Touchy and tricky. Tricky because we tend to make generalizations about the differences and similarities of men and women without having a whole lot of proof. I'm not sure, for instance, whether men and women grieve differently or not. Aside from surveys, I'm not sure how one would find out. Experienced therapists might have some idea.

Then there is the question of whether it matters if they do grieve differently, if both find relief in the process.

Some people say that women are better conversationalists than men. I think that's true, but... so what? I think gay men are better conversationalists than straight men, but again, so what?

Women are clearly socialized one way; men are clearly socialized another way. Does one have to be better than the other? Is one better than the other? — Bitter Crank

:100:

And I don’t think you’re understanding what I mean by a social event - you’re still viewing charitable giving, for instance, as a social transaction between consolidated quantities, giving and receiving.
— Possibility

No, you're reading that into my words. — baker

When an act consists of you both giving and receiving, it’s a transaction. When it’s just giving, then you don’t count the cost, and whether someone gives from a position of strength or self-loathing is irrelevant. If you assume someone is motivated to give by what they get out of it, then you’re viewing charitable giving as a transaction. Most people do - both men and women.

Have you ever seen the way Hindu women of a good caste "charitably give" to women of a lesser caste, esp. to the untouchables? They throw the gifts on the ground before the other person. — baker

This is demonstrating a position of strength - is this the way that a man gives charitably? Or is his ‘position of strength’ implicit, assumed?

If you saw a man throw coins on the ground for a beggar, would you think he had an inferiority complex? And if a woman gave without explicitly demonstrating a position of strength, would you even notice it as ‘charitable giving’?

The actual mode of interaction during the gift giving makes a world of difference, at least for the one on the receiving end. It's in this mode of interaction that the giver's motivation for the gift giving can become apparent. — baker

You mean mode of transaction. If you give without drawing attention to a power imbalance or to the strength of your capacity to give, then the giver’s motivation is irrelevant to the interaction. To give from a position of strength is to give only in those situations where a power imbalance exists, or where the strength of one’s capacity to give is on display.

It's not clear what exactly you mean by "awareness".

For example, the Christian mob was perfectly aware of some people whom they considered "witches", and still burned them at the stakes.
Awareness alone is neutral. — baker

What you’re referring to is a violent act of exclusion by those who struggled with their awareness of people who didn’t fit their understanding of the world. If you can’t maintain ignorance, then fight to isolate; and if you can’t maintain isolation, then fight to exclude. Awareness presents opportunities to connect and collaborate. Once you’re aware, then awareness is neutral, and the question becomes whether to connect or isolate.

”A social event refers to an open opportunity for awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion. Choosing to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, regardless of one’s initial perspective, reduces violence, hatred, oppression, etc in any act.”

I'm thinking of the modus operandi of right wing politicians ... they'd agree with what you're saying ... and for any failure in the process blame the other person. — baker

It isn’t about blame. Failure to connect only occurs when you stop trying to connect, when you reach a personal limit of attention or effort. That can’t be blamed on the other person. To the extent that you’re only open to connecting on your terms, you’re choosing isolation.

For your model to work, the prospective gift giver and the prospective gift receiver need to be morally synchronized. Either as equals, or as in a hierarchical relationship where the one with less power internalizes the image that the one with more power has of them and wants them to have. — baker

For the model to work, the prospective gift giver just needs a chance to connect. If someone needs something and you have it to give, it shouldn’t matter in charitable giving whether they deserve it or whether they’re sufficiently disadvantaged that giving to them won’t threaten your position. But so often it does matter, because we consider charitable giving to be a social transaction: I give you money, you give me power within a social interaction. If you’re not willing or able to surrender that power, then I won’t give.

A man points a gun at a rich man and says “Give me your wallet!” The rich man replies “How much do you need?”

The primitive humans living in caves had no concept or awareness of socio-cultural constructs. Heck, they're primitives, with no language. You should be looking at this time in human civilization where males just took it upon themselves to fight wild animals and invaders because women would have zero chance of surviving those attacks. If this behavior of primitive males does not strike you as moral behavior, then what was it they were doing? Extra-curricular activities? Physical education? — L'éléphant

I’m not arguing against a general difference in behaviour, intentions or psychology between men and women, but against the need to define a ‘masculine morality’ versus a ‘feminine morality’ as a binary model. And whatever primitive humans’ awareness of socio-cultural constructs, you are making a lot of assumptions here about their understanding of ‘males’ and ‘females’ - most of which I would argue are aspects of your own socio-cultural construction rather than theirs. Still, they don’t need to be aware of socio-cultural constructs to be constrained by them.

Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be. An awareness of their variable capacity to do so effectively in different situations would have quickly become a social issue in family and tribal groups, as interests were shared. This would have led to gradually defining roles expected by tribal groups and/or leaders, and consolidated distinctions would have been made between moral behaviour for ‘men’, ‘women’, ‘children’, ‘elders’, etc, although based on a naive and limited understanding of differences and shaped by political, spiritual and ideological landscapes. None of this supports a necessarily binary model of male versus female.

I wouldn't call it a 'general pattern' anymore than I would call being born with ten fingers as a 'general pattern'. The reason we make distinctions is because they hold true 99% of the time.[/quote}

I would say the reason we make distinctions is because they simplify our understanding of the world, enabling us to condense information. I wouldn’t call being born with ten fingers a pattern - it’s a quantity. And the gender binary model arguably does not hold true even 95% of the time - it only appears that way.
— I like sushi

The same goes for scientific procedure.

Such views go both ways in regards to 'control'. Stating facts portrayed as attempts to control makes me suspicious about the underlying intent. — I like sushi

Not sure what you’re trying to say here, sorry.

Not sure how you’ve managed to focus on words in what I’ve written that are tangential to the points I was trying to make... I assume you’re attempting to be agreeable.

”It’s not about identifying whose perspective, but about striving beyond ourselves. — Possibility

Seems like you’ve missed my point here - a more objective understanding is not about consolidating a particular perspective, and is not to better ourselves, but to increase overall awareness, connection and collaboration regardless of personal ambition or loss of identity.

This is where our science has steered us wrong, describing natural evolution as random, unintelligent and impersonal - in deliberate contrast to how we have described ourselves and all that we create. — Possibility

In many ways I agree with your essay on principle (although I cringe at the metaphorical language and personified deity). Yes, evolution is both - even if language cannot rationally describe it as such. Any description of natural evolution becomes true only in an application of it that recognises our qualitative relationship with the description - an aspect that most scientific literature and graphic representations of data fail to acknowledge. The Tao Te Ching, for me, is an example of methodology that recognises the importance of our ongoing qualitative relationship with language, information, the universe, etc. over defining consolidated entities by attributing properties and values. Quantum Mechanics (surprisingly) is another.

Well, that’s not how I interpret the myth at all. The idea, as I see it, was that A&E were supposed to understand how the garden worked in harmony before calling the shots — Possibility

I’m not suggesting an idyllic interpretation, nor any ‘decline’ from the beginning (and I’m certainly not suggesting that lions were once vegetarians!). My interpretation focuses more on an initial base of ignorance - not as a ‘bad’ thing, but as a starting point. The first step is acknowledging the problem, after all. The Fall as I see it is not disobedience or acquiring knowledge, or even disregard for the laws of nature, but judging (claiming to know good and evil) without the understanding that comes from experience. I agree with Joseph Campbell, but stress that these myths are guides to our own action/inaction, not our moral judgement of others.

Well, I see language, information and the universe all as evolving from an ignorant, isolated and exclusive base towards greater awareness, connection and collaboration.
— Possibility
Hey! That sounds more optimistic than some of your earlier remarks. Well done! :up: — Gnomon

I’ve never really settled on a position in a pessimistic-optimistic binary - if you’re looking to stick me with a label, then I’m afraid you’ll be regularly confused.

For a long time we have thought that we need to quantify language, information, the universe, people - but to do this we must ignore, isolate and exclude to some extent, which is holding us back from a practical understanding. Quantifying becomes inaccurate from the instant it is measured - only when we embrace uncertainty and change everywhere will our interaction with the world begin to more closely align with its true direction.

And by ‘true direction’, I’m not talking about positive-negative or upward-downward. I don’t think it helps at all to describe it this way. Descartes and the Information Age has us caught in this ‘quantify or perish’ mindset where all values must reduce to a binary logic. But it’s missing something important...

I bumped up against a theory called "Constructor Theory". In essence everything must be explained in 0's and 1's, ons and offs. It looks to show promise. — Josh Alfred

Logic excludes whatever exists between 0 and 1, but in reality some qualitative relation always exists, and is essential to any practical application of logic. The truth of all language, all information, any explanation of the universe comes down to the unquantifiable understanding that everything, no matter how far apart it seems, is somehow qualitatively interrelated. Which suggests that ‘opposite’ is a false relation.

You say that as-if the "perspective" of human observers is a bad thing. From whose perspective would you expect a more objective understanding? Would the opinion of canis familiaris provide a more accurate overview of human predictability. Humans have made a science -- Economics (the "dismal science') -- of trying to predict human behavior individually & collectively. Yet, even though the future path of social groups may track closer to the "normal" Bell Curve of statistics, prognosticators must always be alert for Black Swans, that knock the best laid predictions of mice & men off track. :joke: — Gnomon

Not a ‘bad’ thing, but a limitation. A more objective understanding would readily take the opinion of canis familiaris into account as well as our own, and be prepared to reconcile any apparent contradictions. It’s not about identifying whose perspective, but about striving beyond ourselves.

Yet we prefer to ignore the obvious tails of the Bell curve in areas such as economics, language and logic - the quantum uncertainty plays on our insecurities, and reminds us that qualitative relation underlies everything, and nothing, least of all ourselves, is (or needs to be) as predictable, objective or logical as we claim it to be.

It is when we pay attention to the qualitative relations of statistical anomalies that we begin to understand the true direction of the cosmos.

