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

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

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

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

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

What dichotomy would you propose? — Merkwurdichliebe

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

The aim of philosophy is to approach a shared meaning in how all of reality interrelates
— Possibility
No, I would deny that that’s the aim of philosophy. What if we were all delusional? What if only one person had a reasonable understanding of reality- I would rather listen to him than the shared hallucinations of everyone else.
Don’t you think philosophy is the search for truth? Or do you think truth is subjective? (Sorry, this goes beyond the subject of this thread.) — Congau

Yes, I think philosophy is the search for truth, which is a universally shared meaning in how all of reality interrelates. I think you misunderstand me - I’m not arguing for majority rules. I don’t think we can ever really be certain that we’re aware of every possible perspective. But if we did, and found that only one person had a different understanding of reality, then we should still listen to him in relation to the perspective of everyone else, and test the differences in how we interact with the world. That’s the only way to be certain of truth, either way.

Even if you take the psychological approach to philosophy, as in existentialism or phenomenology, the aim is to understand how we as humans construct reality, not how particular humans, like the ones I happen to have a discussion with at the moment, shape their reality.
I can learn more about psychology (and also philosophy where the two branches of knowledge overlap) if I know who I’m talking to. I can improve my understanding of the difference between male and female psychology but that doesn’t give me more insight into the subject at hand. — Congau

I would say that how we as humans construct reality is relative. I cannot hope to know who I’m talking to with any certainty - especially on a forum such as this. But I can improve my understanding of truth by including and striving to understand those perspectives that appear ‘delusional’ in relation to my own.

I had imagined that the basis by which someone believed something wasn't a one dimensional thing; like another fact which happened to entail it. I had imagined it as a generating process for that belief; facts are part of it, entailments are part of it, what is seen as relevant to what is part of it, some kind of metaphorical/analogical structure that aids the imagination, and an expectation of how things should be (there's my attempt at a 5). Less a factoid, more what the thread is made of in the instantaneous tapestry of thinking.

Given all that and how deep an attachment to an idea can be, I think it's important to see that there can be errors in connection between and within all of these parts as well as an error of generating belief in something given those as input data.

What are those 5 dimensions in your view? — fdrake

I think these errors you mention are in the various ways that we structure all the events of our lives in relation to each other - in terms of perceived relative value/potential, time, space, direction and distance. Ideally, we refine the accuracy of these relational structures by increasing awareness of experiences that challenge them, especially with regards to value/potential. But this leads to prediction error or suffering (pain, humility, lack/loss): the recognition that we require more effort, energy and attention than current predictions indicate. It is when we pull back from interactions to avoid these experiences of suffering that we fail to perceive the errors in how we conceptualise reality - especially in relation to how things should, could or would be.

But that is the value of kindness and gentleness towards strangers: domination. Hospitality paralyzes emnity in the stranger. A desire to view reality any other way than a game of domination reeks a bit of nihilism.

A perfect example, right from this thread:
My granddaughter who takes charge of shelter programs is proud that she can disarm men carrying knives with her feminity. She and I know if a male were sent in to take the knife, the problem would probably escalate. She goes out of her way to be none threatening to maintain peace. How angry can you get with a big cute bunny? :lol: You can identify the women in charge of a shelter, they are the ones who wearing the hat with a spinner thing on top, or a bunny suit.
— Athena — BraydenS

That you see the value/potential of this as ‘domination’ is interesting, and not altogether surprising. First of all, acknowledging that women are not the only ones capable of ‘disarming’ violence with humour, hospitality and humility is an important part of this discussion. The question why not everyone perceives this option (not just men) I think each of us will probably need to ask ourselves.

Secondly, I tend to think of this view as beyond nihilism, if you like. If your ultimate sense of value/potential in existence - this commonly held notion of individual domination, proliferation, survival, independence and honour - is recognised and dismantled for the pointless illusion that it is, then what IS the true value/potential of existence? If, as a women, I cannot but recognise my humility, my interdependence, my mortality, my procreative, physical and mental limitations - if individual ‘domination’ is not an option - then how do I determine my ultimate value?

For me, it is to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. That’s not ‘domination’, but I admit that it does look like it sometimes, depending on your perspective. The effectiveness of kindness and gentleness towards a stranger brandishing a knife looks like ‘domination’ from a point of view which values the capacity to arm oneself with a knife. Athena’s granddaughter may (or may not) even consider it to be a ‘power’ that she possesses over these men, believing her own press, if you like. There is more to the notion of ‘domination’ than evolutionary theory would have us believe.

As civilization complexifies and progresses, everyone will continue to get more feminine, too.
— BraydenS

And eventually, men with superior genetics will be sequestered underground and milked for their semin. Meanwhile on the surface, transgender males will utterly dominate. — Merkwurdichliebe

And this is why I see the ‘masculine/feminine’ dichotomy as ultimately unhelpful.

Whoo, do you think women have always had the opportunities they have today and have always been included in the discussions? Speaking of the past was inviting people to imagine a different reality if women had always been seen as equals. Would we have always engaged in war if we had not been male-dominated? Might men have been kinder and gentler people? Might we not have the argument you made if there were no reason for it?

Yes, I blame men and misogynistic religions and the women who enforced the repression of women. — Athena

This is what I’m talking about. There is pain and anger in your words - it helps to recognise and then come out from under that emotion in order to have a rational discussion here. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t feel - but in communicating, you shouldn’t always expect others to make allowances for your emotion before they can understand your argument. As women, we’re probably more used to distinguishing between the different value structures in language. There are other ways to demonstrate the value of emotion.

