Jung, Logos, Venus and Mars
A discussion over in the EOG causation thread made me think of Logos. There are as many definitions of Logos as there are philosophers and psychologists. The interpretation from Carl Jung intrigued me.
It got me to thinking about the differences between the sexes (I'm hoping Reply to Possibility will offer a contribution).
I never really bought into the idea that men and women were that diametrically opposed (men from mars; women from venus). And that's what intrigued me about Jung's interpretation, as taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Jung's_analytical_psychology here:
Jung contrasted the critical and rational faculties of logos with the emotional, non-reason oriented and mythical elements of eros. In Jung's approach, logos vs eros can be represented as "science vs mysticism", or "reason vs imagination" or "conscious activity vs the unconscious".
For Jung, logos represented the masculine principle of rationality, in contrast to its feminine counterpart, eros:
Woman’s psychology is founded on the principle of Eros, the great binder and loosener, whereas from ancient times the ruling principle ascribed to man is Logos. The concept of Eros could be expressed in modern terms as psychic relatedness, and that of Logos as objective interest.
Jung attempted to equate logos and eros, his intuitive conceptions of masculine and feminine consciousness, with the alchemical Sol and Luna. Jung commented that in a man the lunar anima and in a woman the solar animus has the greatest influence on consciousness. Jung often proceeded to analyze situations in terms of "paired opposites", e.g. by using the analogy with the eastern yin and yang and was also influenced by the Neoplatonists.
In his book Mysterium Coniunctionis Jung made some important final remarks about anima and animus:
In so far as the spirit is also a kind of "window on eternity".. it conveys to the soul a certain influx divinus... and the knowledge of a higher system of the world, wherein consists precisely its supposed animation of the soul.
And in this book Jung again emphasized that the animus compensates eros, while the anima' compensates logos.
In my opinion, there seems to be two camps at work here; the diametrically opposed attributes, and/or complimentary attributes. The opposing attributes include things like the appeal to femininity from the man's view, and the appeal toward masculinity for the woman. In other words, it is safe to say that men and women like each other's "homeostasis" , and what they have to offer intrinsic to their gender differences(?).
And so, should we gravitate toward, and value, the Venus in the female, and the Mar's in the male? Or should we simply say no to that, and instead embrace the 'complimentary', and/or conclude men and women are basically the same and really and simply both want the same things?
It got me to thinking about the differences between the sexes (I'm hoping Reply to Possibility will offer a contribution).
I never really bought into the idea that men and women were that diametrically opposed (men from mars; women from venus). And that's what intrigued me about Jung's interpretation, as taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Jung's_analytical_psychology here:
Jung contrasted the critical and rational faculties of logos with the emotional, non-reason oriented and mythical elements of eros. In Jung's approach, logos vs eros can be represented as "science vs mysticism", or "reason vs imagination" or "conscious activity vs the unconscious".
For Jung, logos represented the masculine principle of rationality, in contrast to its feminine counterpart, eros:
Woman’s psychology is founded on the principle of Eros, the great binder and loosener, whereas from ancient times the ruling principle ascribed to man is Logos. The concept of Eros could be expressed in modern terms as psychic relatedness, and that of Logos as objective interest.
Jung attempted to equate logos and eros, his intuitive conceptions of masculine and feminine consciousness, with the alchemical Sol and Luna. Jung commented that in a man the lunar anima and in a woman the solar animus has the greatest influence on consciousness. Jung often proceeded to analyze situations in terms of "paired opposites", e.g. by using the analogy with the eastern yin and yang and was also influenced by the Neoplatonists.
In his book Mysterium Coniunctionis Jung made some important final remarks about anima and animus:
In so far as the spirit is also a kind of "window on eternity".. it conveys to the soul a certain influx divinus... and the knowledge of a higher system of the world, wherein consists precisely its supposed animation of the soul.
And in this book Jung again emphasized that the animus compensates eros, while the anima' compensates logos.
In my opinion, there seems to be two camps at work here; the diametrically opposed attributes, and/or complimentary attributes. The opposing attributes include things like the appeal to femininity from the man's view, and the appeal toward masculinity for the woman. In other words, it is safe to say that men and women like each other's "homeostasis" , and what they have to offer intrinsic to their gender differences(?).
And so, should we gravitate toward, and value, the Venus in the female, and the Mar's in the male? Or should we simply say no to that, and instead embrace the 'complimentary', and/or conclude men and women are basically the same and really and simply both want the same things?
Comments (125)
I ought to mention that "Jung's analytical psychology" should, by his own analysis be called "Jung's male psychology".
Where I start with this is to notice that we are talking about identifications. so we are talking about categories, definitions and binaries. I could say that since I am male, everything that I am, and everything I do is male, and proper to masculinity. Doing housework wearing lipstick and dresses and pushing prams and hugging other men, are masculine because men do them. Such is primary identity security.
But we don't do it like that. Instead, we cover up the genital reality, and perform and conform to an idea of what has come to be associated with the gender we are forbidden from directly displaying or even mentioning. So there is this seemingly inevitable dichotomising of absolutely everything into contrasting signifiers of gender. Colour (pink and blue), dress, mannerisms, are just the beginning: __ men are analytical and women are ... continental??? The ultimate folly being the serious analogising in a psychology book that male and female are so different as to be incomprehensible to each other - asif from different planets
The significance of these more or less arbitrary divisions is enormous, a matter of life and death quite often. But because they are arbitrary, our conformity to these stereotypes leaves us with an unexpressed internal 'other'; animus and anima. And these actually rule our lives most of the time, while we deny their existence. Consider, for example the analytical skills versus the emotional outbursts of our current batch of hyper-masculine leaders.
Unen!
Thanks for the contribution, and your thoughts. Lots to unpack here. But, I couldn't help but underscore your quote by recognizing its significance.
The old gender stereotype's of women having the market on emotions seems outdated. In fact, probably a lie endorsed by the rubrics of the time. As you so well pointed out (not to get too political here) the archetype of the current potus having very thin skin and often overreactive seemingly out of pure emotion and/or insecurity about his abilities, is a pretty bold example.
Also, consider that men and women are both sentient creatures, but having different goals and motivations (to their sentience). For instance, men might be more apt to get defensive over their lack of mechanical skills, coordination or sports abilities, while women might get more defensive over their clothing choices, their choice in men, or their children's misbehavior. I think the short answer to the distinction there is that both sexes just manifest their emotions differently.
But the important point is the self-awareness that comes with being an emotional creature or Being. I remember talking with a good friend of mine who's a retired engineer. And we were talking about self-awareness as it relates to being in a business meeting. He said in so many words 'its all about feelings'. Of course, one must wear whichever hat/multitask is required to get'r-done, but yes, we all just want to be loved and recognized. The balancing act between emotion and Logos is an ongoing process... .
Not sure what you mean by this; some of us have penises and some of us have vaginas, a few of us have something a bit ambiguous - is that brute existence?
Indeed. The truth in freedom speaks volumes. Ideally, at least... .
Rudyard Kipling was inclined to pontificate boldly about the differences between men and women as well--just read The Female of the Species. Notably, Rudy even seems to make a similar distinction between them in that poem as Jung does with his logos and eros. Did it occur to them that what they thought the distinction was merely reflected what those of their time of a certain status thought it was, what they were used to, and so what they thought it should be? Great Proclaimers have few doubts.
I don't know if Jung was that dogmatic about his pigeonholes of human nature and psychological types. But he was an Analytical psychologist, and categorizing is what they do. It's a way of simplifying something that is too vast and vaguely understood to be dealt with as an undifferentiated whole. He was basically inventing his own brand of scientific/empirical Psychology, as opposed to the former philosophical/literary theories of mind, from scratch.
Be that as it may, most non-scientists prefer to think in terms of simple dichotomies, such as Male/Female. But modern cosmopolitan societies have smashed together so many incompatible notions of human nature, that the ancient binary designation of M/F now seems quaint. The PC terminology is still evolving, but today there seems to be an infinity of sub-categories between M & F. When I was young, there were only three possibilities : Male, Female, and Other (queer). But today that "Other" slot has a whole alphabet of subtle non-binary designations : e.g. LGBTQ+. And the implication, in some liberated circles, is that Gender is merely a biological suggestion, and that Sexual Identity is a personal lifestyle choice.
So, it's not surprising that you can no longer see the male/female thing in black & white terms, as Jung did. But the Logos vs Eros and Mars vs Venus conceptual categories are still useful as a starting point for understanding alien ways of thinking and behaving. Men's & Women's advice columnists have for years struggled to answer timeless gender mysteries, such as "why can't a man be more like a woman?", or "what does a woman want?" Yet, ultimately, only in a long-term long-suffering marriage, can wives & husband learn to read the opaque mind of their significant Other. Short-term "partners" should be content to enjoy the sex, and don't worry about "what she/he's thinking". :smile:
For me, it’s about embracing the complementary as it comes. There are ways that I am ‘typically’ female, and ways that I am not - and you won’t know which ‘typical’ traits pertain to me until you get to know me. Definitions are a start to understanding each other, but they should never be considered the whole story. They’re a basic level of information, from which we develop a more complex relational structure. Men and women are different in the sense that everyone is different, and cannot be assumed to want the same things. The ‘typical’ distinctions between us are based on ‘fuzzy’ conceptual patterns, not on inherent divisions.
So, whether you start with the view that men and women are basically the same, that they complement each other, or that they are two different species is not as important as recognising that your perspective should never be assumed accurate on a person-by-person basis. It comes down to how uncertainly you’re willing to interact with the world, because from my perspective, all three of these have an element of truth to them.
There is a large amount of male-female difference that comes down to historical roles and how this has affected experience, and with that language and conceptual structures. Our social and cultural reality has evolved differently, and so we tend to experience the world differently - but none of this is inherent or fixed.
My view on gender is that there is: a basic genital distinction, inclusive of both/neither, from birth, that then biologically develops the body from ten; a conceptual or social/cultural identification of role that can vary, and develops rapidly through language and experience to structure the self-identity that emerges around twelve; and a chemical-based sexual orientation range that starts to develop during puberty. This complexity doesn’t lend itself to a simple binary or even linear distinction, and any attempt to shoehorn individuals into neat compartments is bound to confuse. That’s humanity for you.
Gnomon!
Indeed, I'm not married to Jung, but like most so-called axioms or theories we study, there are usually at least more than a few good takeaway's from them. He theorized about a few 'archetypes' concerning men and women, one of which he called The Persona:
[i]The persona is how we present ourselves to the world. The word "persona" is derived from a Latin word that literally means "mask." It is not a literal mask, however.
The persona represents all of the different social masks that we wear among various groups and situations. It acts to shield the ego from negative images. According to Jung, the persona may appear in dreams and take different forms.
Over the course of development, children learn that they must behave in certain ways in order to fit in with society's expectations and norms. The persona develops as a social mask to contain all of the primitive urges, impulses, and emotions that are not considered socially acceptable.
The persona archetype allows people to adapt to the world around them and fit in with the society in which they live. However, becoming too closely identified with this archetype can lead people to lose sight of their true selves.[/i]
Gnomon, what was interesting there, was this notion of loosing one's true self, this one very important concept or takeaway to be considered in both the discovery and uncovery of Being ( A Maslonian phrase which I've always liked).
Quoting Gnomon
Yes. Me personally, I'm happily heterosexual and love women. Which, is another reason why I raised this question of Venus v. Mars. The dichotomy is not only the differences between the sexes themselves (masculinity and femininity) but the stereotypes that have presented themselves throughout the ages.
Take stoicism for example. We know that basically during the fall of Roman empire it was used a philosophy of coping; physiological coping skills, in order to get through harsh/tough/difficult times. Thus we have seen this perpetuated in some instances, and taken to extremes to where it becomes a repression of healthy emotions and expression of same. And so in the face of men v. women, simple communication about one's feelings go a long way in maintaining a healthy relationship. Easier said than done I know... .
Quoting Gnomon
In principle, I suppose it's a shame that going through long-term suffering sharpens the iron as they say, as apposed to already going into the relationship with the knowledge and tools of self-awareness.
Possibility!
Generally take no exceptions to your thoughts and concerns. The aforementioned quote speaks to the concern of rubrics, as well as the argument about the downside to the perpetuation of stoicism (I've met women who are very stoic).
I think the means-to-the-end there would be the expression of feelings/differences . And that leads to the theory that we all want to feel good about our relationships. So if we want to feel good about our relationships, we have to express those feelings of wants and needs, and so on, that may uncover those differences you mention, I suppose.
One thing that I think is quite pervasive in society, is this notion of power. My experience has revealed that there are both women man-haters, as well as men woman-haters out there. The reasons for that are numerous (such as childhood experiences, dysfunctional environments, no parental guidance, etc.) but generally fall back into the category of human pathologies. It's a bit perplexing as to why men and women need to be 'controlling' and/or who are intrinsically adversarial toward their partner's for whom they have supposed love.
Quoting 3017amen
I find it interesting that you use the term ‘stoicism’ to describe this lack of communication about one’s feelings. I don’t think communication is as ‘simple’ as that. It’s not just about expressing, but about noticing, listening and hearing, too. When I mention differences in language and conceptual structures, what I’m referring to is this sense that we are expressing feelings, but they’re not being interpreted as wants and needs. Rather they’re taken as personal attacks: criticism or entrapment or anger or bitterness. And when those wants and needs expressed but not heard fail to be validated, are turned against us or dismissed as overreaction, etc, then we eventually give up on expressing those feelings. And then the relationship breaks down, and the partner is left wondering why these feelings were never ‘communicated’. This occurs as much (sometimes more) with men as it does with women.
We rarely express feelings as a conscious, targeted communication, so it’s never in a form designed to be understood by a specific audience. It’s in our own ‘native’ emotional language. Some tend to ‘act out’ their feelings, while others dress them up in ‘respectable’ language. Part of developing a relationship is learning to recognise our partner’s unconscious ‘native’ language, so that when they express those feelings of wants and needs, we learn to pay attention, and at least make an effort to understand. Sometimes it helps to just ask for a ‘translation’, so to speak. It’s not so much about our feelings being automatically understood, but about the communication process itself: awareness, connection and eventually collaboration. It takes two.
The great Roman Stoics lived during the ascent of the Empire, actually. Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius lived in the first and second centuries A.C. or C.E. Marcus, the last of them, died in 180. That's not to say there were no Stoics during the long fall of the Western Empire or subsequently in antiquity. There were plenty I would think, as Stoicism and Epicureanism were the dominant philosophical viewpoints during the Empire, until neo-platonism started to spread and the Christian emperors began the relentless extinguishment of pagan philosophy along with pagan religions. The Stoics, though, didn't teach the repression of emotions. Instead, stoic practice involved (and still involves) methods by which to lessen the influence and effect of negative emotions (such as fear and anger) and promote tranquility.
Thanks for your contribution CW!
Exception taken as noted. While I agree that part of what was also taught, was that one cannot fret over things they cannot control, and thus 'repression' of emotions per say wasn't the intention, I also submit it became an unintended consequence nonetheless. In the real world of so-called pragmatics (or maybe ignorance), many people interpreted it incorrectly or translated it to mean the virtues of keeping a stiff upper lip.
And so, I'm not sure what's being taught in public schools, but the old-school stereotypical male who is always supposed to keep a stiff upper lip in order to provide for a gender specific Logos, should at the very least, be made aware of those differences. We have to halves of our brain to make whole, if you know what I mean vern.
Otherwise, I think we run the danger of what Jung posited relative to an unhealthy Persona.
Possibility!
Point well taken. There's a complexity relative to the human condition for sure. As you suggest, there's also the receiver who receives the information communicated. But my point is, if feelings are not communicated to begin with (say due to the stereotype's/rubrics of stoicism that seems to be popular) then how does one assume agreement is reached? You have to be able to communicate effectively, and even sometimes using simple English like 'I feel sad because' or,' I feel happy because'. Otherwise, people will act-out in deleterious ways... .
Also, to your other point, no matter how hard you try to qualify and soften your delivery, if the person still gets defensive (taken as personal attacks), who's at fault there? And so, this notion of keeping a stiff upper lip that seems so prevalent might work in war, in economic or political chaos, and so forth but, in a relationship it's doubtful it has the same effectiveness/benefits.
So what I'm saying there is the many forms of stoicism seems to be the root cause (and interpreted incorrectly by the masses) of this failure to listen because 'I don't want to go there', and 'neither should you go there' seems to be alive and [un]well! Accordingly, I can't imagine how two introvert's sustain a relationship unless they are clones, which is a whole different discussion in itself (what does compatibility really mean).
Quoting Possibility
I'm a little concerned about that. Actually, it's just a bit alarming (if I'm interpreting it correctly), that the jist of your argument relates to the male/female playing a metaphorical Let's Make a Deal word game, where there is this sort of interminable question-answer game of cat and mouse every time someone speaks. You seem to be suggesting that partners somehow aught to waste an extraordinary amount of intellectual energy to play this game of deciphering what the other person means (what's behind door number one). Am I wrong here?
This 'learning to recognize the other partner's unconscious' is disturbing. It comes across as an endorsement of taking no personal responsibility for one's own self-awareness, but rather shifts that onto their partner. I hope I'm wrong here, so maybe I'm not interpreting what you're saying correctly?
(In the context of a geopolitical or social debate, it seems more appropriate to advocate your position or theory, but not in the context of loved one's/interpersonal relationships... .)
It became a kind of caricature, useful to opponents of the school and, much more recently, accepted by those who came to think of Stoics as being Vulcans of a sort. But yes, the common definition of "stoic" came to be a person who can endure pain and injury without showing any feeling. Rather like the word "epicurean" came to be associated with "hedonist."
:up: :up:
Yes. We all adapt our "true selves" to our social situation by wearing suitable personas. Unfortunately, homosexuals, being persona non grata in most traditional societies, probably begin to lose their essential sense of self while hiding behind a more acceptable mask. Unfortunately, some "flaming gays" are so driven by their biological "Venusian" essence that the mask doesn't fool anybody. So, in order to survive, I suspect that they "act the fool" in order to appear as inoffensive as possible. :cool:
Actually, for most humans, Complexity does lend itself to simple classification. So our innate complex non-binary & non-linear personas tend to "confuse" the average human, who finds simple black & white categories easier to deal with. The human brain seems to have evolved to form simple categories (definitions), in simple slowly-changing tribal social environments. Those who don't fit neatly into conventional binary categories, typically adapted by wearing persona masks in public.
It's only in our modern cosmopolitan & democratic societies that binary thinkers have been forced to deal with graded shades of race, gender, and religion. For those we call "prejudiced", socializing with non-conformers is not worth the effort. So, they try to act as-if that confusing complexity does not exist. And calling their subjective true-view "unjust", just confuses them all the more. Hopefully, as time goes by, the primitive natural human brain will catch-up to our rapidly-changing modern cultures.
Personally, I am an introvert in an extroverted world, so I've learned over the years to wear a somewhat extroverted persona. But, when I'm alone, which is most of the time, I retreat into my innate turtle shell. Some casual acquaintances, seeing my chatty & hand-waving mask, wouldn't recognize my hidden & isolated "true self". :smile:
You are describing the "communication gap" that marriage counselors and self-help gurus have been talking about for years. It's the basis of the Mars/Venus metaphor. And it's also the reason for Jung's categorization of anima/animus. If men tend to express their ideas in abstract "rational" terms, and women express their feelings in concrete "emotional" terms, there will often be a failure to communicate.
"He/she doesn't understand me" is a common complaint. So understanding the innate biological differences underlying mental behavior is necessary to bridge the gap. Many shaky marriages are salvaged because the female feels the problem. and works to learn the language of the clueless male. :joke:
Mars/Venus : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Are_from_Mars,_Women_Are_from_Venus
“I know that you believe that you think you understand what you thought you heard me say, but what you don't realize is that what you heard is not what I meant.” ___ Alan Greenspan?
Gnomon!
I agree to the extend that no matter what you are (heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) that one should always try to be themselves and strive to be the most authentic to other's. IMO, I think that's the real takeaway there. Jung, Maslow, Freud and others were instrumental in bringing that phenomena to light.
You and Gnomon spoke about a ‘long-suffering marriage’, in which we learn to read our partner’s ‘opaque mind’. I think it’s more about learning to recognise the significance of experiences for them (not just for the opposite sex in general), and to make inroads to understanding without expecting to master it anytime soon. Life itself is ‘long-suffering’ - we predict interactions and learn from, are informed by, the difference between what it could be and what it seems, never really certain of what it IS at any one time.
The way I see it, Stoicism in the philosophical sense isn’t so much about a ‘stiff upper lip’ or enduring pain without expressing feelings at all (that’s a limited view), but about learning to be aware of feelings BEFORE we express them, rather than after, and evaluating the effectiveness of options for expression in terms of the timing, language, situation, target, etc of our interaction. It’s an awareness that there is more going on than simply stimulus-response, and that we can always strive to see the bigger picture and understand why people are motivated towards judgement, desire or inclination.
Quoting 3017amen
This is a misunderstanding. Our partner’s unconscious language is how they express feelings before becoming aware of them. I’m not saying we need to understand or decipher this language, only learn to recognise it as an expression of feelings, not as an attack, and communicate this recognition to them. When we do that, we offer an opportunity for our partner to communicate their feelings (this time with the aim to be understood), rather than just emote.
