:clap: Agree wholeheartedly.

Awareness, connection and collaboration in the face of fear...

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. — 3017amen

I’ll start by pointing out that my worldview supports process philosophy, and Rovelli’s description of the universe in physics as a collection of interrelated events rather than objects in time, despite how we conceptualise the world in which we interact as individual human beings. I’m not denying that we commonly think of the world as objects moving and changing through time and space, and that the value and meaning we attribute accordingly is seen as something else entirely - a tangled mess of ‘power’ that we struggle to understand, possess and wield amongst ourselves. This ‘power’ (agency, potential, value) is seen as either inherent in the object/event, or attributed by the mind, but is rarely understood as an aspect of our existence - because for the most part it seems to BE our existence: our subjective experience of the world, our perspective.

We’re not going to reach an ‘objective’ understanding of attraction within the context of Cartesian dualism. That’s because the thinking/feeling subject is the axiomatic centre around which we construct reality - in the same way that we once tried to understand the cosmos by assuming the Earth was its centre. And in the same way that we divided the globe into arbitrary zones and then assumed we understood Time. It’s a cop-out to say that we only have our own experience of reality to go on. If that were the case, then we would still assume the Earth is flat.

There is an assumption that ‘objective’ pertains to this understanding of how objects move and change in relation to each other, but this is at best a localised description of reality - one that is based on a linear relation of time. Modern physics recognises that it is a more objective understanding of reality to describe how events change in relation to each other, recognising that ‘objects’ are defined only in relation to a localised (ie. subjective) temporal existence. QM suggests that it is probability or potential that structures reality, in a way that we once thought time did, and space before that. More intriguing is the realisation that the overall meaning or interpretation of reality at this level is dependent on the particular values one chooses to measure/observe.

So what ‘power’ is there behind ‘aesthetical beauty’ in this broader context? Well, that depends on which particular values you decide to measure - ie. how you structure an evaluative concept of ‘aesthetical beauty’ as a potential. It’s not that I’m discounting it - it’s that any attempt to define its ‘power’ is relative. Feldman Barrett describes the neurological concept of affect (valence and arousal) in relation to a predictive distribution of energy requirements (attention and effort) mapped to interoception of the organism (as a four-dimensional event). This gives us an idea of how humans reduce all possible value structures to a two-dimensional relation of potential/value as a localised understanding of 4D interaction with reality. This is a crucial step in mapping the complex relativity of five-dimensional existence.

What draws our attention and arouses our efforts may show certain patterns when viewed as a species, but different patterns when divided into male or female, and different patterns again when divided conceptually along any number of other arbitrary value structures. Why men and women are attracted to each other physically has a lot to do with the purpose or meaning of the interaction. Men and women interact physically in a number of ways for a wide variety of purposes. For each of those, a different structure of potential and value can be formulated from our conceptual systems. Someone seeking a business partner will (hopefully) construct a different evaluation of the potential of an interaction than someone looking for sex, for instance. The ‘power’ behind aesthetic beauty is therefore not going to be the same. In the same way, a man can appreciate some particular aesthetic quality of a strange woman across the room when his purpose is simply to look, but this will not have the same ‘power’ as his attraction towards his wife, in which he perceives a much broader potential to appreciate her many aesthetic qualities long term, and so perceive value in distributing his effort and attention more towards his wife in that moment, even when she’s not around. Note that it’s rarely a conscious or calculating decision - more often one is aware of this as a feeling, thought or action after it has been determined or initiated.

Aesthetic qualities change, chemical attraction comes and goes, and physical familiarity loses its informative novelty - it is our awareness, connection and collaboration with the atemporal potential/value in aesthetic and other sensory qualities of our partner that sustains passion long term. We are not simply passive observers of value, but initiate interactions between perceived potential in the world to encourage, enhance, actualise and appreciate value when it isn’t always obvious to others. This is how we love.

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.

Something potentially exists; Something experiences this potential and exists in relation to it. Everything else is a relational construct derived from applying the scientific method in iterative cycles. Descartes’ statement of certainty is subjective, and therefore potential at best.

In a general way, we are talking about a form or state of organisation that somehow looks habitual, repetitive, meaningful, deliberate, pervasive, ordered. And thus not the opposite of being patternless - chaotic, accidental, arbitrary, lacking predictable structure.