I think a few women in history have made use of opportunities and influenced discussions more than most - and they haven’t had to become ‘male’ to do so. That this isn’t visible in historical writings has to do with perceived value and potential. The most influential women in history, the ones who had the best opportunities, are practically invisible in the history books. You have to read between the lines to find them, because they did what women do best, none of which was considered that important by writers of history and fact. But they did it anyway, because it was important to them.

My point is that we don’t have to re-imagine a different reality. We shouldn’t wait or wish for women to be seen as ‘equals’, for men to stop focusing on domination, to become kinder and gentler people. We need to see ourselves as equals, to argue for a more accurate view of reality than ‘domination’, and to demonstrate the value of kindness and gentleness, etc, so that no one cannot fault the argument. And we need to stop blaming and looking for re-dress, and instead recognise that our potential and value was always there - it’s just been ignored, isolated and excluded: by ourselves as much as by men. We can find it in our past as much as our present and future.

I don’t know who you are, where you come from, what your background is, and for the purpose of this discussion, I don’t care.
I don’t think having your personal information in any way would aid me in realizing the merits of your argument. — Congau

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

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

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

When two people share perspectives on something, we generally think something X on some basis Y. The basis Y and the conclusion X might not be fully known to their interlocutor, they might not be fully expressed, but I think it is important to be able to disconnect ideas; to say that the connection between X and Y is flawed on some shared, or in principle share-able basis. "There isn't sufficient evidence for that given what we've talked about", "That doesn't follow.". We live in the same world despite our experiences and learning making us see different things as relevant to our speculation. — fdrake

I agree - when it’s as simple as X based on Y. But philosophical discussion is rarely as simple as a two dimensional relation. For me, perspective is a five dimensional relation, so if you want to make a genuine effort to understand the differences, then you will eventually need more variables than X and Y. This is especially important when we agree in some respects but not in others, and when there isn’t sufficient evidence either way. We do live in the same world, but we certainly don’t conceptualise it the same way.

I can say, ‘X doesn’t follow unless you value Y’, and then what matters is the sum of their experiences and circumstances that contribute to the reasons they value Y. Many of my discussions on this forum end at this point - people are often reluctant to get into the basis of their basis. There’s a certain fragility in holding the foundations of your own personal logic up for scrutiny. They’d much prefer to dismiss a discussion based on ‘lack of evidence’ than examine how we each structure value, potential and possibility, on which our thoughts, beliefs, words and actions are ultimately based. But to me, this is the basis of philosophy.

Whether or not we really expect others to have put their emotions aside in an argument, we should act as if we expected it. If we don’t do that, we don’t treat them with enough respect. It is disrespectful to respond to an argument by saying: You obviously talk like that because you are a woman, or because of your childhood experience, or because you have a different nationality than me etc. Even though people’s background and values most certainly influence their thinking, we should treat their arguments for what they are or attempt to be, namely a rational and logical construction. I highly suspect that your Christian upbringing has influenced your anti-abortion stance, but I shouldn’t dismiss you by suggesting that you are only arguing in this way because you are a Christian. I should evaluate your arguments for what they are, no matter who you are; they are valid or invalid depending on their logic only. — Congau

I understand what you’re saying, but their ‘logic’ is often a result of their background, emotion and values as much as any other relation, as is our own. It’s not a matter of assuming, reducing or dismissing their logic based on these aspects, but rather mapping it in relation to our own value structures, recognising the uncertainty of this level of information. Again, we need to be conscious of this tendency to strive for dominance, independence and honour at the expense of new information.

An argument isn’t always as simple as who is right and who is wrong, or even which argument is most valid. When there isn’t enough information for certainty either way, it’s more about how your perspective of reality relates to mine. The more information we gather about the value structures of alternative perspectives, the more aware we become of the limitations and errors in our own perspective with regard to a more objective understanding of reality.

If we had not come from such a misogynist past but had always honored women would our history and understanding of human nature be different? Would we be prepared for war but not to protect everyone's health? If women were not in government today, would we be getting more unemployment pay and a kicker check? Franklin Roosevelt listened to his wife. Do we think Trump listens to his wife? Women swoon over Trump so I want to be clear about how we created an unpleasant reality, and that I am not blaming anyone. But I would point an accusing finger to misogynistic religion. — Athena

Perhaps you are blaming, in a way. I’m not sure that it helps to go down the ‘would-a, could-a, should-a’ path in this discussion. I don’t think you can argue that women have not been honoured - not publicly and not often enough as individuals in their own right, sure - but are we honestly striving for this kind of honour, or is it just because that’s what society has valued?

We tend to devalue what reminds us of our own fragility and interdependence, and of the uncertainty and suffering we encounter the more we interact with the world around us. As women, we have always been an unavoidable physical reminder of this reality - for men and for each other. In many ways, women have learned to accept these aspects of life more readily, if only because we could not so easily ignore, isolate or exclude it from how we conceptualise reality.

In an age where even science cannot ignore the uncertainty of reality, I think society as a whole has much to learn from what are traditionally seen as ‘feminine’ perspectives. But so long as we keep referring to them as ‘feminine’ perspectives, and the striving for dominance, independence and honour as ‘masculine’, then we remain limited by our value structures.

