I believe the Earth is round. I’m quite convinced by the evidence I’ve seen, but I don’t know it. I know nothing and I would change my belief if some hitherto hidden evidence were to prove that the Earth is flat. However, if my current belief about the shape of the Earth is correct, I now possess the truth.

I’m not an astronomer, though, and my insight into the structure of planets is scanty. I can’t explain in detail why the Earth couldn’t be triangular and exactly why it has its particular form. Scientists who can do that certainly grasp the truth better than I do.

At this level of uncertainty, I don’t find it helpful to assert that an entire belief is false, — Possibility

If I am right about the Earth being round, anyone who thinks it is flat, has an entirely false belief.
What good does it do to make sophist twists and turns and suggest that from certain viewpoints the Earth may be validly called flat? In their experience, which is difference to mine, it appears flat. What (on earth!) would I achieve by sharing their experience?

It doesn’t really matter what a philosopher believes. What matters is the truth itself — Possibility

Absolutely!

The expressed beliefs of a philosopher are bound to change in the course of doing philosophy. If they don’t, then he’s probably stopped doing philosophy, — Possibility

That’s no prerequisite. Most philosophers probably keep their fundamental beliefs throughout their career. What is bound to change is their grasp of it. X was believed to be true from the very beginning, but in the course of doing philosophy a fuller explanation of why X is true was achieved.

if my current belief about the shape of the Earth is correct, I now possess the truth. — Congau

You do know that’s just an expression, don’t you?

If I am right about the Earth being round, anyone who thinks it is flat, has an entirely false belief.
What good does it do to make sophist twists and turns and suggest that from certain viewpoints the Earth may be validly called flat? In their experience, which is difference to mine, it appears flat. What (on earth!) would I achieve by sharing their experience? — Congau

Not an entirely false belief - in their experience of the Earth, it does actually appear flat. You can’t deny that, because it’s part of your experience, too. It is only when we can explain how their belief is structured in relation to our own that we can show how the illusion is formed and where the errors are. This is why the ‘flat earth society’ still exists - because simply telling people their belief is ‘false’ is not enough, and only encourages their ignorance.

Most philosophers probably keep their fundamental beliefs throughout their career. What is bound to change is their grasp of it. X was believed to be true from the very beginning, but in the course of doing philosophy a fuller explanation of why X is true was achieved. — Congau

Well, that’s not been my understanding. Many philosophers’ writings show evidence of development in beliefs throughout their career, resulting in a necessary distinction between ‘early’ and ‘late’ philosophies that we can often struggle to reconcile. I will concede that it’s not a prerequisite, but it seems to me to be a characteristic of long-published philosophical careers.

"Sinful" is an ethical judgment. In my opinion, issues of gender identity are an aesthetic matter - they are qualitatively incompatible with the ethical sphere, and should be kept separate from it.

But, to qualify that which is abnormal as normal is very problematic. The application of these terms factors only relativistically, so if the nonbinary labels itself normal, then the binary is necessarily rendered abnormal. The normal can hardly retain its essence and meaning independent of its dialectical relation to the abnormal. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would say sin is ignorance. It is as Cicero said, we would make the right choice if we knew what that was. Making the wrong choice is ignorance of the right choice.

I understand "moral" to be a matter of cause and effect. So when it comes to gender identity What would be the bad of a bad choice? For me, that would be giving up my femininity because humanity needs the feminine influence and I don't want to give up enjoying being a woman. Really, I make a terrible man! I have no desire to compete with them. But if this were the past and I was left on a farm without a husband, I would work like a man to the best of my ability. Theodore Roosevelt spoke of how important women are in times of war, and I am very proud of what women have always done to keep the children alive in good and bad times.

I don't know why you are arguing "to qualify that which is abnormal as normal is very problematic". I don't think I ever did that. What I did is state our gender and our gender identity is not as simple as the normal X and Y combinations. My intent was to say there is a lot of variety and make room for tolerance of differences based on science, rather than leave alone the status quo of intolerance based on religion without science.

Now back in the day, we could look at Sparta and make an issue of population decline resulting from men being more interested in men than women. That would make it a moral problem of cause and effect and in the case of Sparta, I would say it was a cultural problem not the result of the variety of X and Y combinations.