Incidentally, where I live (in Western Australia), black swans are quite literally the norm...:wink:

Yes, I appreciate your skepticism about the power of human nature to "change the direction of " evolution. Yet, that's exactly what the graphic is intended to illustrate. Of course, some historians are pessimistic about the deductive downward direction of human influence. But others, especially historians of the future, are more sanguine about the positive contribution of human intelligence. Many of us are depressed by apocalyptic & dystopian movies, and alarmed by the scary gossip & "fake news" in popular media, not to mention the "signs & omens" of self-professed prophets. But sober observers of humanity tend to discount such extremist alarmism, and focus on the mundane facts, both pro & con, that tend to track right down the moderate middle, with maybe a hint of positive direction (additional velocity?). — Gnomon

Ok - I see now that by ‘direction’ you only meant a relative up-down or positive-negative direction. For me, the overall direction of the cosmos has always been towards awareness, connection and collaboration, regardless of consolidated results along the way. Evolution has followed this trajectory overall despite localised variability, and while we have taken a variety of backward steps ourselves into ignorance, isolation or exclusion, overall humanity has continued to develop along these lines. It’s not about human power, intelligence or influence at all. We are simply part of the overall process, and we just need to ‘get with the program’ instead of assuming we can figure it out ourselves.

The opinion that humanity is "destroying nature" is also a human perspective. But, I think we need to give "us" the benefit of the doubt. After all, homo sapiens are late-bloomers on the evolutionary scene. And, we only have a few years of recorded civilized history, compared to billions of years of un-intelligent (random) "natural" (wild) evolution. In that relatively short span, humans have indeed gone counter to the "wisdom" of impersonal Nature, in order to adapt their habitat to their selfish "hierarchy of needs". that go beyond Physiology (food & procreation) and Safety (survival long enough to procreate), to include such special needs as Love & Esteem (sex + the need to be needed), and Self-Actualization (to go beyond their animal nature). Moreover, part of self-actualization is the accumulation of wisdom by learning from our mistakes. Another aspect of human actualization may be to avoid the extinction of the species, by taking partial control of the de-selection function of evolution. — Gnomon

This is where our science has steered us wrong, describing natural evolution as random, unintelligent and impersonal - in deliberate contrast to how we have described ourselves and all that we create. And then we’re surprised to find penguins who mate for life, spiders who sacrifice their lives for their children, whales with culture and fish who create elaborate works of art. Humanity is as much nature as anything else - we don’t need to control it, only understand it.

And extinction of our species is a fairytale we tell our children, to help us justify the extinction of others by our ignorance, isolation or exclusion.

The myth of Genesis indicated that the purpose of humans was to be caretakers of the Garden. But, Adam & Eve were not content just to trim the hedges & clean-up the poop. They wanted to be the landscapers & designers of their garden. As the human population grew, in response to the divine commandment, or innate urge, to be fruitful, they were forced to expand the human domain into formerly wild territory. So, the question is : did God/Mother-Nature intend for people to be merely bipedal animals with hands to clip the bushes and scoop the poop? Or was the extra intelligence supposed to be put to use as co-creators of their world? If A & E had bowed to pressure from above, not to live up to their Potential (to explore Possibilities), then maybe we would still be living in caves, with smokey fires, and wearing scratchy skins or fig leaves. :nerd: — Gnomon

Well, that’s not how I interpret the myth at all. The idea, as I see it, was that A&E were supposed to understand how the garden worked in harmony before calling the shots. A caretaker who has no clue about gardening or wildlife is going to pretty much kill everything before they even begin to get the hang of it.

But my focus in this thread is on the linguistic metaphor of the OP. I see language as evolving upward from grunts & gestures to poems & programs, not to mention creative profanity. And I perceive (or conceive) a pattern of raw Information evolving into the power of human imagination & intention. So, if you know how to weed-out the mis-information & mis-interpretations & mis-applications that threaten to make us miss the opportunities of our Potential, feel free to go ahead and add critical thinking & error-correction to our cave-man nature. But that may be a topic for another thread. :cool: — Gnomon

Well, I see language, information and the universe all as evolving from an ignorant, isolated and exclusive base towards greater awareness, connection and collaboration.

The metaphor in my post was to compare homo sapiens to a "wild card". If you're not familiar with that Poker jargon, I give the pertinent definition below. Hopefully, that will remove some of the "ambiguity". The intended implication was that humanity added a bit of FreeWill into evolutionary Determinism. If we disagree about what I call "Freedom within Determinism", there's an ongoing thread on that topic. I also have several blog posts to define, in no uncertain terms, how I arrived at that notion. If that doesn't convince you, all I can say is "different words for different nerds". — Gnomon

This metaphor of Homo sapiens as a ‘wild card’ is from the perspective of... Homo sapiens. We have been largely unpredictable to ourselves, but there’s nothing to indicate that Homo sapiens are objectively unpredictable, anymore than COVID is. We’ve just been unable to process enough of the available information in a useful way.

My objection here is not to emergence or to ‘freedom within determinism’, but to the idea that humanity ‘added’ this free will to an existing determinism. In my view, we gradually developed awareness of, connection to and collaboration with an existing qualitative variability that was statistically insignificant. But I would argue that this is also how life and even the cosmos developed, and if you looked at a more accurate cosmic progression chart, then you would see the same comparatively exponential growth of ‘enformaction’, at these two origin points, as your graph suggests only in relation to humanity. But these are dimensional shifts in awareness, and a linear time vs energy graph cannot do them justice.

If you don't agree that the Emergence of humanity "changed the direction of evolution", we may just have to agree to disagree. It's just my personal opinion. FWIW, the graph below illustrates the acceleration of evolution (mostly technological) after the emergence of Life & Mind & Civilization. It looks like a hockey stick for the same reason Climate Change did : selfish human choices have "homo-formed" (that's a play on "terra-formed) Earth to suit the needs of "featherless bipeds". :cool: — Gnomon

The graph shows a gradual increase in velocity, not a sudden change in direction. A perception of directional change assumes a conflict between our needs and those of the rest of the earth. This apparent conflict derives more from ignorant/isolated/exclusive individual choices than from human needs as a whole. Increasing awareness, connection and collaboration is the direction the cosmos has always been heading. Individually, we keep fighting it, but collectively our genuine needs can and do align with the earth as a whole - we’re just lacking in a clear awareness of them still...

But this is a digression from the topic at hand. There is more to the universe than information - there is also this logical syntax which constrains it. If you regress language beyond ‘words’, you don’t really have

void and disorder/chaos with unbound, infinite potential — Thinker108

- I would argue that syntax (or qualitative relation) exists prior to the ‘words’, and constrains language (the universe) as it develops. This isn’t a singular mind (or Programmer), but is arguably the opposite of pure logic in order to form logic...

No less, or it could even be worse.

Something being seen as a social event doesn't automatically make it good or at least unproblematic.

This claim was made, for example:
Charitable giving is higher in women than in men, and this is due to findings that in women, charitable giving is a social event, but not for men.
— L'éléphant
but no discussion as to the motivations for this "charitable giving". It could be an act of charitable giving motivated by a sense of a burdensome obligation, or in an effort to improve one's social image and standing, or out of a psychological compulsion to be seen as a "good person", or, specifically, a "good girl". All these motivations are social in their nature, but it's hard to claim that they are wholesome.

It's probably possible to act socially also out of wholesome motivations, but here, specifically, I'm addressing your point on the positive consequences of viewing actions/inactions as social event, as if doing so could/would have only positive consequences.

The externally observable action (in this case, charitable giving) doesn't say anything about the person's motivations for doing it. Yet it's the person's motivations for doing something that determines the quality of the action for the person doing the action, and for the one on the receiving end as well.

Doing things for the social reasons mentioned above (burdensome obligation, an effort to improve one's social image and standing, a psychological compulsion to be seen as a "good person) is more likely to lead to violence, hatred, oppression, abuse, and neglect.

A case can even be argued that women are generally more aggressive and more violent than men, because even though women may be more charitable than men, they generally do so for unwholesome motivations, and the quality of those motivations eventually has negative repercussions in one way or another. — baker

Well, a case can be argued for almost anything within the parameters of men vs women and morality, such is the nature of the landscape. While I agree that viewing something as a social event doesn’t automatically make it ‘good’, I want to point out that I don’t necessarily agree with the concept of objective moral judgement as such.

And I don’t think you’re understanding what I mean by a social event - you’re still viewing charitable giving, for instance, as a social transaction between consolidated quantities, giving and receiving. By social event I’m referring to a qualitative relation, regardless of quantities, that is limited by awareness. More awareness leads to more connection and more collaboration, which leads to less violence, hatred, oppression, abuse or neglect. These destructive behaviours develop at the point where awareness, connection or collaboration ends - where ignorance, isolation or exclusion begins.

Charitable giving viewed as a social event has no negative consequence in itself, regardless of one’s motivation. It is only how this event is consolidated (ie. subject-intention-action-consequence-object) and quantified that enables moral judgement in the context of a transaction, social or otherwise. If in giving one assumes something in return (whether improved social image/standing or to fulfil an obligation), then what you’re referring to is the transaction rather than the social event, and any moral judgement is relative to one’s perspective in that transaction. So a charitable transaction can easily be viewed as negative by someone who may be disadvantaged by it (a son losing part of his inheritance, or a ‘friend’ with an inferior social image, for instance).

A social event refers to an open opportunity for awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion. Choosing to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, regardless of one’s initial perspective, reduces violence, hatred, oppression, etc in any act.

I’m intrigued by your use of the term ’wholesome’. I take this to mean ‘conducive to or characterised by health or moral wellbeing’. I’m interested to see you expand on your argument that ‘unwholesome motivations’ for charitable giving such as a compulsion to be seen as a ‘good’ person are more likely to lead to violence - than what? I’ve yet to see charitable giving lead to violence in itself, regardless of the motivation behind it. I’m also curious to hear a man’s supposedly more ‘wholesome’ motivations for charitable giving...?

↪Possibility I think the one thing it is hard to argue against is that overall human development is what is it is and that men and women are distinguishable. That is not to say they are completely different but it is to say that they are most certainly not the same and that the overall pattern is that there are males and females.

Gender has recently taken on a slightly different take distinct from sex, but I think it has been overly politicised by a small minority within a small minority. As a technical term I'm fine with using the term any way people like just as long as we're both clear we're talking about the same thing.

The OP seems to be something of a needling against perceived wishy washy types who are more interested in siding with any kind of activists simply because they can and they get a kick out of it. Generally the serious types are not screaming they are just asking questions and considering different views rather than pushing an agenda. — I like sushi

Sure, men and women are more or less distinguishable, but I would argue (rather pedantically) it is a general pattern that there are males and females, not an overall one. From my experience in education, the issues in simply instructing students to ‘make a line for boys and a line for girls’ can no longer be underestimated at any age, and the capacity of younger generations to allow for gender complexity is both staggering and humbling. Regardless of how we feel about it, we can’t keep assuming that we adhere to a binary gender model as a ‘rule’.