The presence of a pattern implies a pattern generator. A finality. There is some larger process that is placing constraints on irregularity or uncertainty.

Thus a pattern does not simply exist as a result of meaningless accident as you seem to want to suggest. It has to be generated by constraints imposed on otherwise free possibility

Where modern statistical mechanics gets us to is the realisation that even the random and chaotic patterns of nature are also the product of exactly this kind of causal set-up - an Aristotelean or systems causal story. So there is nothing in nature that escapes this causal ontology as even “raw chance” is being shaped into its completely predictable patterns - if you check my citation.

There is always finality present in this sense. Even the random decay of a particle has a (Quantum) generator by virtue of the fact that we can observe its predictable statistical pattern.

If we are merely reading patterns into nature, then there would be no pattern generation machinery for science to discover and model. And really, what else defines nature than it is a pattern - a structure, a process, a system of dynamical generation or becoming?

If you want to argue this is not the case, how does science manage to extract universal strength laws of nature? What is going on there? — apokrisis

The presence of pattern implies a process of pattern generation, which I imagine is what you’re referring to in ‘generator’ as a mathematical term, rather than a being. My background is neither mathematical nor scientific, but I have been exploring the idea of a six-dimensional stochastic process whose dimensional constraints and relational structure manifest an evolution of information: the difference that makes a difference. I’d be interested in your initial thoughts.

As a drastically simplified structure: free possibility is both existent and non-existent; matter in relation to anti-matter manifests as random potentiality; interrelating patterns of potentiality manifest as random energy (wave-particle); interacting energy patterns manifest as diverse localised atomic relations (including atoms); interacting atomic patterns manifest as diverse molecular relations (including molecules); interacting molecular patterns manifest as diverse physical/chemical relations (including organic structures and objects); interacting physical/chemical patterns manifest as diverse localised events (including living organisms); interacting patterns of events/change manifest as diverse conceptual relations (including ecological systems, weather, social groups, etc); and interacting conceptual/predictive patterns manifest as meaningful relations - all in relation to a meaningless (free) objective possibility of existence...

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.

If it were possible for you to exist forever, then how would that change what matters?

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...

Nietzsche on nihilism, from Wikipedia:

Nietzsche approaches the problem of nihilism as a deeply personal one, stating that this problem of the modern world has "become conscious" in him. Furthermore, he emphasizes both the danger of nihilism and the possibilities it offers, as seen in his statement that "I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!" According to Nietzsche, it is only when nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true foundation on which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure. — Wikipedia, ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’

It isn’t so much that life has no meaning, but that life’s meaning is not determined for us, nor beyond our capacity to determine for ourselves. It is as much to say that nothing matters as to say that everything matters - and from that, humanity is free to imagine, hypothesise and test value systems to construct a cultural reality - from everything - that would be most likely to thrive.

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?

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.

Personally, I think it’s arrogance to demand that the duration of my life should be my choice. What would be the difference between controlling this aspect of our existence and controlling every other aspect? We have been led to believe that our individuality and autonomy ought to be of utmost significance and meaning, but I think this sets us up unnecessarily for a miserable experience of life. If good doesn’t exist then neither does bad.

Part of life is the uncertainty of everything. Find the joy, learn from the rest.

He summed it up for me a little differently, as ‘no unanswerable questions; no unquestionable answers’. I take that to mean not so much that he acknowledges their existence and then rejects them, but that he believes all questions have a correct answer (whether we are currently capable of answering it correctly or not), and that all answers can be questioned, even if they’ve been deemed correct in the past.

A question to which the answer is ‘I don’t know’ is not unanswerable - it has been answered, and that answer remains questionable, regardless of how ‘correct’ it may be at present.

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 think I can see your problem with what I’ve said: fair enough, I don’t think I’ve made myself very clear at all.

I was responding to the suggestion that ignorance may be more rewarding. My point was that the ‘warping’ and ‘corruption’ of human potential that Drumpot seemed to be referring to - rather than a corruption of religion and politics themselves - is a result of ignorance, etc. in how we do religion, politics, capitalism, etc.

There’s no doubt we’re complex creatures. But we are extremely successful evidenced by our still being here. I don’t know if it’s true that we destroy and corrupt everything. We may be behaving in the best way possible for our survival. — Brett

Do you really believe that survival is the game here? Don’t you think that’s aiming a little low? It’s not like we’ve ever been in danger of extinction - except by our own hands. If you mean individually, then survival is losing battle, always.