Not an entirely false belief - in their experience of the Earth, it does actually appear flat. You can’t deny that, because it’s part of your experience, too. It is only when we can explain how their belief is structured in relation to our own that we can show how the illusion is formed and where the errors are. This is why the ‘flat earth society’ still exists - because simply telling people their belief is ‘false’ is not enough, and only encourages their ignorance. — Possibility

You are so good with words and your thoughts are so well developed. You are awesome.

Well, that’s not been my understanding. Many philosophers’ writings show evidence of development in beliefs throughout their career, resulting in a necessary distinction between ‘early’ and ‘late’ philosophies that we can often struggle to reconcile. I will concede that it’s not a prerequisite, but it seems to me to be a characteristic of long-published philosophical careers. — Possibility

Oh yeah, our thinking changes a lot as we age, if we are in the habit of thinking. Not everyone is in the habit of thinking, but many are in the habit of avoiding it, and from there they are reactionary. That is a failure to actualize our potential as thinking creatures.

I am confident I would have complete a book about education, culture, and politics, years ago, but I keep reading and learning, and the book always needs to be rewritten as my understanding improves. :lol:

if my current belief about the shape of the Earth is correct, I now possess the truth.
— Congau
You do know that’s just an expression, don’t you? — Possibility

Of course, and that’s how I, and I suppose most people, define the expression “possessing the truth” and I wonder why you would feel compelled to define it differently.

simply telling people their belief is ‘false’ is not enough, and only encourages their ignorance. — Possibility

Again you are presenting this notion of “shared meaning” as a pedagogical device, and I have no problem with that. It’s only problematic if you look at it as an ingredient of truth itself. Whether or not anyone actually believes that the earth is flat is irrelevant for how we explain its roundness.

Many philosophers’ writings show evidence of development in beliefs throughout their career, resulting in a necessary distinction between ‘early’ and ‘late’ philosophies that we can often struggle to reconcile. — Possibility

There is the example of the late Wittgenstein who became a fierce opponent of the early Wittgenstein, but there are many more examples of the opposite. Berkeley and Hume wrote their major work as young men and then spent the rest of their lives defending it. For most there is of course a development but the fundamentals remain the same.

You are just cramming positively charged words into your idea of democracy. Reason, science and prosperity are not necessarily associated with democracy. The age of enlightenment (reason) occurred simultaneously with the age of absolutism. The Soviets were excellent scientists. China has seen great increase in prosperity while democratic India remains desperately poor.
Democracy simply means majority rule and nothing more.

Of course, and that’s how I, and I suppose most people, define the expression “possessing the truth” and I wonder why you would feel compelled to define it differently. — Congau

It’s not so much that I’m compelled to define the expression differently. But as an ingredient of truth, possessibility is misleading, wouldn’t you agree? Consider two statements by different people:

“I see that the earth is round.”
“I see that the earth is flat.”

Both statements point to a truth about the earth, but neither of these statements alone constitutes a ‘possession’ of truth. Whitehead talks about the problem of ‘concreisance’ - when we use language to make a concept appear more concrete than it is. We may ‘know’ that the earth is round, but we cannot ‘see’ this truth with our own eyes unless we leave the earth’s atmosphere. So to say that we ‘see’ the roundness of the earth is misleading for those who lack the potential information this level of understanding requires.

Regardless of what anyone believes, the bible (in particular John’s gospel) uses three distinct Greek words that have each been translated into the English verb ‘to see’, even though they ‘have’, or rather point to, different meanings. The distinction the author makes relates to how we ‘see’ truth in the world. At one level, we observe truth (material reality) directly with our eyes. At another, we perceive a potential truth (fact), and maximise our awareness of that potential with ‘knowledge’ from the direct observation or measurement of sources whose past capacity for observing/measuring truth (material reality) appears consistent enough to be ‘trusted’. At a third level, we can understand possible truth (meaning) even in what we ‘know’ is not factual. We maximise our awareness of this level of truth by relating our perception of its potential (what we believe) to the expressed perceptions (or beliefs) of others in terms of how each potential/value and observation/measurement is structured in relation to each other.

Truth as material reality is relative to the observer/measuring device; truth as fact or knowledge is relative to subjective experience; and truth as meaning exists as a possibility beyond our own subjective experience - it can only be approached, pointed to, or shared in how we relate to the subjective experiences of others.

