I think you would be surprised at the fundamental similarities of expressing emotion. The expression of emotion can be manifested in different genres (angry metal/happy pop), and also in another way it can be manifested by random free ranging improvisation. In both cases an emotional purging is experienced from both the performer and listener. — 3017amen

The similarities are not lost on me. Creative catharsis is an expression of awareness, connection and collaboration between one’s qualitative potential (including feelings, fears, memories and ability) and that of sound, words or materials. Even if you never fully understand what it means, you can relate to it as a valuable expression of human experience and potential, as the artist and/or observer. The ‘relief’ in this form of catharsis comes from our collaborative achievement with the instrument/sound and through that collaboration with the listener, not from ‘releasing emotion’ as such - although it is commonly described that way.

‘Emoting’ is affected action - not all such actions are initiated with awareness, connection or collaboration between our feelings, abilities, etc and the potential of how, where or to whom we direct that action. Sometimes it’s simply striking out randomly at the world, but to equate that ‘expression of emotion’ with music is to downplay the significance of the choices you make at the level of potential to direct your affected action.

By the way, what's been your take on the Venus/Mar's thing? Do we all just want the same thing ( we just manifest them differently) or do we want different things? Perhaps in your earlier replies, you've suggested a combination or hybrid of sorts, based upon each individual's (their subjective truth) wants and needs... . — 3017amen

Mars/Venus was revolutionary at the time. The idea is that our experience of the world is different, and so we can’t expect our cultural and social reality to be the same. But it’s never as simple as reducing everything to a single binary. Rather, it’s just a warning to expect different patterns in how anyone else interacts with the world at the level of language and thinking and emotion - instead of assuming deficiency.

We not only want different things, what we want changes with our experience of the world - it means something different as we grow and interact, both as an organism and as a species. I don’t agree with essentialism, personally - the best we can do is relate possible meaning to variable patterns of potential and value that enable us to predict our interactions with the world as accurately as possible from our limited perspective. It’s not very comforting, but it’s workable.

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

Not in the philosophy of Chrissie Hynde:

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

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

We’re alike, but not the same.

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

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

Or, maybe not :chin:

Who said anything about opposing?

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

That’s a start. But it’s not as black and white as you seem to think.

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

Men and women are alike in some ways and different in others, but there is no defensive position to be constructed that protects your identity as ‘masculine’. If you focus only on our differences, then you ignore the many ways that we are alike and want the same thing; and if you focus only on those ways we are alike, then you ignore the many ways that we are different (not opposing). There is no attribute you can suggest that I have not seen demonstrated in both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ identities to some extent.

All beings support yin and embrace yang
and the interplay of these two forces fills the universe
Yet only at the still-point, between the breathing in and the breathing out,
can one capture these two in perfect harmony.

There is no greater misfortune than feeling “I have an enemy”
For when “I” and “enemy” exist together there is no room left for my treasure
Thus when two opponents meet, the one without an enemy will surely triumph — Lao Tzu, ‘Tao Te Ching’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite honestly, it is easy to fall into this trap. With all due respect, in the objectification of women thread, you did exactly that. You dichotomized mental agency by repudiating material agency. You seemingly renounced one in favor of the other. Don't mean to put you on the chopping block, but instead, wanted to make you aware. — 3017amen

I’m aware of your accusation, but I didn’t dichotomise agency - that was you. ‘Material agency’ is a term used in reference to historical and cultural objects, not people. In that sense, material ‘agency’ is a misnomer. The agency is not inherent in the material, it’s in the potentiality of past interactions with humans. As such, it was irrelevant to the topic - unless you were advocating objectification of human beings, of course.