There’s an interesting idea about the difference between the political right and left, or conservatives and progressives (whatever that is) that conservatives believe man is flawed but that he cannot be changed. Instead we must live with that knowledge and make the world as good as we can under the circumstances. It also explains why religion and conservatism seem to go hand in hand; man is a sinner, he’s imperfect, he has to live with that understanding, hence the confessional, etc.

The left see man as corrupt and instead of living with it they want to change him from what he is into something better. No room for religion here. — Brett

There’s a third option: that man is a work in progress, limited in his potential, yes - but still radically underachieving as a rule.

As a concept they are exactly what they are - as a process their potential is often corrupted by self-serving ignorance, institutional isolation and fearful exclusion. It is how we define concepts that limit their potential to encourage human progress.

Man corrupts every single thing it creates and every single thing we digest.

People complain about religion, politics , capitalism but at the core the issue is how humans manipulate these process’s and quite often how we warp them to oppress certain sections of society.

There seems a paradox in terms of how you can choose to deal with it. You can try and take action but will inevitably end up driven mad , made into a pariah or actually made a martyr but forgotten quickly as the next corrupt strategy is used to undo any progress.

So it seems like an ignorant existence of sorts is potentially more rewarding. But is this a corruption of what you know to be true? Is the price/reward of clarity , to be burdened with the pain of seeing the world of humanity for what it is?

I always think of the red/blue pill question in the matrix. Would I rather be oblivious to how horrible this world really is or is it better to know the truth (or what appears to be the truth) about how our species destroys And corrupts everything We touch?! — Drumpot

The processes you mention (religion, politics, capitalism) are warped and corrupted by ignorance, isolation and exclusion: the conscious and value-driven choices we make to avoid integrating information about the world that appears to threaten the existence, meaning or truth of these processes.

Seeing the truth of the world and ourselves, with all of the pain, humiliation, lack and loss this brings, enables us to make progress in the first place. You can’t change the world without first recognising where we’re at, what our limitations are and what we have been isolating or excluding as wrong, immoral, illogical, or pure imagination.

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.

Rudy knows FA about women, clearly.

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.

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.

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.

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’

Who said anything about opposing?

We’re alike, but not the same.

in talking to an eclectic mix of other people interested in philosophy on the forum, what key ideas have you been exposed to that have completely changed your viewpoint on a belief you previously held? — Risk

For me, philosophy provided a variety of framework structures with which to rebuild a worldview. Broadening my perspective from a catholic girls school upbringing and postmodern education in the Arts, to embrace nihilism, panpsychism, quantum mechanics and information theory, was going to require a drastic rewrite. Philosophy seemed a good way to throw it all into the mix and start from scratch.

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.

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.

However, 'just emoting' is okay too, as long as it's understood that way. In other words, wanting to just vent emotions can be therapeutic (I've learned that being a musician). — 3017amen

I think there’s a difference between creative catharsis and ‘just emoting’ - it’s in how we direct our interactions. By ‘just emoting’ I’m referring to a failure to make any conscious choice in how we act out, particularly in who bears the brunt of our emotional outburst and why. Like when we snap at our partner after a crappy day at work. When you choose music as an avenue to vent emotions, it can also be therapeutic for those who listen - or thoughtful towards those who might otherwise cop an earful.

To underscore this point though, it almost begs the question of compatibility. We know in a long term relationship couples can grow apart, together, or somewhere in between, and still make it work. While other's of course, choose not to make it work. My question is, how do you distinguish between what is a normal amount of deciphering and/or engaging in an extraordinary/extraneous amount of same? — 3017amen

For me, it’s not a question of how much deciphering, but how much effort and attention we commit to awareness, connection and collaboration regardless of whether we can translate. I don’t think there’s a normative value you can put on this - it’s relative to how much each of us has available, given the other crap we need to deal with in our lives at the time, and what this relationship means in the midst of that. Relationships are a negotiation of effort and attention requirements - sometimes there’s enough to sustain the relationship, sometimes there isn’t, and sometimes one area of the relationship requires more effort and attention for a time. Communicating which areas need work, and how much effort and attention we have available between us, is all part of the negotiation.