This all seems rather unnecessary for those already ‘see’ the truth, but as philosophers, I think we have a responsibility to scaffold our truth structures clearly, so that the scientific method can still be employed (however inconclusively) even at this level of uncertainty.

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

I think it is (in more ways than not, I believe so). I think our intelligent impetus deems what would have been seen as "cultural/traditional feminine predisposition" type of qualities and characters to be better suited for the future. These are qualities referenced in the idea of 'maternal instinct' such as compassion, a more objective acceptance of individualities and situations, communal service/sharing (less of 'my this and that', and more of 'for the greater good/peace of heart', etc), openness to reciprocity. Basically, a more heart-centred society.

One thing, I think, which is important to realise, is that dominance doesn't necessarily imply subjugation of others' will, independence and individualities.

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men... — Athena

I think it not only possible but actual. As is the converse. Certainly, through the constant, close interaction between the sexes there is an adaptation of "male thinking" that is somehow less masculine and an adaptation of "female thinking" that is somehow less feminine.

...and that that difference is important to humanity? — Athena

It is of the utmost importance. I would likely not care to live in a world/society that displayed only the one type of thinking.

What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

This is where my curiosity rises. Potential...what is meant by this? Better? Possible? Preferred? Imaginable? For instance, the pile of 2x4's and nails in my barn has the "potential" to be all sorts of things: a dog house, an addition to my living room, a bike ramp for the kids, a fence, etc etc. But what it becomes will be a function of my preference. Did I deny the lumber's potential by building a dog house instead of adding on to my living room? It becomes all the more interesting a question when coupled with "domination". Potential for domination... I'm interested to hear more about that.

It’s hard to say what a matriarchal society would look like today. It’s hard for me to imagine a strong patriarchal society - I’m European and I’ve grown up during the transition, so I know of a more equal society between the sexes than say more ‘traditional’ family units.

I’d be careful with the use of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ because most people assume they equate to ‘female’ and ‘male’.

It’s an interesting subject. I’m not so sure that philosophical discourse helps cut right to the core issues though. Science can reveal certain truths, but when it comes to human behavior it’s a tricky thing to investigate as almost anyone can find ‘evidence’ to back up their own pet theories.

I’ve come to discussion late. What specifically is of interest to you in this area?

We certainly gain knowledge in different ways (or more accurately we gain strong belief); by seeing, calculating and understanding, sure, but again, that is merely a pedagogical description, that is, a more detailed elaboration of how the epistemological process works. We can literally see simple facts while other facts require more learning, but for the sake of economy, and for the purpose of this discussion (which I thought was about the nature of (objective) truth), we might as well use a common word since what is here essential is the same.

There are facts out there and when they enter our mind, we may call it seeing, perceiving, understanding, learning, observing, experiencing, sensing, feeling, grasping, getting, catching, sharing and any number of words we may feel adequately captures what is going on in any particular instance, but the common denominator is still about something “entering the mind”.

Someone who lived totally isolated would be excluded from sharing, blind people are excluded from seeing and infants are excluded from logical deductions, but some facts enter the minds of all three groups, which means they have access to some truth and as such it resembles any possible approach to truth.

Truth, like any other concept, can be divided into different kinds and categories, but it is indeed one concept and has a common denominator.

Someone who lived totally isolated would be excluded from sharing, blind people are excluded from seeing and infants are excluded from logical deductions, but some facts enter the minds of all three groups, which means they have access to some truth and as such it resembles any possible approach to truth. — Congau

Blind people learn to distinguish, value and therefore trust alternative sources of sensory information more highly than sighted people. Infants quickly learn to value and therefore trust consistently positive sources of information, but they do initially make no distinction between potential information (including predictions or imagination) and ‘objective truth’. Someone who lives totally isolated has no way of relating the potential information they perceive in relation to alternative perspectives, so they, too, would make no distinction between their beliefs, predictions or imagination and ‘objective truth’.

There are facts out there and when they enter our mind, we may call it seeing, perceiving, understanding, learning, observing, experiencing, sensing, feeling, grasping, getting, catching, sharing and any number of words we may feel adequately captures what is going on in any particular instance, but the common denominator is still about something “entering the mind”. — Congau

But we haven’t been able to capture what is going on, have we? We have no objective understanding about what it means for information to ‘enter’ whatever the mind is. There is no ‘common denominator’ of truth - conceptually, I think you’re heading in the entirely wrong direction. This seems like the the kind of careless reductionism that religious apologetics thrives on, and that philosophy and science have sought to prevent.