I understand the defensiveness when confronted with an emotional outburst, but a partnership isn’t about who holds the power or the high ground - it’s about developing a mutual potential. We reflect our partner’s experiences back to them without judgement, so they might develop the self-awareness they need.
You’re not their therapist - I’m not saying anyone should aim to ‘fix’ a partner who demonstrates a disfunctional lack of self-awareness - but if you’re searching for a partner who can express every feeling they have consciously with “I feel happy/sad because...” then you’re not after a human being. Few of us are as self-aware as we assume we are - neither are we as rational as we assume. Often we need to be told we’re acting cranky or irritable or flat by someone who is accustomed to how we normally behave, so we learn to recognise when something’s off-balance before it gets out of hand. I think it’s part of how we look after each other.
Yep, no exceptions taken Possibility!
Quoting Possibility
Yep, no exceptions taken. However, 'just emoting' is okay too, as long as it's understood that way. In other words, wanting to just vent emotions can be therapeutic (I've learned that being a musician).
Quoting Possibility
Sure, and thanks for clarifying that as well as the entire argument here. To underscore this point though, it almost begs the question of compatibility. We know in a long term relationship couples can grow apart, together, or somewhere in between, and still make it work. While other's of course, choose not to make it work. My question is, how do you distinguish between what is a normal amount of deciphering and/or engaging in an extraordinary/extraneous amount of same?
I ask this for obvious reasons, because spending an inordinate amount of intellectual energy being a person's therapist is not a good thing.
By the way, what's been your take on the Venus/Mar's thing? Do we all just want the same thing ( we just manifest them differently) or do we want different things? Perhaps in your earlier replies, you've suggested a combination or hybrid of sorts, based upon each individual's (their subjective truth) wants and needs... .
I suppose then, in any case, by being aware of who you are or embracing the true-to-thyself (as Aristotle suggested/'know thyself') ethos, the responsibility needs to be shared by both parties.
Yes. Critics of Stoicism of course claim that we can't control our emotions, and that no real distinction can be drawn between things in our control and those outside our control. Stoicism is a discipline, though, and requires study of our emotions/feelings, the reasons for them and their consequences, and the development of judgment and perspective. So, Marcus Aurelius' so-called Meditations are properly considered a part of that discipline, a practice (as Hadot says); a sort of training. Thinking, reasoning, practicing, one does what one can.
I haven't heard it put that way before, but I agree. :smile:
I think there’s a difference between creative catharsis and ‘just emoting’ - it’s in how we direct our interactions. By ‘just emoting’ I’m referring to a failure to make any conscious choice in how we act out, particularly in who bears the brunt of our emotional outburst and why. Like when we snap at our partner after a crappy day at work. When you choose music as an avenue to vent emotions, it can also be therapeutic for those who listen - or thoughtful towards those who might otherwise cop an earful.
Quoting 3017amen
For me, it’s not a question of how much deciphering, but how much effort and attention we commit to awareness, connection and collaboration regardless of whether we can translate. I don’t think there’s a normative value you can put on this - it’s relative to how much each of us has available, given the other crap we need to deal with in our lives at the time, and what this relationship means in the midst of that. Relationships are a negotiation of effort and attention requirements - sometimes there’s enough to sustain the relationship, sometimes there isn’t, and sometimes one area of the relationship requires more effort and attention for a time. Communicating which areas need work, and how much effort and attention we have available between us, is all part of the negotiation.
I think you would be surprised at the fundamental similarities of expressing emotion. The expression of emotion can be manifested in different genres (angry metal/happy pop), and also in another way it can be manifested by random free ranging improvisation. In both cases an emotional purging is experienced from both the performer and listener.
With respect to communication, tolerance, etc. relative to the so called extraneous deciphering... , points well taken Possibly!!
The similarities are not lost on me. Creative catharsis is an expression of awareness, connection and collaboration between one’s qualitative potential (including feelings, fears, memories and ability) and that of sound, words or materials. Even if you never fully understand what it means, you can relate to it as a valuable expression of human experience and potential, as the artist and/or observer. The ‘relief’ in this form of catharsis comes from our collaborative achievement with the instrument/sound and through that collaboration with the listener, not from ‘releasing emotion’ as such - although it is commonly described that way.
‘Emoting’ is affected action - not all such actions are initiated with awareness, connection or collaboration between our feelings, abilities, etc and the potential of how, where or to whom we direct that action. Sometimes it’s simply striking out randomly at the world, but to equate that ‘expression of emotion’ with music is to downplay the significance of the choices you make at the level of potential to direct your affected action.
Mars/Venus was revolutionary at the time. The idea is that our experience of the world is different, and so we can’t expect our cultural and social reality to be the same. But it’s never as simple as reducing everything to a single binary. Rather, it’s just a warning to expect different patterns in how anyone else interacts with the world at the level of language and thinking and emotion - instead of assuming deficiency.
We not only want different things, what we want changes with our experience of the world - it means something different as we grow and interact, both as an organism and as a species. I don’t agree with essentialism, personally - the best we can do is relate possible meaning to variable patterns of potential and value that enable us to predict our interactions with the world as accurately as possible from our limited perspective. It’s not very comforting, but it’s workable.
Not in the philosophy of Chrissie Hynde:
[i]So, if you're mad, get mad
Don't hold it all inside
Come on and talk to me now
Hey, what you got to hide
I get angry too
Well I'm a lot like you[/i]
Perhaps, a dichotomous disparity between the sexes that nevertheless seeks unity, or a harmonious enigma that requires understanding.
In either case, this seems to be paradoxical. Why should opposing forces attract (?). This would violate the universal laws of attraction. Metaphorically, the saint would not want to be the devil. Nor would the devil want to be the saint.
Or, maybe not :chin:
You seem to be advocating for classic yin-yang of the Tao.
There’s a tendency in American culture to polarise: freedom vs governance, black vs white, red vs blue, masculine vs feminine, dominance vs submission, etc. American culture identifies itself in a defensive position against a worldview, even if they deign to acknowledge an element of it as necessary (a la yin-yang). The yin-yang symbol can be mistaken as a call to surround and control this opposing element, and to ‘rescue’ those of our own trapped on the ‘other side’. As a result, the subtle subversiveness of ‘fifty shades of grey’ has been almost completely overlooked.
Men and women are alike in some ways and different in others, but there is no defensive position to be constructed that protects your identity as ‘masculine’. If you focus only on our differences, then you ignore the many ways that we are alike and want the same thing; and if you focus only on those ways we are alike, then you ignore the many ways that we are different (not opposing). There is no attribute you can suggest that I have not seen demonstrated in both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ identities to some extent.
Of course. This is one of the main tenets of Maslow's existential ethos. Rather than repudiate the opposites, one must not dichotomize but instead, integrate them.
Quite honestly, it is easy to fall into this trap. With all due respect, in the objectification of women thread, you did exactly that. You dichotomized mental agency by repudiating material agency. You seemingly renounced one in favor of the other. Don't mean to put you on the chopping block, but instead, wanted to make you aware.
Quoting Possibility
In what context are we referring to? Meaning if one were to seek integration of opposites (the virtues of and the male appreciation of, femininity in a woman) is that not a good thing?
On the other hand, some men are attracted to tomboy's or women who are less feminine ( I'm extremely attracted to feminine women). And too, if one were to adopt the belief system that we all just want clones of ourselves, then seemingly we are back to "we all just want the same thing" and the Venus-Mars archetype goes away (or at least its significance is diminished). That all seems so paradoxical, no?
In other words, existentially, do our masculine and feminine features simply provide for the attraction to our objective agency/reality, along with our (existential) wants and needs remaining basically the same (?). And in that sense, our mental agency/immaterial reality seems to be related to our hormonal idiosyncrasies that simply requires understanding (or using your term 'decyphering').
I’m aware of your accusation, but I didn’t dichotomise agency - that was you. ‘Material agency’ is a term used in reference to historical and cultural objects, not people. In that sense, material ‘agency’ is a misnomer. The agency is not inherent in the material, it’s in the potentiality of past interactions with humans. As such, it was irrelevant to the topic - unless you were advocating objectification of human beings, of course.
Quoting 3017amen
Men and women are NOT opposites. As long as we see them as such, we are not integrating. Your preference for women you categorise as ‘feminine’ is conceptual. I’d be surprised to hear any man say they’re attracted to women who are ‘less feminine’ - I imagine that’s your own interpretation. The features they consider ‘feminine’ are likely different to yours. There are certain differences and aesthetics that have the potential to attract my attention and effort, but to say that I’m attracted to ‘masculine’ men would seem to dichotomise my own identity as ‘feminine’, and imply that those men I’m not attracted to are somehow ‘less masculine’ in some objective sense, when it’s only that I categorise them as such. That’s not integrating at all.
Different is not opposite. Diversity is multi-dimensional. Categories and the concepts they refer to provide scaffolding to help us understand our interactions, but they are not reality.
You can be in denial of that and that's okay. And neither are you reconciling your definition of material agency. Materialism comprise material agencies. You seem to be in denial of that fact as well. Further, using your concept, if a family portrait or photograph is a "cultural object", then you would be mistaken. Logos is intellect; Venus and Mars are objects (mental agency and material agency). So it's not a misnomer.
Quoting Possibility
In what ways are men and women the same? In their wants and needs?
Quoting Possibility
Quite honestly I see you as conceptualizing too much. You seem to be denying the aesthetical appeal from the opposing sexes ( women's innate desire for a masculine man and men's innate desire for a feminine woman).
Quoting Possibility
I'm left with your logic that seems to suggest that all men should be attracted to butch looking women. Otherwise, and similarly, you seem to be saying you're attracted to feminine men, if I'm understanding that correctly. How's that define the fact that men and women both want the same things?
This is getting repetitive: different is NOT opposite. A man and a woman can be alike in many ways, but we focus our attention and effort on the differences (particularly in relation to wants and needs) because that’s the way our brains interact with the information available - we look for the potential in others to fulfil the outstanding wants and needs in ourselves. What we also deny in ourselves, we seek in our relationships with others.
There is a tendency to assume that our attraction to what is different is so that we integrate two ‘opposites’ into a whole being or existence. But we are not opposites, and we shouldn’t be expected to ‘complete’ each other in the sense that our wants and needs are fixed into certain categories so that when we ‘have’ the right partner we can feel whole. This way of thinking ignores the capacity we have to learn from each other and integrate these differences in ourselves. Each of my previous partners has taught me something about myself and my interactions with others that has served me for future interactions - in some cases, it has taken years and repeated exposure to similar pain for me to integrate that information, but it’s been worth the effort and attention.
To ‘complement’ is not just a temporal event, but an ongoing capacity to integrate information: ‘the difference that makes a difference’. It’s not a dance of opposites, but an atemporal sharing of information through awareness, connection and collaboration at the dimensional levels of value/potential and meaning/relation.
Quoting 3017amen
I’m well aware of the aesthetic appeal of difference, but I see it as neither opposing, nor innate as described. What attracts me to the male form aesthetically has changed over the years, according to the perceived value/potential of my self and my interactions. Likewise, what attracts me to the female form has changed, too. I’m not denying that there is a pattern of attraction that lends itself to fuzzy masculine-feminine conceptual structures, but there is nothing innately black and white or ‘opposing’ about it.
Quoting 3017amen
No, you’re misunderstanding, and you’re blatantly polarising. Just because some men don’t prioritise certain features such as large breasts or long hair, doesn’t mean they’re attracted to ‘less feminine’ or ‘butch-looking’ women. They just conceptualise ‘feminine’ more broadly. In many ways I don’t consider myself particularly ‘feminine’ in relation to my peers: I never wear nail polish or earrings, and spend most days in jeans and a t-shirt or loose knit with no makeup, and without bothering to shave my legs. I’m not interested in fashion trends or celebrities, and I can’t stand gossip or small talk. I don’t do frills, and only occasionally florals. But I do love a soft, flowing dress or skirt with heels, I happen to be 5’3” with long hair and an hourglass figure, and I’m both chemically and aesthetically more attracted to men. So you tell me: is ‘feminine’ how I dress, how I’m shaped, what I’m interested in, how I move/interact - or is it in my ‘oppositional’ capacity to reassure/defend your ‘masculine’ identity?
I won’t define the men I’m attracted to as ‘masculine’ because there are men you might define as ‘masculine’ that I’m simply not attracted to - but that doesn’t mean I’m attracted to ‘feminine’ men. Masculinity as a binary category is a false dichotomy. What I find attractive in a man may not be what another woman is attracted to, and vice versa - that doesn’t mean that one of us is attracted to ‘masculine’ men and the other isn’t. Aesthetically speaking, some women are particularly attracted to hairy men, others to deep voices or large hands, some to broad shoulders, abdominal/pectoral muscles or bulging biceps. To say that all of the above defines a ‘masculine’ man is to reify the archetype, when the truth is that most women would focus on or prioritise only one or two of these aesthetic values in their pattern of attraction - and the pattern for each woman varies. Personally, I’m not attracted to hairy men, large pecs or bulging biceps - but a deep voice, broad shoulders, or the way a shirt or jacket hangs over the curve of his back are enough to get my attention, aesthetically speaking. The rest of these values I’m only expected to appreciate in identifying my sexual identity. That said, ‘attraction’ for me is more in the eyes and smile, or the way he moves and interacts with the world. I don’t view men as accessories, or as means to my own ends. Their definitive ‘masculinity’ does not serve to reassure/defend my own identity as a woman.
As for what we want, I think we all want to interact with the world in a way that ultimately increases our ability to minimise suffering, given that we’re going to interact with the world anyway. Whether we identify ourselves or others as particularly ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ has a much smaller impact on this than you seem to think.
What does that mean in comparison to what you said here:
Quoting Possibility
What I'm trying to understand is, is what/how denying our wants and needs leads to learning from each other? In other words it seems to suggest a dependence on the other partner to gain wisdom. But what happens if we don't deny ourselves?
Quoting Possibility
Very intriguing. Could this explain why people grow apart? For example, our perceptions of love change from say, in our teens to adulthood and beyond. Also, what is perhaps even more intriguing is your view of aesthetics evolving over time. And it implies that any object of desire may not be as desirable at some future point in time.
Quoting Possibility
Just for clarification, are you saying that men and women get together for emotional support, more than anything else? Does this deny or subordinate the physical connection? And if so, how does that square with romantic love?
[i]Man, a bear in most relations -- worm and savage otherwise, --
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger --- Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue -- to the scandal of The Sex!
But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same,
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.[/i]
You misunderstand me. I’m not talking about denying our wants and needs. I’m talking about denying the yin in our yang. Our wants and needs derive from an experience of lack in how we perceive ourselves in relation to the world, and we contribute to that experience of lack when we deny certain aspects of who we are. For example, someone raised in a particularly religious environment may deny their identity as a sexual being (out of immorality), and yet are drawn to romantic partners who appear to epitomise sexual immorality. A relationship can then become similar to a ‘dance of opposites’, as the person in denial appears hellbent on possessing, controlling or fighting that aspect in their partner, sometimes in destructive ways. Alternatively, the relationship may be complementary, enabling them to eventually recognise and embrace their own sexual identity. If that is all they were attracted to in their partner, though, then the relationship may grow apart, losing significance, as they no longer need to relate to a sexuality that exists outside of themselves in order to feel complete.
A lasting relationship recognises both difference and change as continual sources of attraction and wisdom.
Quoting 3017amen
In some cases, particularly if we’re only attracted at a certain level of awareness, then I think so. It isn’t just that our attraction to certain aesthetic qualities changes, but the aesthetic qualities in most ‘objects of desire’ change also. This is why it’s important to understand attraction as multi-dimensional. To see a person as an ‘object’ of desire is to ignore other aspects in which they may be attractive to you in a more lasting or even atemporal capacity. Looks fade, people change.
Quoting 3017amen
No, I don’t think you grasp the broadness of minimising suffering. We interact with the world based on predictions of effort and attention, and the extent to which we are mistaken in these predictions comes back to us as suffering - pain, humiliation, loss and lack - the difference between our prediction and reality that informs corrections to future predictions and interactions with the world. The more we interact with this difference, the more we will understand about the world, and the more accurate our predictions become. As an individual organism, my capacity to understand the world without succumbing to pain or loss is limited. It is in my relationships with others, and my capacity to intimately relate to (find value and meaning in) their ongoing experiences of the world, that most efficiently inform my predictions. That’s not to say my physical connection to the world is irrelevant: part of understanding the world is interacting with its various aspects, including how lines, shapes, objects, events and experiences change in relation to each other across dimensions.
As for romantic love, it’s a concept that has developed since the 12th century, from an awareness that the relational potential between men and women transcends physical connection, property transactions and procreative capacity.
I think there is progress being made there, only from the vantage point of opposites complementing each other. So all I will say there is that one should have the self-awareness enough to know that it is not virtious to deny themselves. In other words, allow yourself the gift of transformational self-awareness.
That said, if this self-actualization completes the Mars in Mars and the Venus in Venus, then it begs the question of why even bother to seek that which is not needed. Meaning if in principle, all pathology and dysfunction is removed from the individual's Being, then please advise as to why Mars would seek Venus?
And that Existential question is also a result of what you said here:
Quoting Possibility
And so if looks fade, people change viz the self-actualized person who has integrated and resolved the opposites/dichotomies within themselves (without help from their partner), what would be the purpose for Venus to seek Mars?
Quoting Possibility
Interesting. And so can you describe this sense of transcendence? In other words, if as you suggest, romantic love is no longer a want or need, what else is there?
Again - NOT opposites, just different. And self-awareness should always be tempered with honesty and patience, so I’m not talking about giving ourselves permission to pursue wants and needs as it suits us - don’t go interpreting it that way. The ‘denial’ I’m referring to is in reference to ignorance, isolation and exclusion, not denying wants and needs.
Quoting 3017amen
I never said it ‘completes the Mars in Mars’ - that’s you trying to satisfy your own theories again. If you think that as a single organism, you somehow embody an entire archetype, then you’d be mistaken. I’m not talking about ‘completion’ as such - that’s often what we’d like it to be, because it would mean an end to suffering. But we were never meant to be complete. We are only a very small part of a whole diversity of possibilities. A man with the self-awareness and honesty to embrace in his own identity those qualities he may have once perceived as ‘feminine’ is only the beginning of wisdom.
Quoting 3017amen
Self-actualisation isn’t about completeness - it’s about recognising our limitations, interconnectedness and capacity to collaborate with the diversity in the world. We don’t achieve self-actualisation without help from others - that’s the point. Venus and Mars are archetypes - reified concepts, not human beings. So they’re irrelevant to self-actualisation.
If you’re asking why a self-actualising person would seek a partner, it’s because they are open to an ongoing relationship with someone whose difference and change is a continual source of attraction - challenging them to continue increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. Self-actualisation is not an arrival, it’s a way of interacting with the world.
Quoting 3017amen
Not sure what you’re asking here. Romantic love started out as a recognition of five-dimensional interaction between a noble woman and knight/warrior or poet: their perceived value and potential manifesting as an expression of increased awareness, connection and collaboration. Her value is actualised by interacting with his potential, and his potential actualised by interacting with her value. No physical connection necessary, and nothing to do with marriage.
Forgive me but this sounds like a contradiction. It sounds that way because it implies Venus and Mars get together to help complete each other.
Otherwise please explain the differences between pursuing wants and needs to suit ourselves (self-help, self healing, self-awareness) versus pursuing wants and needs to suit your partner's need.
Quoting Possibility
Forgive me again, but have you studied Maslow?
Self-actualization is the achievement of both the discovery and uncovery of Being. While during such discovery it is true we need others (other people in general/platonic relationships) to help achieve our goals, wants and needs, it is our own responsibility to uncover what we were born to do and be.
Quoting Possibility
Can you explain what this suffering is... . Is it a type of existential angst? If so, how does or should our other potential or current partner eradicate or mitigate this suffering?
Quoting Possibility
This seems to contradict your definition of opposites and differences. Meaning it sounds like your theory endorses seeking opposites and differences from the other partner, in order to enhance their Being.
Quoting Possibility
Forgive me again but this sounds like cultural pre-arranged marriages. Are you suggesting this is a better method for a successful union between Venus and Mars?
Short of procreation, you really haven't been able to fill the gaps between the wants and needs of the sexes, both physically and mentally. Your theory seems to suggest platonic friendships are all that's required for the discovery of each person's wants, needs, passions, desires, etc., by pursuing "an ongoing relationship with someone whose difference and change is a continual source of attraction ."
The only conclusion I could come to now is that somehow the very experience of your "suffering " (whatever that means, and I look forward to a better explanation from you) creates our wants and needs for the sexes to unite.
I’m aware of what Maslow says about self-actualisation - my own view is constructionist, so I don’t agree that we were born with an essential ‘self’ of definitive goals, wants and needs waiting to be discovered, nor that we start out as a tabula rasa. Being is the ongoing interaction of a self-conscious organism with their environment - we achieve self-actualisation when we can recognise our most effective path of interaction, but it’s not a permanent state. Becoming doesn’t end at self-actualisation - it is the process that maintains self-actualisation in relation to the unfolding universe.
