↪Athena There were huge civilizations across the americas. Disease wiped them off the face of the planet. I thought you were talking about the transition to sedentary life? Technology came hand in hand with changing to day-to-day living. Larger populations survived by storing information - hence the use of quippos in the Incan empire. In Australia and Africa there is some theories surrounding mnemonic techniques and ritual as means of passing information on.

Cannot for the life of me recall the name of the woman who makes a case for that - I’ll look it up tomorrow.

Neither conflict nor cooperation alone beget technological advancements. I cannot imagine a matriarchal society to have ever existed - in the sense of female domination - because men would just just say ‘no thanks’ when they disagreed and the women could do what? Nothing.

An egalitarian society in the past? Sure! There is evidence of this today in hunter gatherers and suggestions of large settlements in the Ukraine that were recently discovered where there doesn’t appear to be any tell tale signs of a ruling body.

I’d recommend looking at He’s a pretty solid source, but I’ve no idea if he’s focused on gender roles in any of his research papers. — I like sushi

It is such a pleasure to argue with knowledgeable people! The people posting in this thread create my ideal heaven. We are not fully understanding each other but what is happening here is what democracy is about, and why Athens was such an intellectual explosion, there was a time when they were thought to be a race of genius. Someone mentioned my enthusiasm about the goddesses and democracy is excessive and the discussion is moving too fast for me to get back to that post, so I will say here, it is all of us sharing our point of view that is the democratic ideal. One God and a kingdom can not advance human knowledge as well as many gods and democracy. The Military-Industrial Complex is powerful and it is not the good of democracy.

So we can agree, writing is essential to civilization as we know it? Imagine how we would know the word of God, without it? :gasp: How would we have laws, rather than a ruler's whims, without writing? Law and order is dependent on writing and the power and glory of gods. That is not how women organized the family and the clan. Agree or disagree?

You mention really good examples of a different mental development not dependent on the written word. Celts are the culture that I know best, which was opposed to writing and reliance on the written word. Think Celts and how do we know truth without the written word? Link Celts with notions of liberty and individual power and authority and gender equality. Who or what is the authority over us? The Holy Grail was about a goddess, not Jesus, and we must not displease the goddess because bad things happen she is displeased. There is no book to explain this but there is nature. :lol: Right now mother nature seems very displeased with us or she is in menopause and having hot flashes.

Men could not just say no thanks to the Goddess! :gasp: Are you nuts? :wink: You are not wrapping your mind around believing all life comes from the Mother and she must not be displeased, because at the very least there will feminine if she is displeased.

I love to think about a consciousness that is free of all the truths we assume today, and totally about being aware of the environment in the here and now. Like the iceman that was mummified and now is telling scientists today so much about his life and how his survival depended on knowledge of nature and awareness of his environment. To think more like a free animal and less like a prisoner of civilization. The iceman may not have had a goddess but we can all see from nature that life comes from females. The power that is much stronger than us is the Mother and we must not displease her. Seriously, worshipping the goddess who provides and a good harvest was pretty universal.

Technology is taking that power into our own hands. It is the Garden of Eden or Pandora's box. This taking of power into our own hands presents a threat that we will destroy ourselves and maybe the whole planet. Technology without wisdom is a bad thing, and we all wisdom is a goddess. :grin:

"An egalitarian society in the past?" Never before have we been able to produce so much with so little human labor. We are living as though we have a labor-intense society and that is nuts because that is no longer our reality. So now what? Hey, if I, as a woman, can have protected human rights, why not everyone? Oh, oh I suppose not everyone is familiar with the Older Americans Act. It entitles us to the benefits of society when we are old enough to retire. That includes the right to continue contributing to society. I think most people never knew of the act or have forgotten about it, but it is a model for a better society. Learning of egalitarian societies from the past can improve our imagination about we can manifest today. As we think it, so we manifest it. What will the pandemic do to our shared consciousness at this time in our history?

"Renfrew" I am on it. I will look up Renfrew now.

Women enable men to be dullards in every possible way. What women want is a man who misses the point completely. Women are the backbone of the patriarchy.

I don't buy it.

You so remind me of my younger sister and a commercial that was popular in the 70tys. We are totally creatures of our cohort! The very clear split between my cohort and the following one is shockingly sharp. My cohort wanted careers, we just thought we should stay at home and raise our children first. My cohort's plan was to return to college and complete our degrees when the children were old enough to leave alone, then we would help finance the children through college, and we raised our daughters to get the college education and use it. :chin:

When it comes to being mothers, I don't think there is a big difference, but the timing of everything is different. Those who follow my cohort attempt to do it all like the woman in the commercial. :lol: And while you resent your mother's choice, did you rely on her to help with the children? Someone has to care for them and didn't you value your mother as that person? That is precisely the topic of this thread. Are you going to resent her or value her and honor her and appreciate her sacrifice as much as we appreciate those who give their lives war? Some of us think nothing is more important then prepare in the young in our family for life. The career is something individuals do for themselves. Caring for the family is not about ourselves, it is about FAMILY, and this the topic of this thread. You wouldn't be my sister, would you? :lol: — Athena

I wonder sometimes if you’re reading posts to understand the information they contain, or in order to personally respond. I am NOT your sister, and I suggest that you re-read what I’ve written and find the errors you’ve assumed about my situation based on your response to certain concepts such as ‘career’.

A career is not always about individual ‘success’ or doing something for yourself. Sometimes it’s about what we have to give to the world of ourselves. My greatest achievement in life is the children I’m raising, but that’s not all I can offer the world. Not everyone is going to be the mother that YOU think every woman should be. I wonder if you value your sister for who she is, or your daughter for how you raised her to value her potential beyond ‘domestic goddess’ - you do realise that your own anger at not having the career you wanted has contributed to your daughter’s ambition? Don’t continue to direct your anger at what she has achieved in compensation for the lack she felt in your life. That’s not fair. She has been the ying to your yang, but she’s a woman too, and as such is valuable for more than her mothering skills.

I get that you don’t feel validated. You’re still striving for domination, autonomy and accolades - you want it for women who care for children, but you seem to think you need to devalue everything else in relation to that individual ambition in order to achieve ‘success’. You don’t. You just need to recognise that value and potential is a complex, multi-dimensional structure, not a gradient between black and white. When my view differs from yours, that doesn’t mean I’m opposing you - my experience just differs in a particular aspect.