The way I understand it, there are no objective facts ‘out there’ that ‘enter’ the mind at a spatio-temporal location. All of this metaphorical description makes us feel like we’re talking about actual things, phenomena we only lack sufficient tools to measure, but they’re just words that most readily bring us a sense of comfort or protection, not truth.

Surely the informational differences between the experiences relating an expression of ‘observing’ truth and one of ‘feeling’ truth matters more than their similarities? When we reduce them both to ‘facts entering the mind’, we lose so much information about what truth is and what it means. How do we then get that information back?

The process of understanding objective truth, in my view, involves challenging the mind first to include and relate all possibilities - everything we have seen and felt and observed and learned and experienced and perceived, etc. - into a six-dimensional relationship structure with what possibilities we can unpack from the expressions of others, relative to everything they may have seen and felt and observed and experienced, etc. from their unique perspective. A six-dimensional relationship structure is inclusive of fictional, irrational and illogical information - all meaningful possibility, all interrelated in some way. This is how I approach an understanding of objective truth.

Our most accurate expression of this understanding is then a consciously creative decoherence of this possibility into the potentiality of language and then collapse into words, being careful to remain inclusive of its recognisable (shared) six-dimensional aspects of meaningful possibility, in the same way that an artist carefully renders a scene in two-dimensional space to convey recognisable information about three-dimensional objects.


I am enjoying this discussion, Congau, but I realise we’ve strayed way off the topic of this thread, and I’m conscious of another thread on objective truth which may be more pertinent to what you and I are discussing here.

This is where my curiosity rises. Potential...what is meant by this? Better? Possible? Preferred? Imaginable? For instance, the pile of 2x4's and nails in my barn has the "potential" to be all sorts of things: a dog house, an addition to my living room, a bike ramp for the kids, a fence, etc etc. But what it becomes will be a function of my preference. Did I deny the lumber's potential by building a dog house instead of adding on to my living room? It becomes all the more interesting a question when coupled with "domination". Potential for domination... I'm interested to hear more about that. — Aussie

I don't think either sex should dominate but the example of bonobo and chimps is to question if we are doomed to war and other forms of brutality because it is our nature? I have a preference for peace and family life. That is not exclusively female, but neither is it a chimp choice. It is a bonobo choice. It is the animals that have male and female domination and hopefully, humans work together without dominating. You seemed to speak for working together and I will point out that is not "men being the head of the household" as some males have interpreted their right to rule. We have had patriarchy and that has oppressed people, especially women.

Someone who lives totally isolated has no way of relating the potential information they perceive in relation to alternative perspectives, so they, too, would make no distinction between their beliefs, predictions or imagination and ‘objective truth’. — Possibility

The lonely savage might believe a rabbit has gnawed on a branch (not sure, it could also be a hare), and predict that his trap will catch the rabbit (he has logically placed it close to rabbit food). He imagines how he will go about catching the rabbit (but know it hasn’t been caught yet) and he recognizes a rabbit whenever he sees one (objective truth).

There is no ‘common denominator’ of truth - conceptually, I think you’re heading in the entirely wrong direction. This seems like the the kind of careless reductionism that religious apologetics thrives on, and that philosophy and science have sought to prevent. — Possibility

Philosophy and science are about the search for general laws. Unscientific observation is about particulars, whereas science strives to understand general similarities. Quantum physics is the ultimate reductionist understanding of nature and therefore, in a sense the most scientific of all sciences.

In philosophy, metaphysics is the most philosophical branch asking the most reductionist question: What is being? (ignoring the distinctions between a vast range of beings). Reductionism is essential to all higher understanding since cutting away irrelevant differences is the only way to grasp the principle of anything.

The way I understand it, there are no objective facts ‘out there’ that ‘enter’ the mind at a spatio-temporal location — Possibility

How can you call truth objective if it’s not out there as items of potential knowledge, or as what may be called “facts” for short? (As potential knowledge or facts I also include for example moral question even though we can never know that our answer is right. It’s sufficient that there is a right answer.)


You are welcome to take this enjoyable discussion to another thread. Just make sure you tag me.