I think you might be missing a vital point here, but it’s quite possible that I’m not making myself clear enough. Most of the feelings we express, we are conscious of only AFTER expressing them. So when it seems that our partner doesn’t understand how we feel, it’s important to note that we may have only just figured out ourselves how we’ve been feeling from our expression, and how long we’ve felt that way. It’s not anyone’s fault, and I’m not saying you ought to be doing anything in particular. But I will add that we cannot expect to be understood as evidence of being loved, as much as I’m suggesting we make our own calculated investment into the relationship, of attention and effort, towards understanding how each of us - both my partner and myself - emotes. That is, how we automatically conceptualise feelings into a prediction of emotion.

You and Gnomon spoke about a ‘long-suffering marriage’, in which we learn to read our partner’s ‘opaque mind’. I think it’s more about learning to recognise the significance of experiences for them (not just for the opposite sex in general), and to make inroads to understanding without expecting to master it anytime soon. Life itself is ‘long-suffering’ - we predict interactions and learn from, are informed by, the difference between what it could be and what it seems, never really certain of what it IS at any one time.

The way I see it, Stoicism in the philosophical sense isn’t so much about a ‘stiff upper lip’ or enduring pain without expressing feelings at all (that’s a limited view), but about learning to be aware of feelings BEFORE we express them, rather than after, and evaluating the effectiveness of options for expression in terms of the timing, language, situation, target, etc of our interaction. It’s an awareness that there is more going on than simply stimulus-response, and that we can always strive to see the bigger picture and understand why people are motivated towards judgement, desire or inclination.

This 'learning to recognize the other partner's unconscious' is disturbing. It comes across as an endorsement of taking no personal responsibility for one's own self-awareness, but rather shifts that onto their partner. I hope I'm wrong here, so maybe I'm not interpreting what you're saying correctly? — 3017amen

This is a misunderstanding. Our partner’s unconscious language is how they express feelings before becoming aware of them. I’m not saying we need to understand or decipher this language, only learn to recognise it as an expression of feelings, not as an attack, and communicate this recognition to them. When we do that, we offer an opportunity for our partner to communicate their feelings (this time with the aim to be understood), rather than just emote.

I understand the defensiveness when confronted with an emotional outburst, but a partnership isn’t about who holds the power or the high ground - it’s about developing a mutual potential. We reflect our partner’s experiences back to them without judgement, so they might develop the self-awareness they need.

You’re not their therapist - I’m not saying anyone should aim to ‘fix’ a partner who demonstrates a disfunctional lack of self-awareness - but if you’re searching for a partner who can express every feeling they have consciously with “I feel happy/sad because...” then you’re not after a human being. Few of us are as self-aware as we assume we are - neither are we as rational as we assume. Often we need to be told we’re acting cranky or irritable or flat by someone who is accustomed to how we normally behave, so we learn to recognise when something’s off-balance before it gets out of hand. I think it’s part of how we look after each other.

Panpsychism states that consciousness is basically all around. Quarks have a very small degree of consciousness, ants larger and humans much larger. But we could also say that more complex organisms would be more conscious than we are.
But to be honest, I don't know if ''more consciouss'' even makes sense. — Eugen

Panpsychists apply the term ‘conscious’ very loosely - the idea is that there is a kind of proto-conscious interaction existing to a lesser and lesser degree in less complex systems. I use the term ‘system’ because the kind of panpsychism I am interested in ties in with information theory. But I think it isn’t just a matter of complexity - it’s about integrated systems of awareness, connection and collaboration, which is a particular type of complexity.

I don’t think ‘more conscious’ is particularly helpful, though. Consciousness as it is usually understood has the capacity to occur only within an as yet uncertain range or pattern of integrated complexity, and the level of awareness, connection and collaboration occurring in the system may move it in and out of that range for a number of reasons. What occurs in terms of awareness, connection and collaboration at a less complex (or indeed a more complex) level of integration would need to be something other than ‘consciousness’, in my view.

Take stoicism for example. We know that basically during the fall of Roman empire it was used a philosophy of coping; physiological coping skills, in order to get through harsh/tough/difficult times. Thus we have seen this perpetuated in some instances, and taken to extremes to where it becomes a repression of healthy emotions and expression of same. And so in the face of men v. women, simple communication about one's feelings go a long way in maintaining a healthy relationship. Easier said than done I know... . — 3017amen

The aforementioned quote speaks to the concern of rubrics, as well as the argument about the downside to the perpetuation of stoicism (I've met women who are very stoic).