All facts are potential information. There are just degrees of feelings of certainty coming from more or less convincing evidence. Peter’s thought at noon will probably never be revealed, but it’s not impossible. Maybe there exists a voice recording of a speech he made at the time or maybe some god will reveal his thoughts to you in a dream. What is actual information for you, the existence of the computer you think you are looking at right now for example, is just supported by stronger evidence. Close your eyes and you no longer have any information that the computer is there; it’s just potential information. — Congau

Potential information is still information, so you cannot say that I ‘no longer have any information’. What I don’t have is sufficient potential information to answer a specific question asked in relation to a specific experience: I am uncertain of the truth in my relation to the statement ‘that the computer is there’.

A wealth of possible information exists in relation to the objective truth of mine and the computer’s existence. My relative perspective is ignorant of much of this possible information, but more specifically I lack awareness, connection and collaboration with certain potential information in relation to ‘the computer’ and ‘there’ being in the same position relative to ‘me’ during the relative event ‘that my eyes are closed’.

A fact is just an answer to a specific question from a specific relational position; an interactive collapse of potential and possible information in relation to an observation/measurement. The objective truth defined by a fact is reduced by these relational specifics of the question asked.

This is where we differ. You seem to think that we discard this uncertain information as irrelevant prior to determining our actions, — Possibility

No, I haven’t really been talking about our actions at all. Our actions are irrelevant to existing objective truths, but I have never said that the opposite is the case. What we think is the objective truth certainly influences our actions. We act from the best of our judgment concerning what exists using any hint of information we deem relevant. If I imagine that Peter harbors negative thoughts about me that will change my behavior towards him, and since I live in a society, I have a lot more potential information to take into account than the lonely savage needs to consider. Granted.
But whatever we do, it will not change the truths that already exists or existed. Yesterday at noon Peter had positive or negative thoughts about me and nothing I do can change that now. How he will feel tomorrow is not the issue here because that is not an existing truth.

Objective truth exists. We don’t know it, but we keep guessing and those guesses result in action and thereby creation of new objective truths. But the truths that existed in the first place can never be changed simply because the past cannot be changed. Our actions (and thoughts) cannot change existing truths. The glass exists at noon. I can break it at one second after noon, but it is still true that it existed at noon.

No, I haven’t really been talking about our actions at all. Our actions are irrelevant to existing objective truths, but I have never said that the opposite is the case. What we think is the objective truth certainly influences our actions. We act from the best of our judgment concerning what exists using any hint of information we deem relevant. If I imagine that Peter harbors negative thoughts about me that will change my behavior towards him, and since I live in a society, I have a lot more potential information to take into account than the lonely savage needs to consider. Granted.
But whatever we do, it will not change the truths that already exists or existed. Yesterday at noon Peter had positive or negative thoughts about me and nothing I do can change that now. How he will feel tomorrow is not the issue here because that is not an existing truth. — Congau

But I may have potential information related to how Peter will feel tomorrow that enables me to make a prediction, however uncertain, and act on that information. If I imagine that Peter harbours negative thoughts about me that may change his behaviour towards me, then I have a lot more potential information to take into account regarding my actions between now and when I see him at work tomorrow.

Potential information about future events exist now, and are available for us to perceive and to integrate into how we conceptualise an objective reality. This potential information also exists for us to share with each other consciously or unconsciously through language, actions and common experiences, enabling us to make predictions with varying certainty by relating it to other potential information, including potential information we already have from the past and present, of which we may be more certain. This is what we think is objective truth, what influences our actions. Objective truth therefore cannot exclude potential information about the past, present or future.

Objective truth exists. We don’t know it, but we keep guessing and those guesses result in action and thereby creation of new objective truths. But the truths that existed in the first place can never be changed simply because the past cannot be changed. Our actions (and thoughts) cannot change existing truths. The glass exists at noon. I can break it at one second after noon, but it is still true that it existed at noon. — Congau

It is also true that I can break the glass at one second after noon, even though it hasn’t happened yet. But I need to perceive that potential information as an existing truth in order to act.

I am intensely aware of how painfully difficult it is for me to participate in male dominated forums. — Athena

I really did not want to post here because of previously being warned about interaction with the person that wrote the OP. But I am getting bored after being on lock down for more than 5 weeks.

I have been reading most but not all of the thread, and have come to a simple conclusion. The first line says it all.

"male dominated forums"

The forums are not all male dominated because the ladies are banned or forbidden to enter.

So why are they not here?

Because most of them have no interest in being here.

So do not blame the blokes, blame the rest of the feminists that cannot be bothered to join.

Sorry if I upset you again.

The old world order is family order. The new world order is Prussian military order applied to citizens. Family order was started by grandmothers thousands of years ago, but a modern Military-Industrial Complex(Eisenhower's term for New World Order) is far more powerful and some have argued we are like ants and this is our natural organization into a huge anthill. This is not the individuality you seem to value, and I think it is very male. I hope you have a glimmer into the possibility that there is something you are not aware of and it is much bigger than women's rights. What do you think is the ideal institution for rearing our children?

We were about family and community in a very human way that is now threatened. — Athena

Again with the old and the new...

My personal perspective certainly doesn’t value individuality - not sure where you got that from...

The ant colony analogy values surrendering consciousness to the organisation, which then strives for domination, autonomy and influence in relation to the external environment. To illustrate with cultural references, it’s similar to the difference between ‘Independence Day’ and ‘The Arrival’: are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat, to survive as the dominant entity, or are we collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves?

And again, I don’t find it accurate to divide this along male-female lines. There are many women who are striving towards maximising or ‘restoring’ female domination, autonomy and influence by opposing male domination, autonomy and influence as a direct threat. I don’t see this as the answer - it’s just more of the same...

The best situation for our children is not an institution at all - it is an ongoing creative process that increases awareness, connection and collaboration, despite anticipating experiences of pain, humility and loss - for our children as well as ourselves. The ancient ‘grandmotherly’ concept of societal order corresponds to this, but there is nothing inherently ‘feminine’ about this as a structure for society - except in your language use.

I really did not want to post here because of previously being warned about interaction with the person that wrote the OP. But I am getting bored after being on lock down for more than 5 weeks.

I have been reading most but not all of the thread, and have come to a simple conclusion. The first line says it all.

"male dominated forums"

The forums are not all male dominated because the ladies are banned or forbidden to enter.

So why are they not here?

Because most of them have no interest in being here.

So do not blame the blokes, blame the rest of the feminists that cannot be bothered to join.