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

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

In other words, existentially, do our masculine and feminine features simply provide for the attraction to our objective agency/reality, along with our (existential) wants and needs remaining basically the same (?). And in that sense, our mental agency/immaterial reality seems to be related to our hormonal idiosyncrasies that simply requires understanding (or using your term 'decyphering'). — 3017amen

Men and women are NOT opposites. As long as we see them as such, we are not integrating. Your preference for women you categorise as ‘feminine’ is conceptual. I’d be surprised to hear any man say they’re attracted to women who are ‘less feminine’ - I imagine that’s your own interpretation. The features they consider ‘feminine’ are likely different to yours. There are certain differences and aesthetics that have the potential to attract my attention and effort, but to say that I’m attracted to ‘masculine’ men would seem to dichotomise my own identity as ‘feminine’, and imply that those men I’m not attracted to are somehow ‘less masculine’ in some objective sense, when it’s only that I categorise them as such. That’s not integrating at all.

Different is not opposite. Diversity is multi-dimensional. Categories and the concepts they refer to provide scaffolding to help us understand our interactions, but they are not reality.

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

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

Men and women are NOT opposites. — Possibility

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

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

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

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

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

Men and women are NOT opposites.
— Possibility

In what ways are men and women the same? In their wants and needs? — 3017amen

This is getting repetitive: different is NOT opposite. A man and a woman can be alike in many ways, but we focus our attention and effort on the differences (particularly in relation to wants and needs) because that’s the way our brains interact with the information available - we look for the potential in others to fulfil the outstanding wants and needs in ourselves. What we also deny in ourselves, we seek in our relationships with others.

There is a tendency to assume that our attraction to what is different is so that we integrate two ‘opposites’ into a whole being or existence. But we are not opposites, and we shouldn’t be expected to ‘complete’ each other in the sense that our wants and needs are fixed into certain categories so that when we ‘have’ the right partner we can feel whole. This way of thinking ignores the capacity we have to learn from each other and integrate these differences in ourselves. Each of my previous partners has taught me something about myself and my interactions with others that has served me for future interactions - in some cases, it has taken years and repeated exposure to similar pain for me to integrate that information, but it’s been worth the effort and attention.

To ‘complement’ is not just a temporal event, but an ongoing capacity to integrate information: ‘the difference that makes a difference’. It’s not a dance of opposites, but an atemporal sharing of information through awareness, connection and collaboration at the dimensional levels of value/potential and meaning/relation.

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

Quite honestly I see you as conceptualizing too much. You seem to be denying the aesthetical appeal from the opposing sexes ( women's innate desire for a masculine man and men's innate desire for a feminine woman). — 3017amen

I’m well aware of the aesthetic appeal of difference, but I see it as neither opposing, nor innate as described. What attracts me to the male form aesthetically has changed over the years, according to the perceived value/potential of my self and my interactions. Likewise, what attracts me to the female form has changed, too. I’m not denying that there is a pattern of attraction that lends itself to fuzzy masculine-feminine conceptual structures, but there is nothing innately black and white or ‘opposing’ about it.

I'm left with your logic that seems to suggest that all men should be attracted to butch looking women. Otherwise, and similarly, you seem to be saying you're attracted to feminine men, if I'm understanding that correctly. How's that define the fact that men and women both want the same things? — 3017amen

No, you’re misunderstanding, and you’re blatantly polarising. Just because some men don’t prioritise certain features such as large breasts or long hair, doesn’t mean they’re attracted to ‘less feminine’ or ‘butch-looking’ women. They just conceptualise ‘feminine’ more broadly. In many ways I don’t consider myself particularly ‘feminine’ in relation to my peers: I never wear nail polish or earrings, and spend most days in jeans and a t-shirt or loose knit with no makeup, and without bothering to shave my legs. I’m not interested in fashion trends or celebrities, and I can’t stand gossip or small talk. I don’t do frills, and only occasionally florals. But I do love a soft, flowing dress or skirt with heels, I happen to be 5’3” with long hair and an hourglass figure, and I’m both chemically and aesthetically more attracted to men. So you tell me: is ‘feminine’ how I dress, how I’m shaped, what I’m interested in, how I move/interact - or is it in my ‘oppositional’ capacity to reassure/defend your ‘masculine’ identity?