I think the means-to-the-end there would be the expression of feelings/differences . And that leads to the theory that we all want to feel good about our relationships. So if we want to feel good about our relationships, we have to express those feelings of wants and needs, and so on, that may uncover those differences you mention, I suppose. — 3017amen

I find it interesting that you use the term ‘stoicism’ to describe this lack of communication about one’s feelings. I don’t think communication is as ‘simple’ as that. It’s not just about expressing, but about noticing, listening and hearing, too. When I mention differences in language and conceptual structures, what I’m referring to is this sense that we are expressing feelings, but they’re not being interpreted as wants and needs. Rather they’re taken as personal attacks: criticism or entrapment or anger or bitterness. And when those wants and needs expressed but not heard fail to be validated, are turned against us or dismissed as overreaction, etc, then we eventually give up on expressing those feelings. And then the relationship breaks down, and the partner is left wondering why these feelings were never ‘communicated’. This occurs as much (sometimes more) with men as it does with women.

We rarely express feelings as a conscious, targeted communication, so it’s never in a form designed to be understood by a specific audience. It’s in our own ‘native’ emotional language. Some tend to ‘act out’ their feelings, while others dress them up in ‘respectable’ language. Part of developing a relationship is learning to recognise our partner’s unconscious ‘native’ language, so that when they express those feelings of wants and needs, we learn to pay attention, and at least make an effort to understand. Sometimes it helps to just ask for a ‘translation’, so to speak. It’s not so much about our feelings being automatically understood, but about the communication process itself: awareness, connection and eventually collaboration. It takes two.

And so, should we gravitate toward, and value, the Venus in the female, and the Mar's in the male? Or should we simply say no to that, and instead embrace the 'complimentary', and/or conclude men and women are basically the same and really and simply both want the same things? — 3017amen

For me, it’s about embracing the complementary as it comes. There are ways that I am ‘typically’ female, and ways that I am not - and you won’t know which ‘typical’ traits pertain to me until you get to know me. Definitions are a start to understanding each other, but they should never be considered the whole story. They’re a basic level of information, from which we develop a more complex relational structure. Men and women are different in the sense that everyone is different, and cannot be assumed to want the same things. The ‘typical’ distinctions between us are based on ‘fuzzy’ conceptual patterns, not on inherent divisions.

So, whether you start with the view that men and women are basically the same, that they complement each other, or that they are two different species is not as important as recognising that your perspective should never be assumed accurate on a person-by-person basis. It comes down to how uncertainly you’re willing to interact with the world, because from my perspective, all three of these have an element of truth to them.

There is a large amount of male-female difference that comes down to historical roles and how this has affected experience, and with that language and conceptual structures. Our social and cultural reality has evolved differently, and so we tend to experience the world differently - but none of this is inherent or fixed.

My view on gender is that there is: a basic genital distinction, inclusive of both/neither, from birth, that then biologically develops the body from ten; a conceptual or social/cultural identification of role that can vary, and develops rapidly through language and experience to structure the self-identity that emerges around twelve; and a chemical-based sexual orientation range that starts to develop during puberty. This complexity doesn’t lend itself to a simple binary or even linear distinction, and any attempt to shoehorn individuals into neat compartments is bound to confuse. That’s humanity for you.

how are you aware of the incomplete potential information that a question presents? — Daniel

It’s a result of effort and attention.

It’s commonly referred to as ‘doubt’.

There are no unexpressed questions? — Banno

If it has not been expressed - even to the self, in the form of thought - can it be defined as a ‘question’?

An unknown that relates to it.
— Mww

↪Mww I agree. I'd like to ask you, how would you say the unknown relates to the question? How is a question something about what is unknown? Does the unknown act directly on the question or does it act on something else from which the question then arises? (they are all kind of the same question) — Daniel

Not necessarily a specific unknown, rather a fuzziness or uncertainty to the information. A question is an expression of potentiality. It presents uncertain or incomplete information as a transferable prediction of effort and attention distribution to complete the potential information.