Sorry if I upset you again. — Sir2u

I agree with you and thank you so much for that information! Please tell me more about "I really did not want to post here because of previously being warned about interaction with the person that wrote the OP." I suspected that because my posts are completely ignored in other threads and I would love to know exactly how the warning was worded.

If a person is ignored what would be the motive for continuing? Wasn't that warning almost as effective as being banned? You would not happen to know the gender of the person who gave you the warning, would you? I am not into blaming males, but I think there is a reality of differences that prevents women from participating. Please go on, let us explored what happened and why it happened.

Again with the old and the new...

My personal perspective certainly doesn’t value individuality - not sure where you got that from...

The ant colony analogy values surrendering consciousness to the organisation, which then strives for domination, autonomy and influence in relation to the external environment. To illustrate with cultural references, it’s similar to the difference between ‘Independence Day’ and ‘The Arrival’: are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat, to survive as the dominant entity, or are we collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves?

And again, I don’t find it accurate to divide this along male-female lines. There are many women who are striving towards maximising or ‘restoring’ female domination, autonomy and influence by opposing male domination, autonomy and influence as a direct threat. I don’t see this as the answer - it’s just more of the same...

The best situation for our children is not an institution at all - it is an ongoing creative process that increases awareness, connection and collaboration, despite anticipating experiences of pain, humility and loss - for our children as well as ourselves. The ancient ‘grandmotherly’ concept of societal order corresponds to this, but there is nothing inherently ‘feminine’ about this as a structure for society - except in your language use. — Possibility

Boy or boy we are getting into hair-splitting and I am not sure how this will turn out? The US strongly values individuality but I am not sure what individuality means?

Democracy based on Greek and Roman classics is "collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves". The New World Order is "are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat". That is Hegel's the state is God and everyone should be made to conform to the state. However, we can all be as different as the aliens of outer space, as long as we obey policy.

Skip this explanation unless you really want it. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you have watched the TV series Star Trek but Joseph Campbell said it is the best mythology for our time. In the original Star Trek Captain Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space. John Wayne stood for individuality. He knew who he was, and set the boundaries. In the US we had education for independent thinking and Captain Kirk was the ideal male leader.

Star Trek the Next Generation replaced Captian Kirk with Captian Picard. Captain Picard rarely made an independent decision. He comes after we replaced education for independent thinking with "group think". Now decisions are made jointly. There is still individuality but it is distinctly more like that ant colony. That is the meaning of individuality changed, and no longer holds the responsibility Kirk assumed. Individuality coming to mean reliant on higher authority but different, like dying our hair pink or green and putting studs in our face, makes us individuals, but that does not go with responsibility. That is not the individuality of our forefathers, and along with "group thinking", we destroyed our national heroes which were Gorge Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin. Trump would be an independent thinker of old if he were accountable for what he did and said, but he does not! We have experienced a huge cultural shift that is a shift in what "individuality" means.

Captain Kirk and his crew were repeatedly running into societies controlled by computers. Picard on one occasion, questioned if he should follow orders because of the danger the crew faced if they adhered to the orders and policy. Compared to the original Star Trek that was a weak defense of individuality meaning carrying responsibility and being accountable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the war of the sexes. I am really not interested. What I care about is honoring the Mother and the caregivers and teachers and all the people who work in food production who do not have the means to stay healthy because we exploit them and keep them in poverty. I want mothers to be honored and supported in their honorable occupation of the very important task of rearing children. I will point out, rarely did Star Trek have anything to do with family. Talk to me about the value of the full-time homemaker, okay? What she did for the family and the community and what she has to do with liberty! As John Locke said of kings thinking of their masses as children, they are unlike parents who expect their children to become independent. There is a limit to how long we are under the authority of a parent, unlike living under the authority of policy that is different from the authority of a king, only because kings die, but the bureaucracy above us, does not die.

but there is nothing inherently ‘feminine’ about this as a structure for society - except in your language use. — Possibility

Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex | New ...
https://www.newscientist.com › article › dn14146-gay-brains-structured-lik...
Jun 16, 2008 - The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain ... Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women. — newscientist

I’d like to be clear about what you mean by “potential” in potential information. (It seems to me you are giving it a double meaning, but I may be wrong.)

One sense would be information that is totally inaccessible but still theoretically knowable, like the location of a grain of sand on the planet Pluto in the year 1843.

The second sense is potential as in not yet determinable.
I observe Peter’s shifty look and conclude that he will attack me tomorrow. Potential information = the truth value has not been realized yet, it belongs to the future.

If you mean the first sense, I agree that potential information is objective truth, but not if you mean the second sense since information about the future does not exist now. (Unless you include the possibility of supernatural clairvoyance, which you haven’t mentioned.) Indications about what might happen in the future does not objectively count as truth about the future. Oil prices have been falling lately and that seems to indicate that oil will be cheap next week. Strong indication, sure, but the truth value of next week’s cheap oil is in no way to be found inside the statement about recent oil prices. Even if the prediction for next week comes true and the causal connection between the two events is obvious, the two pieces of information would not be identical even in hindsight.

Please tell me more about "I really did not want to post here because of previously being warned about interaction with the person that wrote the OP." — Athena

Ooops, please excuse me for that. I seem to have gotten you confused with another of Zeus's little darlings. Artemis. Long story, please just forget it.
I am not holding up very well under this bloody lock down, in fact I think I might go crazy.

If a person is ignored what would be the motive for continuing? — Athena

That would depend on your goals, ask Greta Thomborg if she plans to give up because the people she wants to listen to her refuse to listen. Ask the kartrashians and they will tell you that it is vital that they not be ignored, they would vaporize like the ancient gods did.

Wasn't that warning almost as effective as being banned? — Athena

No, when you are banned you cannot continue. And the warning I got was from her, not the forum

I am not into blaming males, but I think there is a reality of differences that prevents women from participating. — Athena

Us guys are not to blame for everything you know, most things maybe, but not all. Over the many years I have been around there have been plenty of female posters. And possibly quite a few that were females but kept it a secret.
Not many of the serious posters of either gender check to see the gender of the person posting, they are more interested in the content of the OP and the value of the ideas and arguments provided.

If you want people here to take you seriously, give them something serious to think about and discuss. This thread has gotten over 200 posts, not bad.

I’d like to be clear about what you mean by “potential” in potential information. (It seems to me you are giving it a double meaning, but I may be wrong.)

One sense would be information that is totally inaccessible but still theoretically knowable, like the location of a grain of sand on the planet Pluto in the year 1843.

The second sense is potential as in not yet determinable.
I observe Peter’s shifty look and conclude that he will attack me tomorrow. Potential information = the truth value has not been realized yet, it belongs to the future.