But my issue isn’t so much with gender as it is with the oversimplified nature of the entire OP argument. “Statistics show that Ps are more x than Qs, but that Qs are more y than Ps” - these remind me of the old women’s magazine quizzes that asked half a dozen hypothetical scenario multiple choice questions and then assigned you one of four labels based on answers that were ‘mostly As’, ‘mostly Bs’, etc. It sounds satisfyingly definitive, but there’s just no accuracy to it that can be of any philosophical use.

My position is basically against 'morality' as some kind of 'rule'.

When it comes to groups and individuals the very differences being discussed here take on a different means. Collectively women behave differently to men and are different to men in attitudes and psychological make up. On an individual to individual to individual basis the chances of distinguishing a man from a woman purely based on psychology alone is more or less guess work.

It is incredibly easy to confuse the behaviour of a rain drop with the behaviour of rain - as in the behaviour of a man/woman with the behaviour of men/women. — I like sushi

I’m with you here.

Yes, there are collective gender differences in patterns of behaviour, attitude and psychology, but they’re large scale, qualitative differences that are useless in reliably predicting behaviour in individuals, but reasonably effective in controlling them.

Sorry Poss. You seem to have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion about Gnomon's "view". I was speaking metaphorically when I said, "homo sapiens . . . added a wild card . . . to Logic & Math". Actually, the potential (possibility) for that personal perspective must have been lain dormant in the logical structure of reality (Logos) for billions of years. But that latent "wild card" only became Actual when the human brain began to include self-referential feedback loops in the ongoing linear Logic of reality, resulting in what I call "Ideality" : a novel feature in the meaningless pre-human Cosmos. — Gnomon

I would argue that’s not speaking metaphorically, but ambiguously. Metaphor has a specific qualitative relation as well as a variable. Either it emerged (in which case it didn’t ‘change the direction of evolution’ but rather followed it) or it was ‘added’ by humans. I’m also curious as to the source of your definition of ‘emergence’: the first I’ve seen and the second I understand, but the third seems a contrivance. ‘More than’ and ‘in addition to’ are not the same in relation to emergence.

And I would argue that the pre-human cosmos is not meaningless - only from a human perspective.

That statistical anomaly (Linguistic Logic ; math with meaning) has abruptly changed the direction of evolution, to serve the personal interests, emotions, & opinions of a self-reflective species of upright apes. It has produced a new "tool" (formal conventional Language) with logical leverage to produce Qualia, where before there was only Quanta. Language is an Objective form of Subjective thought. And it has allowed cooperative communication that is more flexible, and generalizable, than the proto-language of hormones & pheromones. So "humanity or personal opinion" was an "addition" to natural processes only in the sense of Emergence. :wink: — Gnomon

In my view, qualitative relation (not quanta) is the foundation of reality, and evolution never altered course with the emergence of humanity and self-reflection. In fact, science shows that the evolution of the entire cosmos is mapped by a series of statistically improbable and scientifically unexplained ‘quantum leaps’...

Human language is quantifiable, feigning objectivity in subjective thought - that is its main difference from the proto-language of hormones and pheromones, which entirely serve personal interests. This ‘objectivity’ has some limitations, which we go to great lengths to conceal.

Some of these statements seem to be based on statistics, others seem to be arguing a personal opinion.
— Possibility
No personal opinion. All the points are taken from articles citing studies. And yes, statistics was involved. — L'éléphant

Thank you - but I do think it’s important to cite your sources here, if you have the time. Studies can be made to show, for instance, that coffee is both good for you and bad for you. I’m not convinced by either binary value results or ‘more vs less’ statements in articles citing ‘studies’. But I recognise that this is a common argument for ‘natural’ gender differences.

So I don’t think this is necessarily a gender divide. It’s more along the lines of how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world.
— Possibility
So, we're just gonna ignore the fact that your gender divide has a lot to do with how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world? Isn't this like a sleight of hand which makes your audience think you're saying two different things but really aren't? — L'éléphant

I recognise that the aim of analysis is to simplify the landscape, to conclude one way or the other. The assumption is that there must eventually be only two options. But how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world is not as simple as male or female. Just because I’m female, don’t assume that I’m going to be more charitable or empathetic than the guy next to me. And the fact that I mask my feelings more than a male co-worker does not mean I don’t feel them as deeply.

You assume the statistics can stand alone in the statements of your OP, without any context. We cannot assume that statistics drawn along gender lines is sufficient evidence for ‘natural’ rather than culturally-constructed differences.

You know it would be nice if violence, hatred, etc are reduced if everyone viewed their actions as social events -- but opinions like this are just opinions. The reality is in statistics and studies. — L'éléphant

Actually, the past is in statistics, but the reality is in our relation to the context of each study.

That our culture perpetuates this divide along gender lines is simply a way of controlling and predicting behaviour that has been supported by statistical differences in physicality (eg. Muscle mass, childbirth, etc).
— Possibility
What? No -- the reality of gender is the reason why our culture is like this, not the way you're describing it. I have no idea that in the year 2021 to 2022, gender has become synonymous with despicable crime! Why has gender become a dirty word? — L'éléphant

Strawman - spare me your indignation. The politics of gender division is the reason our culture is like this. The reality of gender is far more complex than a male-female binary suggests. My issue is with the divide, not with gender. Men and women are not all the same, sure - but neither are they two sides of a binary.

There is no ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ - all this does is perpetuate false gender and moral binary models.
— Possibility
There is. scientific american — L'éléphant

This article illustrates a socio-cultural pattern of perception and behaviour in relation to a specific question: if we divide the data along a gender binary, is there a difference? The answer is yes, but they’re clear that it has nothing to do with the Y chromosome itself. So what you refer to as ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ are socio-cultural constructions, highlighting the fact that these binary models ‘masculine-feminine’ and ‘good-bad’ are both an oversimplification of reality.

The ethical question is whether or not we should view an action/inaction such as getting vaccinated or seeing a doctor as a complex social event, or as a simple transaction.
— Possibility
I don't have a problem with that. What's your answer? — L'éléphant

I would argue for a complex social event. I recognise that it renders everything less definitive, but that’s reality (as opposed to statistics and studies).

And again, people speak of differences in gender as if it's criminal. No! historically, and pre-historically, men protected the women and children and hunted boars and bears and fought invaders. I don't understand why replacing gender with "physiological" is a good option and somehow makes us all "educated and refined". Gender has a lot to do with physiological. — L'éléphant

Most differences in gender you’ve described in your OP are socio-culturally constructed based on different patterns of physiology that overlap in multi-dimensional ways. What is ‘educated and refined’ is the ability to explore gender as a complex multi-dimensional structure, instead of continually reducing it to a binary.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that your description of men’s historical/pre-historical role prioritises individual genetic survival over the collective development of humanity.

Some of these statements seem to be based on statistics, others seem to be arguing a personal opinion. A couple of comments from my perspective:

Morality is an attempt to make sense of behaviour in a way that enables us to predict and control future behaviour. It is ‘measured’ differently in each individual, gender, social group, society, culture, time period, historical era, etc. In some cultures or aspects of life, it is the women who are less likely to see a doctor, or more traumatised by divorce, or less ethical.

So I don’t think this is necessarily a gender divide. It’s more along the lines of how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world.

For women generally, I would suggest that most action (as well as inaction) is a social event, whether charitable giving, getting vaccinated, seeing a stranger or loved one in need, grieving, feeling sick or filing for divorce. Most women have recognised, to some extent at least, that isolating themselves from their qualitative relation to the world is an illusion.

For men generally, as you have described here, most action (as well as inaction) seems to be a transaction between themselves and the world as two separate entities. Philosophically, though, this seems to be outdated thinking. Consider - how much less violence, hatred, oppression, abuse and neglect would exist if everyone viewed each of their actions/inactions as social events?

That our culture perpetuates this divide along gender lines is simply a way of controlling and predicting behaviour that has been supported by statistical differences in physicality (eg. Muscle mass, childbirth, etc). Yet there are many men who are naturally more empathetic than the average woman, and many women who were far more traumatised by divorce than their husbands. Binary statistics described as ‘more’ or ‘less’ simply enables us to pretend the data is black and white, when even a 99-1 split consists of shades of grey.

There is no ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ - all this does is perpetuate false gender and moral binary models. The ethical question is whether or not we should view an action/inaction such as getting vaccinated or seeing a doctor as a complex social event, or as a simple transaction.

It can inductively be shown that the universe behaves like a language. On the most basic level, everything in the universe can be said to simply be information (regardless of what the universe is composed of on the higher level). Therefore, the universe can be said to be an arrangement of information. — Thinker108

There was a time when induction showed that the universe behaved like a machine - everything could be said to simply be action - and we struggled to reconcile this with the complexity of language and emotion. While I think this idea that everything is simply information is a step in the right direction and affords us a more complex view of the universe and its interrelations, I still think there is more to it.

Our view of Logic is myopic - this abstract component held within each mind is itself an aspect of what is a larger rationality to the universe - one we can glimpse only in our relation to the alternative, conflicting, irreconcilable ways in which others behave.

There is a key aspect of language that is not a component of its structure, and eludes all attempts to talk about it. It is apparent only in language use, and cannot be isolated from the relational structure of such usage.

So it isn’t in ‘words’ that reality has meaning, but in the unspoken quality of each relation. Words are just how we try to make sense of it.

incidentally, contrary to @Gnomon’s view, I don’t see humanity or personal opinion as some ‘addition’ to the natural process of the universe. This idea that our emotional fragility or variation is somehow ‘messing with’ the natural, ‘logical’ order of the universe is just anthropocentrism on another level. It is accepting emotional variability and accounting for it in the application of science, instead of trying to control it or factor it out, that I believe can ultimately restore the balance.

The metaphorical nature of language is a reminder that not everything is going to make sense, and that’s okay. The goal is not the sense-making, but the relation. All of this is reflected in the practical application of quantum physics, as well as Taoism, Buddhism, Wittgenstein, etc.