I won’t define the men I’m attracted to as ‘masculine’ because there are men you might define as ‘masculine’ that I’m simply not attracted to - but that doesn’t mean I’m attracted to ‘feminine’ men. Masculinity as a binary category is a false dichotomy. What I find attractive in a man may not be what another woman is attracted to, and vice versa - that doesn’t mean that one of us is attracted to ‘masculine’ men and the other isn’t. Aesthetically speaking, some women are particularly attracted to hairy men, others to deep voices or large hands, some to broad shoulders, abdominal/pectoral muscles or bulging biceps. To say that all of the above defines a ‘masculine’ man is to reify the archetype, when the truth is that most women would focus on or prioritise only one or two of these aesthetic values in their pattern of attraction - and the pattern for each woman varies. Personally, I’m not attracted to hairy men, large pecs or bulging biceps - but a deep voice, broad shoulders, or the way a shirt or jacket hangs over the curve of his back are enough to get my attention, aesthetically speaking. The rest of these values I’m only expected to appreciate in identifying my sexual identity. That said, ‘attraction’ for me is more in the eyes and smile, or the way he moves and interacts with the world. I don’t view men as accessories, or as means to my own ends. Their definitive ‘masculinity’ does not serve to reassure/defend my own identity as a woman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such a discussion. It makes one long, almost, for the simpler explanations accepted in the past. Certainty has its benefits, especially when its founded in the kind of thinking that came so easily to so many after Darwin (A.D.). Certainly women differ from men, and certainly that's because their purpose is certain, and easily determined by science itself. So says Rudy K., though you have to wonder what men, and what women, he knew well:


Man, a bear in most relations -- worm and savage otherwise, --
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger --- Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue -- to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same,
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

What I'm trying to understand is, is what/how denying our wants and needs leads to learning from each other? In other words it seems to suggest a dependence on the other partner to gain wisdom. But what happens if we don't deny ourselves? — 3017amen

You misunderstand me. I’m not talking about denying our wants and needs. I’m talking about denying the yin in our yang. Our wants and needs derive from an experience of lack in how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world, and we contribute to that experience of lack when we deny certain aspects of who we are. For example, someone raised in a particularly religious environment may deny their identity as a sexual being (out of immorality), and yet are drawn to romantic partners who appear to epitomise sexual immorality. A relationship can then become similar to a ‘dance of opposites’, as the person in denial appears hellbent on possessing, controlling or fighting that aspect in their partner, sometimes in destructive ways. Alternatively, the relationship may be complementary, enabling them to eventually recognise and embrace their own sexual identity. If that is all they were attracted to in their partner, though, then the relationship may grow apart, losing significance, as they no longer need to relate to a sexuality that exists outside of themselves in order to feel complete.

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

Very intriguing. Could this explain why people grow apart? For example, our perceptions of love change from say, in our teens to adulthood and beyond. Also, what is perhaps even more intriguing is your view of aesthetics evolving over time. And it implies that any object of desire may not be as desirable at some future point in time. — 3017amen

In some cases, particularly if we’re only attracted at a certain level of awareness, then I think so. It isn’t just that our attraction to certain aesthetic qualities changes, but the aesthetic qualities in most ‘objects of desire’ change also. This is why it’s important to understand attraction as multi-dimensional. To see a person as an ‘object’ of desire is to ignore other aspects in which they may be attractive to you in a more lasting or even atemporal capacity. Looks fade, people change.