If you mean the first sense, I agree that potential information is objective truth, but not if you mean the second sense since information about the future does not exist now. (Unless you include the possibility of supernatural clairvoyance, which you haven’t mentioned.) Indications about what might happen in the future does not objectively count as truth about the future. Oil prices have been falling lately and that seems to indicate that oil will be cheap next week. Strong indication, sure, but the truth value of next week’s cheap oil is in no way to be found inside the statement about recent oil prices. Even if the prediction for next week comes true and the causal connection between the two events is obvious, the two pieces of information would not be identical even in hindsight. — Congau

Potential: the capacity to develop, achieve or succeed, that has not yet been realised.
Information: what is conveyed by a particular arrangement or sequence of something.

Potential information has not yet fully realised what it has the capacity to convey by its particular arrangement or sequence. It is essentially an incomplete relational structure.

The location of a grain of sand on the planet Pluto in the year 1843 is perceived by us as ‘inaccessible’, but if it is theoretically knowable, then it cannot be totally inaccessible, can it? It is, however, irrelevant information - we cannot use it to make predictions about future interactions, so there is insufficient value or meaning in us expending energy, effort or attention towards it. It remains potential information because we perceive negligible value in its particular arrangement or sequence.

‘Truth value’ is an interesting term. You’re referring to a process of collapsing potential information into what it conveys as a four-dimensional relation, and then determining how that relates to an objective view of truth. But the problem is that you can’t collapse potential information without the rest of the relational structure.

I observe Peter’s shifty look, and the potential information I may perceive is that he is likely to act destructively towards me at some point in the future. How likely, when it may occur and other details about the four-dimensional event are dependent on further potential information - some of which I already ‘know’, some I can find out before the event occurs, some will fall into place during the event, and some I may never know.

At this point, I am unable to determine the ‘truth value’ of a particular statement of fact or event (that he will attack me tomorrow), but I can relate what potential information I do have to an objective view of truth without needing to collapse it first into a specific four-dimensional event. I do this by imagining possibilities for the missing potential information that would give me a relational structure - a particular arrangement or sequence - to determine the ‘truth value’. Then I can test predictions in relation to collapsing these potential/possible relational structures I’ve imagined through language, actions and common experiences - all prior to any future event. In this way, it is possible for me to determine ways I can prevent (or reduce the potential ‘truth value’ of) the statement ‘that he will attack me tomorrow’.

But isn’t ‘truth value’ just a binary statement of absolute possibility?

Democracy based on Greek and Roman classics is "collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves". The New World Order is "are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat". That is Hegel's the state is God and everyone should be made to conform to the state. However, we can all be as different as the aliens of outer space, as long as we obey policy. — Athena

But if we only obey policy, then we can’t really BE as different as the aliens of outer space. Our capacity for diversity is then limited by policy.

Individualism is a relative perspective. To be ‘individual’ is to be indivisible: an isolated and homogenous entity. As it suits us, we can conform to an individual state as God, or an individual interpretation of God, or an individual relation to God - but rarely simultaneously without contradiction. It is the diversity and relations between these structures (which are themselves relational) that reveal the illusion of individualistic perspective.

The ideal of democracy and of Greek and Roman classics is not the same as the reality of it. Greek and Roman societal structures excluded, isolated and ignored elements of diversity within themselves that failed to conform to their limited structural perspective of ‘the state as God’. They were certainly not above distinguishing themselves from an external threat.

I get that we increase our understanding of the diversity and relation between two ideas by applying them to our view of the world, but I think we need to be careful of the tendency to then individualise and evaluate the complexity of reality according to this idealised binary. It doesn’t take much effort in looking closer to see how reality transcends whatever labels we attribute to it or categories we separate it into.

About the war of the sexes. I am really not interested. What I care about is honoring the Mother and the caregivers and teachers and all the people who work in food production who do not have the means to stay healthy because we exploit them and keep them in poverty. I want mothers to be honored and supported in their honorable occupation of the very important task of rearing children. I will point out, rarely did Star Trek have anything to do with family. Talk to me about the value of the full-time homemaker, okay? What she did for the family and the community and what she has to do with liberty! As John Locke said of kings thinking of their masses as children, they are unlike parents who expect their children to become independent. There is a limit to how long we are under the authority of a parent, unlike living under the authority of policy that is different from the authority of a king, only because kings die, but the bureaucracy above us, does not die. — Athena

I get what you’re saying - as a mother, as a homemaker, as someone who promotes education and is married to a teacher. I understand the value of the full time homemaker, but I also understand that this value is not exclusive to the role of the full time homemaker. I understand how important and honourable the task of rearing children is, but the honour and support we give this task is not just for mothers. And I understand that we structure society on a gross misunderstanding about raising children: that it’s about the conflict between authority and independence.

The role of child rearing is often seen as a paring back of dependency in relation to developing autonomy. But the ancient ‘matriarchal’ view would suggest that autonomy and independence are illusions - we are all eternally interconnected and interdependent - and whatever power or influence that anyone thinks they possess comes from their relationships. To that end, we should raise our children neither to be independent and challenging authority nor to be dependent and submissive, but rather to have the courage to always increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world.

Us guys are not to blame for everything you know, most things maybe, but not all. Over the many years I have been around there have been plenty of female posters. And possibly quite a few that were females but kept it a secret.
Not many of the serious posters of either gender check to see the gender of the person posting, they are more interested in the content of the OP and the value of the ideas and arguments provided.

If you want people here to take you seriously, give them something serious to think about and discuss. This thread has gotten over 200 posts, not bad. — Sir2u

I am sorry you are having a hard time with the lockdown. I do fine with this way of life as long as I have the internet. But I am gaining weight and seriously need the pool to open up so I can get my exercise. I expect a lot of good to come from the pandemic and I suppose that is what keeps my spirits up.

I think I have made serious and interesting posts and I was seriously disappointed when no one responded, and this is on topic. When the men get together what do they talk about? I have been a member of male groups so I know what they talk about but I am opening discussion with the question.
I have fond memories of the coffee clutches of my younger years, where mothers talk about what is important to them, and it is not what men talk about. I am saying perhaps there is a gender difference
when it comes to what is worth thinking about and what is not?

why bother about man and womens equality ? huh? what is the point behind it ? why bother ?

and at the whole women is not equal to men, that is an fact. but still this childish topic has gained so much popularity. indeed it is fun to see when people have nothing serious to do they create some problems and then try to solve them.