My father was an essential NASA engineer when we sent Apollo to the moon. I think that pretty well fits the image of male success. But he was a very lonely man in away because he totally lacked emotional intelligence and the ability to have satisfying personal relationships. Until recently the good wife totally supported such a man, so the socialization for past sexism was passed on generation after generation, and have the old books that tell a woman how she should ask nothing of her husband and totally support his professional success so he can best support the family. I don't mean to blame anyone, but be honest about our past and the present. — Athena

I think in many ways, the ‘good wife’ was required to absorb or embody those elements of human experience that ‘mankind’ is frequently expected to ‘put aside’, avoid or ignore: like emotion, nurturing, uncertainty, humility, pain, lack and anything else that doesn’t fit with this image of ‘man’ as being autonomous, dominant and fully in control of a rational world. This perception is very much a source of domestic violence, even today.

But this is not just an issue for men. I also see women use their emotional and nurturing capacity to avoid humility, pain and lack by deflecting these experiences onto their partner, believing that a ‘good husband’ is responsible for protecting his family from any form of suffering. I think if we’re being honest, we need to acknowledge this side of it as well.

Emotion, nurturing, uncertainty, humility, pain and lack are all elements of the human experience, regardless of sex. This is what we SHARE, not what we avoid or blame on each other. The sooner we acknowledge this, the better off we’ll be.

I guess the question is why have these qualities of care, collaboration, domesticity been associated with the feminine in the first place? Maybe that is what Athena is getting at.. or not. — schopenhauer1

Exactly.

What do you mean by "being feminine"? I have read some feminist literature and would like to share my thoughts.

I am not a woman myself, but from what I can tell, "femininity" is a standard imposed upon women by men. It is an expectation that they be submissive, nearly child-like, listen and don't interrupt, shut up when they are interrupted, be a sex toy for the silverbacks and do all the chores that men don't want to; but also cultivate virtuous traits like patience, kind-heartedness and beauty that, if displayed in a man, would make him emasculatorily gay and ultimately strip him of any power to dominate.

My observation is that much of second-wave feminism (the scary, exhilarating kind) is populated with figures that are "anti-gender", and they seem masculine because they are taking up roles, responsibilities and personalities that are typically only associated with men. It is not that these women were trying to be masculine, but rather they were denying the reality of masculinity, and demonstrating that some of the things associated with masculinity are things that any grown-up, self-respecting human has. Becoming less feminine meant becoming more human. Not a child/doll/object, but an adult with agency. — darthbarracuda

This is certainly a common understanding of what it means to be ‘feminine’. It is also what drives the commentary that wonders what we’re still complaining about in relation to feminism. And again, I hold what has to say as an excellent example of what is missing from this understanding - that qualities and capacity often dismissed as ‘feminine’ has VALUE in relation to all of humanity. Things like patience, kindness and connection, as well as the realisation that dominance is not what we should be striving for, either individually or collectively.

Sure, we can’t put aside our emotions in the sense that they are our driving force for making the argument. I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t somehow feel that the question was interesting. My reason and conviction will affect my emotions and stimulate me to pursue the argument. But in this process, I must be careful not to be carried away with emotions, not letting them obscure my reasoning arguing from feeling instead of logic. Of course, in public debate we see that all the time and all of us are probably guilty of slipping into it now and then, but we should definitely strive to avoid it. — Congau

I think it’s not just an initial impetus, though - if we keep in mind the reasons why we care about the question, then I think we’re less likely to be ‘carried away with emotions’. It’s not so much arguing from logic instead of from feeling, but rather arguing from logic whilst feeling the way we do. We can’t avoid this affective information - we need to adjust for it instead. To do that we need emotional intelligence: an awareness of how internal affect impacts on how we subjectively conceptualise reality, including the value structures we employ.

But, perhaps more importantly, we need to be aware of the potential for subjective value structures and emotions to be impacting on how this same reality is conceptualised by those with whom we’re arguing. It’s commonplace for those who have ‘put aside’ (ie. ignored) their emotions in an argument to expect others to do the same. So when our positions differ, we’re often unaware of the value structures that motivate that difference, and the discussion eventually deteriorates as a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

They say women are more emotional. Well, men have emotions too, but that’s the part of our being we should put aside when constructing logical arguments, isn’t it? We shouldn’t be swayed by our emotions to jump to conclusions that just feel right. — Congau

I think the idea that we can just ‘put aside’ emotions is a point of contention. There is a difference between being aware of how our emotions affect our logic and trying to exclude or isolate the information available to us from this interoception of affect.

When we are aware, we can take steps to allow for or counteract the effect (ie. collaborate) when constructing our arguments.

When we choose instead to exclude certain value information (eg. emotions), we reduce our perception of the situation, and therefore our capacity to relate our arguments back to reality without prediction error.

Well, it's a good thing then that I was careful to talk about degrees of behavior that happen on average and not about any strict distinctions. — Artemis

Fair enough - I still think too much is made of attributing ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ value to these ways of thinking, as if this ‘holistic’ method is something that men don’t really have a capacity for. Because I think they do.

....the "status quo" here being the existance of the tribe, and the continuation of its culture. So yes, the male and female perspectives on this are naturally very different, and have been, well, as long as our species has existed. — Nobeernolife

Not necessarily - this is an assumption based on perception of past experience, and both tribes contributed to a self-fulfilling prophecy in this way. It wasn’t until they paused to consider the potential/value of their neighbouring tribe’s culture that fear was no longer at forefront of interactions.

