meaning” is only intended as a pedagogical device, I entirely agree. Sure, we should look around for all possible perspectives and it is certainly instructive to learn how different people see the same things differently. In fact, we should even go further than that and not end our inquiry by only paying attention to views that are actually held by someone. We should strain our imagination and be open for any conceivable perspective. Most of them would be outlandish, but a few may happen to contain some truth even though no one has yet captured it in thought.

That’s why I don’t quite understand your use of the word “shared” in “shared meaning”. A perspective may be interesting even if it’s not shared by anyone. Fictional characters who have been raised by wolves or monkeys for example, offer an intriguing viewpoint and do feel free to come up with any tale of your own. We absolutely shouldn’t let our mind stiffen to the degree that we can only imagine our own narrow perspective.

But our “open-mindedness” should not be expanded to a point where we think we see multiple truths, and that’s where I think modern popular philosophy has gone astray. — Congau

Wow, I really like that first paragraph!

Perhaps I should not comment on the second one that questions "shared meaning", but... I think democracy is an imitation of the gods. The gods and goddesses evolved from ruling with brute force to ruling with reason. They argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. So while a democracy values shared meaning and cooperation, it also makes room for the outsider. That is the power of creativity, and because the outsider may come with new and valuable insight, our form of government means constant change, unlike religions that are conservative and attempt to hold everything in the past with a defined "God's truth", no more thinking necessary, just obey.

Your last sentence is really beautiful. One of my books on logic says we should honor intuitive ideas, but always check them with empirical evidence. And here is where shared meaning and notions of truth become important. None of us want to be ruled by the mad man, nor to be the looney toon.

The potential for being a man or woman is directly tied to the genitalia one is born with. If one puts the chop to their phallus, they merely become a eunuch. I think that is a clear and already existing basis for a trichotomy. — Merkwurdichliebe

It is not that simple.

Abstract
In human subjects, the sex chromosomes are the X and the Y chromosomes. Normally, a complement of two X chromosomes (46,XX) is seen in females and one X and one Y (46,XY) in males. The X‐chromosome includes about 1500 genes, only a few of which are involved in sex development. The Y‐chromosome contains very few genes, but one gene, SRY, is the most important gene in male sex development. Multiple autosomal genes are also involved in sex development. Abnormalities of sex chromosomes can involve errors in the number of sex chromosomes, such as 45,X0 (Turner syndrome), 47,XXX, 47,XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), 47,XYY or mosaicism. Sex chromosome abnormalities also include aberrations of a single gene of the sex chromosome, leading to a disorder of sex development (DSD). This can result in 46,XX DSD and 46,XY DSD.

:brow: Sometimes I wonder if too much information is a bad thing. I love science but when I look at information like that, I think a rather stick with gut feelings and ignorant human imperfections. One rule, be nice, and don't overthink everything. :lol:

Abnormalities of sex chromosomes — Abstract

The key word: "abnormalities". I wonder what percentage of people are born with abnormalities.

don't overthink everything. — Athena

The male-female dichotomy applies perfectly to the vastly overwhelming majority of people - what is termed "normal". To merge the abnormal into the category of the normal is a ridiculous confusion of concepts, and definitely would require an abundance of overthinking. To force reasonable people to agree to such an unusual paradigm shift would be as unjust as categorizing people with abnormal sex chromosomes as normal. Diversity is not necessarily a bad thing.

One rule, be nice — Athena

Agreed. Just because something is abnormal and not included within the category of the normal, does not mean it is inferior or should be treated as such.

Unfortunately, our institutions are not in agreement with what you said. In the 60'tys we began training teachers to be impersonal. Government controlled agencies are firm about people being "professional" and enforce emotional distancing and even encourage using drugs to manage emotions. Drugs and being a social worker go together. The drugs help people by "professional". — Athena

From my own experiences in the (private) education sector, the majority of teachers today are anything but impersonal. Certainly there are regulations and codes of conduct in place to protect all parties (increasing since the 70s here) that make it seem from the outside as if teaching has lost that personal touch, but the greatest strength of a teacher is still their capacity to develop relationships with their students despite the limitations. I think you may need to take your focus off what has been lost in relation to the past.