Funny that you say that, I recently finished re-reading C.I. Lewis' Mind and World Order. He was the person that introduced "qualia" into the philosophical literature as we understand it today, and in effect, he was arguing that these things are helpful in so far as they are guide to actions. — Manuel

Sure - ‘qualia’ as a term consolidates aspects of experience in potentiality, and can be useful in self-reflection, as a guide to structuring the potential of our own actions. But to use ‘qualia’ in relation to another’s actions seems fraught with unfounded assumptions.

As I see it, ‘qualia’ doesn’t lend any more to the notion of experience except the illusion of consolidation as an heuristic device. It’s like an imaginary number - its value is non-transferable, intangible. As long as all we’re taking about is potentiality, then qualia can be a useful term. But it has no function beyond the value structure in which it forms - beyond this it not only limits ideas, it also ambiguates intentionality.

The way I see it, when we use the English verb ‘to see’, it can mean ‘to look at’, ‘to perceive’, or ‘to understand’. The distinction between these ‘ways of seeing’ translate (in my mind) as dimensional - a temporally-located observation (4D), an a-temporal value (5D) or a non-judgmental relation (6D).

In Greek these are three different words, so they would look at (vlepo) the stick bent, perceive (horao) it as both straight and bent, and understand (eido) light refraction and human visual capacity that results in a straight stick appearing bent under certain experiential conditions.

We confuse the issue when we talk about perception as if it must follow logic, the law of excluded middle, etc. and insist on determining which perception is ‘reality’ and which is ‘illusion’, as if this matters at the level of language and talking about ideas. It matters at the level of determining action, but the capacity to hold seemingly contradictory perceptions in the mind simultaneously (and without judgement) is the key to understanding.

We are only fairly recently acknowledging the destructive nature of judgemental language, both to the flow and exchange of ideas, and to our temporal interactions with the world. Recognising categorisations such as better, naive, weirdness and sense as value structures under certain experiential conditions can help us to keep an open mind.

The use of ‘qualia’ as a consolidation of conscious experience into definable objects, seems to me a step in the opposite direction.

A contact of mine made this statement:

Perhaps it is a continuum which is at one end is alertness to chemical surroundings: an atom of carbon being alert to the proximity of another atom of carbon such that they bond. At the other end it is being able recognize oneself as distinct from one's surroundings. Not too different though; mostly a change in scale. — Varde

That's one way to look at awareness. But for me, having a self-perspective allows me to establish relative values for making judgments of where to take my atoms next. Not because physics says I have to, but because I, myself, want to. :joke: — Gnomon

I think you’re missing the bookends of what is not so much a continuum as a symmetry. Beyond alertness to chemical surroundings is a more vague awareness of positive or negative potentiality by which electrons associate with certain nuclei or atomic structures. At the other end is Gnomon’s desire or affected awareness of possibility - the recognition that we construct intentionality not just from our knowledge but from our own aesthetic relation to every particle.

I agree that consciousness, I really hope we're tuned into the same channel here, plays a significant role in duality; after all it's a point of view, a way of looking at the world. However, I'm reluctant to say it's all up here, in the head. After all, empirical data of the world does yield a yin-yang pattern in reality. — TheMadFool

I’m certainly not saying it’s all in the head. There’s a tendency to assume non-duality must be idealistic monism (or else materialism), but I think this is a misunderstanding born of reductionism.

Empirical data is contingent not just upon an observer, but an actual observation/measurement event. An interaction in spacetime (4D). Non-duality in the sense that I’m referring to here, though, is not a reduction from five to four-dimensional awareness, but a paradigmatic shift from five to six-dimensional awareness.

I've heard of non-duality (advaita vedanta for example) but haven't studied the arguments. Too, non-duality is said to be self-refuting since it stands in opposition to duality forming a pair. — TheMadFool

There is no argument. Advaita (non-duality) is not in opposition to forming a pair, but rather dissolves the necessity for distinction by understanding that Atman IS Brahman. Just as the eternal Tao is the ten thousand things, unnamed. In the realm of possibility, diversity is identical to unity, and vice versa. This is what is meant by ‘invariance under transformation’. It’s not really a way of looking at the world, but rather a way of understanding it so that we can more accurately perceive potential from a variety of perspectives, and from there more carefully and responsibly interact as part of the world.

Indeed there's a consciousness that must exist to appreciate a duality, any duality but duality exists independently of a consciousness. What I mean is yes, an observer (the third e.g. me) is necessary to become aware of the hot sun and the cold snow but hot ans cold would exist even if I didn't exist and they would interact in the same way as any yin-yang pair would. — TheMadFool

You say this, but how would you know? Sun and snow would exist, sure, but without consciousness there would be no distinction between them as hot and cold, near and far, up and down. Yinyang, too, would exist, but without consciousness there would be no distinction between yin and yang, let alone any recognition of ‘opposites’.

The tai-chi symbol commonly used to depict yin-yang is the simplest description of the relation between unity and diversity. It is not a static symbol, but an expression of the dynamic relationship between multiple aspects of a whole, in which ‘opposition’ or duality is only a surface appearance: an initial encounter with consciousness. Like most Eastern philosophy, it doesn’t attempt to define reality, but is understood only when this encounter with our physical existence is factored in.

Non-apples are as real as apples. There's no necessity to take the matter into higher dimensions and even if you did, yin-yang would figure in it (not so sure about that though). — TheMadFool

As real as apples? Does this mean you can visually describe or define a non-apple for me, in the same way that you can visually define an apple? Can you distinguish a non-apple from anything other than an apple? ‘Non-apple’ refers to anything and everything that is not an apple, from an orange to stardust out beyond Mars. It is an indeterminate concept, as real as the concept ‘apple’ and its potential, but not as definitive as the apple I hold in my hand, or the one I ate yesterday. These I can describe in great detail, and their descriptions will be different from each other in small ways, but will have many similar properties. A ‘non-apple’ is defined only by its relationship to the concept ‘apple’. An orange is an example of a non-apple, but is no more the opposite of an apple than stardust.

It is only in potentiality that the relationship between apple and non-apple has duality. That’s not to say it isn’t real, but that this existence is potential, not actual. It consists of language, experience, knowledge, thought, perception, intention, value, etc. You can’t fully demonstrate the relationship between apple and non-apple in nature - you can only offer examples of the conceptual duality, relative to your perception of it, and construct a similar concept in the perception, experience, language, etc of another. Conscious existence is key.

Au contraire, yin-yang is about opposites. Suppose it isn't about that and I'm under the grave misconception that it is. Edify me as to what it is. Thank you. — TheMadFool

Recognising opposites is just the initial encounter. It’s what happens next - the dance between unity and diversity in your experience - that is what yin-yang is about. Pay attention to how your consciousness can shift between unity, duality and diversity as you strive to understand the yin-yang symbol. There is no symmetry, no stability in an encounter with duality that doesn’t resort to ignorance, isolation or exclusion. There is unity and there is complex diversity - and duality is just an heuristic device to get you from one to the other.

1. My take on yin-yang is that they are opposites in a mathematical sense, like +y and -y. Bring them together like so: +y + -y and you get 0, nought. This cancelling of each member of a yin-yang pair is what balance/equilibrium is. This is both destructive (extremes are annihilated, +y and -y are gone ) and constructive (extremes are replaced by an in-between state, 0). Don't be fooled by 0, it doesn't mean nothing in this case. It only means, to use a warfare analogy, the two opposing sides are equally matched, a draw so to speak. — TheMadFool

So, what you’re saying is that there exists another state, between +y and -y, that you call 0, and that this ‘in-between state’ is the balance/equilibrium, or symmetry. This 0 is manifest either as nothing (where +y and -y cancel each other out) or as something: “the correlation manifests itself when the two correlated objects both interact with a third object, which can check”. This third object is you. As Rovelli states: “the existence of a third object that interacts with both systems is necessary to give reality to the correlations.” You can abstract and talk about a ‘mathematical sense’ all you want, but in reality, 0 is either nothing or something. If it’s nothing, then +y and -y do cancel each other out. If it’s something, then there are three players in the game, not two, and there is no ‘cancelling out’; only ignorance/isolation/exclusion.

2. Yin-yang pairs are an universal feature in nature, in the universe itself. Possibility mentioned apples, humans, ants, cheesecake etc. don't have opposites.

These objects are subjected to forces that are yin-yang in nature - humans are torn ( :chin: ) between good and bad, apples live and die, ants too, cheesecake are warm and then become cold. — TheMadFool

You’re referring here to yin-yang pairs as potential properties of an object ‘in nature’. This is applying your mathematical values of +y, -y or 0 to an observation/measurement in time. From any observer’s point in spacetime (4D), a cheesecake (3D) is observed as warm or cold, an apple is observed as living or dead, a human is observed as good or bad. But “facts relative to one observer are not facts relative to another”.

What you’re describing is a dance of three: the necessity of a third player in what you consider to be a ‘duality’. Nothing is cancelled out or ‘replaced’ here. A cheesecake observed as warm is not precluded from being cold. In fact, what you consider to be a ‘warm’ cheesecake, I might argue is ‘cold’. These are not opposites, but are properties or facts relative to the observer.

Too, humans vs non-humans, apples vs non-apples, ants vs non-ants, cheesecake vs non-cheesecakes - even a child ( :wink: ) can think of an appropriate opposite for these items, either as a class or singly. Pay attention to what these things are and what happens to them. — TheMadFool

And now you’re back to five-dimensional abstraction, describing not ‘items’ or objects observed in nature or in time, but perceived concepts or patterns of potential. ‘Non-apple’ is not an item in reality, but an indeterminate value in relation to your experience/knowledge relative to the concept ‘apple’. It is your remaining perception of potentiality from which ‘apple’ is differentiated - the background or negative potential, so to speak. And your differentiation of apple vs non-apple is not identical to mine - the joint properties of these two concepts as a ‘duality’ exist only in relation to one’s perception.

The apparent duality of the universe is a reductionist perspective - its potential symmetry is contingent upon an external perception: what you refer to as 0, the relational structure that necessarily exists between the two. The yin-yang symbol as rendered is the third aspect that is necessary for symmetry, whether it is rendered as ink on a page, stones in a mosaic or pixels on a screen. But the symmetry of yin-yang has nothing to do with the opposition of light and dark (which is a Western interpretation), and everything to do with quality, energy and logic. To focus on ‘opposites’ in yin-yang is to miss the point entirely.

Name a thing that doesn't have an anti-thing. — TheMadFool

A human being. An ant. An apple. A cheesecake. Need I go on?