Quoting 3017amen
There’s a misconception (or hope for many) that the ‘right’ partner would somehow eradicate this sense of lack that we experience in life, but that’s a myth. Those rare moments of feeling ‘complete’ in the world are not static, because we change, our partner changes and the rest of the world changes around us on various levels of interaction. To perceive any of these elements as complete or essential is to distort reality through conceptualisation, which leads to prediction error - pain, humiliation, loss, lack - reminders that we still have much to learn. Life is complete when we die; the ‘self’ is complete when it ceases to be informed by reality. Until then, we are open systems of integrated information, continually adjusting to prediction error. The ‘right’ partner encourages us to continue to be informed by reality - reminds us that suffering (prediction error) is meaningful beyond the ‘self’.
Quoting 3017amen
No, I’m saying that we are attracted to differences in our partner, but to view them as ‘opposites’ misses the opportunity to enhance our Being by integrating difference as information.
Quoting 3017amen
What part of ‘nothing to do with marriage’ did you not understand? I’m not describing a ‘union between Venus and Mars’ - these are relational archetypes. They’re not supposed to unite, they’re supposed to become increasingly irrelevant in a successful union between two human beings, neither of whom should ever be expected to fully identify with either archetype. It’s just a reminder that we’re typically different - not that we’re different in the same way all the time.
Quoting 3017amen
What gaps? There is a multi-dimensional diversity to humanity that gets ignored when we align all relational archetypes such as Mars-Venus, Logos-Eros (mind-body), anima-animus and yin-yang along a binary opposition of gender identity. There are differences, sure, but no ‘gaps’ between the wants and needs of men and women except what is created by this dichotomous structure.
I haven’t said that ‘platonic friendships’ are all that’s required - I’ve said that this supposedly ‘oppositional’ attraction between genders is not as straight-forward as it’s made out to be. Incidentally, the original notion of Platonic love was both inclusive of and transcending carnal (or at least aesthetic) attraction, not devoid of it. But we do like to compartmentalise.
In your thinking, you would have a rather tall hill to climb in trying to reconcile the God given gifts from the Mozart's and Einstein's of the world, since I'm assuming your view of human nature is that everything is a learned response/the rubrics of society exclusively shaping one's nature. Accordingly, does this mean you would want Madonna to perform a heart transplant on you? LOL.
I think you are in denial of the what makes Mars-Mars and Venus-Venus.. You seem to obviate one's own personal responsibility for being all that they could possibly be. Mars should bring to the table not half a man, but a wholistic man who has the experience and Logos, enough to engage with Venus. Nonetheless, you still haven't answered the question as to (aside from procreation/offspring), why Venus desires Mars?
Quoting Possibility
Can you elucidate this sense of completion and reality?
Quoting Possibility
I'm not understanding your point. Why should Venus and Mars pursue each other?
Quoting Possibility
So, men and women want the same things, it's just that we are different (?)
Your assumption of my view is way off the mark - nature/nurture is not a mutually exclusive dichotomy, any more than masculine/feminine. My position is that we bring a certain amount of genetic information to the equation, but are each born and raised in a very particular environment, with a unique pattern of experiences and interactions that together and over time develop our conceptual systems, who we become and where/how we find our path in life through attention and effort. With a musician father, Mozart’s affinity for music was recognised and nurtured at a very young age - the opportunities afforded to his family also enabled him to shape a creative career from raw genetic ability which might have otherwise been dismissed as trivial. And Einstein’s job in the patent office exposed him at the time to certain inventions and ideas which sparked his interest in a way that his education had failed to achieve at that point. Neither succeeded on inherent ability alone, nor were they exclusively shaped by society.
Quoting 3017amen
Your continual assumption that all men must strive to identify wholly with Mars and all women with Venus is to advocate binary thinking, which is precisely what I have been arguing against. Mars and Venus are archetypes: reified concepts of masculinity-femininity to illustrate difference - not to set expectations. Why Venus desires Mars is irrelevant - as archetypes they only typify a simplified pattern in human experience, rather than reality. Human beings both desire and fear the challenges that differences in their environment offer the system’s capacity to integrate information and evolve - not just through their offspring, but through their own experiential Being and a relational Becoming that transcends the self. We become all that we could possibly be only by relating to what we are not, and striving to integrate the difference.
Quoting 3017amen
Complete: having all the necessary and appropriate parts; entire, full; having run its course, finished.
Show me someone who considers themselves ‘complete’, and I’ll show you someone who is no longer willing to learn from experience. They interact only with their own conceptual systems, mistaking them for reality - effectively living in their own world.
Quoting 3017amen
No, the differences between what men want and what women want overlap and intertwine to the point that there is so little mutually exclusive wants and needs they barely rate a mention. It is only when we construct a typical pattern of wants and needs that any dichotomous structure emerges.
These typical patterns help us to understand difference, but any prediction applied to an instance of interaction with reality is prone to a degree of error. We experience that error as suffering - pain, humiliation, lack or loss - but is it ours, or do we project the error/suffering onto the interaction instead? If we predict that a woman wants to be hit on, but in acting on that prediction encounter a negative response, does the fault lie with the woman or her response, or is the error in our prediction or the details of our action? If we always assume the error is NOT ours, then we fail to learn from the experience. If we can employ the scientific method to the prediction-interaction process instead, accepting error and uncertainty as an opportunity to learn and refine our predictions, then perhaps we can become all that we could possibly be.
Agree! Hence the discovery AND uncovery of Being. We are free to discover that which an external society can provide for us, while maintaining that same freedom to uncover our own unique or innate talents, gifts, wants and needs ,etc.. The two together represent an integration of, sometimes, two opposing forces (inconsistencies from rubrizing), yet still allowing for Venus to be Venus; Mars to be Mars.
But to exclusively follow a stereotype making it seem like one size should fit all (Venus should be Venus because that's what society says), would obviously not allow for any unique differences to flourish. So unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible) I would agree with your foregoing Einstein/Mozart analogy.
Quoting Possibility
Now there is where we disagree. Your denial of your natural attraction toward any given archetype is perplexing. The reality is, Venus is attracted to Mars, as Mars is attracted to Venus. Why? (You have not answered that simple question.) I don't see how your explanation covers this human phenomenon. Have you thought about it both physically and metaphysically?
Quoting Possibility
Of course, I get that. But having a bit of heaven on earth is worth the sojourn, no? Meaning, if Mar's is all left brain, without recognizing the virtues of his right brain, then he is not really complete. (Of course I mean that in a temporal sense.)
Quoting Possibility
I must say that is confusing. It sounds like you are saying that generally speaking, men and women want the same things (I have no quarrel with that).
Quoting Possibility
Correct...that is what I mean by saying one must take the personal responsibility for their own actions, as well as suffering any consequences from same (of both good and bad).
Quoting Possibility
I'm not sure I would completely agree with that deterministic approach. Quite simply, the soundness of that proposition only requires coping skills for an effective reconciliation. Through self-awareness, we can become (discover and uncover) who we were born to be. Of course, there is a balance between wishful thinking and all that is possible from our reality. But generally, the existential responsibility of Being, should not be subordinated by rubrics. Thinking outside the box has lead to many novel discoveries.
Now I’m confused. If you believe that men and women generally want the same things, then why reify the archetypes? I keep suspecting that you’re using ‘Mars’ and ‘Venus’ as a smokescreen for a binary gender identification. I don’t understand why you’re so caught up on this pop psychology from the 90s, written by a ‘relationship counsellor’ with a correspondence course in psychology.
I disagree that I have a ‘natural attraction’ to either archetype. Rather, I have a natural attraction to ‘the difference that makes a difference’: information. How we divide that information up in the world is arbitrary and subject to error, but the bottom line is that Mars and Venus illustrate a pattern of relation in human experience that has more to do with informative difference than identification with either archetype, physically and/or metaphysically speaking. Mars is attracted to Venus and Venus to Mars because they’re different from each other. That’s all.
Quoting 3017amen
If Mars is ‘all left brain’, then he also hasn’t recognised his own capacity to use his right brain - which he would have if he were human (rather than an archetype). It isn’t about just recognising the ‘virtues’ of his right brain, but learning how to access it himself by interacting with those who can demonstrate a right brain capacity and articulate their inner experiences. That we so often simply recognise the virtues of ‘other’ness in our partner as a way to feel ‘complete’ is a failure to become all that we could possibly be.
Quoting 3017amen
More than that - one must take personal responsibility for their prediction errors.
Quoting 3017amen
I’m not sure why you would label this approach deterministic. How does what I’ve written contradict what you’ve stated here?
No exceptions taken!
Quoting Possibility
No exceptions taken!
Quoting Possibility
Exception taken as noted: you still haven't answered the question as to why Venus is attracted to Mar's. For example, is it physical or metaphysical or a combination of both. If it's both (using that axiom) how would you describe physical chemistry(?). (I'm not clear whether aesthetics/Eros are important to you or are included in any of your theories.)
Quoting Possibility
No exceptions taken!
Quoting Possibility
I labeled it as such because it seems too positivistic or analytical or even overthinking the human condition. As such, if you are thinking that a binary system of checks/balances will ensure success, I highly question the effectiveness. As a rudimentary example, think of dating sites. A website that only provides for written criterion which does not allow aesthetics' as a criterion of choice would not only be incomplete, it would not be as effective in determining the phenomenon of the thing called human chemistry-whatever that may consist of.
Aside from that, the context in which you were (initially) referring was this mitigation of suffering as you would phrase it. Accordingly, all I was suggesting is that having adequate coping skills to deal with failure's is really all that's required for the human psyche. Of course, this is more Freudian than not.
As much as you seem keen to extend these archetypes to masculine-feminine concepts in general, Mars and Venus isn’t about physical attraction or chemistry. It’s about communication. So your persistence with this line of questioning doesn’t make sense. If your aim is to discuss masculine-feminine archetypes or gender identities in general, be honest enough to say so.
Quoting 3017amen
I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being too analytical before! I’m pretty sure I’ve been clear about my distrust of binary systems, so I’m still unsure what you’re arguing against. What do you refer to as ‘success’ in this context? The phenomenon of ‘human chemistry’ can’t be determined by dating sites, not matter what criterion is provided. It refers to qualitative sensory relations that occur in person - which includes, but is not limited to, aesthetics. But I fail to see how this disputes what I have said.
Quoting 3017amen
How do we ‘cope’ with failure? By recognising it as an opportunity to learn? By shutting down and avoiding future interactions? By devaluing or attacking the apparent ‘cause’ of our failure? It’s not simple when it’s about interpersonal relationships. Active rather than avoidant coping strategies are recommended, which brings us back to the scientific method...
Well, that became an ancillary note to our recent discussion. However, it is worth parsing because it's part of the OP (please go back and refresh yourself if you will), that Eros has some sort of appeal to the sexes (whether it's intrinsic or innate to both sexes/I would welcome your theory).
Quoting Possibility
I'm basically referring to the dichotomization of your theory wherein you seem to overlook Eros (as stated in the OP) and/or the physical chemistry between the sexes. And so trying to exclusively put logic to this phenomena of attraction, seems incomplete.
Take the phenomena of love for example. How often do you hear an individual who says " gee, I don't know what it is about him/her, I just love him/her." What kind of scientific method would provide insight on that phenomenon?
Quoting Possibility
I refer you to my earlier statements/questions herein. Alternatively, indeed there are opportunities to learn by integrating, as apposed to repudiating, the yin and yang's of life. That's basically what I'm referring to when I say coping skills-dealing with the ups, downs, opposing forces of life. Closed doors happen for reasons; they are generally good reasons.
But it certainly is worth repeating that you raise a good point in our agreement of the Venus-Mars somewhat false archetype. And that is to say 'avoidance' or even 'acceptance' seemed to be a false narrative, paradigm or stereotype between the male-female differences given without such opportunities to change, growth, grow together, self-actualization, etc. etc..
Otherwise, if you could provide some insight on Eros/physical attraction/passion etc. from the foregoing, I would be interested in parsing that. I think that might end (perhaps) the dichotomous nature of the discussion.
I think the idea that Eros pertains to one gender identity and Logos to the other is yet another attempt to simplify into a binary system what is a complex and multi-dimensional diversity. Despite this, Jung’s theory does advocate the conscious development of both aspects in each of us, regardless of which one initially appears more developed. You have to remember that Jung’s sample set are adult psychiatric subjects in a culture of gender dichotomy. I don’t think a person’s preference for psychic relatedness or objective interest is particularly innate to either ‘sex’. We each have an innate capacity for both, but manifest them in many different ways, often as a result of regular interaction with modelling/concealment and edification/discouragement.
As an example, both my son and daughter, in their teens, have strong development in both areas, in very different ways. My daughter is both creative and highly rational but struggles with compassion, while my son is both systematic and highly compassionate but struggles with rationality. Like with the Mars-Venus distinction, this is much more complex than a linear relation and has little to do with gender on an individual basis, except when culturally influenced.
Quoting 3017amen
The scientific method is an iterative, cyclical process through which information is continually revised.
It is not necessarily about logic - it’s about observing and asking questions, then formulating, testing and adjusting predictions for accuracy in all interactions. So it can provide insight anywhere you find yourself saying “I don’t know”. Confirmation bias and other influences of affect must be accounted for in scientific methodology, not ignored. As evident by QM, the aim is not objective certainty, but practicality. Logic, however, excludes any information that can’t be reduced to a binary true-false value.
There is a common assumption that Eros is fundamentally unexplainable: passion, chemistry, love and attraction are apparently to be felt or excluded, but not understood. And yet a healthy dose of skepticism (not to be confused with risk avoidance) in relation to love and attraction can go a long way towards minimising the effect of pain, humiliation and loss. Phenomena and intuition are indications that we are ignoring, isolating or excluding value/potential information that affects us nonetheless - interacting with a scientific methodology that includes this qualitative information may not result in objective certainty, but it enables us to improve our understanding of past, present and future interactions.
Quoting Possibility
Possibility!
Thanks, I promise this will be the last piece of the puzzle as it were! And that relates to Eros.
I'm afraid I will be needing your guidance here. I'm having difficulty understanding some of your theory.
I know I've asked a similar question relating to Logos, but the concept of Eros seems a bit more nebulous. Can you expand a bit more on what you mean by this risk avoidance/loss phenomenon between the sexes?
I don't necessarily agree with Jung's characterization of Eros being exclusive to women attributes. I believe that both men and women experience a type of Eros in their romantic relationships toward each other, which may or may not continue throughout such duration of same. For example, while having a passionate marriage that lasts for years can be a result of both an Eros and Logos connection (material and non-material agencies), the phenomenon of the initial (and/or long lasting) physical attraction is what both sexes seem to have in common in that as being physical creatures, we cannot escape physical appearances and the attraction thereto.
And that leads to one of many questions concerning physical chemistry. While non-physical chemistry exists as mentioned (an intellectual connection), why should one discount the power behind aesthetical beauty. In other words, both men and women are attracted to each other physically, and appreciate each other's physical attributes, yet can we objectively explain why that is? For example, we use terms such as ; passion, chemistry, the love for the object itself, etc.. which implies a inseparable connection between mind and matter.
Perhaps the fundamental question is, what is physical chemistry?
If I suggest skepticism about ‘feeling’ attracted to someone, this might be interpreted as advising them not to take a risk based on unreliable information, but that’s not what I mean. I’m suggesting they pay attention to what else is going on, seek more information (rather than hold out for ‘reliable’ information), and not just act on one momentary feeling interpreted as ‘love’ or ‘chemistry’. Feelings of attraction are not always chemistry, and chemistry is not always love.
From Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book on the theory of constructed emotions:
Quoting 3017amen
I’m still not sure we’re on the same page with regards to Eros. I’m not even sure that you are on the same page - I don’t see material agency as equated with psychic relatedness. A Platonic understanding of Eros describes a development from physical attraction into a spiritual attraction to the eternal idea of Beauty itself, and there is a sense even here that the physical element is minor - a foot in the door, so to speak. A long lasting ‘physical’ connection within a marriage has more to do with a perception of aesthetic and/or sensory potential than what one actually looks, feels or smells like from one moment to the next, but to distinguish this from a perception of any other potential (agency) is to advocate a Cartesian mind-body distinction in Logos-Eros that, in my view, fails to understand what potential/agency is.
Physical chemistry is an area of scientific study, not really related to what we’re discussing here. I’ll come back to this when I have more time, but suffice to say I believe there IS an inseparable connection between mind and matter - but our focus on physical connection as something other than intellectual connection is obscuring our understanding of it.
I’ll start by pointing out that my worldview supports process philosophy, and Rovelli’s description of the universe in physics as a collection of interrelated events rather than objects in time, despite how we conceptualise the world in which we interact as individual human beings. I’m not denying that we commonly think of the world as objects moving and changing through time and space, and that the value and meaning we attribute accordingly is seen as something else entirely - a tangled mess of ‘power’ that we struggle to understand, possess and wield amongst ourselves. This ‘power’ (agency, potential, value) is seen as either inherent in the object/event, or attributed by the mind, but is rarely understood as an aspect of our existence - because for the most part it seems to BE our existence: our subjective experience of the world, our perspective.
We’re not going to reach an ‘objective’ understanding of attraction within the context of Cartesian dualism. That’s because the thinking/feeling subject is the axiomatic centre around which we construct reality - in the same way that we once tried to understand the cosmos by assuming the Earth was its centre. And in the same way that we divided the globe into arbitrary zones and then assumed we understood Time. It’s a cop-out to say that we only have our own experience of reality to go on. If that were the case, then we would still assume the Earth is flat.
There is an assumption that ‘objective’ pertains to this understanding of how objects move and change in relation to each other, but this is at best a localised description of reality - one that is based on a linear relation of time. Modern physics recognises that it is a more objective understanding of reality to describe how events change in relation to each other, recognising that ‘objects’ are defined only in relation to a localised (ie. subjective) temporal existence. QM suggests that it is probability or potential that structures reality, in a way that we once thought time did, and space before that. More intriguing is the realisation that the overall meaning or interpretation of reality at this level is dependent on the particular values one chooses to measure/observe.
So what ‘power’ is there behind ‘aesthetical beauty’ in this broader context? Well, that depends on which particular values you decide to measure - ie. how you structure an evaluative concept of ‘aesthetical beauty’ as a potential. It’s not that I’m discounting it - it’s that any attempt to define its ‘power’ is relative. Feldman Barrett describes the neurological concept of affect (valence and arousal) in relation to a predictive distribution of energy requirements (attention and effort) mapped to interoception of the organism (as a four-dimensional event). This gives us an idea of how humans reduce all possible value structures to a two-dimensional relation of potential/value as a localised understanding of 4D interaction with reality. This is a crucial step in mapping the complex relativity of five-dimensional existence.
What draws our attention and arouses our efforts may show certain patterns when viewed as a species, but different patterns when divided into male or female, and different patterns again when divided conceptually along any number of other arbitrary value structures. Why men and women are attracted to each other physically has a lot to do with the purpose or meaning of the interaction. Men and women interact physically in a number of ways for a wide variety of purposes. For each of those, a different structure of potential and value can be formulated from our conceptual systems. Someone seeking a business partner will (hopefully) construct a different evaluation of the potential of an interaction than someone looking for sex, for instance. The ‘power’ behind aesthetic beauty is therefore not going to be the same. In the same way, a man can appreciate some particular aesthetic quality of a strange woman across the room when his purpose is simply to look, but this will not have the same ‘power’ as his attraction towards his wife, in which he perceives a much broader potential to appreciate her many aesthetic qualities long term, and so perceive value in distributing his effort and attention more towards his wife in that moment, even when she’s not around. Note that it’s rarely a conscious or calculating decision - more often one is aware of this as a feeling, thought or action after it has been determined or initiated.
Aesthetic qualities change, chemical attraction comes and goes, and physical familiarity loses its informative novelty - it is our awareness, connection and collaboration with the atemporal potential/value in aesthetic and other sensory qualities of our partner that sustains passion long term. We are not simply passive observers of value, but initiate interactions between perceived potential in the world to encourage, enhance, actualise and appreciate value when it isn’t always obvious to others. This is how we love.
Possibility!
Have we then, ruled out 'chemistry' as a 'virtuous phenomena' between the sexes? Chemistry may not be love (do we know what love is?), but the love for objects seems to exist. Accordingly, thanks for the anecdote form LFB, but I'm wondering what her point was...was she trying to link the phenomena of the aesthetic reaction viz emotion? If so, why was that a bad thing?
Quoting Possibility
I am not referring to the Platonic interpretation. I'm referring to the original Greek mythological interpretation of Eros which, leads to judgements of aesthetics (beauty) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/#2.
Possibility! When you say 'power' do you really mean 'energy' or 'material agency'? The reason I ask is that it seems more appropriate or synonymous with a phenomenal based approach to one's theory of aesthetical judgements.
With respect to our subjectivity, sure. We cannot escape the subject-object sensory perception(s). In part, that's what I'm getting at. In other words, we are not brains in a jar.
Quoting Possibility
No exceptions taken!
Quoting Possibility
Correct. We are not simply passive observers (we are active participants). That can be taken in any context of subject-object for which there is no escape. And so, the value of the aesthetic judgement remains part of that 'power' or as I will call it 'energy', that remains most notably existential.
