• 3017amen
    3.1k
    Just because I prefer to focus on non-conceptual relations, does not mean I’m denying physical relations.Possibility

    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.)

    But no, mosquitoes are not essential to the system. And neither are physical relations essential to the phenomena we call Love.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.

    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.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?
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    My approach to objective reality is along the lines of ontic structural realism: there exists no real ‘object in itself’, only a relational structure as a goal or focus of intuition (attention/effort) for integrated information systems (agents). Objects are heuristic: pragmatic devices used by agents to orient themselves in reality, and to construct approximate representations of the world. Bear with me while I try to explain where I’m coming from...

    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...
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    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?3017amen

    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.

    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).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.

    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.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.

    Aesthetic pleasure, particularly, is a non-determining mode of reflecting on the relation, not between a particular subject and a particular object, but between subjectivity and objectivity as such.
    This rational but non-cognitive nature of feeling, in general, and of aesthetic feeling, in particular, is perhaps the central feature that renders aesthetic feeling an attractive ingredient in addressing the epistemic and metaphysical concerns that occupied the romantics. For while all cognition is determination through concepts, Kant’s aesthetics suggests a mode of reflective awareness that is not determining, but yet a way of being aware of and responsive to aspects of the world. This is exactly what the romantics have been looking for—a non-discursive, but rational and normatively governed mode of awareness.
    SEP: 19th Century Romantic Aesthetic

    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?
    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.

    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...)
    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.

    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?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.

    4.The object itself, is essential to the physical aspects of Love (admiration of a new-born, etc.). True/False?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.

    5. The Will to have physical romantic love is dependent upon the physical object? True/False?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.

    6. "I can't wait to see you again", is dependent upon the seeing of the object. True/False?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.

    7. Women purchase cosmetics because they want to look beautiful. True/false?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.

    8. People go to the gym because they care about health/well being and their subjective-object. True/False?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.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    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!
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    I’m not going to pretend that this kind of discussion is simple.Possibility

    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.

    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.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.

    That those feelings are attributed to ‘physical objects’ in the way you describe is neither objective nor necessaryPossibility

    No. the object itself is logically necessary for the aesthetic experience to occur.

    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.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.

    Our capacity for this delight is dependent on relation neither to physical nor to cognitive aspects of reality: it merely requires a relation.Possibility

    It merely requires the object; the observer and the observed.

    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.Possibility

    False. Otherwise you wouldn't have the capacity to create a mini-me.

    1.Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false? — 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,
    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.

    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.Possibility

    Yep. It's a Subjective truth that exists. And an existential phenomenon that just is.

    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.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.



    It’s just another example of judgement from predictions based on atemporal aspects of experience, more than present empirical data.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!
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    I am a transman and non binary in gender identity and have found Jung very important on my quest. This is because I have found his ideas on opposites essential in my life, as well as his emphasis on symbolism. However, Jung's wrote in a very different era in which LBGTQIA ideas were not mainstream at all.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    I was introduced to June Singers book, 'Androgyny by a tutor on my Social Ethics course and it helped me think about my own gender issues in relation to the archetypal masculine and feminine and the wide spectrum of gender identities, including the archetypal hermaphrodite.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    Singer's interpretation of Jung's ideas on gender is interesting but she does focus on the integration on a psychologically level mainly
    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.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    I am sorry my comments keep breaking off but writing on a mobile phone is difficult.
    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.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    Yes indeed, physical appearances do matter! :chin:
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    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.
    3017amen

    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?

    1.Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false? — 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,
    — 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.
    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.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    Surely Kant was wrong to limit judgements to reason alone. He was aloof from the sensory world and against sex. At age 19 I was impressed by his thought, especially the categorical imperative. But at this stage I was repressing my shadow and I think Kant had no awareness of his own shadow.
    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.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    4.The object itself, is essential to the physical aspects of Love (admiration of a new-born, etc.). True/False? — 3017amen
    False. You seem to insist on keeping the ‘physical’ subject-to-object aspect of Love isolated.
    Possibility

    Yes, because without it, in your case of Thomism, no judgement is apperceived.

    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.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?

    When we interact with reality, the brain makes decisions based on very little present empirical information in relation to how we conceptualise reality.Possibility

    There you go again plip-flopping. I agree. You are suggesting the Will precedes the intellect.

    that attracts our attention and effort to look and be rewarded with more new, positive information about this appearance of realityPossibility

    Correct. It attracts our attention. Think about that dynamic.

    . The Will to have physical romantic love is dependent upon the physical object? True/False? — 3017amen
    Sort of true - the
    Possibility

    It's true. It's logically necessary.

    And while a perceived capacity for judgement is necessary to the Will to love romantically, an act of judgement is not.Possibility

    Agree.

    . "I can't wait to see you again", is dependent upon the seeing of the object. True/False? — 3017amen
    False - although I get how it seems true in your classical understanding of reality.
    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.

    Women purchase cosmetics because they want to look beautiful. True/false? — 3017amen
    Subjective interpretation
    Possibility

    As it should be! Nonetheless, a universal subjective truth (aesthetics).

    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 environmentPossibility

    Correct. You just contradicted yourself again. Like it or not, appearance in the work environment is important. See, was that so difficult... .

    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.Possibility

    Once again, I agree. The 'facade' , like it or not, is apparently necessary.

    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.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.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    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.Possibility

    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?

    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?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.

    .Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false? — 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,
    — 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. — 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.
    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!)
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    Hi Jack
    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...
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    Correct. And that is the part you keep denying. Love is certainly more than that, but without that, no-thing occurs. How could it?3017amen

    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.

    When we interact with reality, the brain makes decisions based on very little present empirical information in relation to how we conceptualise reality.
    — Possibility

    There you go again plip-flopping. I agree. You are suggesting the Will precedes the intellect.
    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.

    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.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.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    Thanks for replying to me, Possibilty. I will read Kant again because I have a couple of books by him downloaded on my kindle which I was planning to read at some point.
    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.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    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.Possibility

    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?
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    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.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    I will say that I am interested in the arts but have fairly unconventional aesthetic tastes. I like alternative music, including punk and metal which I got into while doing an art therapy evening class. However, I am interested in exploring experiences peak states of consciousness as well as living with and integrating the shadow. I am interested in Eastern philosophy and Buddhist views on love and compassion.
    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.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    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.
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    Once again, I agree. The 'facade' , like it or not, is apparently necessary.3017amen

    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.

    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.
    — 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.
    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.

    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!)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.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    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.Possibility

    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.

    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.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.

    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).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.

    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’.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
    2.8k
    1. Possibility believes that the physical aspect of interaction is not necessary for Love. True, false, or something else?3017amen

    Possibility believes that the physical aspect of appearance is not necessary for Love.

    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?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.

    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?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.

    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... ?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.

    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?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.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    And so, should we gravitate toward, and value, the Venus in the female, and the Mar's in the male? Or should we simply say no to that, and instead embrace the 'complimentary', and/or conclude men and women are basically the same and really and simply both want the same things?3017amen

    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.
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    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.3017amen

    ‘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.

    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.
    — 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.
    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?

    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.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’...?
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    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.Possibility

    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?
  • Cobra
    160
    instead embrace the 'complimentary', and/or conclude men and women are basically the same and really and simply both want the same things?3017amen

    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.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k
    Hello, I have been reading Kant's theory but got sidetracked by reading Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy.
    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.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    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.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.