Also, what's awareness got to do with dimensions? Can you provide a link that explains this connection between awareness and dimensions? Or is it just a theory you invented?, in which case I'm not interested. — TheMadFool

Read ‘Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions’ by Edwin A. Abbott, for starters.

That third party would be subsumed by the duality it forms with the anti-third party. Every other party you invoke, if you so desire, will again neatly pair up with its opposite and will be absorbed into duet of yin-yang. — TheMadFool

Only because you refuse to see it any other way. I’m not invoking a third party, but evoking it. That third party is YOU, the observer who names ‘yin and ‘yang’ as such. If nothing else existed in the universe, then the existence of this yin-yang duality is contingent upon the existence of an observer, one aware of the distinction, who embodies/integrates this duality (or not). Such is the case for any duality you care to name.

Can you name your own ‘anti-’? Have you noticed what happens to your dimensional perspective of ‘self’ when you try? To imagine the dissolution of yin-yang or any such dualism is to call into question our own consciousness. It’s easy to assume that the foundation of all existence then is dualism, but we can equally assume that the foundation of all existence (as we understand it) is consciousness.

From Carlo Rovelli’s ‘Helgoland’:

“Facts relative to one observer are not facts relative to another.”

“To say that two objects are correlated means to articulate something with regard to a third object: the correlation manifests itself when two correlated objects both interact with this third object, which can check.”

This is not symmetry, but a relation between two and five dimensional existence. There is no invariance under transformation here. A symmetrical universe makes no distinction between unity and diversity, or between existence and non-existence, between yin and yang, possibility and impossibility. Symmetry is not in the duality but in its dissolution - recognising its ultimate contingency.

Language fails us here, but the basic gist of it is that symmetry is not opposition, but relation. Duality is contingent upon awareness, and vice versa, necessitating a triadic relation as the foundation of any ‘thing’. Without this third party, there is no ‘thing’ or ‘anti-thing’, only potentiality.

Have it, flaunt it! Isn't that a rule of life?

I take it - beauty recognizing itself - as part of the Socratic principle of temet nosce. It's odd that people say things like, "you have the brains, use it" but never in my life (never say never) have I heard someone say, "you're beautiful, use it." Is this part of some mind game we're totally in the dark about? I dunno. Sounds interesting. It appears that, like some stroke patients, we're blind to, ignoring, an aspect (the physical plane) of our being. Amazing! — TheMadFool

Not a rule of life, in my opinion. Brains you can certainly use or not use. Beauty is something you can take advantage of, but there can be a discrepancy or uncertainty between who has the beauty and who has the advantage that simply isn’t the case with brains. And there are plenty of situations where someone says things like, “If you’ve got it...” which implies that one use beauty to their own advantage.

An intelligent person with beauty understands when to ‘use it’ and when not to, and will not be dictated to otherwise. There are many situations where what appears to be ‘using your beauty’ actually enables a transfer of power to someone else that may prove difficult to retrieve.

People also say a person is beautiful inside and out when both apply but never say they are beautiful on the inside (in a public manner anyway) when only one applies. — TiredThinker

Because we can simply say they are ‘a beautiful person’, which acknowledges them as not just a facade.

I have thought about the post which you wrote on the importance of attention and I believe that it is important but it is not just attention to the outer aspects of experience. In seeing the meaningful connections it is about the parallels within the outer world and the experience of thoughts. It may be that many people do not make links and some may not even remember their thoughts clearly enough.

I come from the perspective of noticing and remembering my thoughts. I had many experiences during adolescence, which were clear premonitions. I won't go into detail because some of them were extremely unpleasant as they were premonitions of people dying, and the individuals died shortly afterwards. At the time, I even started to worry that it was my fault that the people were dying. Fortunately, I discovered Jung's writings and it made a lot of sense.

I think that it is hard to know how far to go with Jung's theory, but it does seem to show that we can perceive patterns and it does seem to me to go beyond the physical world. I think that attention is important but it is a way of going beyond ordinary daily experience. — Jack Cummins

I do think that it’s at least possible to direct our qualitative attention narrowly or broadly and in consolidated or interrelational structures in each moment (with practise), but that this then impacts on the effort/intensity and diversity we can bring to that attention. And by attention I’m certainly not referring only to the outer world, but also to our thoughts, feelings and intentions, and how they change in relation to each other.

I’m with you that some people may not notice or remember their thoughts. My son prefers to attend narrowly to consolidated structures - he acts decisively in the face of uncertainty, is systematic or mathematical in his process, and yet draws a blank when asked to retrace his thinking or consider alternatives. My daughter prefers to attend more broadly to interrelational structures - she is often paralysed by uncertainty, yet is well aware of her thinking process, and can track her thoughts from origin to conclusion, including exploration of paths not taken. It’s much more of a concerted effort for my son to notice or remember his thoughts, let alone critique them. But it’s much more of a concerted effort for my daughter to determine a course of action and take it.

I think part and parcel of a more open awareness is worrying about unconsolidated possibilities that capture our attention for one affective reason or another. This seems to be what occurred with your premonitions. I’m not familiar with Jung’s theories, but I think we need to develop accurate methodologies to both open our awareness of the world and consolidate towards reliable, effective action, rather than simply go with our preference every time. That way leads to ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

The likelihood of him walking past doesn’t change just because you’re talking about him
— Possibility

I'm not saying my talking about Will Smith affected the probability of him walking by. That's silly. I'm saying he could've walked by me at any time in a 24 hour period (1440 minutes) but that he appeared when I was talking about him (for 5 minute) is improbable. Do the math.

1440 - 5 = 1435

P(Will Smith walking by when I'm not talking about him) = 1435/1440

P(Will Smith walking by when I'm talking about him) = 5/1440 — TheMadFool

But we’re not talking about the abstract probability of an event occurring or not occurring within 24 hours here. The event is relatively improbable, sure. But it’s as improbable as any other specified five minute period.

P(Will Smith walking by during a 5min period when you’re talking about him) = 5/1440

P(Will Smith walking by during a 5min period when you’re not talking about him) = 5/1440

This is not about him walking by, then, but about his appearance: you noticing him walking by, which has more to do with how your attention is distributed during that five minute period.

Where A = attention directed toward qualitative aspects of the concept ‘Will Smith’ during a 5min period, then

A(talking about Will Smith) > A(not talking about Will Smith)

So, given that the probability of Will Smith walking by during any 5min period is equally negligible, then the remote probability of attention directed toward Will Smith walking by during any 5min period is relatively higher when talking (or thinking) about Will Smith during that same 5min period, than not talking about Will Smith.

I don't require gratefulness for a compliment. My point is some people think their beauty is factual in all circumstances. And as far as complimenting someone on their personality that would be my first approach if I knew them well enough at that point. — TiredThinker

Yet you clearly expect something in return for this compliment, which you’re not getting. You’re also presuming that her response of ‘I know’ is used in all circumstances. She may have perceived this guy and his compliment coming from a mile away, based on his body language long before he opened his mouth. That’s not his fault, but she’s either not interested - in which case her response is rapidly effective - or she expected more from his opening line than an evaluation, as if she’s there waiting for his appraisal. Perhaps what she means is ‘...and...?’

How about him giving some indication that he’s not just looking for surface value? That he perceives her as a human being with her own mind? You don’t have to know someone very well at all to make that kind of assumption.

TiredThinker has deep trouble with women. We should be cautious... — Accounting

Cautious of what?

↪TiredThinker Who are you to impose – on what grounds should another accept – a standard against (your subjective appraisal of) "things that are empty and aren't accomplishments"? Beauty should not be celebrated for its own sake? Then why do you feel the need to acknowledge a woman's beauty? Okay, it's nothing special, and she replies "I know"; yet her acknowledgement of that very same beauty you remarked on is somehow less warranted than your acknowledgement. Why the double standard, Tired Thinker, if you're "not threatened"? — 180 Proof

:up:

While the likelihood of him walking past just as you’re talking about him is the same as any other moment
— Possibility

Explain yourself. I spend, maybe, 5 minutes talking about him and the rest of the day, 1435 minutes, not even thinking about him. — TheMadFool

The likelihood of him walking past doesn’t change just because you’re talking about him. The fact that you’re thinking about him increases the chance of him attracting your attention in a crowd, not the chance of him walking past. He may have walked past you half a dozen times that day, but you were focused on other things and didn’t notice.

So, I wonder about the role of our own consciousness in what becomes manifest in life. Intention affects our behaviour, but I do think that it may go beyond this and intentionality and thought may have more dramatic effects, involving layers of the subconscious. Perhaps, there are no coincidences at all. So, I am asking about explaining apparent coincidence, the nature of chance, randomness and causation. In particular, what is the role of consciousness, subconscious processes and intention in the manifestation of experience? I am interested to know what other people think about this. — Jack Cummins

I think meaningful coincidence often has more to do with attention than intention. We prefer to attribute power internally, especially when the alternative is to accept randomness and uncertainty.

2. You and your friend are in a deli. As you chow down on the burgers you ordered, you discuss Will Smith (the actor) and his movie I am legend. Just as one of you say "Will Smith", Will Smith walks by on the sidewalk outside the deli. Coincidence, meaningful. — TheMadFool

Talking about Will Smith brings to the periphery of your attention the qualitative patterns in his facial features, build and mannerisms, making you more likely to recognise him walking past, even out of the corner of your eye, than you would at any other time (when he could be walking past). While the likelihood of him walking past just as you’re talking about him is the same as any other moment, the likelihood of you recognising him on the street is increased by the attention you’ve just been giving to the conceptual structures you have with regard to Will Smith. You didn’t will him to appear, you merely brought the remote possibility of his appearance to your attention.

When a guy tells a woman she's beautiful and she either says that she knows or gives an unmoved expression that indicates that the sentiment isn't worth much is this just straight up hubris? I understand beauty can be measured to some degree scientifically, but is there ever any purpose to being so confident in a quality that in and of itself probably has no substance? I find it annoying when women seem to think so highly of themselves when in truth they don't look that great in my opinion. I find overconfidence keeps people from communicating and really getting to know one another. Is there a purpose for thinking so positively and absolutely about ones appearance? — TiredThinker

Hang - you’re saying yourself that beauty as a quality probably has no substance, and yet you’re annoyed that telling a woman she has this insubstantial quality doesn’t render her grateful to you for saying so?