I’m not familiar with the advocation of drug use to manage emotions at a government institutional level. My personal experience is of Australia, though, and drug use is very much portrayed here as a strictly personal and leisure activity, not a therapeutic or professional one - even in social work. I am, however, conscious of the cultural promotion of legal and prescription drug use specifically to manage emotions in the US, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

Autocratic industry is a hierarchy of authority and separates management from labor. A person can be fired for fraternizing with the wrong people.

At the lower levels of labor, life can be brutal. Social status and self-esteem here, depends on being tough enough to handle abuse and on being abusive. It is learning to hold your tongue and be subordinate, and then going home and demanding instant compliance with demands. — Athena

Any organisation that reaches a certain size becomes aware of the uncertainty of human potential, and the increasing inability to please everyone. How managers minimises that uncertainty is by excluding emotional intelligence from their decision-making process, and establishing a concrete relational structure or institution. This ‘scientific’ approach then becomes a ‘best practice’ model for smaller organisations and companies who are focused on growth.

Including emotional intelligence in the decision-making process involves accepting a higher level of uncertainty and unpredictability than most management styles are comfortable with. But effective growth is about identifying and focusing on an underlying impetus more than an overarching structure. Again, it isn’t about the autonomy, independence and identity of a concrete, actual institution or individual, but about working together to maximise the potential of the organisation as an ongoing relational structure. But banks and investors need certainty, and so do people with families to support and bills to pay...

I think that maximising awareness, connection and collaboration is not an achievable end-goal in actuality. And to be honest, I’m not arguing that maximising autonomy, independence and identity is necessarily a BAD thing - but it’s not an achievable end-goal, either. Whether we label this difference as masculine-feminine or not, it’s not a definable dichotomy as such, but an interaction of relative potentialities. I think it is in the imbalance and in challenging each other with a dynamic state of inequilibrium that we give meaning to our thoughts, words and actions, our lives and our existence. This is how the universe has developed thus far, from atomic, chemical and molecular relations to the origin of life, evolution, consciousness and imagination...

That’s why I don’t quite understand your use of the word “shared” in “shared meaning”. A perspective may be interesting even if it’s not shared by anyone. Fictional characters who have been raised by wolves or monkeys for example, offer an intriguing viewpoint and do feel free to come up with any tale of your own. We absolutely shouldn’t let our mind stiffen to the degree that we can only imagine our own narrow perspective. — Congau

Sorry - by ‘shared’, I don’t mean agreed upon in all aspects. A perspective that is shared - as in expressed, discussed, articulated - exists. A fictional character that remains only in your imagination may have an intriguing viewpoint, but its meaning comes from being shared - from allowing that viewpoint to interact with another. A shared meaning is one which is related between two or more people, whether they agree only on its existence or on some aspects but not others.

But our “open-mindedness” should not be expanded to a point where we think we see multiple truths, and that’s where I think modern popular philosophy has gone astray. — Congau

I agree that the idea of asserting ‘multiple truths’ is unhelpful, but I think our ‘open-mindedness’ should always be expanded beyond the belief that we ‘know the truth’, at least. My perspective of ‘truth’ is always relative to yours, and the extent to which they differ offers more information to both of us about a more ‘objective’ and therefore more accurate view of truth than the one we each have.

To merge the abnormal into the category of the normal is a ridiculous confusion of concepts, and definitely would require an abundance of overthinking. — Merkwurdichliebe

Then don't do it. However, let us not deny that not everyone fits in the normal range and accept their differences are biological and not "sinful". My only concern is people be well informed and aware of biological differences and accepting of them.