Do we use different logic?
Our contingent ideas about the world are different because the roles we play in the world.

Men compete and females nurture the kids, of course there are exceptions to this rule like any man made rules.
Though females used to not make the rules only to adhere to them.

People are trying to change this rule I don't understand why?
But in a non-dominated men world I assume things will be different, but not in this world!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rq9OvaJyRc

But if we only obey policy, then we can’t really BE as different as the aliens of outer space. Our capacity for diversity is then limited by policy. — Possibility

Yes, and I am not accountable because I am just following orders.

Individualism is a relative perspective. To be ‘individual’ is to be indivisible: an isolated and homogenous entity. As it suits us, we can conform to an individual state as God, or an individual interpretation of God, or an individual relation to God - but rarely simultaneously without contradiction. It is the diversity and relations between these structures (which are themselves relational) that reveal the illusion of individualistic perspective. — Possibility

Let me begin by saying I am so pleased you are willing to discuss mythology with me! Each god and goddess is a concept and I wish we all understood that.

I am not sure why you have not accepted my explanation of individuality so I will try again. When education prepared everyone for leadership, individuality meant being responsible and accountable and now it does not. When our nation was born, it was not run by policy but by individuals. Our bureaucratic order was extremely inefficient and we could not have the powerful government we have today unless the bureaucratic order was changed. So first there is reorganizing government and this new order crushes individual liberty and power but makes the government very strong, and what follows this change in governmental organization, is the change in education, making the young followers, not leaders.

Trump, the president of the US, is a great example of someone who is as different as they come and completely unaccountable. We don't seem to understand accountability any more because we are so used to following policy which is tyrannical, but we are too ignorant of what government organization is and can be, that we accept the tyranny of Trump and think this is a good thing. This is a serious change in our social organization and experience of life. This is no longer family order. It is the New World Order.

The ideal of democracy and of Greek and Roman classics is not the same as the reality of it. Greek and Roman societal structures excluded, isolated and ignored elements of diversity within themselves that failed to conform to their limited structural perspective of ‘the state as God’. They were certainly not above distinguishing themselves from an external threat. — "

Absolutely the Greeks and Romans were totally patriarchal, except Sparta gave their women the freedom of barbarians. Spartan women could manage Sparta without the men, unlike Athenian women who were very sheltered and forbidden to have any of the power of a man, which seems strange because their goddesses certainly had power. :lol: Back in the day, Persians and Greeks accused each other of being effeminate and soft. It was very important for a man to be a strong and skilled fighting man, and Spartans took the prize for being the most devoted fighting men, subjected to abuse from a young age to assure they grew up to be committed fighting men.

Athena was patriarchal and thought it worse to kill a man than kill a woman. I have some problems with that but not totally. I don't want to be as a man, so I am fine with supporting the man who is manly.

I get that we increase our understanding of the diversity and relation between two ideas by applying them to our view of the world, but I think we need to be careful of the tendency to then individualise and evaluate the complexity of reality according to this idealised binary. It doesn’t take much effort in looking closer to see how reality transcends whatever labels we attribute to it or categories we separate it into. — "

You might notice I am obsessed with the difference between the Germany we defeated in two world wars and the democracy we defended. This issue of individuality and liberty is hugely important to me. So your comment further down means a lot to me. I bolded that one. We need to nail things to a more concrete reality because I am just idealizing. Effectively, Germany was the Sparta of modern times and the US was the Athens of modern times. But the US adopted German ways and put the US on the same path Germany followed, and replaced the Greek philosophers with German philosophers and now we are what we fought against. When I say Athena is the goddess of Liberty and Justice and protector of those who stand for liberty and justice, no one is relating to what I am saying. I am speaking of hard reality much more than anyone seems to realize.

I get what you’re saying - as a mother, as a homemaker, as someone who promotes education and is married to a teacher. I understand the value of the full time homemaker, but I also understand that this value is not exclusive to the role of the full time homemaker. I understand how important and honourable the task of rearing children is, but the honour and support we give this task is not just for mothers. And I understand that we structure society on a gross misunderstanding about raising children: that it’s about the conflict between authority and independence. — "

What do you mean the value of a full-time homemaker is not exclusive to the role of the full-time homemaker? We are considering using robots to care for the children and in many families, the TV is the babysitter. Teachers seem to be quite sure we have dumped our children on them and we really don't care about them. While policy, where I live, has taken the authority to disciple students out of the teacher's hands, and it is now government managing the education of children, not the parents and not the teachers. :gasp:

If you understand this is a conflict between authority and independence I am thrilled to come across someone who understands that and I would really appreciate your explanation of that!

The role of child rearing is often seen as a paring back of dependency in relation to developing autonomy. But the ancient ‘matriarchal’ view would suggest that autonomy and independence are illusions - we are all eternally interconnected and interdependent - and whatever power or influence that anyone thinks they possess comes from their relationships. To that end, we should raise our children neither to be independent and challenging authority nor to be dependent and submissive, but rather to have the courage to always increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world. — "

:scream: I need a tranquilizer because what you said is so upsetting to me! If I came down with coronavirus I would go to the hospital and tell them just to make me comfortable and help me die, because I remember a different reality from the one we live in and I do not like this one. Your arguments seem to assure we remain powerless to do anything about the change. I keep arguing because it is my hope awareness can empower us.

Is that the advice you would give the German people as the nazi took over? Is that a stand for liberty and justice? I can see a higher morality in what you said and it would be great if we all got there, but Trump makes me doubt if we can get there peacefully. Not only is this pandemic traumatizing but I am really traumatized by how Trump is handling it and his followers marching around with rifles! I have been arguing my basic arguments for many years and kind of like not worrying about global warming because it isn't that bad yet, Trump and his followers seem to be proving me right and I don't always want to be right. It is that bad now.

and at the whole women is not equal to men, that is an fact. but still this childish topic has gained so much popularity. indeed it is fun to see when people have nothing serious to do they create some problems and then try to solve them. — tavaa

Unless you want to contribute to the discussion seriously, please stay out of it.

Our contingent ideas about the world are different because the roles we play in the world.

Men compete and females nurture the kids, of course there are exceptions to this rule like any man made rules.
Though females used to not make the rules only to adhere to them.

People are trying to change this rule I don't understand why?
But in a non-dominated men world I assume things will be different, but not in this world!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rq9OvaJyRc — MathematicalPhysicist

Thank you for a serious contribution. You make me aware of how much my thinking changes and I should have started with a comment about social values because that is what this thread was supposed to be about. What if women from the beginning of civilization women had a more powerful role in defining social values?