I’ve been told ‘you’re beautiful’ by guys before, and I’ll be honest: the sentiment really isn’t worth much on its own. All women these days have to understand that they are beautiful in their own way. This is how we counteract everyone who tries to make us believe that our worth is only in our appearance. I know I’m not exceptionally beautiful - it’s a relative term. If I look around and see that almost everyone’s hooked up except me and this guy who’s just wandered over, then he’s probably not saying that he finds me exceptionally beautiful - but that I’m a beautiful alternative to going home alone. I’m beautiful enough for the situation.

If a woman is unimpressed by your superficial flattery, I’d suggest you try harder to understand who she really is.

Don’t tell me I’m attractive or beautiful... tell me I’m a beautiful person and that you’re attracted to my sense of humour.
Don’t text me about how hot I am. Look into my eyes and tell me of my warmth.
Tell me I have a great mind that arouses your intellect.
Tell me one thing that I really am that you actually love...something that will last.
Because I need to know that you can feel the depths of my soul and are not just fascinated by the shallow reflection on the surface. — Kalsoom Akhter Kohli

Quantum physics recognises that this potential energy source is limited by our perspective, and that matter is no more than our anticipated interaction with potentiality, implying affirmation (less certain, more affected by limitations) of an unlimited source of possible energy.
— Possibility

I'm not sure here what it is that quantum physics "recognises. "Potential enetgy sources that are limited to our perspective"? What do you mean by this? QM or QFT both "recognise" potential energy derived from a classical view on energy. Particles can interact and this interaction determines kinetic and potential (the potential to become kinetic) energy. — Thunderballs

QM and QFT often describe potential energy in terms of the classical view on energy, which is why certain aspects come across as incongruous, spooky, etc. But the calculations and applications of it defy classical descriptions. When you talk about an interaction of particles determining the potential to become kinetic energy, this potential doesn’t come from the particles, but from the relative variability of those particles in relation to each other. So it isn’t the particles that interact, but their relative potentiality, which is calculable as a wave prediction of attention and effort. The particles themselves are irrelevant to QM or QFT - they’re heuristic devices that give us something to talk about.

So, any potential interaction with a possible energy source in quantum physics is calculated in relation to the potential for interaction of a possible energy source. If an unlimited source of potential energy exists (and I think we are less inclined to assume this than we were in classical physics), then our perception of it as such is limited by our perceived potential for interaction. This is what QM recognises in its calculations, even if some physicists won’t acknowledge it.

How does Witt provide a practical method for embodying inner and outer?? what is inner and what is outer? Time /energy in Heidegger? He doesn't talk like this. As to the embodied relationship, what do you mean by embodied? K is very aware that one has to think and reason to conceive anything at all, but he does not think like a post modern: in the discussion about actuality and reason, actuality is not conceived as a rational noumenon. Love is not rational, nor is suffering, hate, bliss, ecstacy and so on. Reason encounters these, reduces them to its terms, and this is K's objection, developed later by Levinas and others: We conceive of God out of our Totality of reduced world, and in his analysis it is faith that is the leap out of this totality, out of e.g., the principles of ethics, into something entirely irrational. — Constance

Wittgenstein refers to what lies outside language, and to speaking nonsense, as ‘practice’. This is the outer. It’s not pointless to embody that ‘of which we cannot speak’ - to love or hate, to suffer or relate to God non-verbally - to interact with the world when words fail us. This is how we perceive the structure of language and its limitations.

By ‘embody’ I mean wholly assume a position from which to relate. As I mentioned before, we embody logic in order to accurately describe a world without logic. We embody an ultimate source of energy in order to describe eternity (a world without change). In phenomenology we embody qualitative experience or consciousness in order to describe what is objective. But we cannot wholly extricate logic either from language or from consciousness, so we cannot use language to describe what logic IS in its entirety. We have Witt’s perspective of logic from within language use, and we have Heidegger’s view of logic from within our experience of being. And we have quantum physics, which demonstrates the existence of rationality beyond both, informing phenomenology that it’s still missing something.

Phenomenology outlines the problem in a different way, but can do little more than point out the limitations of consciousness and language, while attacking the strawmen of classical ‘Reason’ or scientism for presuppositions that physics can no longer afford to presuppose.

To leap into something ‘entirely irrational’ is not necessarily to abandon all possibility of relation. A leap of faith draws from one’s own affected experience to construct qualitative rationality (sufficient relation to determine action) by attributing attention and effort (affect) to distinguish between possible/impossible relations. Our faith is misguided when we draw from someone else’s description of affected experience. We will always lose accuracy here.

I’m not trying to argue that physics needs to be incorporated into phenomenology. I’m saying that without it, phenomenology is prone to inaccuracy and limitations it cannot correct by itself.

According to Wittgenstein, philosophy should be written like poetry, not in a scientific way. One might assume he only meant the content, another might assume he only meant the structure. I’m inclined to think he meant both. Poetry in the classical sense adheres to a strict logical structure of qualitative ideas in describing our affected experience to be understood more universally. If we follow this advice, then the aim of philosophy is to arrange inner and outer along these lines: embody an eternal, qualitatively rational and unaffected system that enables us to objectively describe the distribution of affect in consciousness.

Then any connotation or affect is not considered inherent in terms such as ‘system’ or ‘energy’, but is a current limitation of the consciousness they describe. What is inherent is a qualitatively variable rationality. ‘System’ refers to more or less logical or relationally structured, while ‘energy’ refers to more or less variable, regardless of logic. ‘Entropy’ refers to less logical as well as more or less variable regardless of logic. So when you relate to the text, you interpret my use of ‘system’ as implying that what I’m describing is logical, but I’m only referring to the possibility of relational structure, which I’m not inclined to exclude at this level of ‘openness’ simply because my limited subjective experience renders me currently unaware of any structure. How else do we relate to the impossible, except to embody its possibility?

Meaning, value, actuality, etc is then attributed as we are embodied in the system.
— Possibility

But then: System? An inherently rational concept. Any system you can conceive is structured by the terms and thinking you already possess. The matter here is to take the affairs of philosophy to their threshold, and then not impose more thinking, more metaphysics, but to embrace the indeterminacy. This is liberating.
The only system that services this end is phenomenology and the Husserlian epoche. See his Ideas I. — Constance

Not a concept - an idea. I’m with you on embracing the indeterminacy, but if we use language to describe anything at this level, we’re not referring to concepts but to the indeterminate ideas prior to conceptualisation. Don’t be so quick to dismiss a word based on inherent rationality. Language is useless without some qualitative rationality. Without language, we’re relating qualitatively to the world, regardless of any rationality. But we ‘name’ differences not to relate to them, but to relate them to each other. This is what the Tao Te Ching addresses, to recognise both our limited embodiment of, and possibility/impossibility of freedom from, desire/affect, and relate to the text, and thus the qualitative rationality of the world, from the ‘emptiness’ of this unity, to anticipate how chi flows effortlessly through reality.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders — Tao Te Ching (Derek Lin translation)

Symbols in the TTC consist of no more than a qualitative rationality. It is in their relational structure to each other that quality is further differentiated or ‘named’, but it is in embodying a potential that we energise or affect this description.

I would need an example of the Tao to make this clear, that is, this correlation between energy and the Tao. Energy is a science term, connotatively packed, so I don't see how it works well here. Word choice matters a lot. This is why Heidegger had to construct his own, to be free of a long history of bad thinking. I don't think empirical science's "history" clarifies the Tao. — Constance

As I mentioned before, any use of the term ‘energy’ merely points to an idea, limited by the system in which it is used. The etymology of ‘energy’ shows that it names this vague idea of a source of work. Classical physics uses the term ‘energy’ to describe work, matter in motion, but this implies affirmation of an unlimited source of work, or potential energy. Quantum physics recognises that this potential energy source is limited by our perspective, and that matter is no more than our anticipated interaction with potentiality, implying affirmation (less certain, more affected by limitations) of an unlimited source of possible energy. Empirical science’s history may not clarify the Tao, but I would argue that science’s current understanding seems to be heading that way in some respects.

Also on Witt: Logic structures all thought (speaking of the Tractatus here), but it itself cannot be put in this structure to understand what logic is. One would need a third analytical perspective, which would need another to analyze it. There is no way "out" of this, for even the term"out" is nonsense in this context. From whence does logic "come"? What is its generative base? A terrific read along these lines is Eugene Fink's Sixth Meditation. Anyway, it is here philosophy reaches it end. I find the new post Heideggarian theories the right direction. The French I mention above. they don't systematize, but follow the simple logic of the basic principles of phenomenology to their logical conclusions. The result is an encounter with the impossible, which is where we really are. — Constance

Logic structures all thought within the limitations of language. But neither logic nor thought is limited by language. The way out of this is out of language as a limitation - as Witt says: “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. Understanding reality isn’t in what we say but in what we don’t say - in how we relate, affected and limited as we are, to what is said.

While I agree that following through to logical conclusions seems the ‘right direction’ within phenomenology, I don’t think phenomenology is the only way (or the best way) to describe the relation. Phenomenology approaches the relation from one first-person encounter among many. This approach reaches its end at the threshold of the impossible - the relation is limited by the ‘aboutness’ of experience.

Witt approaches the relation from one speaker among many. This approach reaches its end at the threshold of nonsense - the relation is limited by the structure of language.

The TTC approaches the relation from one source of chi among many. The approach reaches its end at the threshold of action - the relation is limited by affect/desire. Among these three, only the TTC’s approach enables us to continue using language in relation to experience, if that language is free from affect. Not an easy thing to do in English; we need to open up all concepts as you say.

You need to abide by what Kierkegaard says. His descritption is contra Hegel and he is not a rationalist, but insists this rationalality we witness in our affairs, far from being some adumbration of the God's full realization, is altogether other than God. K does not hold that all is foundationally rational and partially grasped by reason in our own zeitgeist. This zietgeist is quantitatively "sinfull" (not int he typical Lutheran sense at all; he flat out rejects this) — Constance

So Kierkegaard is excluding this possibility of complete rationality as other than God and beyond our relation to God - even though he says:

Inasmuch as for God all things are possible, it may be said that this is what God is: one for whom all things are possible … God is that all things are possible, and that all things are possible is the existence of God. — Kierkegaard, ‘Sickness Unto Death’

In describing his philosophy contra Hegel, Kierkegaard has limited this existence of God, the possibility of rationality left behind in Hegel’s embodied motivation. All things are NOT possible, then - not if complete rationality is not. And so the God of Kierkegaard is in doubt.