The questions have been how are we to best navigate this energy (sexual energy), material agency, etc..
You might find Kant's Metaphysics interesting here, in the form of a question to ponder:
Pleasure and Judgment
What is the relation between the pleasure which is felt in an object experienced as beautiful, and the judgment that the object is beautiful, that is, the judgment of taste? Kant describes the judgment of taste as “based on” a feeling of pleasure, and as claiming that everyone ought to share the subject's feeling of pleasure, or, as he puts it, as claiming the “universal communicability” of the pleasure.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/#pagetopright
Not always love. Love is meaningful relations regardless of value, time, object, connection or distance - so, no, most of us don’t really know what love is.
I’m not sure what you mean by your question: ‘why was that a bad thing?’. Barrett’s point was that the brain, locked inside the skull, has no idea what’s really going on, except what is predicted from the sensory information it seeks in relation to past patterns of experience. So it’s prone to error. Emotions are constructed in the same way as attraction and every other concept - they’re neither inherent nor universal, but instead refer to patterns of experience. When we give a name to what we’re feeling, it’s an educated guess. When we recognise this uncertainty and are open to being mistaken about how we think we feel, then we can refine our accuracy by following scientific method in our process.
Quoting 3017amen
‘Power’ was your word, which in my view is a misunderstanding of agency, potential, value. In human organisms, ‘energy’ is a distribution of agency - the ‘material’ distinction is arbitrary. I think we can ‘escape’ the subject-object sensory perceptions, when we understand how sensory perceptions interact with perceptions of potential. Barrett’s work in neuroscience and psychology explores this. In a metaphorical sense, we are brains in a jar.
Quoting 3017amen
Well, I’d say the first step is to understand how our perception of potential and value is converted into energy distribution (effort and attention) throughout the body.
Possibility I believe it was you who introduced 'power' into your theory. I'm confused now. More on that later.
This, as far as I can see, was the first use of the term ‘power’ in our discussion (emphasis mine).
Okay, in that context, relative to the power behind aesthetical beauty, I'm not sure how the metaphorical brains in a jar are mutually exclusive. Meaning, sure there exists a balance between the inseparable connection of mind and matter, but have you given any thought to Kantian Metaphysics?
[i]Pleasure and Judgment:
What is the relation between the pleasure which is felt in an object experienced as beautiful, and the judgment that the object is beautiful, that is, the judgment of taste?[/i]
Consider that the metaphysical component is that which is felt after perceiving the object. There are endless analogies from the feeling of seeing a new born, to seeing a zebra, to seeing a car. It's simple subject-object. How powerful is that feeling?
Or, would you in fact feel more comfortable in parsing material agency (and/or even sexual energy for that matter)? Is that not consistent with the general theme of Eros/romantic love (not Platonic love)?
Quoting Possibility
I would have to take exception to that and side-in with Kant. Kant's theory was that the emotions of aesthetics are universally communicative : Kant describes the judgment of taste as “based on” a feeling of pleasure, and as claiming that everyone ought to share the subject's feeling of pleasure, or, as he puts it, as claiming the “universal communicability” of the pleasure.
In the alternative, I don't mind digressing into cognitive science/psychology ( i.e. Freud, and others) if you believe that would provide for a better understanding of this connection. Otherwise, I would love to hear your theories concerning the desire to procreate.
I think that remaining or missing piece would conceivably wrap-up the discussion.
But a couple of very quick points about what you’ve added here:
In my view, distinguishing a ‘metaphysical component’ is a misunderstanding of metaphysics. Cartesian dualism is a difficult hurdle. Subject-object fails to recognise either the experiential relation of the ‘object’, or the material relation of the ‘subject’. It’s based on an incorrect assumption of dominance: that the ‘power’ in any relation is possessed by one and categorically NOT the other. The idea of ‘material agency’ is an attempt to explain this (without rejecting the distinction), but for me it doesn’t go far enough, and only in one direction.
In the meantime, before you reject current neuroscience in favour of Kant’s metaphysics, I recommend you take a look at Barrett’s theory of constructed emotion, and the evidence she presents against the essentialism of the classical view of emotion as inherent and universal. ‘Universal communicability’ doesn’t preclude patterns of experience, and neither does ‘universal validity’ for that matter - especially in relation to what Kant refers to as “indeterminate concepts”.
I'm not referring to Cartesian dualism. I referring to Kant's theory of aesthetics, which is metaphysical. Hopefully you will stay on-board with that. This takes Eros to yet another level.
Kant’s argument is against Cartesian dualism - I get that, which is why I referred to it as a hurdle. Both theories are forms of metaphysical dualism, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to defend. My point was that ‘metaphysical’ is often mistaken to mean ‘other than physical’, but I would argue that it’s inclusive of ‘physical’. Kant’s theory struggles with the dualism of material and immaterial substances - many of his arguments come dangerously close to collapsing this distinction (that’s not such a bad thing), but something stops him from taking that leap. Essentialism seems a likely culprit, but I’m still reading...
For me, what Kant refers to as the ‘soul’ is an arbitrary distinction from the ‘body’: where he says they are in tight community, I would argue that they both refer to the same substance: existence. Kant recognised that it’s not just a case of subsuming particular instances under universals, but also finding those universals under which each instance falls. Yet (prior to quantum theory) he won’t entertain the possibility that all concepts or universals (including those we employ in reason and knowledge) are not as ‘given’ or a priori as we assume, and that indeterminacy (and relativity) is a feature of them all - space and time being handy examples.
It is our perspective - our capacity to perceive this same substance both inward and outwardly (so to speak) with critical disinterest - that leads us to view it as object and subject, one material and the other immaterial. In my view, our capacity to relate to existence as one substance across multiple dimensional levels (six), is limited by the effort and attention we assign to awareness, connection or collaboration between these relational structures. So we divide existence arbitrarily as it suits us, and then struggle, as Kant does, to bring it all together without collapsing all distinctions into pure, non-purposive imagination.
In reference to our discussion, a ‘pure aesthetic judgement’ of a human being excludes their purposiveness, and also their capacity as a subject to participate in this judgement themselves. As human beings we engage in reflective judgement: we ‘find’ our own universals and continually ‘produce’ instances in ourselves about which such aesthetic judgements may be made. But more importantly, we also engage in determining judgement - we distinguish the universals under which these instances fall, as well as the ends and purposes which characterise us. To exclude this aspect of human existence from any interaction or judgement made with regards to a human being brings us back to the problem of objectification.
How does a subject whose faculties of imagination and understanding are in ‘free play’ - with a state of mind that is non-conceptual - relate perceptually to another subject presumed to be in a similar state of mind? How does Kant’s three forms of ‘judgement’ operate here? And what does it mean to relate to such a subject with ‘pure aesthetic judgement’?
Agreed. If you agree to your own interpretation of the ' inclusive ' nature from the aesthetic experience, then the question becomes how do you subordinate the aesthetic object itself? Your philosophy thus far has not emphasized this phenomenon. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, your theories de-emphasized that.
And so as Kant realized, the metaphysical phenomena (he calls judgment) as a result of the physical appearance(s).translate to human sentience. In other words, once the subject observes the object (or another subject/person), there is a feeling apprehended and/or apperceived through cognition and the senses. Have you accounted for that in your theory? This is fundamental to aesthetics, and in our discussion, phenomena associated with romantic love and physical appearances of each gender.
Quoting Possibility
I interpret 'free play' as our cognitive stream of consciousness. Thoughts randomly appear in our consciousness during say, daydreaming and when computing concepts of sense perception, which include memory, apriori and a posteriori apperception, etc. etc. (otherwise during everydayness of cognition/normal recall ). The universal communicability is the metaphysical reaction to the object viewed. Meaning, we might say we love that car, that guitar, that house, that whatever object being apperceived (or we may not love it/them). Hence this sense of judgment.
The notion of a pure aesthetic judgment is very intriguing, I think. As a comparison, if we consider pure logic as comprising the axioms of formal logic ( which in part he critiqued), what would we consider pure metaphysical sentience? In other words, if every subject ( human) had feelings and judgments about physical objects ( which we do) and other subjects, what would be this pure aesthetic judgment(s)?
We could not compute it like formal logic and mathematics. Instead, we compute it subjectively. And that subjectivity includes mostly, metaphysical sentience. In our context, I think that is the 'power' that we can associate with the feelings of romantic love and/or Eros. Perhaps Kant might say it is the phenomenon of subjects observing or perceiving other subjects.
And so, the general or basic takeaway remains, how important is the aesthetical judgment to romantic love and/or the traditional Greek theory of Eros (not Platonic/Eros/love)? If it's not purely of a logical nature, it nonetheless is a universally subjective judgment about subjective objects. In a physical world, how can we escape this sentience and subjective judgment(s), or should we even try? If we deny this, I think we are brains in a jar.
I think it only seems subordinate or de-emphasised in relation to the importance you appear to attribute to it. The ‘aesthetic object’ is an arbitrary division, so why would I need to emphasise it?
Quoting 3017amen
Where I take exception is with your apparent assumption that what Kant refers to as ‘aesthetic’ judgement can ONLY be a result of physical appearance. The way I see it, Kant’s third metaphysical faculty goes some way towards describing the creative process, particularly from a five-dimensional relation between the value/potential of different systems as perceived, to a six-dimensional relation between the meaning of different systems as understood. It may be inspired by attending to physical beauty, but relation to an ‘object’ isn’t necessary for this faculty to operate. So I would argue that the aesthetic ‘object’ is being used as a crutch.
Kant’s third metaphysical faculty begins with awareness that our experience transcends our conceptual reality. Kant’s ‘first moment’ refers to an interoception of affect that suggests an ‘indeterminate concept’ - a qualitative aspect of experience for which no conceptual structure is pre-determined. The ‘second moment’ refers to an awareness that the experience transcends our value systems, with an intensity of valence (pleasure/displeasure) that suggests a quantitative aspect of experience for which no value hierarchy is pre-determined: there is no emotion concept, or indeed any concept to determine this relation. His ‘third moment’ entails a paradigm shift into six-dimensional relation, an awareness that this non-conceptual aspect of experience also points to an indeterminate purposiveness - that relations are meaningful, they matter beyond any determination of value. And the ‘fourth moment’ refers to an awareness that the experience matters in a universal sense, even if no-one else agrees or understands - simply because it matters and has value for me; regardless of whether it falls under a given rule.
That such pure judgements of ‘taste’ in Kant’s theory require objectification, excluding not just any purpose but also any alternative value/potential, seems a limitation in my view. It is only when we acknowledge that our experience of a conceptualised ‘object’ transcends the value/potential predicted do we engage our faculty of reflective judgement to ‘find’ some universal or rule under which this indeterminate aspect of a particular may be subsumed. At that point, it is no longer the conceptualised object but a broader indeterminate existence to which we are referring, or at least the extent to which our experience of its existence relates to more than the object as such.
In relation to a subject or person, I would argue that we are already relating to an indeterminate particular, whose quality and universal validity does not rest on subsumption under a concept. I would also argue that our relation to this subject or person is universally meaningful beyond any perception of value by me or anyone else. So I don’t see aesthetics as necessary to this faculty of judgement between subjects, when recognised as such. It’s only if we fail to perceive someone as more than an object, that aesthetics seems to be important.
Because we are subjects looking at subjects (or 'subjective objects'), which in turn are making judgements about each other's aesthetic existence. And the arbitrariness is that which we cannot escape from (AKA: Kierkegaardian subjectivity), nor as we've said, would we necessarily want to. We enjoy the freedom to make such arbitrary judgements about aesthetical existence, otherwise in our context here, we are back to pre-arranged marriages, and that sort of thing... .
Alternatively, a very simple example using pragmatics (the philosophical approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application) you must be able to explain why say, the cosmetic industry; clothing, shoes, health and fitness, (any thing having to do with appreciation of the human body) etc. etc. still thrives.
Quoting Possibility
What do you mean by crutch? Are you suggesting we are brains in a jar?
Quoting Possibility
And that is the arbitrary subjectiveness of the aesthetical judgement that transcends logic. The metaphysical component is that which cannot be explained, yet has universal communicability. Much like part of the physical phenomenon (Eros) of Love ("I don't know why I love him/her I just feel connected").
Quoting Possibility
And so if you choose to subordinate the aesthetical phenomenon to the point of denial, you are no better off. You've dichotomized your theory as being tantamount to brains in a jar.
Putting aside the strawman of pre-arranged marriages...again...There seems to be a misunderstanding in relation to Kant, that aesthetic judgements are purely about appearance. Kant’s metaphysics attempts to describe the relational structure of mental processes through which we are able to understand noumena through phenomena. That’s not a denial or justification of the ‘aesthetical phenomena’, it’s a recognition that it’s not so much the appearance itself, but what we learn about the metaphysical aspects of the noumena through our limited perception, that matters. Aesthetics does not equal appearance, but rather perceives and then conceives of reality as more than it appears.
The confusion I get into with regards to Kant is this reference to everything as ‘objects’. Appearance is fundamentally undetermined, and the process of reflective judgement in aesthetics transcends even this. When we make arbitrary judgements, including categorising ‘phenomenon’ or ‘metaphysical components’, it is the indeterminacy of appearance that challenges our reference to particular ‘objects’. At the level of pure aesthetical ‘delight’, Kant shows that ‘object’, ‘phenomenon’ and ‘purpose’ are understood as indeterminate, and the ‘free play’ of imagination and understanding is inclusive of both sensible and non-sensible ‘intuition’ (mental process structures) without discrimination. A ‘pure aesthetical judgement’ can make no reference to an ‘object’ as such without limiting its capacity - at this level there is no goal external to the thinking mind or subject, to which a specific action or feeling can be directed. Both subject and object are perceivable as indeterminate - non-conceptual and unconstrained. There is no ‘judgement’ as such.
Through the process described in CofJ, the immateriality of our experience points first to the metaphysical aspect of value/potential (Kant’s first and second moments), and then beyond it to purposiveness/possibility (third and fourth moments). This is different to Kant’s description of ‘judgement’ in CofPR - he seems to be deconstructing the faculty of judgement, not describing the act of making judgements based on rules/concepts or purpose/reason. The process is one of extruding dimensional awareness towards conceiving of a metaphysics inclusive of and transcending appearance, in which we are ‘free’ to delight in Beauty without judgement - without subsuming the particular ‘object’ under rules or concepts - but without abandoning our capacity to do so, either.
The point Kant alludes to in CofJ is that we can escape this arbitrariness - we can intellectualise aesthetics without denying pleasure or delight in Beauty; and we can also interact on a number of levels with an aesthetical ‘object’ without denying or ignoring the indeterminacy of our particular judgements regarding its value, potential, purpose or meaning.
Quoting 3017amen
The ‘first moment’ is only an initial step: if you stop at this level or even the second moment and make an aesthetical judgement on the ‘phenomenon’, it cannot be a ‘pure aesthetical judgement’ according to Kant. The ‘physical’ phenomenon (Eros) of love, too, is not a matter of separating out a metaphysical component, but recognising and seeking to understand the complexity of connection as more than objective sensation, and more than universal communicability, not other than. Transcendence is not a departure from.
In my view, Kant is not advocating judgement of the ‘object’, but rather reflection on our own capacity to delight in an aspect of experience from which neither purpose nor value, neither reason nor logic, can be determined. It is a reflective judgement of our capacity to love. Attending to aesthetical phenomena challenges our perception of the world, and proceeding through all four ‘moments’ without resorting to judgement of what is an indeterminate ‘object’ frees us to imagine an experience of reality unconstrained by our limited understanding of it, let alone our perception of it, and to delight in the possibilities of this indeterminacy in full awareness of our capacity (without necessity) to reason, to know and to judge.
Practically speaking, we are limited by an inherent fear of this uncertainty, and so we regularly ignore or deny that we perceive feeling beyond objective sensation, communicable validity beyond the quantifiable, relation beyond purpose, or delight beyond understanding, in relation to the various ‘objects’ of intuition. At some level we choose to limit our own capacity to love based on given rules and concepts (“I’m not in love with you anymore”, “you’re the most beautiful girl I’ve ever known”, “she’s my soulmate”, “there’s no one else for me”) that reassure us of the apparent ‘certainty’ of reason, purpose, validity and sense in the world. The limitations we impose on these perceptions are not ‘bad’, as such - it is what we can cope with, and what we build our social and cultural reality around. But delight in the aesthetic exists beyond objects of sensible intuition, beyond ‘accordance with the unity of categories’.
Quoting 3017amen
By using the ‘aesthetical object’ as a crutch - keeping it in focus as the goal to which we ultimately direct our feelings or actions - we corrupt any judgement of taste from the outset. If the object is predetermined and cannot be perceived as more than its aesthetical phenomenon, then there is no ‘free-play’: imagination remains constrained by understanding. The old adage ‘If you love something, set it free’ couldn’t be more apt.
It’s a simple enough process to love and delight in a particular appearance of an object without reservation; more complex to continue to love and delight in your partner when they no longer appear to be the slender twenty-two year old anyone in their right mind would agree was beautiful, and more complex still to love and delight in the world as it is. It’s not that we are brains in a jar - it’s that there is more to the ‘object’ of our experience - and our delight - than the particular aesthetical phenomenon, and that we have the intellectual capacity to develop our understanding and imagination through these four moments, and ultimately through life, towards the capacity for ‘pure aesthetical judgement’ of reality - such is the indeterminacy of phenomena. Alternatively, we may simply find ourselves realising, “they’re not the same person I fell in love with”, having judged them narrowly as the ‘person’ they were and felt blindsided by the impermanence.
That's not what we're talking about here, sorry. Your interpretation is way off the mark. Noumena is posited by Kant as an object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
We are talking about subjective objects of the senses, and the experience of aesthetics. Not sure where the disconnect or denial or problem seems to be, but the metaphysical component is that which is beyond logic when experiencing an aesthetic object. That object being you.
Quoting Possibility
Exception taken as noted: While you are certainly getting closer to the appropriate interpretation, and there is certainly agreement relative to emotive phenomena of 'delight', Kant makes the distinction between the object viewed and the feelings (metaphysical judgements) that are experienced being something that transcends logic.
Quoting Possibility
You're using crutch as a means to an end. Your end goal is an intellectual connection. But that's not what we're talking about, So I don't understand how that addresses the aesthetical experience. Perhaps thinking about the phenomenon of romantic love would help... .
Quoting Possibility
I agree it's a simple enough process, yet complex in its response to visual stimuli. You seem stuck on the existential angst of aging. It's as if you keep projecting some sort of fear about aesthetical beauty. What if someone finds an older woman beautiful? From personal experience, I find many things beautiful in life; nature, life, truth, people, places, things, etc.. And in our context, I find women beautiful whether they are young or old.
Of course, most people get that there is a mind, body, spirit connection, but you keep denying the body aspect of that phenomenon. If I were to use your interpretation or theory in this scenario, then when a couple is young or old, and one partner develops a brain disorder or pathology, the other partner would cease and desist. You would not love your partner because their brain is not working the way you expect it to. You would effectively say to yourself, 'gee, I married that person because I really loved their mind, but not their body or spirit.'
It is the experience of aesthetics in particular which demonstrates transcending the unity of categories that subsume phenomena. Having universally validated a feeling (of pleasure), we are free to relate to this object of the senses intellectually, understood as a representation of a universal, indeterminate concept - Beauty - which exists independently of human sense and/or perception. What we relate to hasn’t ceased to be an ‘object of the senses’ - the ‘aesthetic object’ is recognised as more than sensory information, demonstrating capacity to engage both our senses and intellect at the highest level. But what is the relative position of the thinking, feeling subject in aesthetic judgement?
Interaction with any human being can inspire the same kind of recognition. Yet an experience of physical attraction is, at the first moment, rarely a disinterested character of feeling, and at the second moment making no claim to universality. What inspires us to transcend moral or cognitive judgements from perception and reach for a communicable, indeterminate concept in our interaction with another human being seems to be not so much an aesthetic experience in the Kantian sense, then, but an awareness that interaction with any particular human being is more than an object-concept relation. The object itself is indeterminate, conceptual, metaphysical. Love, then, is not necessarily in relation to a sensory experience grounded in an object, but starts from Kant’s third moment of relation, suggesting a metaphysical interaction between indeterminate concepts. This is not to deny the subjective ‘object of the senses’ - only its perceived status as ‘essential’ to an experience of Love.
Quoting 3017amen
Transcendence is not departure from. If it is the case that Kant makes a distinction between the object viewed and the indeterminate concept on which any judgement of beauty rests, then this is where my own view departs. There seems to be a presumption here that either the object or concept is universally static, concrete. This is what I mean by a crutch: the idea that the viewed object is the essential focus of delight (and by ‘delight’ I mean more than ‘emotive’ phenomena). The way I see it, the ‘object’ is no longer consisting only of empirical qualities here, but recognised as metaphysical in itself. So there is no distinct component that is metaphysical in relation to a component that is not metaphysical.
Quoting 3017amen
My reference to aging here is not in relation to initial attraction or awareness of aesthetical beauty, but to a long-term loving relationship that may follow, and the indeterminacy of the ‘aesthetical object’ as viewed over time. It’s an example that speaks to the question of Love as a relation between ‘objects’ whose empirical qualities, validity/communicability, purpose and necessity are all fundamentally indeterminate.