Just for clarification, are you saying that men and women get together for emotional support, more than anything else? Does this deny or subordinate the physical connection? And if so, how does that square with romantic love? — 3017amen

No, I don’t think you grasp the broadness of minimising suffering. We interact with the world based on predictions of effort and attention, and the extent to which we are mistaken in these predictions comes back to us as suffering - pain, humiliation, loss and lack - the difference between our prediction and reality that informs corrections to future predictions and interactions with the world. The more we interact with this difference, the more we will understand about the world, and the more accurate our predictions become. As an individual organism, my capacity to understand the world without succumbing to pain or loss is limited. It is in my relationships with others, and my capacity to intimately relate to (find value and meaning in) their ongoing experiences of the world, that most efficiently inform my predictions. That’s not to say my physical connection to the world is irrelevant: part of understanding the world is interacting with its various aspects, including how lines, shapes, objects, events and experiences change in relation to each other across dimensions.

As for romantic love, it’s a concept that has developed since the 12th century, from an awareness that the relational potential between men and women transcends physical connection, property transactions and procreative capacity.

Rudy knows FA about women, clearly.

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

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

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

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

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

Looks fade, people change. — Possibility

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

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

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

I think there is progress being made there, only from the vantage point of opposites complementing each other. So all I will say there is that one should have the self-awareness enough to know that it is not virtious to deny themselves. In other words, allow yourself the gift of transformational self-awareness. — 3017amen

Again - NOT opposites, just different. And self-awareness should always be tempered with honesty and patience, so I’m not talking about giving ourselves permission to pursue wants and needs as it suits us - don’t go interpreting it that way. The ‘denial’ I’m referring to is in reference to ignorance, isolation and exclusion, not denying wants and needs.

That said, if this self-actualization completes the Mars in Mars and the Venus in Venus, then it begs the question of why even bother to seek that which is not needed. Meaning if in principle, all pathology and dysfunction is removed from the individual's Being, then please advise as to why Mars would seek Venus? — 3017amen

I never said it ‘completes the Mars in Mars’ - that’s you trying to satisfy your own theories again. If you think that as a single organism, you somehow embody an entire archetype, then you’d be mistaken. I’m not talking about ‘completion’ as such - that’s often what we’d like it to be, because it would mean an end to suffering. But we were never meant to be complete. We are only a very small part of a whole diversity of possibilities. A man with the self-awareness and honesty to embrace in his own identity those qualities he may have once perceived as ‘feminine’ is only the beginning of wisdom.

And so if looks change, people fade viz the self-actualized person who has integrated and resolved the opposites/dichotomies within themselves (without help from their partner), what would be the purpose for Venus to seek Mars? — 3017amen

Self-actualisation isn’t about completeness - it’s about recognising our limitations, interconnectedness and capacity to collaborate with the diversity in the world. We don’t achieve self-actualisation without help from others - that’s the point. Venus and Mars are archetypes - reified concepts, not human beings. So they’re irrelevant to self-actualisation.

If you’re asking why a self-actualising person would seek a partner, it’s because they are open to an ongoing relationship with someone whose difference and change is a continual source of attraction - challenging them to continue increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. Self-actualisation is not an arrival, it’s a way of interacting with the world.

And so can you describe this sense of transcendence? In other words, if as you suggest, romantic love is no longer a want or need, what else is there? — 3017amen

Not sure what you’re asking here. Romantic love started out as a recognition of five-dimensional interaction between a noble woman and knight/warrior or poet: their perceived value and potential manifesting as an expression of increased awareness, connection and collaboration. Her value is actualised by interacting with his potential, and his potential actualised by interacting with her value. No physical connection necessary, and nothing to do with marriage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forgive me again, but have you studied Maslow?
Self-actualization is the achievement of both the discovery and uncovery of Being. While during such discovery it is true we need others (other people in general/platonic relationships) to help achieve our goals, wants and needs, it is our own responsibility to uncover what we were born to do and be. — 3017amen

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

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

Can you explain what this suffering is... . Is it a type of existential angst? If so, how does or should our other potential or current partner eradicate or mitigate this suffering? — 3017amen