But there is analysis prior to this "inner/outer" opposition. Remember for Witt there is no "outer" talk is this talk is intended to be outside of logic. Like many phenomenologists, he has this prohibition against making sense out of a world that is not a fact, a "state of affairs". Such things are not in the great book of facts (LEcture on Ethics). Inner and outer are confined to language, whether it be language games or logical constraint. One cannot "talk" outside of a language game. — Constance

Analytical philosophy is not looking to construct a ToE, but to analyse the accuracy of particular methodologies and demonstrate their limitations. It’s why Kierkegaard’s criticism of Hegel is so appealing. Kierkegaard qualifies the world we can experience by excluding rationality and eternity, and then demonstrates that by this exclusion we isolate ourselves from the very possibility of God. But is this isolation to be attributed to Kierkegaard’s exclusion of possible rationality, or to Hegel’s exclusion of possible eternity?

Wittgenstein, too, qualifies the world he can talk about by language and by logic, and then demonstrates that what can be talked about exceeds the capacity of logic, just as Russell demonstrated that logic exceeds the capacity of language. Therefore, pursuing a ‘logical language’ is an exercise in ignorance. But is this ignorance to be attributed to the limitations of language or of logic?

The answer we give in both cases illustrates how we are embodied in relation to how we describe the world, and hence what is missing from that description. But recognising with Heidegger that we are ‘thrown’ is just the beginning, as you say. I use the term ‘embodied’ because in my view we do not so much ‘break free’ as restructure, incorporating physics with metaphysics (hence my appeal to Rovelli).

There is something IN the world that is primordial and profound. Heidegger thought this, but detested metaphysics. He did not see what I want him to see, that I am pushing here: Metaphysics is the radical other of the world, beyond its totalities (of course, Levinas at the bottom of this. See his Totality and Infinity, if you dare). — Constance

I am unfamiliar with Levinas, but at first glance I’m intrigued by his approach, particularly with respect to time - I wonder how Rovelli’s description of reality not as objects in time but as ‘interrelated events’, or his approach in ‘Helgoland’ that “facts relative to one observer are not facts relative to another”, might inform it. I would need to explore further... when I have more time.

Open ended progress of time and energy? You use the term energy, but it makes what they say sound like something they didn't say. Heidegger doesn't talk like this. Of course, YOU can talk like this, obviously, and if you want to say that Heidegger really says this, you have to tell me explicitly: You know, Heidegger says this, but consider this using another term. Energy is a science term, and Heidegger would never go there. Regarding Time, his is a phenomenological ontology that deals with the structure of experience (another word he never uses). — Constance

Well, I’m not claiming that Heidegger really says this, but that in describing it the way he does, he assumes or embodies a fundamental aspect of existence, which is missing from his description, yet exists in others. I have no academic background in philosophy, so my approach to this is unorthodox. If I were to use Kierkegaard’s or Hegel’s own terms to describe what I’m referring to here, then it would defeat the purpose, which is to describe the structure and properties of these systems in relation to what I see as a broader perspective. I do see your point about being explicit, though.

When I use the terms energy, quality and logic, I’m not using them in a technical way, or even as ill-defined concepts, but referring to profound ideas. So the words themselves are placeholders: for want of a better term, so to speak, which is arguably how these three words are used in everyday language: as placeholders for a more profound idea. Energy refers to a ‘primordial’ idea prior to change - the possibility/impossibility of an absolute source of potential. Quality refers to a ‘profound’ notion underlying difference - of an absolute distinction or binary. Logic refers to a ‘perfect’ notion fundamental to relation, of absolute interconnectedness.

There is no existence, no system, no reality without the unaffected, unformed possibility/impossibility of these three ideas. For me, this is where it all begins, and where we ultimately draw from, whenever we embody a system from which to describe a system. So it stands to reason that reality equals any description of a system plus the embodied system from which it is described, and necessarily includes the possibility/impossibility of energy, quality and logic as profound ideas. If you look carefully, you will see that any idea takes form by the correlation of two of these in relation to the third - even a description of these ideas themselves.

Yep, the Scandinavian word "Lagom" — Ansiktsburk

I love this word! I have been using ‘accurate’, but found it far too scientific to describe this dynamic quality of balance and sufficiency in one’s perspective.

English language use demonstrates a reluctance to name the relative quality of an unaffected idea. Lagom cannot be qualified as a concept until its value/significance is determined in relation to the quality of affected experience. So we translate lagom as a relative value in idiomatic form: ‘just the right amount’ or ‘less is more’. But each of these idioms alone is insufficient to describe the relative quality that is lagom.

You and I don't generally see these things the same way. It seems like you are using "qualitative idea" as your version of what I am calling "experience." I think that's misleading. As I said, to me, a concept, an idea, is a linguistic entity. — T Clark

The main difference I see (apart from equating ‘concept’ and ‘idea’) is that by ‘experience’ you’re referring to an affected quality of consciousness, whereas by ‘qualitative (or aesthetic) idea’ I’m referring to quality prior to affect. It is in one’s experience (of aesthetic ideas formed in the TTC, for instance) that any quality is affected in relation to its context.

So, as linguistic entities, for me ‘concept’ is an affected or experienced ‘idea’.

As for what we can describe without language, isn’t this what art is for?
— Possibility

I think you and I are in general agreement, but the use of the word "describe" bothers me. Descriptions are generally done with language. Again, I think that will be misleading, perhaps not to you and me, but to others. — T Clark

Which was why I mentioned the narrowness generally assumed in the term ‘describe’. Dictionary definitions of ‘describe’ include marking out or drawing a geometrical figure, as well as moving in a way that follows an imaginary outline.

To me, it's message is that there are experiences that are not reducible to language, not concepts. For me, concepts, ideas, are creatures of language. I think the distinction is important. — T Clark

But can't concepts be derived from experiences? — Noble Dust

Sure, but the point is that not all of experience can be conceptualised - ie. reduced to concepts. Concepts refer to patterns of experience with a high probability of shared value/potential/significance. We can still share and relate to some significance or meaning of an experience without the use of concepts, let alone sharing language.

For me (and perhaps this is where T Clark and I may differ) qualitative ideas in experience interact to form concepts but have no form themselves. Chinese ideographs give form to ideas only through interaction within a language system, the logical structure (grammar and syntax) of which determines the situational conceptualisation that a symbol conveys. In this way, one symbol in Chinese can convey a positive or negative conceptualisation of the same qualitative idea, depending on its relative position in the grammatical structure. Each symbol, phrase, line, stanza, chapter or entire text is an idea that is conceptualised by understanding the logic of its relative position.

In English, a concept is already largely determined by the arrangement of letters or sounds in the word itself, including tense, position and focus. Ideas in modern English (and even in modern Chinese) refer to a complex interplay of conceptualised structures whose boundaries may or may not overlap and dissolve across phrases, sentences and entire texts. The qualities of speech sounds in English are often just as significant and evaluative as the words we use, more so than in Chinese.

As for what we can describe without language, isn’t this what art is for? And failing that, the way we interact with the world? I guess it depends on how narrowly you define ‘describe’: to write down, to render, to follow an outline...

Yes, this about assuming a singular primordial "something" is right on the mark. But this "broader understanding of energy and quality" raises the same objection: The place philosophers won't venture to go is the annihilation of theory. Derrida's is self annihilating (under erasure) and Wittgenstein's Tractatus talks at length about nonsense, as he confesses in that very work.
I take the matter beyond Derrida, I think, for he spent his days lecturing. He should have spent them liberating his own interiority from the constructions of language that occlude the Real, whatever that is. — Constance

By a broader understanding of energy and quality, I’m referring not to theory but to practice. The Tao Te Ching, for example, talks about wu-wei: the indirect relations between perceived intentionality, potential and action. The sage, by understanding the relation between the quality of ideas and the energy of the world, appears not to act, is perceived as incapable of acting, expressing no desire or intention; and yet embodies wisdom.

I can't say I understand "six-dimensional qualitative awareness" or the "triadic relation of energy, quality and logic". I suppose I need to read Rovelli. — Constance

You won’t find it in Rovelli. The terminology you’ve highlighted here is my own. The way I see it, this qualitative change you’re referring to in the world, in which the entire conceptual edifice can be suspended, I describe as a shift in dimensional awareness - from a five-dimensional awareness of value, potential or significance in events, actions and observations, to a six-dimensional awareness of meaning or truth in language, value and conceptual structures.

Geometry has a logical, qualitative structure which we can recognise as both abstract and embodied. How we understand and render geometric structure relies on a perspective position outside: a line is a one-dimensional relation between two points that assumes a perspective position in two dimensions, ie. an awareness/distinction of shape; an object is a three-dimensional relation that assumes a perspective position in four dimensions, ie. an awareness/distinction of time; an event is a four-dimensional relation that assumes a perspective position in five dimensions, ie. an awareness/distinction of value/potential/significance; a language, value or conceptual structure/system is a five-dimensional relation that assumes a perspective position in six dimensions, ie. an awareness/distinction of meaning/truth.

At each of these dimensional levels of awareness, the world is qualitatively different - so much so that there appears to be no way to describe the world consistently. You’ve said that affect takes centre stage and that ideas are distinguished according to meaning at this particular level of ‘openness’, but in order to interact meaningfully with a linear relation, for instance, we need to develop a clear methodology for shifting perspective from meaning to shape and back again, without assuming or losing information.

What I’ve been proposing is a fundamental triadic relation of energy, logic and quality. This leaves nothing to our assumptions, or that cannot possibly be understood in some sense.

Energy, for instance, describes the fundamental quality (difference) of the Shakti-Brahma relation (logic). The aporia here is not between ‘Shakti’ or ‘Brahma’, but in how we embody a flow of energy: thought and affect both playing key roles in our distribution of energy as attention and effort. A logical description of energy such as quantum physics can inform and be informed by this model, dissolving both the question-begging assumptions of physics and the metaphysical ‘woo’ of Hinduism in a meaningful dialectic. The resultant understanding is not theory OR practice, but wisdom.