I do not know what you are getting at here. Conflict between tribes has existed as long as humankind has, and even earlier (apes have it too). — Nobeernolife

True - and ignorance, isolation and exclusion even longer. It is the perceived value of awareness, connection and collaboration that has evolved in humankind. The thing is, this perception develops most readily from a position of humility.

That is a fact, not a question of "portrayed". — Nobeernolife

No, it’s a question of available evidence. Please do not confuse awareness with objective knowledge. If you don’t care enough to ask the questions, the answers won’t reveal themselves of their own accord.

Conquering tribes routinely killed all the males of the conquered tribe, and took the women and children as part of their own group. You find countless examples of this in history and in primitive societies, in fact it is the norm. What you will NEVER find is a conquering tribe killiing only the women and children — Nobeernolife

Yet you will find a conquering tribe killing women and children. Don’t assume women were always passive items of property, just because they were treated and recorded in history as such. I would say that at least some of them freely chose their fate, either way - once they perceived the potential. This unpredictable, ‘feminine’ behaviour is regularly portrayed in history as manipulative, disloyal, resourceful, insane, emotional, irrational, illogical, etc. - largely from a male perspective.

Women tend to have strong instincts to provide, but very low instincts to protect the tribe. No wonder, as throughout human history, it was males who were and are killed in tribal conflicts. Women are simply taken, and become part of the victorious tribe. Which from a biological point of view makes no difference to them. And this is ingrained in our species throughout our existance. To claim that that has suddenly changed in the last few decades is simply denial of reality. — Nobeernolife

Again, this is a value perspective. What mattered to women in this sense were the relationships, the potentiality, rather than the actuality. So interaction with another tribe would rarely have been seen by women as a ‘bad’ thing. It was the men who were threatened, who seem focused on protecting the status quo at all cost. It was the value they attribute to ignorance, isolation and exclusion that saw them killed in tribal conflicts - and this continues to be the case today. Fortunately, we’ve come to realise that not all men are as fearful and ignorant as history has often portrayed them, just as women are not ‘simply taken’ as much as they are often portrayed.

I just want to add/emphasize that perhaps men are using 'feminine' power, the power of spectacle. Perhaps even Trump is using feminine power. Pelosi was recently called a 'mama bear.' — jjAmEs

I think we need to be more mindful of what happens when we attribute a masculine-feminine dichotomy to potential/value concepts such as ‘power’. It points to the multi-dimensional aspect of value structure. The same thing happens when we use terms such ‘black/white power’. We need to be aware that there is more than one way to collapse this value structure, depending on your perspective.

There is no valid reason to suggest that ‘spectacle’ is a particularly feminine tactic: men have been employing it since ancient times, including Greek theatre and rhetoric. The idea that men are wholly rational beings is ignorant of the irrationality of men over thousands of years of patriarchal dominance, not to mention the ‘spectacle’ they’ve employed in order to gain or hold onto the illusion of power throughout history.

I think there is more complexity to this than you’re making out. I will agree that there are many variables in the way that we think and feel and value and integrate information. But I disagree that these can all be distilled into a basic dichotomy of male-female. This leads to inaccurate assumptions about how people think and feel and integrate information, based on their sex.

One thing I’ve discovered through forum discussions is that one should never assume the poster is male or female based on the way they think (or their avatar) - you’re liable to be mistaken. Yes, there are a lot of older males in this forum, which I have found to impair discussions that pertain to sexual relations, and contribute to a certain amount of ignorance regarding how people might think and feel and value generally that appears to be based on a limited understanding of women in particular.

I have a fair idea of what my strengths and weaknesses are, but while I recognise many of them as common to my sex, I won’t assume that anyone who appears polar opposite in any of these traits to be male, or assume that I cannot develop a capacity to, say, grasp complex mathematical concepts, given a focused degree of time and effort. I think that would be ignorant of the degree of diversity in humanity, and of our capacity as humans in general.

I agree that we need to recognise and value what women bring to leadership positions - here in Australia, we have been watching NZ PM Jacinta Ardern’s handling of situations common to both governments with no small degree of admiration - particularly when fear, anger and hatred is at the forefront. But the qualities she portrays with courage and tenacity are not alien to the male psyche - they’re just devalued, generally speaking.

Quality leadership is about collaboration more than dominance. It’s not about attaining individual power to the exclusion of others, but about leveraging the potential of a group within a broader whole. I don’t think it helps to claim this as uniquely matriarchal - but I do think it may be something we’ve traditionally downplayed as an act of leadership, in favour of ‘instinctive’ evolutionary behaviour. And I do think the experience of women in society allows us to value it more, generally speaking.

For example, one thing feminist theorist emphasize as a good quality of feminine thinking, is the generally more "holistic," relationships-based view of the world versus the masculine "atomistic," view. Women are more likely on average to employ a greater degree of the holistic approach to reason, whereas men are more likely on average to employ a greater degree of atomistic thinking. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and neither is useful on its own. — Artemis

I like to view this distinction in relation to particle-wave duality, but again, I’m not convinced that it’s necessarily a male-female distinction.

I also agree with and appreciate @fdrake’s measured response.

Not necessarily. It could also be a case of “This world would be perfect, if only...”

Imagine this: There's a world of balls of a variety of colors. You don't like this world all that much which corresponds to our dissatisfaction with the current moral situation with the world. You wish now to do something about this, developing an idea on which colors are better i.e. good and which colors are bad; this corresponds to the origin of moral oughts.