There’s a misconception (or hope for many) that the ‘right’ partner would somehow eradicate this sense of lack that we experience in life, but that’s a myth. Those rare moments of feeling ‘complete’ in the world are not static, because we change, our partner changes and the rest of the world changes around us on various levels of interaction. To perceive any of these elements as complete or essential is to distort reality through conceptualisation, which leads to prediction error - pain, humiliation, loss, lack - reminders that we still have much to learn. Life is complete when we die; the ‘self’ is complete when it ceases to be informed by reality. Until then, we are open systems of integrated information, continually adjusting to prediction error. The ‘right’ partner encourages us to continue to be informed by reality - reminds us that suffering (prediction error) is meaningful beyond the ‘self’.

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

This seems to contradict your definition of opposites and differences. Meaning it sounds like your theory endorses seeking opposites and differences from the other partner, in order to enhance their Being. — 3017amen

No, I’m saying that we are attracted to differences in our partner, but to view them as ‘opposites’ misses the opportunity to enhance our Being by integrating difference as information.

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

Forgive me again but this sounds like cultural pre-arranged marriages. Are you suggesting this is a better method for a successful union between Venus and Mars? — 3017amen

What part of ‘nothing to do with marriage’ did you not understand? I’m not describing a ‘union between Venus and Mars’ - these are relational archetypes. They’re not supposed to unite, they’re supposed to become increasingly irrelevant in a successful union between two human beings, neither of whom should ever be expected to fully identify with either archetype. It’s just a reminder that we’re typically different - not that we’re different in the same way all the time.

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

The only conclusion I could come to now is that somehow the very experience of your "suffering " (whatever that means, and I look forward to a better explanation from you) creates our wants and needs for the sexes to unite. — 3017amen

What gaps? There is a multi-dimensional diversity to humanity that gets ignored when we align all relational archetypes such as Mars-Venus, Logos-Eros (mind-body), anima-animus and yin-yang along a binary opposition of gender identity. There are differences, sure, but no ‘gaps’ between the wants and needs of men and women except what is created by this dichotomous structure.

I haven’t said that ‘platonic friendships’ are all that’s required - I’ve said that this supposedly ‘oppositional’ attraction between genders is not as straight-forward as it’s made out to be. Incidentally, the original notion of Platonic love was both inclusive of and transcending carnal (or at least aesthetic) attraction, not devoid of it. But we do like to compartmentalise.

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

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

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

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

Can you elucidate this sense of completion and reality?

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

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

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

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

In your thinking, you would have a rather tall hill to climb in trying to reconcile the God given gifts from the Mozart's and Einstein's of the world, since I'm assuming your view of human nature is that everything is a learned response/the rubrics of society exclusively shaping one's nature. Accordingly, does this mean you would want Madonna to perform a heart transplant on you? LOL. — 3017amen

Your assumption of my view is way off the mark - nature/nurture is not a mutually exclusive dichotomy, any more than masculine/feminine. My position is that we bring a certain amount of genetic information to the equation, but are each born and raised in a very particular environment, with a unique pattern of experiences and interactions that together and over time develop our conceptual systems, who we become and where/how we find our path in life through attention and effort. With a musician father, Mozart’s affinity for music was recognised and nurtured at a very young age - the opportunities afforded to his family also enabled him to shape a creative career from raw genetic ability which might have otherwise been dismissed as trivial. And Einstein’s job in the patent office exposed him at the time to certain inventions and ideas which sparked his interest in a way that his education had failed to achieve at that point. Neither succeeded on inherent ability alone, nor were they exclusively shaped by society.