When we determine what is beautiful, when we categorise appearances as phenomena, our relation and subsequent delight in an ‘object’ is relative to the transient nature of its aesthetic qualities. This is what prompts us to restore, preserve and protect aesthetical objects and their historical/cultural context from change, but also what leads to the subjective nature of valuation. The challenge is to recognise in an ‘aesthetic’ experience not a concept-object relation grounded in an empirical ‘essence’ but the necessary relation between indeterminate conceptual structures as a grounding or essence in itself.
Quoting 3017amen
I get that you want to separate this connection into ‘mind, body, and spirit’ - it makes it easier to talk about, but I find the distinction fosters misunderstanding, particularly for a metaphysical understanding of love. I don’t consider love to be a connection to these three objects. To love a person is not like saying that we love that car, that guitar, that house. A metaphysical connection comes from recognising that we are interacting with more than a body, which is not to say that this person is also a mind and a spirit, but that they are a complex metaphysical structure of relations, from which we arbitrarily conceive of body, mind, spirit or person for some presupposed purpose. So a brain disorder changes the nature of relations within that continually changing metaphysical structure, but it’s only when we isolate the concept of ‘mind’ and how we expect it to function that it becomes a challenge to relate in some way to this altered mind as an unexpected new aspect of that complex, indeterminate goal to whom we direct our actions and feelings of love.
I recognise that my philosophical view is not conventional. The relations between these concepts of body, mind and spirit are, for me, metaphysically structured in six dimensions. Love and Beauty as six-dimensional relations are inclusive of all possible existence: an absolute meaningfulness which renders all information meaningless at the ultimate level of awareness, but that’s another discussion. The ‘thing in itself’ is inclusive of appearance in my view, not distinct from it.
Kant’s aesthetic judgement grounds human understanding of the world in an accurate structure of appearance as indeterminate ‘objects’ of empirical intuition, but for me it lies in accurately restructuring relations as indeterminate ‘concepts’. What empirical information we acquire from any interaction is subject to our conceptual structures - formed as a result of all previous interactions - because it is our conceptual reality (inclusive of emotion and knowledge) that determines our effort and attention in the world. The idea that Kant’s noumena transcends the unity of categories, then, does not position phenomena in contrast or oppositional relation to it. Imagination in ‘free play’ with understanding enables us to continually restructure the rules, whether inspired by experiences of undeniable pleasure or inescapable pain. It is our intersubjective awareness, connection and collaboration that grounds the communicability of concepts, and their accuracy in relation to the subjective particulars of human experience.
It's the appeal to the phenomenology of the aesthetic experience. And in turn, the nature of that feeling itself, becomes metaphysical because it's abstract in its explanation (to someone). Much like an abstract painting.
Quoting Possibility
Of course the concept of Love is all encompassing, but once again, you are denying the impact of Eros and the phenomenology of the aesthetic experience. Romantic Love seems like a long lost cousin (to you). The metaphysical connection is from both the aesthetical experience itself, along with the intellectual and spiritual experience.
Quoting Possibility
We will have to agree to disagree. The aesthetic experience is the phenomenon that relates to Eros. A Kantian aesthetic judgment is a judgment which is based on feeling, and in particular on the feeling of pleasure or displeasure. Noumena is not germane in our context of phenomenology and sense experience. Noumena is independent of same.
The aesthetical experience itself is inclusive of ‘intellectual’ and ‘spiritual’ connection, not distinct from it. Phenomenology’s focus on the object of experience from the first person point of view is analogous to a geocentric perspective of the universe. The relative position of the thinking, feeling subject is not taken into account - rather it is not ‘relative’ at all, but central to phenomenological understanding.
De-centring the subject is a paradigm shift that appears to ‘deny’ the significance of the very aspects that ground this knowledge of our world, when in fact it enables us to broaden our understanding of the world beyond our limited experience. It was only when we let go of necessity in the subject-object relation between Earth and the Solar System that we could recognise our relative (albeit less significant) position in the universe. This broader understanding did not ‘deny’ the phenomenology of the human experience, but rather improved our interaction with reality - coming to terms with our experiences of humility, adjustment and lack in relation to a universe that does not revolve around our spatial position.
Experiencing Love as ‘romance’ and Beauty as ‘art’ is not lost on me, but it is a narrow or ignorant perspective, excluding opportunity for a more universal understanding of both Love and Beauty. Sure, exploring intellectual or non-sensible aspects of the aesthetic experience risks unveiling the apparent mystery and magic of a ‘phenomenon’, and de-centring knowledge by letting go of necessity in the subject-object relation appears to deny the phenomenology itself, but it need not detract from our capacity for pleasure in an interaction. Rather it enables us to come to terms with our experiences of humility, adjustment and lack in relation to the possibility of Love or Beauty, for instance, that does not revolve around our own pleasure.
Quoting 3017amen
Your preference to ignore, isolate or exclude noumena from a metaphysical discussion of the aesthetic experience is going to limit any attempt at an objective or at least intersubjective understanding of Love or Beauty. I understand your reluctance to de-centre the subject and instead cling to a phenomenological perspective - but for me metaphysics seeks an objective understanding of reality, not an anthropocentric one. Kantian aesthetic judgement may be based on feeling, and noumena may indeed be independent of sense experience, but phenomenology and sense experience are not independent of noumena, and my argument is that ‘feeling’ is not necessary to a Kantian methodology of aesthetic judgement.
Of course, but you can't deny that without the object itself, there would be no such thing as an aesthetic experience. It's logically necessary for the experience itself. For the Kantian aesthetic judgement to take place. To be apperceived.
Quoting Possibility
Consider love making (romantic love). Does it involve pleasure for both? Of course it does. As self-directed individuals (the virtues of selfishness), we seek pleasure, happiness and joy. And as a higher altruistic type of love might include; a temporary denial of oneself for the pleasure of another. That still "revolves around our own pleasures."
And so a romantic relationship that includes a mind, body, spirit connection not only has potential for the higher love for reasons beyond just the physical (aesthetic judgement/experience), it still nevertheless "revolves around our own pleasure".
Otherwise, consider when two-become-one. Part of the phenomenon is that each person wants to procreate in order to create a mini-me. It's partly based upon an aesthetic judgement to desire creating another person (the physical object). And when the baby is first born, the object is considered (Kantian aesthetic judgement) beautiful. If it wasn't, people would not feel compelled to look at other babies and say 'what a beautiful baby (or ugly baby )'.
The aesthetic judgement always begins with the object itself. We can't escape it. Sure, there are other reasons that involve the intellect, but when it comes down to it, the feelings of physical passion (Eros) is a virtue that relationship's want to maintain in all forms of Being.
Quoting Possibility
Correct. And part of the "objective understanding" is the concrete object itself. Are men and women attracted to each other physically (and mentally)? I hope so.
I do agree that apperception is necessary for an aesthetic experience - but the aesthetic experience is not necessarily contingent upon actual existence of the concrete object. This can be difficult to acknowledge, and seems to be the main source of suffering when we lose a loved one, for example. Memory, feeling, or thought can all re-invoke an experience, long after the perceived object ceases to exist. In fact, I would argue that an illusion or simulation would be sufficient for an aesthetic experience.
An aesthetic experience is contingent upon the perception of value/potential in relation to an object - but not necessarily as a property of an actual or concrete object. In an aesthetic experience, the ‘object’ is not the thing in itself, but potentiality/value as perceived by the subject in relation to appearances. Artistic production even suggests the aesthetic experience is contingent upon the existence of an aesthetic idea in relation to one’s capacity for apperception, rather than the existence or perception of any object itself.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, it does involve pleasure for both, but I dispute that romantic love-making necessarily revolves around selfish pleasure - rather, it involves a deconstruction or decentering of ‘self’ such that the pleasure sought is not a property of one or the other, but of the relation. The way I see it, romantic love is not a subject-object relation.
So, too, procreation is not necessarily a desire ‘to create a mini-me’, but to express or exhibit the approximation of an aesthetic idea by attempting to give sensible form to a rational one. The beauty of a newborn child is in the success of this exhibition - a potentiality, attributed now to the physical object - but the aesthetic experience existed well before anyone had an opportunity to look at the baby.
I’m not going to pretend that we don’t seek our own physical pleasure within these relations - that we want to maintain a physical connection to pleasure - but this has nothing to do with aesthetic judgement. My argument is that the process of aesthetic judgement and its ‘disinterested pleasure’ begins with apperception - of an aesthetic object, potentiality or idea - but is not contingent upon the physical existence of, observation or interaction with, the concrete object itself.
Sure the intellectual component that comprises feelings of perception from memory is alive and well. Nevertheless, you can't separate the object from your feelings. As another example from inanimate objects, when someone cries over their car that they've loved and become attached to but have to sell because it keeps breaking down, (in part) why do they cry?
Quoting Possibility
I can appreciate where you are going with that. An artist first has to intellectually express themselves through a medium, and that medium is usually an object. So if you want to argue subordination between the two you can. But that would only support my argument that we cannot escape (the need for) the object itself.
Quoting Possibility
Sure, ideally romantic love should encompass both appreciation of the subject and object. But a passionate relationship must involve appreciation of aesthetics. For example, regardless whether a subject is obese or not, the other subject would love that subject's object (body) when displaying any act of physical touching, caressing, loving the object itself, etc..
And so the subject-object dynamic is merely common sense.
Quoting Possibility
Sure, no exceptions taken.
Quoting Possibility
I do get what you're saying despite my arguments to the contrary. We need to have the ability to perceive objects in order for the aesthetic judgement to even take place. And so you can't have one without the other. And so if we were simply brains in a jar perhaps we would make similar aesthetic judgments about the size, shape, and definition of what a pleasure a brain gives to us.
In the context of Eros (romantic love and passion) I just don't think that it's reasonable to project an intellectual connection onto a physical object that is considered undesirable to the subject.
Well, we CAN separate the object from our feelings - but we are so accustomed to Cartesian dualism that we don’t know how, and often don’t want to. Attributing feelings to an inanimate object understood as property - a property of our being in the world - is how we legitimatise those feelings as ‘real’. But it is the relation to potentiality or value, not the actual object, that constitutes this sense of property. When parting with a car brings a feeling of pain and loss, it is for our relation to the car’s potentiality/value, not the car itself, that we cry. This is not a physical connection to the actual car - it is a physical connection to a metaphysical relation at the level of perceived potentiality.
Quoting 3017amen
Not really - An artist need not be successful at expressing themselves through an object/medium for the aesthetic experience to exist for the artist.
Quoting 3017amen
Romantic love subordinates any actual physical-physical connection. What you’re referring to here is not aesthetics - it’s desire. The origin of romantic love makes no reference at all to physical touching, caressing or desiring the object itself. It is a relation at the level of potentiality: the potential beauty and virtue of a noble lady is connected to the potential actions or expressions of a knight or poet. The knight then ‘loves’ his lady through the success of his noble quests. So, even as a subject-object dynamic, romantic love necessitates only a physical connection to a potential relation.
Quoting 3017amen
This is where our discussion may take an interesting turn. First of all, romantic love is different to passion. Eros is meant to move our focus from physical passion to romantic love - and from desire to the noble pursuit of Beauty as an aesthetic idea. I do understand the reluctance to depart from what is the easiest path to Love. I also recognise that desire is considered a fundamental aspect of this path - but this is where it differs from the aesthetic experience and Kant’s process of aesthetic judgement.
Desire - interested pleasure - is eliminated from Kant’s aesthetic judgement at the first moment. Pure judgements of beauty in an object are distinguished from judgements of the agreeable by a disinterested character of the feeling. This has not occurred in this context.
Also missing from the context of Eros is a claim to universality. There is no claim that everyone else who perceives the object ought also to judge it to be beautiful, and share pleasure.
And yet, there is a recognition even in romantic love that Beauty is not a concept of this particular human body as object, but that any judgement of beauty (or love) rests on this particular ‘person’ as an indeterminate concept. How else is it that an aesthetic experience exists despite failing to either distinguish our pleasure from judgements of the agreeable or establish a claim to universal validity?
My argument is that the personhood of any human being is recognised as an indeterminate concept, rather than an object. So it is perfectly reasonable to connect intellectually with a physical human being considered undesirable to the subject. It is also perfectly reasonable to love another human being (even romantically) - or to judge any human being as ‘beautiful’ - with or without desire or claim to universality, to pursue human relations without purpose, and to delight in such relations as an example of how everyone ought to interact with each other. Such is the nature of Love.
So, what happens to desire - to the subjective and momentary pleasure of physical passion? It is one of many ways to love. Romantic love is considered ‘successful’ in a modern context only when it is reciprocal, resulting in a mutual instance of desire. But a loving marriage cannot be sustained on a single such instance - it relies on a complex relational structure of value/potentiality that enables an ongoing manifestation of these instances of intentional loving (including but in no way limited to physical passion), sustainable within a broader and ever-changing structure of social/conceptual relations.
Not according to Kant's theory of feelings associated with aesthetic value. Consider the same inanimate object (car) being sold by the owner because it was breaking down. What if the car was rusty and unappealing to the owner who only used it as a commuter vehicle and who didn't care about its aesthetical value? Would he or she cry upon selling it? Or would they say good riddance, I never really liked it anyway? Either way, the object itself would have sentimental (an attitude towards something) value.
Or imagine an artist or otherwise a creative person designing a soap box car. He or she enters a contest which includes aesthetic's and creativity. And as such, it is judged and scored accordingly. What do you think the criteria of the object would consist of? Aesthetics? ( Beauty pageants, models, ad nauseum.)
Quoting Possibility
How is that possible?
Quoting Possibility
The desire of what, the subject's-object, or some other desire?
Quoting Possibility
Precisely my point, the potential of beauty is the aesthetic judgement.
Quoting Possibility
Because we live in a physical world, you think?
Quoting Possibility
Let's consider your indeterminate concept in this scenario. Let's assume a male sees a female who to him is highly physically desirable. He pursues a relationship with her initially, for that reason. His choice to make a decision of sustainably would rest in the compatibility needs from the intellectual component. At that point it becomes determined that there is either compatibility or non-compatibility. The subject's-object is part of the criteria either way. In other words, one outcome from your potentiality calculation could be that she was really cute but unfortunately a 'bitch'.
Quoting Possibility
Absolutely agree, but it doesn't support your theory.
The object’s sentimental value is still a property of the relation, not of the actual object itself.
Quoting 3017amen
Is the prize awarded to the artist or to the soap box car? The criteria would not consist of properties of the object itself, but of a demonstrated relation between artist and object: the aesthetics and creativity of the car’s design. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one. Beauty pageants and models are another story - the aesthetics is a form of objectification: the perceived isolation or separation of an object from the subject of which it is a property, by another subject.
Quoting 3017amen
There is a step between the aesthetic idea and the produced work of art, which Kant puts down to a genius’ ‘natural capacity’ only because - not being an artist himself - he has no means to understand it. It is the capacity to perceive an aesthetic experience in one’s own potential relation to an object, prior to its actual expression/exhibition. In my view, Michelangelo depicts this process in his unfinished ‘Prisoners’ (intention notwithstanding), having fully expressed the notion of self-perceived potentiality in ‘David’. Apperception at this level - a recognition of the extent to which that potential is realised - can be a source of torture to an artist who lacks the discipline or resources to hone their craft. Their approximations will always pale in comparison to the potentiality, exposing the limitations of the artist.
Quoting 3017amen
The desire of the appearance. Your reference to the ‘subject’s object’ suggests a dualism that renders the object a property of the subject, but I’m struggling to understand the nature of the relation as you see it. Given that an ‘object’ is a goal or thing external to the thinking mind or subject to which a specific action or feeling can be directed, there seems to be some confusion as to which ‘object’ we’re referring to - object of which subject’s mind? In my view, reference to the subject’s object suggests either self-perception, or objectification.
I recognise that Kant’s aesthetics doesn’t consider the possibility of more than one subject involved in the relation, but I’m pretty sure any attempt would be more than simply isolating an object.
The appearance of interaction with a human being is in truth an ‘undetermined object’ whose quality and quantity transcend subsumption under any particular concept. That we desire a determined object is irrelevant to the disinterested pleasure that inspires the process of aesthetic judgement. That we can neither qualify nor quantify what it is we find pleasing in an appearance leads us from an ‘indeterminate object’ of intuition to consider an ‘indeterminate concept’. That we can determine neither purpose nor necessity in the pleasure of this appearance sufficient to conceptualise the aesthetic experience inspires free-play between imagination and understanding.
The appearance remains undetermined - not an object, not a concept - any judgement or expression of such an appearance is an approximate rendering at a reduced level of awareness. To then confine that aesthetic idea to the determined object of our desire is to ignore the transcendent extent of empirical intuition that inspired this aesthetic experience in the first place. The determined object of our desire is only one instance of perceived potentiality in the aesthetic experience, which is itself only one possible expression of an aesthetic idea, which is one representation of the imagination.
I’m not suggesting we ignore this determined object of desire - though recognising it as one instance in a perceived potentiality and in a broader understanding of Beauty and Love as aesthetic ideas does diminish its significance somewhat.
Quoting 3017amen
As opposed to what? A metaphysical world? I think you missed the point of my question.
Quoting 3017amen
Is that what you consider an aesthetic judgement?
Quoting 3017amen
No, it doesn’t - I’m citing this as a common misconception of romantic love, resulting in more break-ups than ‘happily-ever-after’s. Pursuing a romantic relationship from an instance of physical desire may not be the worst idea, and it can be physically pleasurable short term, but it’s a low-percentage strategy for love. Your view seems to be that desirability or physical passion is the essential first step to love, but it’s just one way of recognising value/potential in attending to appearances. An instance of desire is the interoceptive manifestation of realising our capacity for attention and effort. It’s a pretty common experience, and although we’re eager to attribute this perceived potential (pleasurable) as the property of an apperceived object, that may not turn out to be the case. When we ‘fall out of love’ or realise that we may not have really loved someone after all, in my view we have mistakenly attributed our feeling of pleasure as ‘love’ to be a property of the perceived object, when it’s actually a property of the perceived relation.
Kant’s aesthetics is a process of suspending judgement in attributing the property ‘pleasurable’ - first to a determined object, and then to a concept - before engaging the full capacity of the intellect. This is compatible with the Platonic notion of Eros, the purpose of which was to inspire transcendence from physical passion towards Beauty as an ideal. It is recognising that there is much more to appearances than objects/concepts and their properties.
When you isolate the intellectually compatible and physically desirable components from each other (as you appear to have done in the scenario you described above, then you’re not adhering to Kant’s process of aesthetic judgement. Perceiving an aesthetic experience recognises an irreducibility of appearances to phenomena (or object/concept/properties), NOT a separation of physical and metaphysical/intellectual components. This seems to me a misunderstanding of Kant’s aesthetics. Idk
Agreed. But it requires the object itself to be apperceived, otherwise, nothing happens.
Quoting Possibility
Of course, to the artist, who is, a subjective-object as well! I agree aesthetics is a form of objective truth. But you keep getting stuck on old-school paradigm's of objectification when the truth is that aesthetics (itself) is an objective truth.
Here's where you get stuck with when you literally conflate the two:
Objectification: 1.the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
"the objectification of women in popular entertainment" 2.the expression of something abstract in a concrete form. The objectification of images may be astonishingly vivid in dreams
Aesthetics: a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
•the branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of beauty and artistic taste.
You see where item 2 of objectification and aesthetics line-up? That's kind of what we're talking about, no?
Quoting Possibility
Agreed.
1. Concerning your statement about Kant: What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you----AH Maslow
2.In the case of the artist, it's the reverse from that which we were analyzing (from Kant's aesthetical judgement). A Beauty Pageant or the criteria set forth in employing a Model is based upon the perception of the aesthetical object initially/first (pragmatically speaking). That as apposed to the manifestation of the intellect through artistic medium's is that of a secondary means of expression (the written song, the painted canvas). So it's just an issue of subordination between the two, based upon the context of aesthetics and objectivity that is being apperceived.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, correct. but again, don't keep using the old-school term of objectification because its usage is not appropriate for philosophical discourse (which I'll give you credit for) in relation to aesthetics.
Quoting Possibility
I agree. I think the term you often use is indeed appropriate. That term being possibility. But I think it's more Freudian in nature in that it's more than likely a subconscious phenomena. Meaning, the desire (in Eros) is based upon the aesthetics (judgement of physical objective beauty) of the subject's-object first, then there may be a subconscious perception of possibility that equally involves the intellect in hopes of subsequent and ensuing true compatibility, along with other relational and rational criteria.
Quoting Possibility
No. It's what I consider in your macro theory of compatibility, for which I take no exception. But again, we're parsing the distinctions here.
Quoting Possibility
But I'm not talking about Platonic love. I'm talking about the traditional definition of Eros; romance and passion, and how existential those needs are to the human condition. If I had the understanding necessary to write a romance novel, perhaps that would be meaningful to you. Nevertheless, I appreciate all that there is associated with same.