You will eventually come up with a list of oughts the color of the balls should be. Thinking in terms of do's and don't's how would your list look? Surely, if there are more colors that've earned your disfavor (bad) compared to colors you favor (good) then , the there should be more don't's and less don't's, right? More of "don't be this color" than "do be this color". The decalogue has more don't's than do's. What is your inference? — TheMadFool

I’m inclined to agree with Congau here - plus, I think your analogy is too simplified.

The decalogue seems more like a set of top-down limitations on otherwise open-ended behaviour allowances. If it was a comprehensive list of do’s and don’t’s - like your list of ball colours - then I imagine it would look very different.

Let’s say there were 265 different ball colours, including a few patterned effects - surely your aim would be to simplify the list of do’s and don’t’s as much as possible, rather than list all 265 options as either a do or a don’t.

DO be only one hue (ie. don’t be green-and-red-striped or pink-and-purple-polka-dotted or rainbow-coloured, etc);
DO be a bright colour (ie. don’t be grey or black or brown or some dusty or muted shade);
Don’t be green;
Don’t be orange;
Don’t have stripes of different thicknesses;
Don’t be speckled.

That still leaves plenty of colours and patterns to be, and it isn’t accurate to infer that there are more colours you disfavour compared to colours you favour.

:up:

It seems to me that our perception of ‘things’ depends on which level of awareness we are referring to.

There are three-dimensional things or objects, which are ‘known’ by means of the senses, and defined in relation to variable two-dimensional information. There are also four-dimensional things or events, which are perceived by a subject, and verifiable in relation to variable three-dimensional information. And there are five-dimensional things or experiences, which are valued by a being, and corroborated in relation to variable four-dimensional events. And finally there are six-dimensional things or possibilities, which are attributed meaning by thought, and matter in relation to variable experiences.

Green dragons, for instance, are possibilities, given meaning by thought and valued by a being, who is in a position to perceive their potential relation to three dimensional information and intentionally ‘create’ a green dragon as a valuable experience (cinematic effect), a perceivable event (literary effect) or ‘sensible’ object (visual effect) - even though we know that green dragons aren’t ‘real’...

A laser speed gun does not measure these values. It measures how long it takes for the laser to be reflected off the car and return. More sophisticated devices probably have multiple beams and measure the angle of reflection as well.

But even apart from that, your list of "dimensions" (assuming that is what you bolded) seems arbitrary. "Rate of change" already implies a measure of "X over time" and the X here can only be distance. So either we treat the measurement as "distance over time", which is properly 2 dimensional and gives us "rate of change" as a one-dimensional derivative, or we drop "distance" as a dimension and use "rate of change" directly.

How this could be relative to "direction" is a mystery to me. First of all direction would be a vector in space, so even simplified to a plane it itself has two dimensions. But apart from that it doesn't make sense to have a "rate of change in distance" relative to direction. Because distance is obviously distance from something, so it's already relative. You can't add direction to distance. — Echarmion

Ok, maths and physics are not my strength, so bear with me.

A laser speed gun does measure how long it takes for the laser to be reflected off the car and return - this gives us an initial distance measurement to the device. To get speed, it still needs to take several of these measurements and calculate the rate of change. But unless the speed gun is directly in front of the car at all times, then what you’re measuring is the rate of change in distance from the device, which is technically not the actual speed of the car. The information manifests a triangular shape which changes over time: three-dimensional.

Yes, distance is always relative to the observer, so we need to reduce this relativity to a zero point in spacetime (ie. take its relative position into account) in order to obtain an objectively accurate measurement of speed for the car. It seems arbitrary in this example, but as I said before, if the device was attached to a police car travelling the other way, or perhaps a helicopter flying over it, then the four-dimensional information is vital.

So long as one variable is assumed constant relative to the others (ie. the device) - and all points are assumed to be on a plane - then you can reliably reduce this three dimensional information (with a zeroed 4th dimension) to distance over time (speed) for the passing car - that is, you can calculate the changing distance of the car over time relative to a zero point in spacetime.

A language without meaning isn't a language, so it makes no sense to consider language and meaning different dimensions. — Echarmion

And a shape without space isn’t really considered a shape, either, is it? Yet space and shape are different dimensions because a shape can change in relation to space, just as language can change in relation to meaning.

A term to describe each dimension is difficult to pin down, because they’re all relative. But I tend to list them in emerging order as: distance, shape, space, time, value and meaning. This makes the most sense to me, from my position. I think it’s important not to define the relations as such, though. They’re not always in order, can be chemical or qualitative in nature, and therefore not always spatially defined. If you think of them structurally in terms of ratios (without assuming quantitative variables), then each relation takes into account only some of the available information. The rest of the variables are ignored, zeroed or assumed constant, for instance, but they still exist.

Metaphysics according to neopositivism:
A statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false, at least in principle, by means of the experience -- this assertion is called the verifiability principle. Metaphysical statements are not empirically verifiable and are thus meaningless. Forbidden

These concepts are intended to correspond with the objective reality, and by means of these concepts we picture this reality to ourselves.
— Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen
Can this proposition be verified?
I don't think so. According to the neopositivist concept of metaphysics, Einstein is doing metaphysics and what he says does not make sense. — David Mo

Well, I guess my position isn’t neo-positivism at all! I agree that metaphysical statements - those that are irreducible to scientific hypotheses - are not empirically verifiable, but I would argue that they are not meaningless as such. Rather, they contribute to our perception of potential and value in the world, which in turn enables us make predictions and test them by interacting with the world and increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, scientifically or otherwise.