It’s hard to say what a matriarchal society would look like today. It’s hard for me to imagine a strong patriarchal society - I’m European and I’ve grown up during the transition, so I know of a more equal society between the sexes than say more ‘traditional’ family units.

I’d be careful with the use of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ because most people assume they equate to ‘female’ and ‘male’.

It’s an interesting subject. I’m not so sure that philosophical discourse helps cut right to the core issues though. Science can reveal certain truths, but when it comes to human behavior it’s a tricky thing to investigate as almost anyone can find ‘evidence’ to back up their own pet theories.

I’ve come to discussion late. What specifically is of interest to you in this area? — I like sushi

I will definitely opt for open-mindedness. I am coming from the traditional past and it was not my intent to start a battle of the sexes. I am sort of surprised by what happens when I say being feminine is a good thing.

I went from being the ideal 1950 ideal woman to "just a housewife" in the 70 tys. Some good has come out of the change but also a lot of bad has come out it because no one wants to be "just a housewife". That is very demeaning and so I want to speak of the values of being a traditional woman.

I have some strong concerns about the effect of "liberating women" to be like men. When the USSR did this, at first the economy boomed but then women and children began falling below the poverty level and abortion and divorce rates increased. In the US we can add to this, so has the rate of women and children involved in crime increased as victims and perpetrators.

At first, I thought women's lib was a good thing because I had ambitions and looked forward to having a career, but for some of us, when our husbands walked out in the middle of a long recession, reality did not look as good as the promise. I don't want to get too personal, but the reality for many women is low wages and having to pay for child care and all the other bills with no help and our children are being institutionalized by 3 months of age. Some child care facilities are better than others, but no matter good the child care, it can not benefit a child as parents can. So I am concerned not only for the women who are now economic slaves, but also their children.

As for philosophical discussion, how else can we determine human values? And, and what of the possibility that history could have gone differently? What if we are not doomed to war and brutality?

I am intensely aware of how painfully difficult it is for me to participate in male dominated forums. I know I am thinking on a different level and that I am not conforming with the male idea of what is important. I have been banned enough times to know that it is a risk to go against male control of forums. All this seems to make a discussion of gender differences, and how our thoughts are shaped, very important.

My belief is that while there may tend to be some noticible differences between "male" or "female" communication styles, as far as general "rules" or specific individuals go", the overarching principles are used both by men and women, and trying to make anything akin to an "exact mathematical science" to it is practically impossible, so I avoid taking dichotomies too seriously.

A female lawyer or a judge in court is obviously following the same overarching "rules" and standards that a male lawyer or judge would; much as a male tennis player or a female tennis player would both still be following the same "rules" of the game, sportsmanship, etc, and performing the same types of "moves" and physical performances (with the exception being the differences in the rules for men and women's leagues).

Abigail Adams prodded her husband John Adams to think of women when he was working on the constitution. History has said John Adams considered his wife to be an excellent advisor. Hopefully, we all know Franklin Roosevelt also considered his wife to be someone to listen to, and that Elenor Roosevelt played a strong role in his decisions and national policy. That clearly is not the case for Ivana Trump who is the worst first lady we have had in a long time and the tyrannical rule of Donald Trump.

I try to avoid paying attention to that and all of the accompanying gossip, so I can't comment honestly.

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)?
I don't believe chimpanzees and bonobos are very accurately comparable, other than maybe in some very "primal" aspects (e.x. such as in writings on evolutionary psychology, which aren't relevant to higher level human activities such as reasoning, mathematics, arts, etc).

Supposedly while the bonobo males are "physically stronger", the females communicate better and "work as a team" to keep the males in line, is what I've heard.

In the back of my mind is the Haudenosaunee and their a matriarchal society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_among_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America
And the Etruscans who were contemporaries with Athens and Rome.
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/30/archives/etruscan-women-had-womens-lib.html

As far as history goes, I don't believe it's entirely "dichotomic", and there have been prominent women in every major historical era that I'm aware of, even if it tended to be "rarer" or less well-known than today; possibly with family, socioeconomics, and other factors having a significant influence with notions of "upward mobility" much less common (e.x. Cleopatra, Queen Victoria, Joan of Arc, just to name a few).

Some ancient female queens, such as some Chinese empresses allegedly even had male "sex slaves" or "concubines".