Quoting Possibility
[i]Aesthetics, or esthetics (/?s???t?ks, i?s-, æs-/), is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). It examines subjective and sensori-emotional values, or sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.[1]
Aesthetics covers both natural and artificial sources of aesthetic experience and judgment. It considers what happens in our minds when we engage with aesthetic objects or environments such as in viewing visual art, listening to music, reading poetry, experiencing a play, exploring nature, and so on. The philosophy of art specifically studies how artists imagine, create, and perform works of art, as well as how people use, enjoy, and criticize their art. It deals with how one feels about art in general, why they like some works of art and not others, and how art can affect our moods or even our beliefs.[/i]
My point of summary is that from Kant's initial (phenomenal) experience of beauty : First, they are disinterested, meaning that we take pleasure in something because we judge it beautiful, rather than judging it beautiful because we find it pleasurable.
And so judging is a secondary process. The object itself is apperceived initially. We can't escape it. It's existential in its implication.
For reference ( as you already know) : https://iep.utm.edu/kantaest/#SH2a
Not necessarily the object itself, only an appearance in which this property of the relation - the sentimental value - is perceived as a potential loss/lack. That would be sufficient for the feeling. The mind then makes sense of that feeling by attributing it to what is apparently missing - so it’s only at this point that the conceptual object is apperceived (this sequence is evidenced in recent neuroscience - see Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book ‘How Emotions Are Made’).
So without the object being apperceived, it’s not that nothing happens, rather it’s that nothing is understood to happen - except perhaps an unexplained feeling or emotion.
Quoting 3017amen
Nope - I don’t see how you can refer to aesthetics as a justifiable form of objectification in reference to a human subject. That may have been how you studied it in reference to art, but in my view, Kant’s theory of aesthetics - particularly in view of Feldman Barrett’s research on emotion and in relation to the human subject - suggests that the perception of a potential aesthetic experience is not contingent upon apperception of any determinable object, and the imagination of a possible aesthetic idea is not contingent upon understanding of any determinable concept.
Are you not treating the ‘object’ as it appears in isolation from the human subject, of which it is only a single ‘form’ of expression? This is what I take issue with here, not the parsing of appearances from extrinsic properties of the viewing subject. You’re applying Kant’s theory of aesthetics to a human subject reduced first to appearance, to the status of mere object, which then becomes the concrete form in which this ‘something abstract’ is expressed. But a ‘concrete form’ in dreams is a perceived potentiality, and bears no necessary relation to any actual ‘object’ in itself.
I get that aesthetic principles assume the existence of ‘objective’ physical material as a priori. Structural Realist metaphysics challenges this, particularly in view of QM. I’m applying Kant’s theory to a human subject perceived as an aesthetic experience in itself - of which appearance is an indefinable form of expression, a collection of interrelated instances in which an ‘aesthetic object’ may be apperceived, but not determined relative to the human subject. When we recognise that the potentiality, the aesthetic experience, is a property of relational structure, not accurately intrinsic to either subject or object as such, we can dispense with the subject-object dichotomy as an inaccurate construct in approximate representations of relational structure between Kant’s notions of aesthetic idea, experience, expression and appearance. Understanding Beauty and Love in the context of human relations should acknowledge the indeterminacy of both viewed and viewing ‘subject-objects’, and aim to construct a reductionist methodology that reflects this - inclusive of relation to the physical aspects of reality.
Quoting 3017amen
While I acknowledge that this is a classical view, I disagree that it is an accurate sequence, and I refer you again to Barrett’s theory of conceptual emotion. Modern neuroscience demonstrates that this perception of possibility (unconscious or otherwise) occurs prior to judgement in every human action, both internal (thoughts, feelings, memories) and external (verbal or physical expression and action). Self-reflection and non-judgemental, inter-subjective discussion/research enables us to map empirical evidence of these perceptions and increase our understanding of the process.
Quoting 3017amen
Well, I’ve made no reference to ‘compatibility’ as a component of my theory. That’s been your misinterpretation - it’s certainly a more complex relational structure than ‘she’s really cute but unfortunately a bitch’. That many relationships occur in spite of this judgement (as well as ‘he’s a really nice guy but we just don’t have that spark’) or breakdown despite ‘she’s really cute and a really nice person’) should suggest that there’s more to it than that.
Quoting 3017amen
First of all, the traditional definition of Eros may be ‘passion’, but is not ‘romance’ - this being a 12th century notion. It refers to love as desire, seeking to receive something from another, and is merely one component of Love, even in this ancient sense - self-absorbed and objectifying the other when considered on its own. FWIW, an erotic novel and a romance novel in my view focus on two different notions of love, despite modern conflations of the two.
Quoting 3017amen
Ok - If the ‘first moment’ is as far as you go into Kant’s aesthetics, then your misunderstanding of my approach makes more sense. Judgement at this level lacks purity - without claim to agreement, any aesthetic experience is subsumed under a subjective judgement of beauty as a concept of the object. There is no recognition of indeterminacy in your concept of an object’s beauty. You’re not even considering existence of a human subject as an aspect of the aesthetic experience at all.
All you can manage at this first level is to recognise desire in relation to an aesthetic object as unnecessary in judgements of beauty, but you haven’t even realised that...
I suddenly feel like I’ve been wasting my efforts here...
When you recognise that this initial judgement of ‘beauty’ has nothing at all to do with realising a human potentiality for Love, then get back to me.
My gut reaction is that her theory incorrectly conflates emotion with the metaphysical Will. The will to just be and survive and feel good. Or, the tension of existence or as her fellow counterpart Maslow would posit, to live an ordinary life of striving. And that involves innate, intrinsic raw 'dumb' emotion (presumably from the limbic system) that keeps us alive.
I'll read it and get back to you. I have my suspicions she does not consider the philosophy of aesthetics in her theories. Otherwise your 'appearance' and the 'object' are simply synonymous to one another.
I spent a little time reading about her theory concerning 'emotions are concepts', and frankly, have not been too terribly convinced (particularly if one believes the will precedes the intellect). Not to disparage her entirely, but I think the book relates more to pop-psychology and self help. It's really not germane to the apperception of a subjectively beautiful object. Dr. Barrett apparently parses emotions like “fear,” “sadness,” and “disappointment” etc. and how it impacts our physiology to the extent of sickness and pathology. While she's correct that feelings can effect our physiology, and that past experience helps identify that which we see, we still have to appreciate the object first for what it is (its physiology).
Be that as it may, your forgoing quote misses that very basic existential phenomenon, that without the object itself being apperceived, nothing happens. I think you are speaking in terms of cart before the horse. Emotions as concepts first, must rely on the apperception of the object itself. Thus, the subjective object known as you yourself, is being subjectively perceived, analyzed, sensed, etc. etc..
And simply, without the subjective-object existing and being apperceived, the phenomenon and feelings from aesthetics' doesn't exist. How could it?
The question for her or you would be, if the perception of the object/concept known as woman is apperceived upon seeing the/her physical appearance (physiology/aesthetics), what from experience determines whether one should engage in a romance with the object known as woman?
Further, your foregoing comment only substantiates my argument, in that your 'unexplained feeling' is that very phenomenon that is mysteriously known as Love. While you can love the person's intellect, you can also love their subjective-object, their subjective beauty. For some reason, you deny such wonderful experiences. Romance (the desire for men/women who want to see and be with each other) for you, seems like an irrelevant, indifferent and even stoic, consequential relationship between man and woman, seemingly tantamount to a need that is ancillary at best. In fact, I don't think 'need' is on your radar there.
Quoting Possibility
That's not correct. Barret maintains that things perceived are always analyzed into concepts, not feelings themselves. Take the Will for example. Have you reconciled the metaphysical will from consciousness? The will to have romantic love? Is that an intrinsic need or some intellectual concept that is lower down on the 'food chain'?
For example, she thinks:
?What is that rectangular source of light with changing patterns of color? A window!
?What is this intermittent pattern of small, cold spots sweeping across my body? Rain!
?What is that rhythmic pattern of air pressure changes? A song
While the brain is constantly trying to make sense of the data it is receiving, one of the easiest ways for it to do that is to use past experience as a guide. If it can match the current experience with a past memory, it can save a lot of time and energy. But here's the thing, that's not what we're talking about! (When I hear a song I don't consciously worry about the concept of a song; instead, I feel the music.)
I don't see a woman and simply say 'yep she's a woman' because in concept she fits the definition. Instead I also perceive her subjective-object (aesthetics) and have feelings about whether she is attractive enough to have romance with (Eros). I don't' worry about concepts of whether she's a woman or not, and her innate beauty or ugliness. The existential need to be with someone who I find attractive enough (to procreate with, etc.) has little to do with concepts. Again, much like the Will.
Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. ( I.E., He/she does not like tall/short men/women just because, period.)
Quoting Possibility
Yes. The feeling that is abstract. The feeling of romantic love that just is. The unexplained phenomena between man/woman that involves the aesthetical object. The touching, caressing, admiration, the respect of one's body as the temple for intrinsic beauty as so required (as part of) for passionate romance.
Quoting Possibility
It has everything to do with it. It's essential to the physical aspects of Love (admiration of a new-born, etc.). In principle, if it wasn't ,we would search to find something appealing about the person's brain-object, or some other physical object. The world of matter actually does matter. (In physics, matter matters; in metaphysics, non-matter matters---together there exists a phenomenon called Love.)
(I'll be brutally honest and excruciatingly graphic; during passionate, romantic love-making, why does my partner like to look down at my junk going into her junk--my object in her object--do you think she's turned on by the object/objects? And a boner or excuse me, bonus question: while my partner is watching the object(s) during love-making, is she wondering about " Lisa Barrett's concepts" ?)
Quoting 3017amen
Only if the ‘object’ is undetermined - that is, aesthetic in appearance. If you conceptualise the experience as ‘woman’, then no other judgement needs to be made. It is that there is more to appearances - to the aesthetics of the experience - than what can be subsumed under the object/concept ‘woman’, that inspires the faculty of aesthetic judgement. At this point you are no longer just appreciating the physiology of the object as instances of the concept ‘woman’, but the metaphysics of the subjective experience as it affects appearances in which this ‘woman’ can be intuited.
But the subject-object perspective limits your ability to fully engage this faculty of aesthetic judgement. Kant applies the faculty only to inanimate objects, enabling the aesthetics of the experience to be easily attributed to either the object as a property or to the observer’s intellect as a capacity, as if this is the only possible relational structure. In trying to make your experience of Love fit this relational structure, you’re excluding the possibility of attributing the aesthetics of the experience to the intellectual capacity of the observed - seemingly because it complicates your understanding of relational structure as a consequence of interaction between necessary objects. So long as you ground reality in the necessity of the object, Love will remain for you an unexplainable phenomenon, a mystery. But I suspect that you prefer the magic, the bliss of ignorance, and are not willing to give that up to understand how it really works. Blue pill or red pill? What do you really want out of this discussion?
Quoting 3017amen
You’re missing the point. I think we can agree that what determines whether one should engage in a romance cannot be fully conceptualised from experience or attributed to an object. The indeterminate element is what I imagine you refer to as the phenomenon of Love, but for me it isn’t something separate from the objects/concepts, like a mysterious, attractive ‘force’ between them. There is no ‘force’ here that determines whether one should engage in a romance with an object that has certain physiology/aesthetics.
You refer to Love as a phenomenon - a ‘mysterious’, qualitative relation that just IS - like gravity, perhaps? So long as we’re talking about the classical, Newtonian view of necessary objects in space and time, gravity makes sense as a ‘mysterious’ force acting between those objects. Bring QM into it - the recognition that relational structure, not objects, exists necessarily - and the notion of a ‘force between objects’ no longer fits. Gravity needs to be reframed as a qualitative aspect of the relational structure by which ‘objects’ and immaterial ‘properties’ appear and interact. It’s a paradigm shift that would force qualitative relations into the realm of quantum physics.
In a similar way, Barrett’s research applies neuroscience to bring quantitative relations - and with it more rigorous scientific methodology - into the study of emotion. The result is a reframing of emotion as a quantitative aspect of the relational structure by which constructed ‘concepts’ (as probabilistic patterns of past instances) influence our perception of and interaction with ‘objects’. She shows that ‘feelings themselves’ originate from our interoceptive network, which continually predicts the body’s energy distribution requirements - a quantitative relation of valence and arousal known as affect - constructed into an ongoing information event.
In your classical view, matter (the object) matters/exists necessarily, and relational structure is a consequence. Ideas, feelings, thoughts, etc matter only in service of, or in relation to, the object. It seems impossible in this view to conceive a relation - an idea, thought or feeling - that is not grounded first in an apperception of objects and their aesthetic properties. I get that this assumption results in a solid sense of reality that can be validated with a high probability of certainty and intersubjective agreement. There’s an element of comfort in that. As this validated reality interacts in space and time, the relations are understood as physical laws or mental ‘phenomena’: subjective aspects of experience that consist of immaterial ‘concepts’ - relational properties extending from a ‘concrete’ reality of actual ‘objects’. The aim is then to formulate a systematic arrangement that predicts how forces and laws govern the way objects with certain properties are supposed to relate to each other from a logical (ie. anthropic, semiotic) perspective.
But this process doesn’t quite fit our experience, if we’re being honest. Parsing the notion of Love into ‘physical’ (material) and ‘metaphysical’ (immaterial) subjective relations ignores the metaphysically integrated and irreducible nature of the human organism. Kant’s aesthetic faculty of judgement is not the act of subsuming objects or appearances under concepts, but a capacity to apperceive aspects of experience that transcend and deconstruct objects/concepts - inspiring us to re-imagine and re-conceptualise reality - and in doing so, improve the accuracy of our faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement themselves.
In my view of six-dimensional metaphysics, it’s the relational structure that matters/exists necessarily, and the ‘object’ is a consequence. It supposes the necessary prior existence of possibility and potentiality as complex relational structures that reduce to the foundational binary concepts of the universe such as energy/entropy, matter/anti-matter and information/noise. Relations of energy-matter-information evolve through interaction in time to manifest increasingly complex, diverse and multi-dimensionally integrated relational structures, some eventually capable of apperception. The aim is to predict, test and refine our imagination, understanding and judgement of these relational systems as perceived at each level of integration, recognising the ‘object’ as a consequence of relational structure, and our own logical perspective as but one possible position.
Quoting 3017amen
Incidentally, that ‘unexplained feeling’ could also be the flu...
Seriously though, I’m not talking about loving a person’s intellect. Aesthetics refers to perception beyond what is apperceived. In an aesthetic experience, one perceives a potential for delight in appearances beyond any object as apperceived. By continuing to determine a woman as an ‘object’ in this experience, the observer believes this perceived potential to be his own - his desire - which he may think he is attributing as a property to the object as ‘love’, even though a woman is indefinable as an object. Instead, he apperceives her actuality (object) as a mere instance of this potential - BOTH his own potential to experience pleasure (or love or beauty) AND her potential to delight as she will (and whom she will). Once he apperceives her potential beyond the concept ‘woman’, then she is no longer simply an aesthetic object, but a metaphysical experience, an aesthetic phenomenon such as Love or Beauty. This is romantic love: not a denial of our own potential, but the apperception of indeterminate potential in another, from which many pleasurable instances may be manifest through awareness, connection and collaboration.
I’m not denying the experience of actively manifesting our own perceived potential (to experience pleasure, love or beauty) by interacting with the actuality of another, but I disagree that this desire for a physical object is essential to ‘romantic’ love, let alone to the full potential of Love between human beings. I get that this seems counter-intuitive - that for you, the object exists necessarily, and so such a desired (potentially pleasurable) experience perceived in relation to an object constitutes a need. For me, the perceived potential is of more consequence than any one manifest instance of ‘object’ one may take pleasure in. The aesthetic appearance of an object may vary dramatically, with little change to your desire - why? Because the potential for pleasure is perceived in the experience, which you then attribute to an ‘object’ with each interaction.
Quoting 3017amen
Your partner doesn’t need to consciously wonder why she’s aroused by specific visual elements of the act for her relation to be metaphysical - that is, to be more about her own experiences, ideas, feelings and thoughts in relation to you or love-making in general, than about your actual junk or hers. That she attributes her feelings to certain objects might make sense to either or both of you after the fact, but the neuroscience of romantic love is less reliant necessarily on the physiology of ‘objects’ than you’d like to think. Sex, after all, is only one of many ways to ‘make’ love romantically, despite what you might have been led to believe.
An unconscious perception of potential in subjective experience that has yet to be conceptualised contributes to an ongoing interoception of affect (a prediction of valence and arousal) in probabilistic relation to aesthetic aspects of experience - allocating effort and attention by the body towards this new information. Positive valence and high arousal is attractive, and the system is primed to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the perceived potential for pleasure in experiences, even as they point to more than our conceptual structures can determine.
The integrated system of a human organism is capable of delighting in non-conceptual relations between possibility (imagination) and potentiality (understanding) that can transcend any notion of self, subject or object, as well as attributing that delight to a momentary instance of physical caress or the person you wake up to every morning. Just because I prefer to focus on non-conceptual relations, does not mean I’m denying physical relations. It’s like accusing me of denying the existence of a mosquito when I’m talking about the planet’s ecosystem. Yes, they exist. Yes, if none of them existed, the system would not be the same. But no, mosquitoes are not essential to the system. And neither are physical relations essential to the phenomena we call Love.
You are making a case for concepts. Your last several posts speak to it. You go into extraneous detail about potentiality. But that's not what we're talking about. (I tried to help you by floating a form of Voluntarism.)
Quoting Possibility
Really? The baby comes out of the womb, and its subjective-object is perceived as a feeling of love by others. Its presence, the physical object (baby), is loved for what it is, an object. It's intrinsic beauty (or ugly-ness). Otherwise, tell the Entomologist his passion for insects doesn't relate to insects at all.
While certainly there are subconscious 'concepts' about the past/future working behind the scenes (I love(d) my husband/wife so much, and all the joys associated with potentiality, etc. etc.), but you appreciate the baby's aesthetics for its own sake. For instance, it's beautiful because it looks like me, her, him, etc.. or it's just beautiful because it's a baby, whether it's adopted or otherwise. They are joyful to look at.
Quoting Possibility
No pun intended, but I'm being hard on you because of your denial's. You keep talking all around the obvious. Case in point, you just said she doesn't need to wonder about concepts, yet you just posited same ("ideas, experiences, thoughts"). Why is she wondering about "her own ideas? What are those ideas? What are her "thoughts"? Are they erotic emotions involving desire? Is his/her junk not joyful to look at?
Accordingly, isn't she looking at the objects (penis and vagina) because it gives her personal pleasure to look at them, together. ? Why does she shave or not shave? Why is she concerned about her appearance in general? Does she care? She must have strong feelings for her own object and her partners object, no? The only thing I think you got right there are her "feelings". And in this case, as previous illustrated, it's the act of procreation and the Will to create another person, a subjective-object (a baby).
It's kind of amusing Possibility, you keep talking about 'potential'. Those are concepts. The nature of beauty is what you keep denying. I'm puzzled as to why you are intimidated by questions or statements about the nature/purpose of beauty. As an ancillary note, have you studied late 18th century Romanticism? I would urge you to check it out.
Maybe putting some of them into propositions would help (true/false, or something else):
1.Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false?
2. He/she does not like tall/short men/women just because, period. True/false?
(He/She does not like baldness; likes dark haired men/women, small feet, hair on back/face...)
3. We live in a world of matter and non-matter. In physics, matter matters; in metaphysics, non-matter matters---together there exists a phenomenon called Love. True/False?
4.The object itself, is essential to the physical aspects of Love (admiration of a new-born, etc.). True/False?
5. The Will to have physical romantic love is dependent upon the physical object? True/False?
6. "I can't wait to see you again", is dependent upon the seeing of the object. True/False?
7. Women purchase cosmetics because they want to look beautiful. True/false?
8. People go to the gym because they care about health/well being and their subjective-object. True/False?
I’m okay with referring to this focus of intuition as an ‘object’, but I think we need to clarify the transcendence of this term. Language (English language in particular) has an ambiguity to it that allows us to refer to ‘objects’ as if they transcend the relational structures that determine awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion. When we talk about a baby as an ‘object’, we’re referring to one goal/focus of both sensible (empirical) and intelligible intuition. Parsing this ‘object’ into physical and subjective only perpetuates the dualism that we’ve been trying to reconcile. It’s not the relational structure itself that shifts between ‘physical’ and ‘subjective’, but one’s perceived orientation within the broader structure of reality, in relation to what we’re focused on. The way we focus on and interact with a particular relational structure appears different as our awareness shifts - it’s not a different ‘object in itself’.
This shift is influenced as much by our dimensional awareness as it is by our position. When we imagine the relational structure of objective reality as six-dimensional, a perceived three-dimensional relational structure (a ‘physical object’) is assumed ‘objectively’ definable in terms of its spatial position, but is relative in terms of time, value and meaning. These latter aspects are definable in relation to a local observer position, but only for those systems that are integrated beyond each of these structural levels of complexity.
So an integrated four-dimensional system - any basic lifeform - is able to vaguely perceive three-dimensional structure, but would evolve apperception: identification of a particular 3D relational structure as a goal or focus for the attention and effort of the system in a static observation/measurement. Non-conscious lifeforms can identify gradients or ‘shapes’ of 2D information, but not 3D ‘objects’. Space and volume at this level of awareness evolves as a property of, a force acting upon, or a container-world for, these informational ‘shapes’.