This definition is extremely vague. Almost everything fits into it. Logic or philosophy, for example. Even science. You should clarify it. — David Mo

What’s to clarify? Metaphysics should be inclusive of science, logic and philosophy. That’s what ‘meta-’ means. Doing metaphysics is how we make sense of the world in order to interact with it - how we conceptualise reality.

If you want to say that metaphysics has something to do with experience you should adopt a less rigorous criterion than the neopositivist one.
In my opinion, It would be easier if you just give up on the aspiration of seeing metaphysics as a factual knowledge. — David Mo

I don’t see this as an aspiration of mine. Knowledge in my view is all relative, not factual. But I think I get what you’re saying.

Another problem: how to verify sentences about the Universe as a whole? We have no way of getting an experience of the Universe as a whole. — David Mo

I agree. But we can approach an understanding of the Universe as a whole by testing the potentiality of metaphysical statements against our subjective experiences. And we can also relate descriptions of the experiences of others. At each level, there is relative uncertainty in the information available, but it’s still better than ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

A lot of what you’re saying is not making complete sense to me in relation to what I’ve written. I will do what I can to clarify from my end.

But particular thing doing other particular things isn't saying anything more than "things happen". That doesn't have any explanatory power. Why does that happen to be the way it is as oppose to it not being that way? It doesn't seem like a coincidence to me that oak trees don't come from whales. Nor am I going to accept a full on rejection of the question of "Why?"

Clearly trees come from a particular set of properties, but that's true of anything. It's not interesting.

One way or another when you're endorsing certain claims, you're endorsing it because there's a rational constraint or a type of ontological normativity in the world that presses itself on you, and make you responsibility to get it right. If there wasn't, then there's nothing to distinguish anything. — Marty

There IS nothing to distinguish anything - except awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion at every dimensional level of existence. It’s not rational constraint or ontological normativity. There is no pressure or responsibility to get it ‘right’, except what is imposed as a result of efforts to ignore, isolate and exclude.

When you look back and ask why things happened this way and not that way, such as an oak tree coming from an acorn and not a whale, the explanation is necessarily deterministic. There is no need for an alternative to cause and effect or basic science, here. What we’re looking for is a worldview that supports and verifies not only this deterministic explanation of history, but also an intentional or ‘free will’ approach to potential future interactions. The idea that it must be an overarching, rational constraint rather than an underlying impetus (say, love) comes from fear, mostly.

I don't see the difference. Why is it sustained? And again, don't tell me because of particular events. — Marty

Why not? Because it isn’t interesting? The difference between sustain and preserve isn’t obvious at most levels of awareness. Preserve implies an external dynamic and awareness, sustain an internal one, regardless of awareness. This seems to be a pattern of difference between our views. At the level of human experience, both seem to make sense. But at another level, while it is the relative potential energy of particles sustaining an atomic structure, for instance, I’m not sure what you think preserves it.

I don’t imagine we’re going to get very far in this discussion, but I’m happy to continue. You seem convinced that ‘relative telos’ is an explanation, but it’s just another term for ‘God’, which ultimately explains nothing. It’s a comfort, really.

Can you explain this with an example? Say I measure the speed of a passing car. The measurement is the speed, which I'd assume is one dimensional by itself. What's the measuring event and how many dimensions does it have? — Echarmion

The measuring event is the act of you (or the measuring device you use) measuring the speed of the passing car. Let’s say that you use a laser speed gun, which basically measures the rate of change in distance relative to direction. The event is inclusive of the laser gun’s relative speed - if the laser gun was attached to a police car heading in the opposite direction, it would need to take into account the rate of change relative to direction of the police car in relation to the passing car, in order to determine an accurate speed of the passing car. Otherwise it’s just a relative speed.

If the laser gun were stationary, fixed to a point in spacetime, then the fourth dimensional variable is assumed to be constant, and so doesn’t need to be taken into account in obtaining an accurate measurement. The resulting measurement is reduced to two-dimensional information and then a one-dimensional value in relation to a value system or language (ie. km/hr), without which this value has no meaning in relation to me. So any fifth and sixth dimensional information is also assumed to be constant, and need not be taken into account if you then communicate that speed value to me.

I don't really understand how you use the term "dimension" here. Is there some mathematical concept I need to look up? I am only familiar with dimensions as spatial dimensions. I suppose you could have a system for the dimensionality of information, but I am not familiar with any specific one. — Echarmion

No mathematical concept needed. That dimensions are necessarily spatial is an assumption; they’re a relational structure, applicable to all information.

It's also strange that you apparently treat measurements as if they don't have an observer. — Echarmion

They do have an observer - or measuring device, really - when/where the measurement is taken. But a measurement (once taken) loses a dimensional aspect: time, distance, etc. It’s confusing, but as a measuring event, it’s four-dimensional, but as a recorded measurement, it’s only three-dimensional information at best.

Measurement is one, two or three-dimensional information,
— Possibility

Are you saying one can't measure time? Anyways where do you take this definition from, what's it based on?

observation is four-dimensional and experience is five-dimensional
— Possibility

How does observation get an extra dimension? What's the fifth dimension and where does it come from? — Echarmion

The measurement of ‘time’ that we know is a value attributed to the interval between two events. So when we measure time, this is two-dimensional information: change in relation to this ‘time’ value.