The lonely savage might believe a rabbit has gnawed on a branch (not sure, it could also be a hare), and predict that his trap will catch the rabbit (he has logically placed it close to rabbit food). He imagines how he will go about catching the rabbit (but know it hasn’t been caught yet) and he recognizes a rabbit whenever he sees one (objective truth). — Congau

Sure, from our perspective, each of these is different, but to the ‘lonely savage’ there is no distinction between these thoughts and the notion of objective truth. What he predicts is what he imagines, and what he imagines is what he believes, and what he believes is never in dispute. He has no reason to doubt his predictions, beliefs or imagination while they remain in potentiality, or to question his recognising a rabbit whenever he sees a hare.

Masculine qualities are pretty essential in terms of discussion and approaching uncomfortable ideas. There is a certain degree of combat when ideas are laid out. Feminine qualities are also essential in discussions, for remaining open minded and explorative.

One without the other is a disaster.

If women wish to compete with men then they either have to bring men to where they are or meet them head on. Either way, as above, one without the other is a disaster.

The major change for women came into play with family planning. Things have shifted.

Sure, from our perspective, each of these is different, but to the ‘lonely savage’ there is no distinction between these thoughts and the notion of objective truth. What he predicts is what he imagines, and what he imagines is what he believes, and what he believes is never in dispute. — Possibility

He would lack the words to describe each sentiment, but I fail to see why he, as a human being and subject to human psychology, would not go through the same process as any social and civilized man. He would carefully examine the tracks and reach a definite conclusion (he would feel sure, the way we feel when we say “I know”) or he would tilt in one direction (not sure, but probably a rabbit, we say “I believe”).

He knows what it means to imagine (not the word but the notion). He has dreams at night that he knows are not real, and sometimes he imagines being able to fly like a bird, knowing full well he could never do it.

Surely the informational differences between the experiences relating an expression of ‘observing’ truth and one of ‘feeling’ truth matters more than their similarities? — Possibility

We neither observe nor feel the truth. We observe something and feel something, and it may or may not be the truth (we may be hallucinating or just not seeing as clearly as we think).

I observe there is a computer on my table, and I feel it is there; what’s the difference? In certain contexts, one word is more appropriate than the other depending on what aspect I wish to stress, or I prefer one word for stylistic reasons, but essentially they are the same. “Observing” refers to the visual faculty while “feeling” could relate to any of the five sense, including the visual.

There is no ‘common denominator’ of truth - conceptually, I think you’re heading in the entirely wrong direction. This seems like the the kind of careless reductionism that religious apologetics thrives on, and that philosophy and science have sought to prevent.
— Possibility
Philosophy and science are about the search for general laws. Unscientific observation is about particulars, whereas science strives to understand general similarities. Quantum physics is the ultimate reductionist understanding of nature and therefore, in a sense the most scientific of all sciences. — Congau

I agree that reducing, resampling or collapsing our understanding of reality is necessary to some extent for any level of interaction, including the scientific method, but reductionism is not how to understand reality. The reductionist approach to quantum physics struggles to settle on a satisfactory interpretation, because the results show that there is no common denominator of truth. It is the nature of the question that determines the answer, not reality itself. Which makes the metaphysical or theoretical approach to quantum physics (determining what questions to ask), and the application or useful interpretation of the answers, as crucial to new scientific discovery and advancement as the experiments themselves or any general laws. The reductionist mathematical calculations either work or don’t work in relation to specific questions. They don’t make sense of the world on their own.

In philosophy, metaphysics is the most philosophical branch asking the most reductionist question: What is being? (ignoring the distinctions between a vast range of beings). Reductionism is essential to all higher understanding since cutting away irrelevant differences is the only way to grasp the principle of anything. — Congau

What I was referring to was careless reductionism, which fails to take into account the subjective, limited position of who is asking the question and why it matters to them. The difference this information makes to what question is asked is important both to science and philosophy - especially at the quantum level. ‘What is being’ is a perfect example of a reductionist question that has contributed little to metaphysics or science of late, because it ignores who is asking the question and why it matters to them.

Reduction is essential to the sharing, predicting, testing and application of how we understand reality. But every time we reach for a higher understanding, we should aim to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration with diverse possibilities, perspectives and potential beyond our own. Ignoring diversity, excluding differences and other reductionist approaches can help to eliminate uncertainty, but the way I see it, this takes us further from objective truth, not closer to it.