A five-dimensional integrated system - a basic conscious being - is then structured to identify or render these three-dimensional relational structures persisting in time, and perceive (ie. respond to) four-dimensional relational structure (events), but most are not yet able to identify or render an event as anything but a ‘property’ of an ‘object’. They may be able to recognise and interact with a metaphysical ‘force’ as distinct from these objects, but would attribute this force to themselves or hypothesise another similarly ‘conscious’ system as cause (which they then attribute necessarily to an object). This evolution is evident in the ancient and unconscious manifestation of social, cultural and religious rituals (events). Time at this level is perceived as a relational property of, force/phenomenon acting upon, or container-world for, these objects. ‘Shape’ at this level also evolves from being an ‘inherent’ property of an object, to a typical or possible pattern of 2D relational structures.
The evolution of a six-dimensional integrated system - a basic self-conscious subject - is structured to identify or create events (based on patterns of 3D relational structures) and perceive five-dimensional relational structures (value/potential concepts), and evolves an apperception of this value or conceptual structure as more than a relational ‘property’ of, or metaphysical ‘phenomenon’ acting upon, an ‘apperception of object’ - or any other event/appearance/intuition. A ‘physical object’ at this level evolves from being an ‘inherent’ property of an appearance, to a typical or possible pattern of 3D relational structures.
So when you talk about an ‘aesthetic object’ of empirical intuition, you’re referring here to an ‘apperception of object’ - a four-dimensional relational structure or event, in which a particular 3D relational structure (the ‘physical object’) is relatively determined by a particular five-dimensional integrated system, within a six-dimensional reality. This might seem unnecessarily complex, but I wanted to point out the relativity of the term ‘object’, and the amount of potential information surrounding the apperception of a ‘physical object’.
In your view, the intuition of someone looking at a newborn baby includes the conscious subject (observer), an apperceived event (‘object’) and perception of a ‘feeling’, which you attribute as a metaphysical ‘force’ or phenomenon acting upon both subject and apperception, of which a physical object is an ‘inherent’ property.
My view is that we first recognise the relational structure as consisting of two interrelating 4D events (consisting of variably apperceived ‘physical objects’) within a five-dimensional structure of intuition (superposition). This effectively de-centralises the conscious subject, and recognises the variable interactive nature of both apperception and observant system (this is a methodology effectively employed by quantum physicists such as Carlo Rovelli - see his book ‘The Order of Time’). The ‘actual’ newborn baby is then a possible pattern of 3D relational structure within the appearance, but need not be identifiable as such for a particular mental appearance to occur in relation to an observant system. An entomologist can develop a passion for insects without ever having been in the presence of a physical insect, just as a child can develop a passion for unicorns.
Having acknowledged a metaphysical, five-dimensional structure - and recognising ourselves to be aware of ‘self’ - I suggest acknowledging intuition or aesthetic experience itself as a five-dimensional relational structure in relation to a five-dimensional conscious subject, within an imaginable six-dimensional metaphysical reality. This remains essentially consistent with Kant’s faculty of aesthetic judgement, referring to the process by which imagination and understanding are in ‘free play’: that is, one recognises the variable, interactive nature of both the manifold of intuition and the conceptual structure of ‘self’ within a metaphysical container of objective reality.
That’s more than enough to digest for now - I will try to more specifically address your questions when I have more time...
I’m not going to pretend that this kind of discussion is simple. We can’t really discuss non-material aspects of reality without conceptualising them through language terms (such as ‘ideas’, ‘experiences’, ‘thoughts’). I could refer to them collectively as ‘phenomena’, but it doesn’t do justice to the distinction between aspects of experience that are in accordance with concepts, and what transcends them. What I’m referring to is a non-conceptual aspect of reality in which concepts (as particular patterns of ideas, thoughts, feelings about our experiences of Love, Beauty, potentiality, etc) may be determined - but not necessarily so. This six-dimensional aspect is a possibility experienced beyond conceptual reality - where imagination interacts with understanding - and concepts may be arbitrarily determined from this experience by a subject, or not.
Quoting 3017amen
That she has strong feelings I would agree with. That those feelings are attributed to ‘physical objects’ in the way you describe is neither objective nor necessary. We rationalise the attribution of feelings as suits our understanding of purpose or meaning, but we are capable of simply delighting in the pleasure of the experience without necessarily attributing those feelings to any concept, object or physical aspect. Our capacity for this delight is dependent on relation neither to physical nor to cognitive aspects of reality: it merely requires a relation.
Quoting 3017amen
There is no necessary nature/purpose to pure aesthetic beauty, except that which we arbitrarily attribute to aspects of our experience. This is what Kant points to. Potentiality itself is just as conceptually indeterminate.
As for early Romanticism, I haven’t specifically studied it, but it doesn’t appear to have been as dependent on the ‘physical’ aspects of beauty as your view seem to be.
Quoting SEP: 19th Century Romantic Aesthetic
Quoting 3017amen
Subjective interpretation. Just because people do this, does not mean it’s definitive of human nature. This is not all we’re capable of. First impressions are rarely accurate, and the majority of relationships are formed not on initial aesthetics but on a predicted structure of this potential information formulated from previous relevant interactions. People have the capacity to make, test and refine predictions of how much attention and effort to expend on interactions with other people as part of their ongoing interoception of affect. That a reductionist methodology for many people is to judge on first impressions only demonstrates that they interact with their conceptual reality (the predictions they make based on past experiences) more than an empirical one.
Quoting 3017amen
Subjective interpretation. ‘Just because, period’ is an insufficient answer (weren’t you told this as a child?). Just because you can’t explain it, doesn’t mean no information is available.
I’ll admit that I have preferences with regard to appearances, but I don’t think I’ve ever considered any of them a deal-breaker. Granted, if you’ve been in the game a while (and you assume physical desire to be the foundation of any romantic relationship), I imagine you might establish a clear pattern of aesthetic probability calculations to save time. But given that so few of these are consistent aesthetics, it doesn’t seem to be a reliable gauge to find Love, in my opinion. It’s just another example of judgement from predictions based on atemporal aspects of experience, more than present empirical data.
Quoting 3017amen
False. We live in a world that can be more accurately understood in terms of a metaphysics which incorporates physics, rather than parsing reality into matter or non-matter. The resulting dualism simply excludes one from understanding the other, rather than recognising the binary relation as a fundamental fabric to the universe. This ‘phenomenon’ called Love, an attraction that you seem to think is only relevant as a human, physical feeling, refers to what matters in any level of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion. It is an underlying creative impetus to the metaphysical universe - not a force between physical objects.
Quoting 3017amen
False. You seem to insist on keeping the ‘physical’ subject-to-object aspect of Love isolated. Love as an apperception of attraction towards the physical aspects of an ‘object’ is only one part of a multi-dimensional phenomenon. You won’t understand Love by defining it so narrowly.
When we interact with reality, the brain makes decisions based on very little present empirical information in relation to how we conceptualise reality. The admiration one feels in looking at a newborn is simply a positive valence attributed to the new information, that attracts our attention and effort to look and be rewarded with more new, positive information about this appearance of reality.
Quoting 3017amen
Sort of true - the Will to render a physical act from an experience of romantic love is dependent upon relating the experience to an apperceived ‘physical object’. But the relation to this ‘physical object’ is dependent upon the metaphysical Will to love: to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with a multi-dimensional relational structure; to relate transcendental aspects of appearance. This Will to love is reduced by ignorance, isolation or exclusion to a Will to love ‘romantically’, and reduced again to a Will to love ‘physically’ from the same position. To ‘have physical romantic love’ is to isolate the physical aspect - to render romantic love (an interaction of mutual potentiality) as an interaction with only the apperceived physical aspects (‘physical object’) of a particular appearance, and then attempt to possess the unattributed perceived potential (‘love’ as a phenomenon) in relation to that appearance, in order to manifest your own pleasure/purpose.
I agree that this is what many people think ‘love’ is - it’s an observable, measurable aspect of an experience of love that they can apperceive in the world. But it’s not love in my book, it’s judgement. And while a perceived capacity for judgement is necessary to the Will to love romantically, an act of judgement is not.
Quoting 3017amen
False - although I get how it seems true in your classical understanding of reality. The verb ‘to see’ (like the concept ‘love’) refers to multiple ways of interacting with reality that ancient Greek metaphysics always distinguished, but English have not. The Greek language distinguishes seven different concepts of ‘love’, and at least three different concepts of ‘seeing’. In English, we say ‘see’ when we mean look (the act of obtaining visual sense data), as well as when we mean perceive (the intuition of objects/concepts), and when we mean understand (the process of engaging the intellect in structuring predictions of experience). The first meaning is dependent upon obtaining visual sense data from a physical interaction with the actual object, but the other two are not.
When a child first learns to read, she reads ‘See Dora run’: she looks at the words and accompanying image, she perceives the objects/concepts, and she understands the structural relations of the experience - in that order, and at the levels of story, significance and language. When we talk or read as adults, the structural relations are not dependent upon any ‘physical object’. When I say “I can’t wait to see you again”, I could mean any or all of these forms of ‘seeing’ - and what I think I mean may in fact differ from what feelings prompted me to say it. Such is the complex nature of love and language. This ambiguity in language has allowed us to gloss over inaccuracies in how we make sense of reality.
Quoting 3017amen
Subjective interpretation. I purchase cosmetics to wear for work and for social events. My aim in wearing make-up is to enhance a potential perspective of validity by those with whom I interact on these occasions. In relation to work, it isn’t that I want to look ‘beautiful’, but that I want to appear ‘professional’. A woman who doesn’t wear make-up appears to lack a certain perceived ‘value’ in an office environment. It’s a facade, but a few minutes spent in the morning is a shortcut to making an initial impression. In relation to social events, my aim with cosmetics is to appear more ‘beautiful’, younger or generally more valued than I would otherwise feel in certain company. But I certainly don’t believe that I need cosmetics to BE ‘beautiful’, ‘professional’ or ‘valuable’ in any objective sense. An existing potential of beauty, value and professionalism is not dependent upon the physical aspects of my appearance - but I can increase the probability of someone else perceiving and interacting with this potential.
Of course, there are some women who rely on cosmetics, clothing and compliments - limited by social/cultural ignorance that conceptualises ‘beauty’ only as a property of physical aspects of appearance, and attributed according to the limited capacity of the product or the subjective Will of an observer. They perceive their potential for beauty only in their physical aspects of appearance as apperceived by external agents, rather than as part of their own potential, their own agency. And you seem more than happy to keep it that way.
Quoting 3017amen
True, but there is more to ‘caring about’ health/wellbeing or strength than the physical aspects of an appearance. Like beauty and love, wellbeing is not the subjective property of apperceived physical aspects we commonly think it is - it’s a perception of additional aspects of appearance. The physical appearance of health is not always an accurate indication of actual health - drug or steroid abuse among sport and fitness professionals and models is a clear example of the ‘shortcuts’ that people take to ‘appear’ healthy, ignorantly assuming that their value/potential/strength is dependent upon apperceived physical aspects of appearance. As long as they fit the social/cultural aesthetic pattern of ‘healthy’, they must be healthy, and any negative feelings (pain, etc) they experience can be ignored or rationalised with some other purpose/meaning.
As an analogy: energy is a perceived potentiality, whose physical aspects - such as 4D work and 3D matter - act as measurable/observable evidence of its existence. It is a mistake in the age of quantum mechanics to assume that the existence of energy is dependent upon an apperception of work or matter. Rather, it is more accurate to say that work and matter are manifestations of the interacting potentiality (entropy) that we perceive as energy.
BTW, ironically enough, a co-worker just showed me his newborn litter of pigs. we both felt happy seeing the little piglets next to their mom, and how so very cute they were. Subconsciously, we probably appreciated their aesthetics' (beauty or ugliness) for its own sake. We appreciated the object for what it is. And we received joy from the experience of looking at it (the object itself).
I'll get to your other points shortly!
It is simpler (not an intellectual concept that you keep arguing) than what you make it out to be; don't conceptualize it. You're trying to make metaphysical will and intention into an intellectual exercise that determines the emotional experience.
The will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know. In that sense, the will determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Think of it as a contextual sense of the will to live and not die. It's an innate desire to be.
In contrast, you seem to be giving the intellect primacy in that the choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as potentially or intrinsically good; the will itself is determined. And I'm saying the will is indetermined, much like Kant's emotional experience for aesthetics'.
The will itself being indetermined just is. Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason" argued that humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality. In this case, it is truly both an existential and phenomenological thing-in-itself. And that thing is the subjective-object; you. Yet we apperceived joy from viewing the object. We simply don't know why or how our own physiology is impacted by both the observer and the observed. We just know it feels good (or bad) upon initially viewing the object.
Quoting Possibility
It would be considered a phenomenon, yes. Don't deny that. The will itself is the transcendent experience. Think of it as the will to paint on the canvas, or write the music. The physical medium is the means to the end.
Quoting Possibility
No. the object itself is logically necessary for the aesthetic experience to occur.
Quoting Possibility
No we don't. You're subordinating feelings to concepts. You're giving the intellect primacy. Think of it like computing laws of gravity before dodging falling objects. One doesn't compute gravity to evade danger, fear and death. Our will to survive takes primacy, just like the cognitive energy from our sentience and metaphysical will to be.
Quoting Possibility
It merely requires the object; the observer and the observed.
Quoting Possibility
False. Otherwise you wouldn't have the capacity to create a mini-me.
Quoting Possibility
It has no relevance as to whether they are accurate. They can be arbitrary, inaccurate and subjective. The feelings themselves exist and are real. The ability to reject or accept a subject's aesthetics is a real phenomenon.
Quoting Possibility
Yep. It's a Subjective truth that exists. And an existential phenomenon that just is.
Quoting Possibility
But other people do. I challenge you to make romantic passionate love to an physically abhorrent undesirable Being that you've known as intellectually compatible through your 'concepts' only.
Quoting Possibility
If I understand that correctly...I agree. See, that wasn't so hard was it... ?
I'll get to items 4-8 in a subsequent post. Thanks Possibility!
My own quest has involved taking testosterone and I still currently still look ambiguous. On a subconscious level I think maybe this reflects my own alignment with the archetypal hermaphrodite, which spans the spectrum of trans and intersex issues.
I still experience dysphoria but feel happier and I don't wish to be stereotypically male. I don't want to be aggressive and wish to remain sensitive but I do think testosterone has changed my behaviour to some extent. It has made me less interested in other people but I seek to remain compassionate to others.
My main goal is to feel happier with my own body and this quest has not been easy, but relating this to Jung's ideas, he suggested that individuation is not easy.
Yes indeed, physical appearances do matter! :chin:
It is this essentialism of Kant’s doctrine that I’m arguing against. We may not ‘know’ the reality of existence, but we at least have the capacity to understand it much more than Kant appears to give us credit for (of course, his writing is not only pre-Darwin, but also pre-QM, psychology and neuroscience, so I won’t hold that against him). I don’t agree that the will ‘just is’, that emotion concepts are inherent and therefore universal, or that their indeterminacy is an excuse to not engage the intellect in judgement. It is our capacity for ‘free play’ of imagination and understanding that allows us to then predict, create or hypothesise an aesthetic or emotional experience without presupposing the actual presence of an empirical object.
To that end, humans are fully capable of initiating a genuine, physical act of love towards a “physically abhorrent, undesirable Being” without needing to have sex with them. We may not behave this way very often, but the capacity is there to be perceived.
Granted, for the most part the will is engaged unconsciously (then we rationalise the appearance of our actions by subsuming them under concepts and in relation to ‘physical objects’), but only because we let it. The will is the faculty by which one determines and initiates action, and the indeterminacy of this faculty does not preclude a probabilistic and/or qualitatively potential determination of the relational structure (in five dimensions) from subjective experience.
So why wouldn’t we make use of the intellect in developing an understanding of this faculty of the will - without assuming the necessity of either concepts or empirical objects? Isn’t that what philosophy is?
Quoting 3017amen
What is it that you’re arguing? What do you think occurs when people ‘reject or accept a subject’s aesthetics’ this quickly? They’re not physically rejecting/accepting them. Rather, they are judging the subject by a feeling of predicted pleasure that is far from disinterested - presupposing, as it does, the actual presence of the object - with no claim to universality. And then they are determining and initiating action based on that prediction. This is NOT pure aesthetics. If you believe you are avoiding conceptualisation by focusing on the ‘feeling’ as if it is a phenomenon, then I would argue that you don’t understand Kant’s aesthetics. Kant’s title is Critique of the Faculty of Judgement - the capacity, not the act.
An aesthetics which is detached from experience is too remote to be of use to humans. Kant is important but in the 21st century we are moving into multidimensional reality and reason alone cannot be limited by the blindness of intellectualisation as the only means of judgement. Such perceptions would be like climbing into a black hole.
Yes, because without it, in your case of Thomism, no judgement is apperceived.
Quoting Possibility
Correct. And that is the part you keep denying. Love is certainly more than that, but without that, no-thing occurs. How could it?
Quoting Possibility
There you go again plip-flopping. I agree. You are suggesting the Will precedes the intellect.
Quoting Possibility
Correct. It attracts our attention. Think about that dynamic.
Quoting Possibility
It's true. It's logically necessary.
Quoting Possibility
Agree.
Quoting Possibility
Nonsense. It's true not false. There is no escape from the physical object. If it was false, you wouldn't care to create a mini-me that resembles you.
Quoting Possibility
As it should be! Nonetheless, a universal subjective truth (aesthetics).
Quoting Possibility
Correct. You just contradicted yourself again. Like it or not, appearance in the work environment is important. See, was that so difficult... .
Quoting Possibility
Once again, I agree. The 'facade' , like it or not, is apparently necessary.
Quoting Possibility
There's the dichotomy. They should be happy with their own appearance as; good, bad or ugly. Yet, they allow themselves to be manipulated by 'external agents'. That's simply an old paradigm that you're propagating which in turn leads to an unhealthy manipulation of self.
Nonetheless, it proves the importance (psychological impacts) of the physical.
No. This is why human's accept or reject each other's aesthetics within seconds while being observed. It's more Freudian than not. As you said earlier, there is no empirical analysis. It just is. Physically, you either like his attributes or you don't. Some women like tall men with beards and other's don't. Simple.
There is no 'excuse'. We can't help liking what we like, and not liking what we don't like. Go purchase the ugliest million dollar house on the street, notwithstanding me LOL. Otherwise, using the same analogy, why do subdivision's have proffers, is it because they are concerned with appearances?
Quoting Possibility
Part of philosophy is both the discovery and uncovery of a particular thing's truth (value) along with its negation. In this case, it is the Will to be, and to perceive those aforementioned things-in-themselves as intrinsic human desires and needs. We don't have to understand their true nature to know that we desire them for what they are, which are things. We appreciate their beauty for its own sake.
Two people who are considered aesthetically unpleasing to look at, don't think about how unpleasing their partner is; they are attracted to each other as an aesthetic need. Mom enters room, baby is happy. Mom leaves room, baby cries. That's just one component of Love (the love as attachment theory), yet a powerful one at that.
Quoting Possibility
They are not judging. They are simply gravitating toward or away from that which is intrinsically pleasing to them. Personally, I prefer dark haired Asian women. I have no idea why. You may prefer dark Italian men with beards, who knows. You can't use Thomism/Lisa Barret to justify your choices. Otherwise, you are with the person for some other reason (which may/may not be a good/bad thing depending on your intentions). But you still have to get past the aesthetics; there is no escape. (So why not enjoy!)
Welcome to TPF, and to this discussion.
First of all, I have to admit that I’m not very familiar with your particular situation as a non-binary transman. I can only imagine what it would be like to feel such an incongruity between your gender appearance and identity, and I hope that you can find some peace with this relation.
I can understand that your impression from reading Kant’s first two critiques is that of detachment from experience, but that’s not what I get from his Critique of the Faculty of Judgement in particular. I don’t believe his aesthetics was detached from experience at all - rather, it was based on experience, and seemed to me to discourage any act of judgement on objects or concepts of experience without first relating (ie. being emotionally and intellectually open) to the entire experience itself, regardless of object or concept.
The main disagreement I’m having with @3017amen is the necessity of the empirical object in this experience. My view is not a denial of experience in favour of intellectualisation, but rather recognises that the subjectivity of experience - the appearance of it or representation in the mind, inclusive of our feelings and thoughts towards such representation - does not presuppose a particular objective, physical existence.
I think perhaps that your situation as described may be relevant here. How do you believe one’s gender identity develops? If it is an inherent essence of the ‘soul’ to be discovered, then the incongruity you experience with your physical existence supposedly should not occur. And yet it does, and some ‘subjective, universal truth’ suggests that there is something inherently ‘wrong’ either with how you feel or how you physically appear, which must necessarily be ‘corrected’ by making your empirical object, with its appearance, match the representation with which you identify. I disagree with the assumed necessity of physical ‘correction’ (not with your decision to ‘correct’), and with any assumption that anything is ‘wrong’ with your situation - although I am likely in a minority, and I recognise that my personal view doesn’t change how you feel.