Observation takes into account the relative position of the observer in spacetime, hence the ‘extra’ dimensional aspect. We can observe events in relation to ourselves and in relation to each other.

And the fifth dimension is where I believe metaphysics comes into play. This is basically potential, probability, value: both quantitative and qualitative. It takes into account not only relative distance, direction, speed, trajectory, etc (all reducible information), but also the relative perceived value/potential of an experience. It is the fifth dimensional aspect of reality that enables us to talk about an experience that hasn’t happened yet.

It doesn't fit your own definition of metaphysics. Much less with the Kantian concept of metaphysics: our knowledge of the electron comes from experience. Any reflection on it is subject to that experience. It's not the level of abstraction of the first principles. When Bohr and Einstein differ on the nature of atomic particles they are doing philosophy (of science), not science. Their opposition is based on reasons that are not refuted by experience, sure. But that doesn't mean they're navigating in pure abstraction. If you want to adopt the neo-positivist concept of metaphysics, we're in another discussion. — David Mo

First of all, the definition I offered initially was a dictionary definition, but I also provided definitions for both physics and meta- which suggests the dictionary definition has shifted from the intended use of the term. So I offered my own definition (and I recognise now that I didn’t explain my position very well):

I would define metaphysics as concerned with relational structures and concepts inclusive of, but not limited to, the nature and properties of matter and energy. — Possibility

I disagree with Kant’s position on both metaphysics and experience in relation to knowledge. I disagree that metaphysics is pure abstraction, and think there is more to experience than Kant was aware of. I agree that Bohr and Einstein’s discussion is philosophical, not scientific, and that they are not navigating in pure abstraction. But my understanding of metaphysics is neo-positivist, not Kantian. Sorry for the confusion.

You're throwing a lot of terms out here, which seem to lack a definition in the context. If metaphysical inmformation is just human experience, then what is "meta" about it? Experience is the base level, how things appear. Observation is merely a subset of experience, and measurement is a specific form of observation. The term "scientific measurement" refers to certain circumstances, but it's not an epistemological category. All observations, "scientific" or not, can be used as input for the scientific method. So, experience is the physical. The meta-level to that is interpretation of it's results. — Echarmion

I’ve already offered definitions of ‘meta-‘ as well as ‘metaphysics’. Metaphysical information is not JUST human experience - it is from human experience, however, (ours and others) that we source our metaphysical information.

I agree that there is a nested hierarchy of experience, observation and measurement - but experience is not just the physics. Observation is how things appear, whereas experience is how things are perceived: inclusive of interoceptive affect, qualitative evaluation and quantitative potential. Measurement is one, two or three-dimensional information, observation is four-dimensional and experience is five-dimensional information. It is the irreducible five-dimensional information - the uncertain, subjective and relative details of an experience - which pertains to metaphysics in particular.

Interpreting scientific results draws once again on metaphysical information in relation to the experience, but this is not doing metaphysics as such.

I would say that scientists do metaphysics a lot.

To use the concept of an electron to make predictions is science.

To claim that an electron exists (which scientists do al the time) is metaphysics. — A Seagull

the interpretation of science is not necessarily metaphysical. Although it can be. When scientists and philosophers discuss what kind of reality an electron is they are not doing metaphysics. They're doing philosophy of science, which is something else. — David Mo

“Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.” - Wikipedia

I’m not sure I agree that discussing what kind of reality an electron is would necessarily be philosophy of science and NOT metaphysics. Certainly claiming that an electron exists is interpretation of science from a metaphysical perspective, not so much doing metaphysics as such. But I would say that discussing the nature of an electron’s existence is still a metaphysical discussion that may or may not delve into philosophy of science.

Metaphysics, then, being not science (because lacking the subject matter that is the province of science), cannot be the scientific-kind of thinking, but it certainly can be organized thinking. And following your definition as best we can, metaphysics, then, is organized thinking about matters of science.

But organized thinking, then, of what about science? You have listed "first principles," including "being, knowing, identity, time, and space." These would seem to include matters from other departments of philosophy not metaphysics. As such, the metaphysician uses the tools provided by other departments of philosophy, and science, and whatever wisdom tells her/him is appropriate for the task - as we all try do all the time, though perhaps the metaphysician's business is at all times to subject his own thinking to an attendant critical thinking that runs alongside.

What that leaves is an organized and critical thinking about a determinate subject matter, namely the thinking of scientists, itself understood as an organized, scientific-kind of thinking about the world. — tim wood

Well, the first three definitions I offered are dictionary definitions. My last sentence states the meaning of metaphysics as I interpret it personally.

I disagree that metaphysics lacks the subject matter which is the province of science. As I said in my reply to @Echarmion, metaphysics comes before science, interpretation after - but the boundaries are far from distinct. The scientific method as I understand it is inclusive of both metaphysics and interpretation, which also transcend this method in their speculative tendencies. What we call ‘science’ as an activity refers more specifically to the process of stating and testing hypotheses with measurable data, yet metaphysics involves the organisation and reduction of information to testable predictions, and interpretation involves relating new information from tested predictions back to conceptual reality - neither of which are necessarily thought about (as @Janus said) in order to practice science.

So science (and more so physical science) is a very narrow form of testing predictions - one that is easily transferable or replicable as an informative experience, because it maps the reduction-interaction-interpretation process to measurable data, minimising uncertainty.