Thank you,

I think democracy is an imitation of the gods. The gods and goddesses evolved from ruling with brute force to ruling with reason. They argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. — Athena

Democracy may be a practical form of government that protects against tyranny, but reasonable? No, it isn’t. It’s an eternal compromise which makes decisions based on formal procedures rather than systematic logic hatched by a unified mind.
There’s no consensus on the best reasoning. All actors still think their original reasoning was best, but they can’t get it all, so they have to be content with a part of it.

Ok, let me offer an interpretation of what you are saying that would make it sound more palatable to me:
Suppose you possessed the truth about a certain phenomenon. You had a very strong belief that you were right, but of course you didn’t know it. None of us knows anything, but in this case your belief happened to be true. Still, your belief, though true, would not be perfect and every time you learned about other people’s false belief on the subject and interacted with them, you would expand your understanding of it and get a firmer grasp of the truth.
Just hitting upon the truth has little value for a philosopher if the belief rests on a weak foundation and by “sharing meaning” you can strengthen it.
Do you accept my interpretation?

From my own experiences in the (private) education sector, the majority of teachers today are anything but impersonal. Certainly there are regulations and codes of conduct in place to protect all parties (increasing since the 70s here) that make it seem from the outside as if teaching has lost that personal touch, but the greatest strength of a teacher is still their capacity to develop relationships with their students despite the limitations. I think you may need to take your focus off what has been lost in relation to the past. — Possibility

I would say teachers today do seem to be ignoring the bureaucratic mind set that was promoted soon after enacting the 1958 National Defense Education Act. I was shocked to see a complete refusal that seems to be based on anthropology studies of the importance of relationships to learning.

Now we need to improve the breadth of that education and make it more well rounded, and individualized so all the young people who are not going to college are not cheated out of the education they need for their self-actualization.

I’m not familiar with the advocation of drug use to manage emotions at a government institutional level. My personal experience is of Australia, though, and drug use is very much portrayed here as a strictly personal and leisure activity, not a therapeutic or professional one - even in social work. I am, however, conscious of the cultural promotion of legal and prescription drug use specifically to manage emotions in the US, so it wouldn’t surprise me. — Possibility

No wonder you are so smart. You are Australian. I envy you. Truly I do.

:lol: Using prescribed drugs to manage emotions is not something printed in the explanation of policy but the environment and expectation of "professional" behavior. We have a "Brave New World" mentality. My sister who worked for a state support enforcement division has better stories than I do. Mine is not that great, but I was dismissed for "being too friendly" and my clients who defended me were told the danger of really being friends and not just superficial (professional) friends. When management of the organization changed, I rejoined the organization and I am so pleased with the change in policy! So I am thinking a large part of the problem in schools and bureaucracies may be passing? We have experienced the problems with too much authoritarian control.

The difference really matters when the state takes custody of children. When my grandchildren were made wards of the state, I joined a group of grandparents whose grandchildren were made wards of the state, and we were able to change state policy and increase family rights to keep the children in the family. Now the help families in trouble receive is awesome. It is like our nation went through a very ugly period and I hope we continue in a more human-friendly direction. My son and daughter were in school when things were not good and when they came of age we announced a national youth crisis. That is why I have spent the rest of my life studying what went wrong.

Any organisation that reaches a certain size becomes aware of the uncertainty of human potential, and the increasing inability to please everyone. How managers minimises that uncertainty is by excluding emotional intelligence from their decision-making process, and establishing a concrete relational structure or institution. This ‘scientific’ approach then becomes a ‘best practice’ model for smaller organisations and companies who are focused on growth. — Possibility

That is extremely helpful information. It would explain a learning curve and serious errors. After independent thinking was killed, I know at least one welfare department began pleading for employees to do more independent thinking and everyone was afraid to do so.

Oh my, you are triggering so many memories! This is totally awesome.