Science does not inform philosophy unless you are taking a course in the philosophy of science (which is specialized) and philosophy is not speculative science. This is a popular idea because science is very good at advancing technology. But ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson how it is that a brain can reach beyond itself to apprehend Jupiter or a light wave, and he will simply dismiss the question, or get the answer wrong, grounding it in question begging assumptions. Now analytic philosophy (which wants very much not to be wishy washy and get no respect) with its prioritizing of clarity over meaning does move along with science's emerging theories, but this simply delivers the impression that all is well at the base, while at the base there are glaring absurdities.
Continental philosophy brings light to the foundation of understanding, but, as wheels go, it deals in meaning, and meaning does not make a clear mark of its thought, because at the foundation, things lose their confidence and certainty.
Read the first several pages of Husserl's Ideas I to see where philosophy has its authentic grounding: it is aporia. — Constance

Sure - philosophy, if it can be grounded, is grounded in the notion of aporia - the question - which is what motivates science. Science is not the answer that Neil DeGrasse Tyson gives to a question, but the correct process or methodology in asking and answering a question. Science, if it can be grounded, is grounded in the notion of certainty - the answer - which is what motivates philosophy. And philosophy is not the question we ask but a correct process or methodology in asking and answering the question.

But I do agree with your descriptions here of analytical and continental philosophy. Very astute.

Metavalue and metaethics - the Good - refers to the possibility of an ideal relational structure (ie. logic) to this interweaving of energy and quality (in relation to an embodied rationality).
— Possibility

How so? — javra

Meta- means ‘about the thing itself’. Metaethics and metavalue together examine the nature of ethics, judgement and aesthetics from a perspective beyond ‘the Good’, which questions if ‘the Good’ is even possible, and if so, what is the relational structure of ALL that we have not embodied to ask this question: the sum of subjective and affected experience inclusive of, but not confined to, this possibility/impossibility of the Good?

It’s often the notion of energy as a source that keeps getting shifted like a hot potato around philosophical discussions. We talk about ethics as if each of us is not limited beyond intentionality by how we source and arrange any potential to act. We talk about ‘the Good’ as if there is no energy component to it, but won’t acknowledge the incommensurability of attention and effort that necessarily limits any embodied relation to it. So we keep losing track of information, leaving uncertainty or entropy unaccounted for as we carelessly shift focus from one disembodied system description to another. And then we go looking for it, as if we didn’t just leave it behind in the variable uncertainty of the previous embodied relation.

I’m just saying that a moment to take stock of how we’ve arranged these ideas of logic, quality and energy before we shift from one perspective to another can be useful. If there’s no logic in our description of reality (as in Kierkegaard), then we’ve embodied its assumption as a relation to God. If there’s no source of energy accounted for (as in Hegel’s description), then we embody its assumption as an unlimited capacity to act. So when we shift from Hegel to Kierkegaard, then our capacity to act appears limited by the imperfection of our embodied relation to God. Within Kierkegaard’s view of Hegel, then, we’ve suddenly lost the source of motivation to strive for a perfect relation we cannot attain - not realising that this source was simply ‘left behind’ in Hegel’s embodied assumption.

The one philosophical thesis that comes to mind here is pragmatism: In the interior of experience, there is no rational faculty, no reason as such, no logical rules. We call them rules, but this is just a way of categorizing something holistic in its original presence. The entire experience is that out of which reason as a concept is abstracted, but the original whole is some unthinkable aesthetic/reason/sensible/intuitive actuality. And animals have this. — Constance

I think when we talk about logical rules, we refer only to what we can structure within language, recognising that there’s more to logic than that - that is, there is a relational structure to ethics, and to values, which is reasonable beyond the logic within language. That is, it has to do with the qualitative structure of affect and the limits of energy and perceived potential in an embodied experience.

But it is not reason that is front and center; it is value. Metavalue and metaethics. That is, the Good. — Constance

Couldn’t agree with this more – be it from a modern or ancient pov regarding reason, or anything in between. But then, some further thoughts:

If there cannot be any reasoning that is not dependent upon metavalue, upon the Good, then can one find any alternative conclusion to that of the Good as metavalue in some way determining all reasoning? (for clarity, I take it we both understand the Good to not be a personhood) — javra

Metavalue and metaethics - the Good - refers to the possibility of an ideal relational structure (ie. logic) to this interweaving of energy and quality (in relation to an embodied rationality). If logic is not front and centre, then it’s the system you embody in order to describe what is.

Threats are very basic, but promises, now that stretches witnessed behavior to a point beyond. What is a promise, essentially? One has to dismiss knowledge of the conditional form, the counter factual: promises are logically complex, for one has to be able to conceive of a broken promise, and here, there is the anticipated event that does not materialize, and there is disappointment. Clearly, anticipation is part of the promising construction, and there is no doubt dogs anticipate, just as mice and lizards do. But broken promises, or fulfilled ones, are not simply about anticipations, about my anticipating another's behavior. — Constance

Agreed. By promise I’m referring to Sparky caring about an anticipated event, and trusting in its relation to the sounds we make. You break this trust enough times, and the sounds start to lose their significance for Sparky. I knew a kelpie once who would respond only to her caregiver’s voice. She could also follow hand signals that even contradicted his voice commands (he’d taught her to ‘stay’ beside a pretty girl on the beach while he called her repeatedly - a neat trick).

But why this absolute rationality taking center stage? Rationalism and telos is always a bankrupt idea because reason has no value, that is, a rational perfection refers to form, structure of thought only and carries no weight beyond this. Just an empty vessel, reason. It is only when something in the world is in play that purpose and meaning are brought in. This is why I insist on a qualitative "leap" into a deeper understanding of the world that philosophy can uncover. My tentative claim is that language and its logic is only pragmatically meaningful: its mission, if you will, is to realize value, and this puts the burden of meaning on aesthetics. The Good, Wittgenstein said, is what he calls divinity. He is not talking about contingent goodness, but something profound he thinks is above language. Of course, he was right and wrong about this. — Constance

I don’t believe it is necessarily taking centre stage - there are always the three ideas in play, among which we assume an embodied position. If we focus on quality (a paradox) as origin, then the distinction is between energy (as the idea of an absolute source) and logic (as the idea of absolute rationality). If we focus on logic (absolute rationality) as origin, then the relation is between energy (essence) and quality (ethics). And if we focus on energy (flow) as origin, then the dynamic is between quality (ideas) and logic (structure).

Meaning, value, actuality, etc is then attributed as we are embodied in the system.

So a description of the world as rationalism and telos necessarily assumes a subjective, affected perspective or relativity - and any attempt to point this out will be rejected. This affected subjectivity - the embodied position - is what’s missing from the system description.

Wittgenstein explored the dynamic between thinking and logic within a language system, and recognised that just as there is more to the structure or logic of reality than language, there is also more to the quality of ideas (aesthetics) than thinking (within language). What’s missing from his system description is also energy - much like the Tao Te Ching - rendering it only pragmatically meaningful. It’s not just language and its logic, but an embodied, practical awareness of their limitations, that realise meaningfulness in interaction with the world.

Kierkegaard, on the other hand, assumes a perfectly rational singularity (God), so your jump to ethics in his relation to Hegel makes sense. Everything evolves according to Hegel, so reason in his abstraction cannot realise this eternal rationality (pure reason) that Kierkegaard assumes. Nor can it, in Kierkegaard’s subjective philosophy, ever determine the ethical rationality (practical reason) that Hegel assumes.
— Possibility

You would have to tell me why you think K thinks like this. He doesn't hold those things. — Constance

Not that Kierkegaard thinks like this, but that his system description is rendered complete only in relation to an embodied existence of eternal rationality, a position he necessarily assumes by omitting it from his description.

I'm talking about the foundational place of language to the world. I have been arguing that beneath anything we say there is the impossible unutterable noumena which is not outside of experience at all. Phenomena are actually noumenal entities. But what makes something noumenal? It is not that it is beyond language, but rather, only beyond language in its, to speak Hegelese, Zeitgeist, which actually reflects Kierkegaard's concept of sin. Sin (but put aside the Christian thinking here) is essentially being possessed by culture, but the manner of conceiving of sin is important: It is an existential break from something primordial. Heidegger will later dismiss K's religiousness, but move forward with this "break" saying K is right, we in our normal assimilated ways of living according to "the they" which is the thoughts that circulate so freely and dominate throughout society in the form of given institutions and ideas, are out of touch with something deeply important. He thinks there is some nonalienated original condition. — Constance

The aim of philosophy is to ultimately embody the logical methodology or ideal relation between inner and outer system. If we are to accurately describe this using language and logic, then we need to include in our description, as Wittgenstein and the TTC have done, a purely practical method for embodying an inner/outer relation to the ‘impossible unutterable noumena’ assumed by the description. Without this practice, any understanding of the methodology is incomplete.

From Kierkegaard’s perspective, the assumption is that God already occupies this non-alienated, original condition, and that we merely dance around it. Any embodied relation we may have to this ‘impossible, unutterable noumena’ is subjective, affected and illogical. He relies on Hegel’s description, with its assumption of the open-ended progress of time/energy (a device Heidegger also relies on in his own way), to demonstrate the anxiety of our condition. Without this temporal relation, Kierkegaard’s description lacks directional attention and effort, rendering our condition eternally absurd.

Thus, pain is, prior to being taken up in science, in evolutionary theory, in talk about energy, or "moving away from logic toward action," I am saying, given to us as a conditioned term, blunted by language's tendency bring all things down to a familiar level (they they, or das man, as Heideggger puts it). Language makes us forget, reduces the world to familar terms. We don't think this is so because we are IN this zeitgeist, and it takes philosophy to see it. — Constance

Do you believe we can talk about pain as an unconditioned term? Pain is a quality, as I described, but alternatively it’s a logical relation between attention and effort, or a motivation to alter relational structure. There’s no one way to interpret pain, but perhaps there is a correct methodology to align our condition with an ideal origin, and in doing so unconditionally understand pain.

One has to be careful with Kierkegaard, making him sound like a rationalist. It is not that he thinks God is logically assumed, but that God is conceived as an actuality that is intimated in childhood, and realized (bringing in sin by this) later as an incompleteness that is evidenced by the calling, the existential anxiety which is realized int eh fateful moment when a person reaches self awareness and affirms this incompleteness in her existence. It is an existential dialectic, not a logical one. — Constance

Again, not that he consciously thinks this, but that his system description automatically assumes a logical embodied position. And logical not within language, but in the sense of a complete (absolute) relation. But I do heed your warning, nonetheless.