Quantum physics has theoretical and experimental areas of study: basically, the former deals with metaphysics, the latter with scientific process. Mathematics and potentiality wave calculations are not physical science, but they are seen as scientific in that their aim is towards scientific process.

I believe the aim of metaphysics is to map a process of reduction-interaction which enables us to test predictions about relational structures and concepts, particularly with regard to the nature and properties of matter and energy. The scientific method makes this process explicit, but it only deals with what predictions can be reduced to measurable data.

It is what the metaphysician does with irreducible predictions that many have a problem with. The human mind can test predictions and integrate new potential, probabilistic or even possible information into conceptual systems, without reduction to measurable data. We can even communicate this information, in its irreducible (uncertain) state, to other minds, mapping the ‘experience’ satisfactorily into conceptual systems - often using reified potential/value structures to conceal uncertainty.

So the real issue here is where our language is structured to conceal or downplay uncertainty. Science has dug this hole for themselves by reifying abstract concepts such as matter and energy, but even language, logic and morality refer to potential/value information, masking an uncertainty and subjectivity in relational structure which in reality is probabilistic at best.

In my view, it is in the interpretation of both scientific and metaphysical explanations where we need to be honest about the level of uncertainty in the information.

This means that those who interpret scientific explanations often remain ignorant, isolated or excluded from the metaphysical information available
— Possibility

interpreting explanations is not science, it's metaphysics. What source of metaphysical information is there? — Echarmion

Those who interpret scientific explanations are invariably not doing science - mostly they’re armchair scientists and dilettantes, popular science journalists or philosophers. It’s often like a literal reading of the Bible, devoid of context. But interpreting scientific explanations is not metaphysics, either.

The scientific method followed to conclusion is a process of reducing metaphysical information to what is measurable. Metaphysics comes before science, interpretation comes after.

The main source of metaphysical information is human experience. The human mind has been employing the ‘scientific method’ long before it was acknowledged as such, and has developed the capacity to integrate the uncertainty of metaphysical information - which scientific measurement does not - by distinguishing and relating between measurable/observable, potential/valuable and possible/meaningful information on multiple dimensional levels.

Metaphysics is incomplete science, but as such it is inclusive of a wealth of irreducible information that inspires our imagination, curiosity and creativity, as well as the pursuit of science itself.

In my view, the structure of metaphysics is relative, subjective and uncertain
— Possibility

Relative to what? — Echarmion

Relative to perceived potential/value.

Why is it that references to metaphysics never include definition of the term. You people dicsussing the term, of course you-all must know what it means, so it should be easy for you to say. Please say. — tim wood

Physics: the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.

Meta-: with, after or beyond; more comprehensive, transcending.

Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.

I would define metaphysics as concerned with relational structures and concepts inclusive of, but not limited to, the nature and properties of matter and energy.

It seems that Popper was staunchly against logical positivism without the anti-metaphysical attitude against it. — Shawn

As far as I can see, Popper considered metaphysics to be relevant to science, but still ‘unscientific’ as such. We can employ metaphysics in the scientific method, but only as far as stating the hypothesis, which necessarily reduces the metaphysics of the question at best to a three-dimensional awareness in relation to value - where at least one dimensional aspect is reduced to a zero, constant or identical value to eliminate the ‘uncertainty principle’.

I want to understand why metaphysics as a structural issue is incompatible with science as we practice it today, despite metaphysical statements arising within it? — Shawn

In my view, the structure of metaphysics is relative, subjective and uncertain. This is what science tries to eliminate - metaphysics can inform the question in science, but not the answer; the theory, but not the proof.

Agreed. Ignorance, isolation or exclusion of metaphysics is not scientific.

Having said that, science often attempts to conceal or constrain metaphysics (and thus uncertainty) within a limited value system. This means that those who interpret scientific explanations often remain ignorant, isolated or excluded from the metaphysical information available.

Our system isn’t structured to maximise survival, or even dominance. In my view, it’s structured to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration instead.
— Possibility

How can this be true? Are you saying the are social instinct overrides the desire to survive. Yes, this seems to be true in regards to some of human behavior to sacrifice ourselves for the "greater good", whatever that may-be. — Shawn

What I’m saying is that the structural model we use is inaccurate, and fails to account for anomalies. It isn’t that ‘social instinct’ overrides ‘survival instinct’, but that the ‘instinct’ model itself needs to be overhauled in order to understand the relation. The way I see it, a six-dimensional model of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion has the capacity to explain the underlying impetus to atomic, molecular, chemical, biological, social and mental relations or structures, including abiogenesis, evolution and consciousness.

How do you explain that fact? Why is it that rational behavior as defined in economics or elsewhere in sociology is defined as utility maximization. This all seems superficial and overly simplified in my view. — Shawn

Because value systems are relative and isolated by structures such as language, logic, emotion, morals and beliefs. Sociology separates these value systems and examines each one with regard to human behaviour, but rarely in relation to each other, and usually below the level of subjective experience. Because the Uncertainty Principle applies at this complex level of potentiality/value.

And constraining the sociological view is this ignorant assumption based on Darwinian evolutionary theory and our most basic fears: that the ‘purpose’ of life is to survive, to procreate and ultimately to dominate.

There is a hypothetical relational structure that encompasses an ‘objective’ view of all possible existence - that’s what we’re ideally striving to figure out. But it’s easier to assume the relational structure we’ve built so far is complete, and simply ignore, isolate or exclude any conflicting information.