• Possibility
    1.4k
    I think you would be surprised at the fundamental similarities of expressing emotion. The expression of emotion can be manifested in different genres (angry metal/happy pop), and also in another way it can be manifested by random free ranging improvisation. In both cases an emotional purging is experienced from both the performer and listener.3017amen

    The similarities are not lost on me. Creative catharsis is an expression of awareness, connection and collaboration between one’s qualitative potential (including feelings, fears, memories and ability) and that of sound, words or materials. Even if you never fully understand what it means, you can relate to it as a valuable expression of human experience and potential, as the artist and/or observer. The ‘relief’ in this form of catharsis comes from our collaborative achievement with the instrument/sound and through that collaboration with the listener, not from ‘releasing emotion’ as such - although it is commonly described that way.

    ‘Emoting’ is affected action - not all such actions are initiated with awareness, connection or collaboration between our feelings, abilities, etc and the potential of how, where or to whom we direct that action. Sometimes it’s simply striking out randomly at the world, but to equate that ‘expression of emotion’ with music is to downplay the significance of the choices you make at the level of potential to direct your affected action.
  • Possibility
    1.4k
    By the way, what's been your take on the Venus/Mar's thing? Do we all just want the same thing ( we just manifest them differently) or do we want different things? Perhaps in your earlier replies, you've suggested a combination or hybrid of sorts, based upon each individual's (their subjective truth) wants and needs... .3017amen

    Mars/Venus was revolutionary at the time. The idea is that our experience of the world is different, and so we can’t expect our cultural and social reality to be the same. But it’s never as simple as reducing everything to a single binary. Rather, it’s just a warning to expect different patterns in how anyone else interacts with the world at the level of language and thinking and emotion - instead of assuming deficiency.

    We not only want different things, what we want changes with our experience of the world - it means something different as we grow and interact, both as an organism and as a species. I don’t agree with essentialism, personally - the best we can do is relate possible meaning to variable patterns of potential and value that enable us to predict our interactions with the world as accurately as possible from our limited perspective. It’s not very comforting, but it’s workable.
  • 3017amen
    1.9k
    We not only want different things, what we want changes with our experience of the worldPossibility

    Not in the philosophy of Chrissie Hynde:

    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
  • Possibility
    1.4k
    We’re alike, but not the same.
  • 3017amen
    1.9k


    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:
  • Possibility
    1.4k
    Who said anything about opposing?
  • 3017amen
    1.9k


    You seem to be advocating for classic yin-yang of the Tao.
  • Possibility
    1.4k
    That’s a start. But it’s not as black and white as you seem to think.

    There’s a tendency in American culture to polarise: freedom vs governance, black vs white, red vs blue, masculine vs feminine, dominance vs submission, etc. American culture identifies itself in a defensive position against a worldview, even if they deign to acknowledge an element of it as necessary (a la yin-yang). The yin-yang symbol can be mistaken as a call to surround and control this opposing element, and to ‘rescue’ those of our own trapped on the ‘other side’. As a result, the subtle subversiveness of ‘fifty shades of grey’ has been almost completely overlooked.

    Men and women are alike in some ways and different in others, but there is no defensive position to be constructed that protects your identity as ‘masculine’. If you focus only on our differences, then you ignore the many ways that we are alike and want the same thing; and if you focus only on those ways we are alike, then you ignore the many ways that we are different (not opposing). There is no attribute you can suggest that I have not seen demonstrated in both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ identities to some extent.

    All beings support yin and embrace yang
    and the interplay of these two forces fills the universe
    Yet only at the still-point, between the breathing in and the breathing out,
    can one capture these two in perfect harmony.

    There is no greater misfortune than feeling “I have an enemy”
    For when “I” and “enemy” exist together there is no room left for my treasure
    Thus when two opponents meet, the one without an enemy will surely triumph
    — Lao Tzu, ‘Tao Te Ching’
  • 3017amen
    1.9k
    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.Possibility

    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.

    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’.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').
  • Possibility
    1.4k
    Quite honestly, it is easy to fall into this trap. With all due respect, in the objectification of women thread, you did exactly that. You dichotomized mental agency by repudiating material agency. You seemingly renounced one in favor of the other. Don't mean to put you on the chopping block, but instead, wanted to make you aware.3017amen

    I’m aware of your accusation, but I didn’t dichotomise agency - that was you. ‘Material agency’ is a term used in reference to historical and cultural objects, not people. In that sense, material ‘agency’ is a misnomer. The agency is not inherent in the material, it’s in the potentiality of past interactions with humans. As such, it was irrelevant to the topic - unless you were advocating objectification of human beings, of course.

    In what context are we referring to? Meaning if one were to seek integration of opposites (the virtues of and the male appreciation of, femininity in a woman) is that not a good thing?

    On the other hand, some men are attracted to tomboy's or women who are less feminine ( I'm extremely attracted to feminine women). And too, if one were to adopt the belief system that we all just want clones of ourselves, then seemingly we are back to "we all just want the same thing" and the Venus-Mars archetype goes away (or at least its significance is diminished). That all seems so paradoxical, no?

    In other words, existentially, do our masculine and feminine features simply provide for the attraction to our objective agency/reality, along with our (existential) wants and needs remaining basically the same (?). And in that sense, our mental agency/immaterial reality seems to be related to our hormonal idiosyncrasies that simply requires understanding (or using your term 'decyphering').
    3017amen

    Men and women are NOT opposites. As long as we see them as such, we are not integrating. Your preference for women you categorise as ‘feminine’ is conceptual. I’d be surprised to hear any man say they’re attracted to women who are ‘less feminine’ - I imagine that’s your own interpretation. The features they consider ‘feminine’ are likely different to yours. There are certain differences and aesthetics that have the potential to attract my attention and effort, but to say that I’m attracted to ‘masculine’ men would seem to dichotomise my own identity as ‘feminine’, and imply that those men I’m not attracted to are somehow ‘less masculine’ in some objective sense, when it’s only that I categorise them as such. That’s not integrating at all.