At this point, I am unable to determine the ‘truth value’ of a particular statement of fact or event (that he will attack me tomorrow), but I can relate what potential information I do have to an objective view of truth without needing to collapse it first into a specific four-dimensional event — Possibility

At no point can you determine the truth value of potential information. (I now use your definition, which of course is as good as any chosen definition although it was not at all what I had in mind.) The truth value (the binary true or false) will only appear when the potential has been fulfilled, at which point it is not potential anymore.

No statement about future events has any truth value, but all that concern past events have one. No matter how much potential information you have and how much you can imagine, a truth value can never be achieved, in other words you can never know what will happen in the future (even just a few seconds into the future).
(I’m here using the normal loose understanding of “know” which assumes that knowledge is possible. When we say “I knew it would happen”, we don’t mean it literary, but when we say “I know it happened”, we do.)

I can relate what potential information I do have to an objective view of truth without needing to collapse it first into a specific four-dimensional event — Possibility

How can you call this an objective view of the truth? Any prediction is guessing, and guessing, if anything, is subjective.
Language and common experiences are of course collective items but it would be a rather artificial stretch to call them objective.

What are the four dimensions?

If you understand this is a conflict between authority and independence I am thrilled to come across someone who understands that and I would really appreciate your explanation of that! — Athena

No. I said that I think this is a gross misunderstanding of what it means to raise a child - it teaches them that they must choose a side in all ongoing conflicts between authority and independence, which ultimately contribute to as much suffering as they strive to reduce. All you’re doing as a parent is achieving a minimal appearance of force shift in an unwinnable war.

There is no resolution in a conflict between authority and independence because they are not polar opposites. While it appears as if increasing one decreases the other, it is illogical to think that by maximising one we eliminate the other. The dichotomy is false. Authority is contingent upon understanding one’s interdependence. When clear authority falls away, interdependence is necessary. Likewise, independence is contingent upon knowing where authority lies. And when our independence is lost, we look to authority. So, you see, it’s not a conflict at all, but a dynamic balance. Authority and independence are inversely contingent upon each other. This what the yin-yang symbol means.

:scream: I need a tranquilizer because what you said is so upsetting to me! If I came down with coronavirus I would go to the hospital and tell them just to make me comfortable and help me die, because I remember a different reality from the one we live in and I do not like this one. Your arguments seem to assure we remain powerless to do anything about the change. I keep arguing because it is my hope awareness can empower us. — Athena

Again, you seem to be reading only to react. I am not saying that we are powerless to effect change. Awareness can empower us, but only insofar as we also strive to connect and collaborate. And I was specifically referring to how we raise our children, not how we react to a current situation. It’s not about observing change and fighting it, or about choosing EITHER authority OR independence. It’s about anticipating the trajectory and doing what we can to adjust it away from potentially destructive outcomes.

Is that the advice you would give the German people as the nazi took over? Is that a stand for liberty and justice? I can see a higher morality in what you said and it would be great if we all got there, but Trump makes me doubt if we can get there peacefully. Not only is this pandemic traumatizing but I am really traumatized by how Trump is handling it and his followers marching around with rifles! I have been arguing my basic arguments for many years and kind of like not worrying about global warming because it isn't that bad yet, Trump and his followers seem to be proving me right and I don't always want to be right. It is that bad now. — Athena

Idealistically speaking, if everyone aimed to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, then situations such as Nazi Germany or Trump as President would not have occurred. Liberty and justice seem like noble ideals, but keep in mind that in reality justice hinders liberty, and liberty hinders justice. Hitler and Trump are more products of their society than heinous individuals. The Nazis were handed authority, as was Trump. It is the extent to which we have all been ignorant, isolated and exclusive that we have brought about these atrocities - including environmental destruction.

I understand your despair. Not long ago, I was highly idealistic, certain that there was one perfect way that the world should be, and that inasmuch as we were not living in that ideal and couldn’t even determine it, the world was broken. But I realised that in order to create the world the way we think it should be, we need to first accept the world as it is - not to see it as broken, but rather as a work in progress. And eventually I realised that there was not one perfect world to strive towards, but a range of possibilities, and within that a range of potential, and within that my existence as a unique manifestation in relation to all possibilities. So I strive for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with all possibilities, and in doing so I raise my children to do the same and I contribute in the same way to the lives of others, knowing that what I’m striving to create is beyond any potential I can manifest in one ‘individual’ lifetime of experience.

That block of text reads more like a diary entry (not what I come here for). You seem distracted by other discussions so I’ll leave you to it.

Maybe a new thread with specific aims would encourage more focused discussion.

GL :)

No statement about future events has any truth value, but all that concern past events have one. No matter how much potential information you have and how much you can imagine, a truth value can never be achieved, in other words you can never know what will happen in the future (even just a few seconds into the future). — Congau

:chin: What you said is not agreeable to me. The US has recently experienced a huge cultural change and that followed replacing our liberal education and focus on good moral judgment, with education for a technological society with unknown values. For sure this began without full knowledge of the social, economic, and political ramifications, but the main goals have been achieved.

↪Athena That block of text reads more like a diary entry (not what I come here for). You seem distracted by other discussions so I’ll leave you to it.

Maybe a new thread with specific aims would encourage more focused discussion. — I like sushi

I rather have a good argument than a criticism that does not address anything I said.

No. I said that I think this is a gross misunderstanding of what it means to raise a child - it teaches them that they must choose a side in all ongoing conflicts between authority and independence, which ultimately contribute to as much suffering as they strive to reduce. All you’re doing as a parent is achieving a minimal appearance of force shift in an unwinnable war. — Possibility

I will try again. Are you agreement with education for a technological society with unknown values replacing a liberal education for good moral judgment and defending democracy in the classroom?

There is no resolution in a conflict between authority and independence because they are not polar opposites. While it appears as if increasing one decreases the other, it is illogical to think that by maximising one we eliminate the other. The dichotomy is false. Authority is contingent upon understanding one’s interdependence. When clear authority falls away, interdependence is necessary. Likewise, independence is contingent upon knowing where authority lies. And when our independence is lost, we look to authority. So, you see, it’s not a conflict at all, but a dynamic balance. Authority and independence are inversely contingent upon each other. This what the yin-yang symbol means. — "

Oh my, I have a different understanding of history. I thought the American Revolution was about liberty and ending the power of England to rule in North America, and we fought two world wars, to end tyranny and defend democracy. The idea that authority and liberty are not polar opposites may have truth but it can not be the whole truth?