I think you are in denial of the what makes Mars-Mars and Venus-Venus.. You seem to obviate one's own personal responsibility for being all that they could possibly be. Mars should bring to the table not half a man, but a wholistic man who has the experience and Logos, enough to engage with Venus. Nonetheless, you still haven't answered the question as to (aside from procreation/offspring), why Venus desires Mars? — 3017amen

Your continual assumption that all men must strive to identify wholly with Mars and all women with Venus is to advocate binary thinking, which is precisely what I have been arguing against. Mars and Venus are archetypes: reified concepts of masculinity-femininity to illustrate difference - not to set expectations. Why Venus desires Mars is irrelevant - as archetypes they only typify a simplified pattern in human experience, rather than reality. Human beings both desire and fear the challenges that differences in their environment offer the system’s capacity to integrate information and evolve - not just through their offspring, but through their own experiential Being and a relational Becoming that transcends the self. We become all that we could possibly be only by relating to what we are not, and striving to integrate the difference.

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

Can you elucidate this sense of completion and reality? — 3017amen

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

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

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

So, men and women want the same things, it's just that we are different (?) — 3017amen

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

These typical patterns help us to understand difference, but any prediction applied to an instance of interaction with reality is prone to a degree of error. We experience that error as suffering - pain, humiliation, lack or loss - but is it ours, or do we project the error/suffering onto the interaction instead? If we predict that a woman wants to be hit on, but in acting on that prediction encounter a negative response, does the fault lie with the woman or her response, or is the error in our prediction or the details of our action? If we always assume the error is NOT ours, then we fail to learn from the experience. If we can employ the scientific method to the prediction-interaction process instead, accepting error and uncertainty as an opportunity to learn and refine our predictions, then perhaps we can become all that we could possibly be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must say that is confusing. It sounds like you are saying that generally speaking, men and women want the same things (I have no quarrel with that). — 3017amen

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

I disagree that I have a ‘natural attraction’ to either archetype. Rather, I have a natural attraction to ‘the difference that makes a difference’: information. How we divide that information up in the world is arbitrary and subject to error, but the bottom line is that Mars and Venus illustrate a pattern of relation in human experience that has more to do with informative difference than identification with either archetype, physically and/or metaphysically speaking. Mars is attracted to Venus and Venus to Mars because they’re different from each other. That’s all.

But having a bit of heaven on earth is worth the sojourn, no? Meaning, if Mar's is all left brain, without recognizing the virtues of his right brain, then he is not really complete. (Of course I mean that in a temporal sense.) — 3017amen

If Mars is ‘all left brain’, then he also hasn’t recognised his own capacity to use his right brain - which he would have if he were human (rather than an archetype). It isn’t about just recognising the ‘virtues’ of his right brain, but learning how to access it himself by interacting with those who can demonstrate a right brain capacity and articulate their inner experiences. That we so often simply recognise the virtues of ‘other’ness in our partner as a way to feel ‘complete’ is a failure to become all that we could possibly be.

that is what I mean by saying one must take the personal responsibility for their own actions, as well as suffering any consequences from same (of both good and bad). — 3017amen

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

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

I'm not sure I would completely agree with that deterministic approach. Quite simply, the soundness of that proposition only requires coping skills for an effective reconciliation. Through self-awareness, we can become (discover and uncover) who we were born to be. Of course, there is a balance between wishful thinking and all that is possible from our reality. But generally, the existential responsibility of Being, should not be subordinated by rubrics. Thinking outside the box has lead to many novel discoveries. — 3017amen

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

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

No exceptions taken!

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

No exceptions taken!

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

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

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

No exceptions taken!

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

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

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

Exception taken as noted: you still haven't answered the question as to why Venus is attracted to Mar's. For example, is it physical or metaphysical or a combination of both. If it's both (using that axiom) how would you describe physical chemistry(?). (I'm not clear whether aesthetics/Eros are important to you or are included in any of your theories.) — 3017amen

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

I labeled it as such because it seems too positivistic or analytical or even overthinking the human condition. As such, if you are thinking that a binary system of checks/balances will ensure success, I highly question the effectiveness. As a rudimentary example, think of dating sites. A website that only provides for written criterion which does not allow aesthetics' as a criterion of choice would not only be incomplete, it would not be as effective in determining the phenomenon of the thing called human chemistry-whatever that may consist of. — 3017amen