My friends lacked college degrees but had perfect control of a human services office because they knew the community. Sarah, the receptionist, could resolve any problem because she knew the community so well. Then, in came a college graduate with her fancy title and "professional authority" and she was the kiss of death. This "professional", an outsider, told Sarah she was to do none but send people back to her office. Sarah left and within a year this rural community no longer had a human services office.

Including emotional intelligence in the decision-making process involves accepting a higher level of uncertainty and unpredictability than most management styles are comfortable with. But effective growth is about identifying and focusing on an underlying impetus more than an overarching structure. Again, it isn’t about the autonomy, independence and identity of a concrete, actual institution or individual, but about working together to maximise the potential of the organisation as an ongoing relational structure. But banks and investors need certainty, and so do people with families to support and bills to pay... — Possibility

Perfect! The bad things happened before the book Emotional Intelligence was published. It is not only that we experience authoritarianism can be very destructive, and kind of like putting a stick in the spokes of a wheel, but we have much more research than we had back then. Thank you for helping be more aware of this.

I think that maximising awareness, connection and collaboration is not an achievable end-goal in actuality. And to be honest, I’m not arguing that maximising autonomy, independence and identity is necessarily a BAD thing - but it’s not an achievable end-goal, either. Whether we label this difference as masculine-feminine or not, it’s not a definable dichotomy as such, but an interaction of relative potentialities. — Possibility

I think the democratic model of industry does maximize awareness, connection, and collaboration and the autocratic model prevents it.

I

think it is in the imbalance and in challenging each other with a dynamic state of equilibrium that we give meaning to our thoughts, words and actions, our lives and our existence. This is how the universe has developed thus far, from atomic, chemical and molecular relations to the origin of life, evolution, consciousness and imagination... — Possibility

That may be so. Our history is not one of balance and I don't think that past was a desirable one. However, it is possible our consciousness will change so much we could speak of a New Age when consciousness is so changed, people can not relate to people of the past.

Democracy may be a practical form of government that protects against tyranny, but reasonable? No, it isn’t. It’s an eternal compromise which makes decisions based on formal procedures rather than systematic logic hatched by a unified mind.
There’s no consensus on the best reasoning. All actors still think their original reasoning was best, but they can’t get it all, so they have to be content with a part of it. — Congau

Your words tickle me. Democracy is not a practical form of government. A republic is a more efficient form of government, and under that form of government is a culture and it is that culture that should get most of our attention.

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men, and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." There are several characteristics of democracy. One of them is to participate in the duties of democracy. The rest are about we live together. Sort of a secular 10 commandments.

Democracy is an imitation of the gods. We argue like they did until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. Effectively this is rule by reason, not rule by authority over us. Democratic people are motivated to obey their laws, because they understand the reasoning of the laws, and know they can be changed if there is better reasoning.

If all actors do not agree and independently think their reasoning is best, we better argue the reasoning until we do have agreement because if we do not get things right, bad things will happen. The consequences of our actions can not be changed by sacrificing animals, saying prayers or burning candles, so we need to be as sure as we can be that our actions are the right ones.

Sorry - by ‘shared’, I don’t mean agreed upon in all aspects. A perspective that is shared - as in expressed, discussed, articulated - exists. A fictional character that remains only in your imagination may have an intriguing viewpoint, but its meaning comes from being shared - from allowing that viewpoint to interact with another. A shared meaning is one which is related between two or more people, whether they agree only on its existence or on some aspects but not others. — Possibility

That is a beautiful way of explaining that.

Ok, let me offer an interpretation of what you are saying that would make it sound more palatable to me:
Suppose you possessed the truth about a certain phenomenon. You had a very strong belief that you were right, but of course you didn’t know it. None of us knows anything, but in this case your belief happened to be true. Still, your belief, though true, would not be perfect and every time you learned about other people’s false belief on the subject and interacted with them, you would expand your understanding of it and get a firmer grasp of the truth.
Just hitting upon the truth has little value for a philosopher if the belief rests on a weak foundation and by “sharing meaning” you can strengthen it.
Do you accept my interpretation? — Congau

Yeap, that is the essence of democracy. It is about what we believe, not who rules. It is totally awesome and it is not explained in the Bible.