So the question, “what colour is the dining room?” presents incomplete potential information regarding a particular value - colour - attributed to a particular ‘dining room’. Regardless of whether this specific information is available - ie. whether or not the missing information is ‘unknown’ or unknowable by either the questioner or the questionee - the question itself exists as an expression of missing potential information, to be answered by the questionee relating their subjective experience to the information as presented, and responding with a colour value to complete the information as a shared relation or ‘superposition’ state between them.

Alternatively, the question, “Is the dining room red?” also presents incomplete potential information regarding a particular value - colour - attributed to a particular ‘dining room’. What is missing is not a colour value, however, but rather the questionee relating their subjective experience to the information as presented, and responding with a binary truth value (yes/no - and/or an alternative colour value) to complete the information as a shared relation between them.

Well, that wasn’t simple or concise. Sorry.

well it's quite a controversial book but he basically says that subconsciously women do want to exchange sex for resources but only with high value males. So the object does not want to be seen as an object so that the object can extract more resources from the male.

In other words we're playing a rigged fixed game. — Gitonga

And he’s basing his research into the subconscious of women on years of experience as a woman and in discussion with women, or years of observing from an external position of lack, pain, humiliation and loss?

He’s justifying a position of suffering with baseless speculation. It’s like ancient claims that the soap opera style dramas of the gods are the cause of human misery. You clearly haven’t read the rest of the thread, or you’d recognise that you’re not preaching to the converted here (well, maybe one or two). You’re going to have to bring something more than incels venting frustration.

Sure, I get what you're saying here and it probably comes down to his we define 'objectification.' I do notice a lot of language around sex involves objectification, though - "get it," "take it" etc.

But sure - the animal comparison might be better. It's not too important to me though whether we use 'animal' or 'object' - I see sex as a break from civilization; a reminder that we're not just rational, civilized beings who take part in the routines or rituals required to maintain modern society. I do think this "animalism" or "objectification" or whatever you want to call it takes places from both sides though. — BitconnectCarlos

I’m not objecting to the ‘animal’ or ‘object’ association in relation to sex. It’s the compartmentalising that bothers me. As humans, we can be seen as ‘lines and shape’ in relation to the world, as well as ‘physical’, ‘animal’, intentional thinking being and meaningful existence - all at once. By presenting one aspect during an interaction, we are not denying the other aspects of our existence. The relationship we have with cultural traditions aside (ie. during private interactions such as sex), this is how we relate to each other, human to human.

There seems to be certain cultural or conceptual structures, however, that evidently permit us to ignore, isolate or exclude the ‘higher’ or more complex aspects of another’s humanity under certain circumstances. Women, children, ethnic minorities, criminals, etc have historically been denied capacity for thought, intentionality and/or meaningful existence within certain cultural and conceptual structures - not necessarily out of a conscious desire to control, but more from this fascination with ‘difference’ that makes demands on our limited effort and attention, developing into a fear of unpredictability or uncertainty, and the potential for pain, humiliation and loss/lack to be experienced as a result.

Unpacking these cultural traditions and restructuring concepts so that all human interactions, at least, recognise intentional, thinking beings with meaningful existence - even as they present as ‘physical’ or ‘animal’ or, as in Brett’s artist model example, as ‘lines and shape’ - may seem too much to expect of society as a whole. But I can expect it of my own interactions, at least. And I can encourage others to be conscious of their interactions, and strive to do the same, despite what cultural traditions permit. That’s all I’m aiming for.

My next door neighbour has been separated from her breasts. My wife has been separated from her womb. A woman's a woman for aye that. The surgeon who operated on my wife, (and all surgeons do this surely?) objectified her. It is a deliberate process of obscuring the body except for the 'part' one has to cut. Before and afterwards, she was a wonderfully warm human being, but for the operation she was a calculating butcher.

Alas for anyone who performs sex as if they were performing surgery. — unenlightened

I hear you - the surgeon still has the patient’s express consent, though, and takes care to minimise scarring and other concerns she might have as a human being. During the operation, a surgeon sometimes needs to make decisions about someone’s body without the benefit of their express consent. Keeping in mind that their patient might not appreciate that choice being made for them, and taking into account who they are and what their wishes might be in making such a decision is part of their responsibility. A good surgeon would lay out the risks prior to the operation, and ascertain their patient’s wishes if it came down to it. It’s not an easy job, and can be mentally and emotionally challenging for that reason. But I would hope they’re not a calculating butcher for the operation.