    Different is not opposite. Diversity is multi-dimensional. Categories and the concepts they refer to provide scaffolding to help us understand our interactions, but they are not reality.
  • 3017amen
    1.9k
    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 misnomerPossibility

    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.

    Men and women are NOT opposites.Possibility

    In what ways are men and women the same? In their wants and needs?

    Your preference for women you categorise as ‘feminine’ is conceptual.Possibility

    Quite honestly I see you as conceptualizing too much. You seem to be denying the aesthetical appeal from the opposing sexes ( women's innate desire for a masculine man and men's innate desire for a feminine woman).

    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.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?
  • Possibility
    1.4k
    Men and women are NOT opposites.
    — Possibility

    In what ways are men and women the same? In their wants and needs?
    3017amen

    This is getting repetitive: different is NOT opposite. A man and a woman can be alike in many ways, but we focus our attention and effort on the differences (particularly in relation to wants and needs) because that’s the way our brains interact with the information available - we look for the potential in others to fulfil the outstanding wants and needs in ourselves. What we also deny in ourselves, we seek in our relationships with others.

    There is a tendency to assume that our attraction to what is different is so that we integrate two ‘opposites’ into a whole being or existence. But we are not opposites, and we shouldn’t be expected to ‘complete’ each other in the sense that our wants and needs are fixed into certain categories so that when we ‘have’ the right partner we can feel whole. This way of thinking ignores the capacity we have to learn from each other and integrate these differences in ourselves. Each of my previous partners has taught me something about myself and my interactions with others that has served me for future interactions - in some cases, it has taken years and repeated exposure to similar pain for me to integrate that information, but it’s been worth the effort and attention.

    To ‘complement’ is not just a temporal event, but an ongoing capacity to integrate information: ‘the difference that makes a difference’. It’s not a dance of opposites, but an atemporal sharing of information through awareness, connection and collaboration at the dimensional levels of value/potential and meaning/relation.

    Your preference for women you categorise as ‘feminine’ is conceptual.
    — Possibility

    Quite honestly I see you as conceptualizing too much. You seem to be denying the aesthetical appeal from the opposing sexes ( women's innate desire for a masculine man and men's innate desire for a feminine woman).
    3017amen

    I’m well aware of the aesthetic appeal of difference, but I see it as neither opposing, nor innate as described. What attracts me to the male form aesthetically has changed over the years, according to the perceived value/potential of my self and my interactions. Likewise, what attracts me to the female form has changed, too. I’m not denying that there is a pattern of attraction that lends itself to fuzzy masculine-feminine conceptual structures, but there is nothing innately black and white or ‘opposing’ about it.

    I'm left with your logic that seems to suggest that all men should be attracted to butch looking women. Otherwise, and similarly, you seem to be saying you're attracted to feminine men, if I'm understanding that correctly. How's that define the fact that men and women both want the same things?3017amen

    No, you’re misunderstanding, and you’re blatantly polarising. Just because some men don’t prioritise certain features such as large breasts or long hair, doesn’t mean they’re attracted to ‘less feminine’ or ‘butch-looking’ women. They just conceptualise ‘feminine’ more broadly. In many ways I don’t consider myself particularly ‘feminine’ in relation to my peers: I never wear nail polish or earrings, and spend most days in jeans and a t-shirt or loose knit with no makeup, and without bothering to shave my legs. I’m not interested in fashion trends or celebrities, and I can’t stand gossip or small talk. I don’t do frills, and only occasionally florals. But I do love a soft, flowing dress or skirt with heels, I happen to be 5’3” with long hair and an hourglass figure, and I’m both chemically and aesthetically more attracted to men. So you tell me: is ‘feminine’ how I dress, how I’m shaped, what I’m interested in, how I move/interact - or is it in my ‘oppositional’ capacity to reassure/defend your ‘masculine’ identity?

    I won’t define the men I’m attracted to as ‘masculine’ because there are men you might define as ‘masculine’ that I’m simply not attracted to - but that doesn’t mean I’m attracted to ‘feminine’ men. Masculinity as a binary category is a false dichotomy. What I find attractive in a man may not be what another woman is attracted to, and vice versa - that doesn’t mean that one of us is attracted to ‘masculine’ men and the other isn’t. Aesthetically speaking, some women are particularly attracted to hairy men, others to deep voices or large hands, some to broad shoulders, abdominal/pectoral muscles or bulging biceps. To say that all of the above defines a ‘masculine’ man is to reify the archetype, when the truth is that most women would focus on or prioritise only one or two of these aesthetic values in their pattern of attraction - and the pattern for each woman varies. Personally, I’m not attracted to hairy men, large pecs or bulging biceps - but a deep voice, broad shoulders, or the way a shirt or jacket hangs over the curve of his back are enough to get my attention, aesthetically speaking. The rest of these values I’m only expected to appreciate in identifying my sexual identity. That said, ‘attraction’ for me is more in the eyes and smile, or the way he moves and interacts with the world. I don’t view men as accessories, or as means to my own ends. Their definitive ‘masculinity’ does not serve to reassure/defend my own identity as a woman.

    As for what we want, I think we all want to interact with the world in a way that ultimately increases our ability to minimise suffering, given that we’re going to interact with the world anyway. Whether we identify ourselves or others as particularly ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ has a much smaller impact on this than you seem to think.
12Next
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.