He would lack the words to describe each sentiment, but I fail to see why he, as a human being and subject to human psychology, would not go through the same process as any social and civilized man. He would carefully examine the tracks and reach a definite conclusion (he would feel sure, the way we feel when we say “I know”) or he would tilt in one direction (not sure, but probably a rabbit, we say “I believe”). — Congau

The way I see it, human psychology is in many ways a product of social and civilised man, not the other way around - in particular, our capacity to distinguish between the certainty of knowledge and the uncertainty of belief. The capacity alone has no effect until we exercise it through interaction with the world. For the ‘lonely savage’, that distinction can be made only in the moment of observation. The prediction error or realised uncertainty is noted as suffering, while the certainty is integrated or valued as truth. It is in recognising, observing or sharing expressions of suffering that social animals learn to anticipate uncertainty in predicted interactions, and begin to distinguish value or potential in relation to their observation of objects (and eventually in relation to events themselves).

He knows what it means to imagine (not the word but the notion). He has dreams at night that he knows are not real, and sometimes he imagines being able to fly like a bird, knowing full well he could never do it. — Congau

Distinguishing pure imagination from experience is another level of awareness. Even a child often needs to be convinced that their dreams are not real experiences. I think you assume that your ‘lonely savage’ has a broader understanding of his own experiences than he could realistically acquire alone.

I agree that a lone human being can employ the scientific method to acquire certainty. What I’m saying is that without social interaction of some kind, any awareness of uncertainty would always be experienced as an external threat to his existence, not as useful information about the world. So when he carefully examines the tracks, he is aware of no option, no way to entertain doubt, or to feel in any way ‘not sure’.

Surely the informational differences between the experiences relating an expression of ‘observing’ truth and one of ‘feeling’ truth matters more than their similarities?
— Possibility
We neither observe nor feel the truth. We observe something and feel something, and it may or may not be the truth (we may be hallucinating or just not seeing as clearly as we think).

I observe there is a computer on my table, and I feel it is there; what’s the difference? In certain contexts, one word is more appropriate than the other depending on what aspect I wish to stress, or I prefer one word for stylistic reasons, but essentially they are the same. “Observing” refers to the visual faculty while “feeling” could relate to any of the five sense, including the visual. — Congau

This is where our perspectives differ: in how we conceptualise the existence of truth.

For you, it seems, objective truth is an actuality. What is potential is not truth, and neither is possibility. Truth, for you, cannot include doubt or uncertainty in any way. Only when we have ignored, isolated or excluded all evidence of uncertainty, can we refer to whatever remains as ‘objective truth’, and then act on it - as one discrete system interacting with another. This is what I see as particle thinking. It is how an individual understands reality at the moment of interaction.

For me, objective truth is inclusive of all possibilities. Uncertainty is a result of the ignorance, isolation or exclusion of truth from our limited perspective, and so we reduce uncertainty (not just our awareness of it) at this level more effectively by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with all possibilities. There is meaningful information (a difference that makes a difference) to be found in relating our own limited perspective (with all of its uncertainty) to the potential information of alternative experiences and perspectives (with all of their uncertainty). This is how we refine the perceived potential and value of uncertain beliefs, knowledge and predictions as an amorphous relational structure of experiential information - which then collapses (or decoheres) according to our unique structures of logic, language, reasoning, intention, will, etc into what you refer to as ‘objective truth’ for the purpose of interacting with material reality. This is what I refer to as potentiality wave thinking.

The way I see it, when we observe something, we cannot observe ‘the truth’, as you say, but the observable information is true when conceptualised in a certain way (ie. as a hallucination). Likewise, when we feel something, we cannot feel the truth, but what information is felt can be structured in relation to other information towards truth.

I observe that there is a computer on my table.
I feel that there is a computer on my table.

The similarity between these statements pertains to my belief: that there is a computer on my table. I understand that this is the only information in these statements that you may be interested in, and so long as you can be certain that my belief is true, then you don’t need any more information.

But the truth in each statement is dependent on the relative positions of the computer, the table and me - none of which you can be certain of from either of these statements alone - and so the difference between these statements also relates to the sensory and other information I’m using to construct my belief. If you are standing beside me, and my table is in another room, how does the potential truth in each of these statements change from, say, the two of us being in different rooms, or from the table being in your room, or from you being blind? How does the meaning of ‘observe’ and ‘feel’ change in relation to this information?