Again, you seem to be reading only to react. I am not saying that we are powerless to effect change. Awareness can empower us, but only insofar as we also strive to connect and collaborate. And I was specifically referring to how we raise our children, not how we react to a current situation. It’s not about observing change and fighting it, or about choosing EITHER authority OR independence. It’s about anticipating the trajectory and doing what we can to adjust it away from potentially destructive outcomes.

You are right about me reacting, but that is not all that is happening. I also notice I am experiencing a lot of confusion, and perhaps gaining self-awareness. Compared to you, I am a poverty level street fighter, who does not understand how to things civilly. I do not like this self-awareness. I don't think this is a matter of one us being right and the other wrong. I think it is a matter of money and social position. I think I thought more like you before the 1970's recession. Before that rececession I was one of those "nice people" doing my good thing for "those people". Then I I became one of "those people" as are many people today becoming one of "those people" because of the economic crisis we are in and one of the wonderful things about this economic crisis is learning the people who work in meat processing plants do not have the means to stay healthy and not only are they a higher risk of dying, but they could contaminate our food. Now we care about them. Throughout our history people have risked their lives fighting for a better standard of living and people in your apparent position have not understood the fight. Why fight instead of being nice and reasonable? My mother did not have the economic opportunity women assume today, and my grandmother who was a devoted teacher for a good 60 years, was put in the welfare side of the nursing home where people were fed after the more affluent people were fed. I am thankful by then her mind was gone and she didn't realize she was now considered a charity case.
— "

Idealistically speaking, if everyone aimed to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, then situations such as Nazi Germany or Trump as President would not have occurred. Liberty and justice seem like noble ideals, but keep in mind that in reality justice hinders liberty, and liberty hinders justice. Hitler and Trump are more products of their society than heinous individuals. The Nazis were handed authority, as was Trump. It is the extent to which we have all been ignorant, isolated and exclusive that we have brought about these atrocities - including environmental destruction. — "

Now I agree with the opening statement of that paragraph. :cheer: However, there is no justice without morality, and tolerating immorality is destructive to civilization, so it can not be tolerated. To ignore immorality is as destructive as ignoring a pandemic, and a society focused on profit instead of morality is doomed to self destruct. This is not as either/or as your examples of this or that. How does justice hinder liberty? Justice must support morality and only highly moral people can have liberty. Life is full of trinities and trinity manifest infinite possibilities.

I understand your despair. Not long ago, I was highly idealistic, certain that there was one perfect way that the world should be, and that inasmuch as we were not living in that ideal and couldn’t even determine it, the world was broken. But I realised that in order to create the world the way we think it should be, we need to first accept the world as it is - not to see it as broken, but rather as a work in progress. And eventually I realised that there was not one perfect world to strive towards, but a range of possibilities, and within that a range of potential, and within that my existence as a unique manifestation in relation to all possibilities. So I strive for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with all possibilities, and in doing so I raise my children to do the same and I contribute in the same way to the lives of others, knowing that what I’m striving to create is beyond any potential I can manifest in one ‘individual’ lifetime of experience. — "

If I were to give out prizes for best posts you and @Congau would get prizes. The two of you have maintained the discussion, while others dropped in long enough to criticize me and left without contributing to the discussion. :lol: Strange but common behavior.

I have wonderful hopes for what might come out of the pandemic. I think affluence leads to making some social problems worse. It set a high standard of living and suddenly people who thought they would never have to ask for help are forced to ask for help. I think this will improve our collective thinking. I don't think you have lived in poverty and experienced doing so with no one to help you. In the 60's I thought poverty was a meaningful experience that no one born white and middle class could experience. We could run away from home and play at poverty, but as long as the economy was good and we had parents to call for help, we could not really experience poverty. It took an economic crash to teach me the meaning of poverty and how meaningless it is.

We can learn facts about poverty, but facts are not equal to knowledge. However, science is filling in some wonderful details and we have every reason to hope for a better future, and largely, I believe that is because women now represent us in government!

This is the first economic turn down since Roosevelt and Eleanor that I remember being focused on helping the little guy get through hard times. When Reagon was president in the 1980's, OPEC had embargoed oil and our economy had crashed and Reagon turned our war on poverty into war against those living in poverty and we have maintained that war until now. I am not sure we will have a better future without fighting for it.

Note, you have made our communication work. Others have not. We can not make a better future with people who drop in, find fault, and leave. Maybe some females are doing that, but I suspect it is more common for men to behave that way.

At no point can you determine the truth value of potential information. (I now use your definition, which of course is as good as any chosen definition although it was not at all what I had in mind.) The truth value (the binary true or false) will only appear when the potential has been fulfilled, at which point it is not potential anymore.

No statement about future events has any truth value, but all that concern past events have one. No matter how much potential information you have and how much you can imagine, a truth value can never be achieved, in other words you can never know what will happen in the future (even just a few seconds into the future).
(I’m here using the normal loose understanding of “know” which assumes that knowledge is possible. When we say “I knew it would happen”, we don’t mean it literary, but when we say “I know it happened”, we do.) — Congau

Can I take this as an agreement that what you refer to as ‘truth value’ is a binary true/false? If so, then at no point can we objectively know this ‘truth value’ in a statement, even when it’s in the past.

You agreed that facts are potential information. So when we realise the relational structure of potential information, it doesn’t just ‘disappear’. And if some potential information is not realised, it may be discarded by you and me as irrelevant, but it doesn’t disappear either - objectively speaking. What can happen and what could have happened are always potential information, and are always objectively either true or false, whether or not we can know that.

When we talk about ‘knowing’, we talk about the certainty of our position in relation to the potential information that we have. ‘I know it won’t happen’, ‘I know it isn’t happening’ and ‘I knew it didn’t happen’ all relate to potential information I have with regard to a possible reality. So does ‘I will know it didn’t happen’, ‘I knew it wouldn’t happen’, and ‘I know it didn’t happen’. The difference in each statement, objectively speaking, is my relative and limited perspective of all available potential information with regard to this possible reality - ie. the change in relative position and awareness between two four-dimensional events in a five-dimensional reality.

The objective truth in each statement is the same: the occurrence of the event, regardless of temporal perspective, is either true or false. That’s the binary. So what you’re referring to - the ‘truth value’ that suddenly ‘appears’ once the event is in the past relative to our perspective - is, well, relative to our perspective. When we share that perspective relative to the event, then we agree on this relative ‘truth value’. But that doesn’t make it objective.