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

Aside from that, the context in which you were (initially) referring was this mitigation of suffering as you would phrase it. Accordingly, all I was suggesting is that having adequate coping skills to deal with failure's is really all that's required for the human psyche. Of course, this is more Freudian than not. — 3017amen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that became an ancillary note to our recent discussion. However, it is worth parsing because it's part of the OP (please go back and refresh yourself if you will), that Eros has some sort of appeal to the sexes (whether it's intrinsic or innate to both sexes/I would welcome your theory). — 3017amen

I think the idea that Eros pertains to one gender identity and Logos to the other is yet another attempt to simplify into a binary system what is a complex and multi-dimensional diversity. Despite this, Jung’s theory does advocate the conscious development of both aspects in each of us, regardless of which one initially appears more developed. You have to remember that Jung’s sample set are adult psychiatric subjects in a culture of gender dichotomy. I don’t think a person’s preference for psychic relatedness or objective interest is particularly innate to either ‘sex’. We each have an innate capacity for both, but manifest them in many different ways, often as a result of regular interaction with modelling/concealment and edification/discouragement.

As an example, both my son and daughter, in their teens, have strong development in both areas, in very different ways. My daughter is both creative and highly rational but struggles with compassion, while my son is both systematic and highly compassionate but struggles with rationality. Like with the Mars-Venus distinction, this is much more complex than a linear relation and has little to do with gender on an individual basis, except when culturally influenced.

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

Take the phenomena of love for example. How often do you hear an individual who says " gee, I don't know what it is about him/her, I just love him/her." What kind of scientific method would provide insight on that phenomenon? — 3017amen

The scientific method is an iterative, cyclical process through which information is continually revised.
It is not necessarily about logic - it’s about observing and asking questions, then formulating, testing and adjusting predictions for accuracy in all interactions. So it can provide insight anywhere you find yourself saying “I don’t know”. Confirmation bias and other influences of affect must be accounted for in scientific methodology, not ignored. As evident by QM, the aim is not objective certainty, but practicality. Logic, however, excludes any information that can’t be reduced to a binary true-false value.

There is a common assumption that Eros is fundamentally unexplainable: passion, chemistry, love and attraction are apparently to be felt or excluded, but not understood. And yet a healthy dose of skepticism (not to be confused with risk avoidance) in relation to love and attraction can go a long way towards minimising the effect of pain, humiliation and loss. Phenomena and intuition are indications that we are ignoring, isolating or excluding value/potential information that affects us nonetheless - interacting with a scientific methodology that includes this qualitative information may not result in objective certainty, but it enables us to improve our understanding of past, present and future interactions.

There is a common assumption that Eros is fundamentally unexplainable: passion, chemistry, love and attraction are apparently to be felt or excluded, but not understood. And yet a healthy dose of skepticism (not to be confused with risk avoidance) in relation to love and attraction can go a long way towards minimizing the effect of pain, humiliation and loss. Phenomena and intuition are indications that we are ignoring, isolating or excluding value/potential information that affects us nonetheless - interacting with a scientific methodology that includes this qualitative information may not result in objective certainty, but it enables us to improve our understanding of past, present and future interactions. — Possibility

I don’t think a person’s preference for psychic relatedness or objective interest is particularly innate to either ‘sex’. — Possibility

Possibility!

Thanks, I promise this will be the last piece of the puzzle as it were! And that relates to Eros.
I'm afraid I will be needing your guidance here. I'm having difficulty understanding some of your theory.

I know I've asked a similar question relating to Logos, but the concept of Eros seems a bit more nebulous. Can you expand a bit more on what you mean by this risk avoidance/loss phenomenon between the sexes?