The way I see it, our gender identity concepts are not inherent, but constructed multi-dimensionally by the sum of our experience - most of it unconsciously. Lisa Feldman Barrett’s research on emotions points out that affect - the positive/negative valence and high/low arousal that is an ongoing interoception of the overall moment of experience - builds the relational structure of all our concepts, including how we interpret feelings as emotion, and other concepts that we would consider ‘essential’ to the human experience. I’m certainly not suggesting that this incongruity you feel can be blamed on the environment, but I do believe that the more society embraces the multi-dimensional indeterminacy of gender in our language and social constructs, the less incongruous a non-binary identity might feel in relation to physical appearance. Granted, that doesn’t help you today. We still predict gender identity and sexual interest based on learned patterns of appearance - although younger generations are much more receptive to adjusting perception of gender and sexuality based on non-binary information, and even accepting gender indeterminacy as an initial impression, despite the complexities of language that some older minds still struggle with.
The question of ‘what am I?’ seeks to position the self in the socio-conceptual system we share with the world. In my own experience, how I understand myself has always been much more fluid and wave-like than the ‘particle’ I determine for external observers. This has been my experience, and it has taken me many years to recognise that most people don’t perceive themselves or others this way, and they certainly don’t consider that I might be other than how I appear to them. Most people are confused when they see me outside the context in which they’re accustomed to interacting with me, because I will often appear as if a different person. As a result, I felt for a long time as if no-one really ‘knew’ who I was - even me. It wasn’t until I came across quantum theory that I felt understood as an entity by anyone except my husband (ironically, he’s a specialist mathematics teacher). And my daughter, now a teenager, shows a similar ‘wave-like’ apperception - a conscious awareness of one’s potential existence as other than how they appear. For her sake as well as my own, it is this reality that I am striving to understand, and articulate in the context of most socio-conceptual systems that seem to only vaguely perceive my existence...
Why do you continue to assume that I deny this? You assert that a physical aspect of interaction is necessary to an experience of Love - I disagree. That’s all. Nothing needs to actually occur, nor physically exist, for Love to exist as part of an experience. That something often does occur, or is observable/measurable, is not denied by, nor does it preclude, my position.
Quoting 3017amen
No - you assume that the Will and the intellect are temporally located. What determines and initiates action involves an atemporal interrelation of faculties, in which any empirical information is represented as a difference from existing conceptual structures (prediction), and the process of reconciling this difference may or may not require consciously engaging the intellect, depending on the structure of the conceptual system itself. But there is no human interaction with the world (including emotion) that occurs independent of its conceptual structures (save our reflexes), whether you’re aware of the process or not. This is an argument backed by the latest research in neuroscience. While Kant’s position is that concepts are an inherent spontaneity of intellect isolated from feeling, Barrett’s argument suggests that this ‘spontaneous’ existence is continuously constructed through interrelation of the faculties of judgement, understanding and imagination: amorphous, atemporal relational structures at the highest level of perception.
Quoting 3017amen
I wouldn’t care to create a physical object that resembles me - that’s not love. I’d care to create a representation of this perceived potential for love that transcends the physical interaction. The object (mini-me) as you describe inspires an interested, agreeable type pleasure, but is unnecessary for love to exist - it is the perceived potential for love that matters, and that makes a squealing baby appear so beautiful, even if they look nothing like me. It is also what makes a premature loss so painful - that the experience of love for this potential remains, and can be invoked in the appearance of a cot, for instance, or someone else’s baby. What you believe should exist - the actual object - is not present (may never have been present), even as the experience of potential persists in relation to appearance. It is the perceived potential for love in relation to appearance that would inspire a bereaved mother to take another’s child, or to hallucinate a baby in the empty cot - so significant is her experience.
My own background is mainly in mental health but previous to that I studied Social Ethics at S. Martin's College in Lancaster and chose to do this as part of my quest for truth and direction in life.
I went on to do a dissertation on Jung's Answer to Job.
I read a lot all the time in search for truth and have an interest in the new physics as well as esoteric philosophy, but I will give Kant another read because I think other people's prejudices against him biased me and I believe in looking at everything from many angles.
1. Possibility believes that the physical aspect of interaction is not necessary for Love. True, false, or something else?
2. Possibility believes Love exists without anything occurring, or physically existing, for the self-actuality of Love, as part of an experience. True, false, or something else?
If they are both true, am I to conclude that somehow Love exists as an innate metaphysical feature of consciousness? And if so, does that not give the metaphysical Will primacy? And if all that is accurate, does it follow that one requires apperception of a physical object, in order to manifest this metaphysical Will to Love?
If the answer is no to the very last question, then there must be something that is exclusively non-physical from which you can manifest your love towards... ?
In simple terms, if there is no object to perceive, how does or should one manifest their Love? In other words, should I love your love? And if you are exclusively metaphysical, what are you? What does that look like? Using your words, what's the 'experience' involve or consist of?
Welcome Jack!
After reading your posts, please feel free to share how important your physical makeup ( and other's) is to the phenomenon of Love, Eros, Romanticism, well-being, aesthetics, et al.
Anyway I started reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason after texting Possibility, but it may take a while because I am reading several other books including one on Hegel's philosophy of mind. One sample I read and felt excited by was a book on trans humanism and medical enhancement. It included work by Dr Ruth Chadwick who was the original tutor who introduced me to Kant.
But the main philosophy question which has perplexed me since my college life is whether there is life after death. I think there may but am not at all certain.
Anyway, I will continue reading your dialogue but I need to read a bit more of Kant as I have only read the book on morals and that was at the beginning of my life quest .But I have planned to come back to Kant because I know that his theory of knowledge influenced Jung.
Sure thing. I would recommend a short cut, and go straight to how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible. From there you will find a treasure trove of philosophical information that will lead you to, perhaps at some point, back to Jung and his psychology. Personally, Jung, Maslow and William James influenced my thinking quite a bit there, along with Kant's philosophy of course... . In our context of experiencing Love, I think one of the key takeaway concepts for all is Phenomenology.
It may appear necessary to you, but I understand that this is a choice I make freely, for my own reasons. There is nothing ‘necessary’ about it. It’s important to me in that situation, but I don’t agree that it’s necessarily important to everyone in every situation.
Quoting 3017amen
No - it only proves that it’s important to them. Once again, I’m not arguing that the physical aspects of appearance has no impact or no apparent importance - just no more than the perception of potential or meaning in that appearance. I’m not one to determine what one should or should not be ‘happy’ with - my concern is that they may be unaware of their capacity to choose. Our approach should not be to judge an apparent choice to be manipulated, nor to assume ignorance of alternatives - rather it should be to share our own positive experience of perceiving this broader potential in them.
Quoting 3017amen
This supposedly ‘aesthetic’ preference of yours forms a prediction of affect (a four-dimensional render of value/potential for the organism as energy distribution), which manifests as determined action in relation to 3D reality. A judgement is not just a statement of words. There are apparent features that I find particularly desirable, yes - but that’s not aesthetic experience. The first moment of aesthetics distinguishes a disinterested character of feeling from a subjective interest in sensory appearance. This is a judgement of the agreeable: You’re not claiming that everyone ought to prefer dark haired Asian women - only that you do (at the moment).
It’s simple enough to get past the first and second moments of aesthetics in relation to a human being, by recognising that their appearance is an ‘indeterminate object’. No judgement or evaluation of your experience can be fully determined as an object, or subsumed by a concept, for every experience in relation to an appearance of that human being. If that were the case, then human behaviour would be highly predictable. Neither can you know for certain that you will always prefer dark-haired Asian women, even though you have defined yourself in this way now, especially if you have no idea why. You don’t need to justify your likes or dislikes to anyone - but nor do you need to state them as a definition or essence of your existence, because they’re not, even as they are an example of who you can be. You are not necessarily defined by what you will except in that fleeting moment of action - and it is this indeterminacy that we can recognise (and love), with disinterested pleasure, in every human being, not just those whose sensory appearance we find it pleasing to interact with. Pure beauty/sublimity lies in the inherent unpredictability of appearance - also referred to as ‘fascinating’.
Note: I’m not saying this is what does happen, or should happen. Rather, I’m describing an apperception of human potential.
Incidentally, I’m not sure where your reference to ‘Thomism’ came from. I’m not entirely familiar with his metaphysics as such, but there are many points argued by Aquinas with which I strongly disagree, so I wouldn’t consider myself Thomist, and don’t know why you do.
Of course I disagree. Consider the necessity of clothing. That 'facade' is as necessary as your example of 'dressing for success' because people consider appearance relevant. And so we are back to the inescapable importance of the physical object itself.
Quoting Possibility
Of course. But you're being too idealist and not realistic. In the real world, one cares about their appearance not only for health and beauty reasons (aesthetics) etc, but because it's appropriate in all of society.
Think of it this way, it may make you feel better if a company has no professional dress code, yet the paradox of whatever standard that's endorsed or approved is nevertheless still a standard that's accepted. It's not that no clothing at all is used to cover the physical body (your 'facade'). That standard is called a dress code appearance standard. You know, customary physical appearance kinds of things, like the requirement to wear cloths and cover or adorn the object in an aesthetically pleasing way.
Quoting Possibility
Agree. That's tantamount to the will to be, that just is. Or a subjective preference that's unique to the individual which in turn should be discovered and celebrated. The innate preference of the Will is uncovered (predisposition toward Asian women for example), then discovered through apperception of the physical subject-object, you. There is still no escape from the object itself needing to be perceived.
Quoting Possibility
That's right. And I don't. And neither should you, or anyone else. It just is---it is what it is, as they say. It is unique to the individual just like our other unique talents, skills and attributes that one might have. Once again, they are to be appreciated and celebrated for what they are. And they should be sought after and nurtured as intrinsic needs to achieve some end goal. The object is both the means, and the means to the end. But without the object itself, you have no means or way of achieving the end goal, which is that goal of Eros and passionate romantic Love. I say love the object for what it is, whether it's beautiful or ugly, it's still an object. That's been my thesis throughout.
As you noted in your thoughts about Thomism, that was my philosophical takeaway from your Lisa Barret's 'psychology' where she puts concepts first. And of course, the opposite is Voluntarism.
Possibility believes that the physical aspect of appearance is not necessary for Love.
Quoting 3017amen
Possibility believes Love exists without anything occurring or physically existing.
An experience consists of more than empirical intuition, and more than consciousness is able to make sense of. Aspects of Love can be perceived in experience as feeling, without apperception of concept or object to which it can either logically or necessarily be attributed as a property. That doesn’t mean we don’t feel compelled to attribute it anyway, arbitrarily and without understanding why. We say ‘it just is’, as if that’s a satisfactory answer, when it’s merely a placeholder to understanding.
An experience of relation manifest as ‘self-actuality’ is not Love, mainly because it excludes the actualisation of that to which one relates. The sensory appearance may look and feel the same to you, but it is not the same experience.
Quoting 3017amen
Sure, Love can be perceived as a metaphysical aspect of a necessary consciousness, and as such appears innate. Perceived in this way, the metaphysical Will appears to have primacy. But Love is not only a feature of consciousness - it can and does transcend it, facilitating harmony between the faculties of understanding, imagination and judgement. Consciousness is therefore not a necessary existence - it is a potential manifestation of this harmonic possibility, contingent upon the relation.
The Will is a potential reduction of this possibility, that may or may not give primacy to judgement, by which one determines and initiates action, regardless of consciousness. It is an apperception of this determined, temporal action - as an arbitrarily physical event manifesting the perceived potential for judgement - that requires apperception of a ‘physical object’ as a relational structure beneath one’s level of consciousness, to which this action may be directed. But, given that the possibility of Love is the only necessary existence here, objectively speaking, then the Will is free to love without action, consciousness is free to love without judgement, and I am free to experience Love, Delight or Beauty without defining or conceptualising the object, occurrence, value/potential or purpose to which it relates. To that end, I strive to increase awareness of, connection to and collaboration with this existing possibility of pure relation without purpose. But if you’re looking for action, then this form of Love will elude you.
Quoting 3017amen
Sure: it’s a perception of value/potential, at the basic level. Beyond that, it’s understanding/imagining the possibility of relation in itself.
Quoting 3017amen
What we often refer to as ‘Love’ is, like aesthetics, not always pure. Insofar as Love strives to manifests (or interact with) a particular purpose, value, event or physical object, it lacks purity. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t love this way - but I do believe that we should at least strive to increase awareness of the possibility of love that transcends our current apperception of reality, to look for it in how we perceive the world, and give it the opportunity to manifest change in us.
I don’t believe we are exclusively metaphysical - but, being metaphysical, both our object and concept are undetermined. So, not only is our physical appearance or action just one perceived occurrence of our existing potential, but our perception of potential is just one example of possible existence in relation to the world.
Experience, in my view, is that perception of potential: a five-dimensional structure of interrelating values. Consciousness seems to be a qualitative process to create a ‘potentiality wave’ of this relational structure - a three-dimensional rendering of four-dimensional information - with the purpose of determining awareness. The Will is another, with the purpose of determining action. Reason is yet another, with the purpose of determining knowledge. This is how we make sense of the world.
To be, well, brutally honest, it all boils down to the physical. No matter what's said about men and women being equals, the patent truth is that women are smaller and weaker than men on average. It reminds me of the joke where a dwarf asks a giant, "how's the weather up there?" Difference in physical prowess matter less in this day and age but, the truth is, 1) its past significance is what matters and 2) its influence hasn't been reduced to zero.
Physical characteristics, big/small and strong/weak, have the important effect of either expanding or reducing one's options with no clear-cut advantage/disadvantage to either camp. Some times it's better to be big & strong and other times it's better to be small & weak. What matters though is the gender physical asymmetry - women are, on average, smaller and weaker than men, who are generally stronger and weaker. This means, men and women will differ, in a predictable manner, with respect to the options available to them in any situation. Given this is so, quite naturally, the approach to solving issues/problems/situations/circumstances will also be that much different between the two sexes. In other words, there's an evolutionary selection pressure on men and women to develop differing sets of problem solving skills i.e. men and women will not think alike.
‘Importance’ is neither necessary nor inescapable. You’re quick to dismiss the possibility that clothing is optional. I could get into a long, drawn out discussion arguing that the cultural standard against nakedness is mythologised in Genesis as emerging from ignorant human judgement, but that’ll take us way off track.
Too often we back ourselves into corners by equivocating ‘important’, ‘essential’ and ‘necessary’. It’s a narrow perspective of reality that fails to recognise just how free the Will really is. Take a look at the distinction Kant makes between categories of quality, relation and modality.
Quoting 3017amen
In all of your society, perhaps. Appropriateness is a social construct that we choose to buy into, but we also play a part in its ongoing construction. Certain aspects of appearance are considered beautiful and appropriate in society because of the perceived potential for health, attention, energy and other value benefits. Other physical features or adornments that may once have been considered beautiful, are now less commonly perceived as a sign of health, potential or value. So, is a particular pattern of appearance really required, or can we view ‘social appropriateness’ as continually negotiable?
Quoting 3017amen
It’s not about making me feel better, and I’m not specifically advocating for no dress code, either. Your assumption that by ‘not necessary’ I mean ‘not preferred’ is false. A company makes decisions about dress code based on what potential they want those who interact with them to perceive in their appearance - just like I do. I can choose to buy into that appearance, or choose to work for a different company. None of this ‘customary physical appearance’ is necessary, though, really. It’s a choice we make, for our own reasons, to conform to standards that are set according to indeterminate, at best probabilistic, reasoning (like @TheMadFool’s argument - ‘on average’ - for instance).
I get that this probably gets your fear response going, as if I’m calling for anarchy. Recognising these standards as ‘unnecessary’ threatens to unravel all the boundaries that have been carefully constructed between what is acceptable and unacceptable in the world. Sshh!! Don’t let people think that! As long as enough people believe it ‘just is’, then they won’t critically examine the how and why, but continue striving to appear more or less the way we believe they should, despite the reality...
And those who find themselves, their appearance or ‘innate’ preferences on the wrong side of ‘accepted’...?
Possibility!
I'll come back to your other points but I feel compelled to underscore your foregoing quote.
It was not my intention to dismiss our so-called facade argument. Quite honestly I would welcome another thread that captures this phenomenon. The reason is because not only was I going to elucidate the same argument, but it has personal relevance in the spirit of putting theory into practice. I'll share more of the experience when you open another thread. The thesis consists of a thought experiment being put into practice by virtue of experiencing a visit to a nudist colony.
Accordingly, the pragmatic's of that experiment yielded some insights from both a philosophical as well as cognitive perspective. Much like this thread, a new thread might uncover some intrigue vis-a-vis human nature.
What do you think?
We should embrace this, if anything. Complimentary doesn't mean "the same," in means two parts of the same whole.
I like Jung, but only for his work on psychological types and orientations. Still, even then he made many errors that Myers had to clean up.
Following this, I logged onto this website and felt a bit disturbed by Amen' s comments about the size issue between men and women. I may have read it too superficially because I find reading on my phone difficult.
I was a bit upset because I am am a small person, whether viewed as male or female. Having taken testosterone I have achieved masculinisation development which I take as a marker of masculinisation, more important than height, or even weight.
I am also influenced by postmodernism and the biological markers of masculinity, especially the phallus, even though I am aware that ideas of maleness and femininty transcend the body. However, the genital aspect of the body cannot be ignored and it is only on the basis that my genitals are more male after taking testosterone that I feel more at ease with myself.
I hope that this does not cause offence because i is not intended to do so. It is simply a matter which underlies gender and its expression.
Hello Jack. I would strongly suggest you start a new thread concerning your sojourn. (There may be others here who can better identify with your concerns.)
However if you want to offer a theory relative to the importance of one's own aesthetics, and the resulting impacts from our perceptions of one another, then you're more than welcome to elucidate same.
I think when we argue for average physical characteristics (such as size or strength) as the binary measure of a gender’s value/potential, not only do we exclude those individuals who may not fit this ‘stereotype’, but we also sacrifice accuracy in favour of probability. While it seems logical as a sweeping generalisation, as a prediction of individual interaction, it’s almost useless. Think QM as an alternative method...
Also, I suggest you use the ‘reply to’ option (click on the three dots below the comment and select the back arrow), so that they’re notified when you respond to what someone has posted.
Perhaps I am involved in the wrong thread but it began with Jung and what I would say is that the internal world of aesthetics is at the heart of it. Thinking about Kant, his own exploration of a priority truths was based on truth discovered in the mind, even it is based on transcendental concepts or archetypes.
My own contribution would be that we may all have to confront the shadow of the unknown, or the uncanny as Freud called it. Perhaps this could even be an aesthetics of ugliness and embracing the freakish, but this does not mean abandoning eros or traditional aesthetics but simply expanding it. Of course, you may ask why is this important at all and for some conventional aesthetics, including those regarding gender are satisfactory but I believe that for many conventional aesthetics are limiting and a source of unhappiness.
I’m not one for starting discussions, so don’t hold your breath on this one... we’ll see...
I think a new thread is needed because the last couple of days of discussion have been going into tangents and I originally sought this thread because I am interested in Jung.
I admit that my responses have been poor, which have been partly because I am feeling really low in mood. Maybe I would be better on a psychological forum but I am actually interested in the area in between psychology and philosophy.
I don't simply wish to discuss my own issues but the search to understand truth and reality. The whole part about aesthetics and gender just led me into my own angst while in fact I want to get into philosophy debate to get away from personal problems. But at the moment I am not feeling up to starting a thread, but did feel that the discussion going was rather fuzzy anyway and I was simply trying to stimulate new areas of debate.
Anyway, I did finally finish reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason today, although it was quite a difficult read. My thoughts on it were that I think Kant's view is important and the current world is too focused on the empirical. The last academic course I did, 5 years ago, was entirely evidence-based. The tutor insisted that every point made in the essay for the course had to be backed up an evidence based study or a published paper and I found this to be going too far. Even though the course was related to nursing it still gave no scope for critical reasoning ability.
Nevertheless, I think that Jung's emphasis on the integration of the four faculties of reason, sensations, feelings and intuition are important to for getting a most thorough knowledge of reality. This does not dismiss the role of logic and in Jung's televised interview he made the famous remark about his understanding of God, that he did not simply believe in God, but 'I know.'
What both Jung and Kant both recognise is that important of the inner world as a source of knowledge. The inner world is often dismissed in current psychology as I found out on psychology modules on various courses I have done, apart from one on art psychotherapy. But on that one it seemed that feeling was stressed above all others. When I was given clinical supervision by an art therapist he told me that I was 'too much in my own head' because I was often philosophical. Of course I don't wish to be out of balance and I have undertaken a period of personal Jungian therapy and I hope this has offered me some integration.
But the point I am trying to make is that I think Kant does offer a worthy viewpoint although his perspective is limited to reason alone. It is worth reading his writing as a means for understanding the importance of reason which is often ignored in present day thinking, and by looking at his perspective we can gain recognition of the faculty of reason. In the time of Jung's writing the sensory, bodily world was the shadow and perhaps now in the 21st century transcendent logic has become the new shadow.
I don't know if this little essay offers anything worthwhile to the thread but as it seems to have stopped anyway I thought I might as well say something. I was a bit disturbed that I seemed to have shut down the thread because even though I may have appeared critical it was not my intention to interrupt and sabotage the discussion but just open things up for new ways of exploration. We don't want Kant to be buried as a long lost prophet, but to be alive as the authority figure he should be in current philosophy.