How can you call this an objective view of the truth? Any prediction is guessing, and guessing, if anything, is subjective.
Language and common experiences are of course collective items but it would be a rather artificial stretch to call them objective. — Congau

I didn’t. I cannot HAVE an objective view of truth. I can relate potential information to the possibility of an objective view of truth, however, and in doing so increase awareness of the difference between language or common experience, for instance, and this possible objectivity.

What are the four dimensions? — Congau

This is always a difficult question to answer, because dimensions as I understand them are relative concepts and not necessarily spatial, but rather pertain to awareness/information. To state it simply, I would say they are energy/distance, direction, space and time, with the fifth dimension as value/potential and the sixth as meaning.

I will try again. Are you agreement with education for a technological society with unknown values replacing a liberal education for good moral judgment and defending democracy in the classroom? — Athena

Not replacing, but collaborating with, yes.

Oh my, I have a different understanding of history. I thought the American Revolution was about liberty and ending the power of England to rule in North America, and we fought two world wars, to end tyranny and defend democracy. The idea that authority and liberty are not polar opposites may have truth but it can not be the whole truth? — Athena

From an American perspective, yes, I suppose the American Revolution was about that. I wonder if you’ve ever considered any other perspective in that conflict, though. Do you understand why there is apparently no alternative perspective to consider? Have you considered why the US engaged in both world wars so late, relatively speaking, and then engaged so early in Vietnam and the Middle East? Was it really to ‘end tyranny and defend democracy’, or were there other motivations?

I’ve never claimed to know the whole truth, but I don’t believe we approach it by excluding potential information, immoral or otherwise.

Now I agree with the opening statement of that paragraph. :cheer: However, there is no justice without morality, and tolerating immorality is destructive to civilization, so it can not be tolerated. To ignore immorality is as destructive as ignoring a pandemic, and a society focused on profit instead of morality is doomed to self destruct. This is not as either/or as your examples of this or that. How does justice hinder liberty? Justice must support morality and only highly moral people can have liberty. Life is full of trinities and trinity manifest infinite possibilities. — Athena

I’m not talking about tolerating immorality or ignoring it, but if you hope to destroy it, then you’ll be throwing effort at futility, because morality is a judgement based on a limited perspective of reality - ignorant, isolated or excluded from the ‘whole truth’. A society focused on morality is also doomed to self destruct. You can’t found justice or liberty on a lack of awareness.

Liberty is not contingent upon morality, and morality is not contingent upon justice - that’s just how we like to conceptualise the world - but it isn’t reality. In truth, immorality enjoys undue freedom, and highly moral people suffer injustices. We ensure justice (and morality, too) by reducing liberty. Do you think you get to choose whether or not to ‘tolerate’ a pandemic? Do you think our efforts at isolating are the solution, or are they simply buying us time to increase awareness, connection and collaboration?

The ideal of Liberty, Morality and Justice is one of many trinities whose ‘infinite possibilities’ cannot be manifest in observable reality. It may be mathematically perfect, but if you base your concept of reality on it, then your sense of suffering will be acute, I’m afraid.

You are right about me reacting, but that is not all that is happening. I also notice I am experiencing a lot of confusion, and perhaps gaining self-awareness. Compared to you, I am a poverty level street fighter, who does not understand how to things civilly. I do not like this self-awareness. I don't think this is a matter of one us being right and the other wrong. I think it is a matter of money and social position. I think I thought more like you before the 1970's recession. Before that rececession I was one of those "nice people" doing my good thing for "those people". Then I I became one of "those people" as are many people today becoming one of "those people" because of the economic crisis we are in and one of the wonderful things about this economic crisis is learning the people who work in meat processing plants do not have the means to stay healthy and not only are they a higher risk of dying, but they could contaminate our food. Now we care about them. Throughout our history people have risked their lives fighting for a better standard of living and people in your apparent position have not understood the fight. Why fight instead of being nice and reasonable? My mother did not have the economic opportunity women assume today, and my grandmother who was a devoted teacher for a good 60 years, was put in the welfare side of the nursing home where people were fed after the more affluent people were fed. I am thankful by then her mind was gone and she didn't realize she was now considered a charity case. — Athena

I think you might be making assumptions here regarding my relative affluence and social position - perhaps to justify our difference in perspective? I don’t buy it. You’re railing against the perceived injustice of your position in comparison with everyone else. What they have that you don’t, in terms of economic opportunity or health or social validation or influence or power or independence. Yet, if you travel to the remote villages of East Timor, for instance, you will find more joy in what little they have than you can imagine. There, I think, you may understand what the value of family and community really is, without the economic, health, social or political structures that fail to serve you. They are not fighting for equality or validation or a better ‘standard of living’. They are happy with what they have, but they are open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with people and communities across the world. And we give to them, not because they ask or demand it, but because they give us an opportunity to care about them, and in that connection we recognise how much we have to give. It’s a matter of perspective.

I don't think you have lived in poverty and experienced doing so with no one to help you. In the 60's I thought poverty was a meaningful experience that no one born white and middle class could experience. We could run away from home and play at poverty, but as long as the economy was good and we had parents to call for help, we could not really experience poverty. It took an economic crash to teach me the meaning of poverty and how meaningless it is. — Athena

Watch your assumptions here, again. No experience is meaningless - you might have just missed the point of it.

Can I take this as an agreement that what you refer to as ‘truth value’ is a binary true/false? If so, then at no point can we objectively know this ‘truth value’ in a statement, even when it’s in the past. — Possibility

Yes, truth value is a binary true or false.
Like I’ve said several times, we can’t literally know anything. However, things that belong to the past are at least theoretically knowable, whereas future objects are not.
“Peter broke his leg in 2019.” That statement has a truth value; it is knowable.
“Peter will break his leg in 2021.” No truth value; not knowable.

You agreed that facts are potential information — Possibility

When I agreed that facts are potential information, I thought we were using another definition of “potential”. (I took it to mean “knowable”.) Now that you have defined it as “the capacity to develop, achieve or succeed”, I can no longer agree. (I don’t care how you define it as long as your definition is clear to me so that I can use the same one.)
If facts were potential information in your sense, it would mean they were sufficient for drawing conclusions about future events, but they are not. They don’t have the ability to succeed since more facts will always be needed to achieve greater certainty about the future. They therefore don’t have a truth value.
The statement “Peter’s shifty look means he will attack me” has no truth value, is neither true nor false, even when we can look at it in retrospect knowing that he did or did not attack me.