I don't necessarily agree with Jung's characterization of Eros being exclusive to women attributes. I believe that both men and women experience a type of Eros in their romantic relationships toward each other, which may or may not continue throughout such duration of same. For example, while having a passionate marriage that lasts for years can be a result of both an Eros and Logos connection (material and non-material agencies), the phenomenon of the initial (and/or long lasting) physical attraction is what both sexes seem to have in common in that as being physical creatures, we cannot escape physical appearances and the attraction thereto.

And that leads to one of many questions concerning physical chemistry. While non-physical chemistry exists as mentioned (an intellectual connection), why should one discount the power behind aesthetical beauty. In other words, both men and women are attracted to each other physically, and appreciate each other's physical attributes, yet can we objectively explain why that is? For example, we use terms such as ; passion, chemistry, the love for the object itself, etc.. which implies a inseparable connection between mind and matter.

Perhaps the fundamental question is, what is physical chemistry?

I know I've asked a similar question relating to Logos, but the concept of Eros seems a bit more nebulous. Can you expand a bit more on what you mean by this risk avoidance/loss phenomenon between the sexes? — 3017amen

If I suggest skepticism about ‘feeling’ attracted to someone, this might be interpreted as advising them not to take a risk based on unreliable information, but that’s not what I mean. I’m suggesting they pay attention to what else is going on, seek more information (rather than hold out for ‘reliable’ information), and not just act on one momentary feeling interpreted as ‘love’ or ‘chemistry’. Feelings of attraction are not always chemistry, and chemistry is not always love.

From Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book on the theory of constructed emotions:

Back when I was in graduate school, a guy in my psychology program asked me out on a date. I didn’t know him very well and was reluctant to go because, honestly, I wasn’t particularly attracted to him, but I had been cooped up too long in the lab that day, so I agreed. As we sat together in a coffee shop, to my surprise, I felt my face flush several times as we spoke. My stomach fluttered and I started having trouble concentrating. Okay, I realised, I was wrong. I am clearly attracted to him. We parted an hour later - after I agreed to go out with him again - and I headed home, intrigued. I walked into my apartment, dropped my keys on the floor, threw up, and spent the next seven days in bed with the flu...

Emotions are not reactions to the world. You are not a passive receiver of sensory input but an active constructor of your emotions. From sensory input and past experiences, your brain constructs meaning and prescribes action. If you didn’t have concepts that represent your past experiences, all your sensory inputs would be just noise. You wouldn’t know what the sensations are, what caused them, nor how to behave to deal with them. With concepts, your brain makes meaning of sensation, and sometimes that meaning is an emotion. — Lisa Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’

I don't necessarily agree with Jung's characterization of Eros being exclusive to women attributes. I believe that both men and women experience a type of Eros in their romantic relationships toward each other, which may or may not continue throughout such duration of same. For example, while having a passionate marriage that lasts for years can be a result of both an Eros and Logos connection (material and non-material agencies), the phenomenon of the initial (and/or long lasting) physical attraction is what both sexes seem to have in common in that as being physical creatures, we cannot escape physical appearances and the attraction thereto. — 3017amen

I’m still not sure we’re on the same page with regards to Eros. I’m not even sure that you are on the same page - I don’t see material agency as equated with psychic relatedness. A Platonic understanding of Eros describes a development from physical attraction into a spiritual attraction to the eternal idea of Beauty itself, and there is a sense even here that the physical element is minor - a foot in the door, so to speak. A long lasting ‘physical’ connection within a marriage has more to do with a perception of aesthetic and/or sensory potential than what one actually looks, feels or smells like from one moment to the next, but to distinguish this from a perception of any other potential (agency) is to advocate a Cartesian mind-body distinction in Logos-Eros that, in my view, fails to understand what potential/agency is.

Physical chemistry is an area of scientific study, not really related to what we’re discussing here. I’ll come back to this when I have more time, but suffice to say I believe there IS an inseparable connection between mind and matter - but our focus on physical connection as something other than intellectual connection is obscuring our understanding of it.