Some of the presidents in the US get there by appealing to the Christians who know the Bible but not the reasoning for democracy, and then we get a president who tells us God whispered in his ear that the coronavirus would pass by Easter, "a very special day" and we could all come together and celebrate the resurrection. Democracy, however, depends on science so we got a decision to extend our isolation until the numbers indicate it is safe to go out and we have the medical requirements needed to control the disease and save lives.

You see? It is about right reason and if we do not agree we better argue until we do, because acting on bad reasoning means things will go wrong and we will regret that decision. That is the reasoning that got us out of the Dark Ages and into an age of reason and science that more than doubled our life expectancy and means believing our children are more likely to live to be old, than they are likely to die by age 3. Right reason, science, has done more to end evil than holy books.

Ok, let me offer an interpretation of what you are saying that would make it sound more palatable to me:
Suppose you possessed the truth about a certain phenomenon. You had a very strong belief that you were right, but of course you didn’t know it. None of us knows anything, but in this case your belief happened to be true. Still, your belief, though true, would not be perfect and every time you learned about other people’s false belief on the subject and interacted with them, you would expand your understanding of it and get a firmer grasp of the truth.
Just hitting upon the truth has little value for a philosopher if the belief rests on a weak foundation and by “sharing meaning” you can strengthen it.
Do you accept my interpretation? — Congau

I don’t think truth is something you can possess or grasp, it’s more something you approach, point to or share in. You can integrate a potential expression of truth in how you conceptualise reality, and in doing so point to that truth for others, but any actual expression of this belief is only one manifestation of a perceived potential of more objective truth. The truth of your belief is relative to the language or value structure of the expression, and how you conceptualise reality.

I don’t believe it’s a philosopher’s task to grasp or possess truth itself, but rather to understand and then show others more accurate ways to truth. There are multiple ways to approach the same truth. Some are more accurate than others. Every time you enable your belief to interact with the belief of others - with the aim of approaching a shared meaning - what you strengthen is your awareness of the structural relations by which each of your beliefs can lead away from or closer to truth.

At this level of uncertainty, I don’t find it helpful to assert that an entire belief is false, but we can show where certain structural relations fail in our experience, and see where our own fail when applied to the experiences of others. If our aim is to strengthen the structural relations of our own belief, then the interaction will only serve to limit our access to the truth, regardless of how close we may be. We must be prepared to deconstruct our own beliefs in relation to others if our aim is a more accurate approach to truth.

It doesn’t really matter what a philosopher believes. What matters is the truth itself. The expressed beliefs of a philosopher are bound to change in the course of doing philosophy. If they don’t, then he’s probably stopped doing philosophy, and is doing religion instead.

Then don't do it. — Athena

Exactly.

However, let us not deny that not everyone fits in the normal range and accept their differences are biological and not "sinful". — Athena

"Sinful" is an ethical judgment. In my opinion, issues of gender identity are an aesthetic matter - they are qualitatively incompatible with the ethical sphere, and should be kept separate from it.

But, to qualify that which is abnormal as normal is very problematic. The application of these terms factors only relativistically, so if the nonbinary labels itself normal, then the binary is necessarily rendered abnormal. The normal can hardly retain its essence and meaning independent of its dialectical relation to the abnormal.

Our history is not one of balance and I don't think that past was a desirable one. However, it is possible our consciousness will change so much we could speak of a New Age when consciousness is so changed, people can not relate to people of the past. — Athena

Be careful what you wish for. I think if that happened, if we could not relate to people of the past, then we’d risk repeating errors. For instance, if we cannot relate to how a people could support the rise to power of a leader so narrowly determined to restore a sense of dominance, autonomy and influence as to institutionalise racism and xenophobia and start an international war, then we risk making the same error, don’t we?