When we act on the information that we have, we don’t exclude as much uncertain information as we might think. We always predict reality to some extent when we act, and our prediction is very much altered by potential, uncertain and value-laden information - as much as it seems like we’re acting only on ‘objective truth’.

↪Athena Masculine qualities are pretty essential in terms of discussion and approaching uncomfortable ideas. There is a certain degree of combat when ideas are laid out. Feminine qualities are also essential in discussions, for remaining open minded and explorative.

One without the other is a disaster.

If women wish to compete with men then they either have to bring men to where they are or meet them head on. Either way, as above, one without the other is a disaster.

The major change for women came into play with family planning. Things have shifted. — I like sushi

:heart: I think I love you. I wish the whole world held those ideas.

I think there are varying degrees in our differences. I know for sure I think differently from others and I am pretty passionate about others having some of the same thoughts I have, but I am also totally frustrated by my inability to find the words that make them clear. That is largely why I started this thread. I was hoping someone would say things better than I can, and that is happening. Others are saying what I wish I could find words for. You sure did an excellent job of that.

One more thought. It seems to me only male-dominated cultures developed technology. Ones with more female influence may have failed to develop technologically?

One more thought. It seems to me only male-dominated cultures developed technology. Ones with more female influence may have failed to develop technologically? — Athena

You’ll have to explain further where you’ve pulled that from?

This is where my curiosity rises. Potential...what is meant by this? Better? Possible? Preferred? Imaginable? For instance, the pile of 2x4's and nails in my barn has the "potential" to be all sorts of things: a dog house, an addition to my living room, a bike ramp for the kids, a fence, etc etc. But what it becomes will be a function of my preference. Did I deny the lumber's potential by building a dog house instead of adding on to my living room? It becomes all the more interesting a question when coupled with "domination". Potential for domination... I'm interested to hear more about that. — Aussie

Okay, as I said in response to sushi, I think only the male-dominated cultures developed technology. If we were all matriarchal, we would still be farming with sticks and communing with the Mother Goddess. But we would also have games to channel our aggressive urges as mothers keep the children busy to avoid problems. :lol: I could be wrong but I suspect the male impulse to correcting a child is more apt to be corporal punishment. Not that long ago it was legal to hit a wife and the law only attempted to limit that hitting. Men on ships were whipped. Slaves were whipped. And still the way we treat prisoners is horrifying!

Women could count on men to defend them. It is amazing how women stay with abusive men and attempt to avoid abuse by being pleasing. I have not observed too many men who attempt to get what they want and need by being pleasing. There are some. They are called "henpecked". Socially that is discouraged because it is not attractive to either men or women. But life loves diversity. And I think today, more men are apt to think and apply reason than in the past. That is in part what inspired this thread. I like the change I see in men. I like it a lot! I like the change for women as well, but who is taking care of the children?

I love contemplating this stuff and wondering, how did some cultures become passive and others become aggressive. I read a book addressing this difference between aggressive people who leave home and venture out into the world and nonaggressive people who stay home and cling to the familiar. Some tribes would invite trading. Mongols killed everyone in their path until a man from China taught Khan to harvest the cities (demand tribute).

You’ll have to explain further where you’ve pulled that from? — I like sushi

Okay, that will require looking through my books to find quotes and I need some time to do that. I do think this point is an important one and should be scrutinized.

Truth, for you, cannot include doubt or uncertainty in any way. — Possibility

Truth is what is. It neither includes nor excludes anything else. The computer is either on my desk or it is not there, regardless of how I feel about it. I believe it’s there or I don’t, neither attitude changes the whereabouts of the computer.

As for uncertainty, strictly speaking I must be uncertain about everything, including the existence of the computer that I perceive so clearly with my eyes and my fingertips at this very moment. I’m not a skeptic, I believe very strongly that my computer exists, but I can’t know it.

I agree that the difference between knowing and believing is culturally conditioned. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are languages that have one common word for “know” and “believe”. If we were to construct a philosophically pure language there certainly would be only one word for both notions and the current distinction could be expressed with a qualifier indicating the level of uncertainty (I believe/know with very little uncertainty. vs. I believe/know with considerable uncertainty)

If we remove this culturally arbitrary distinction, we are on par with our lonely savage. If you doubt that, you might as well think that psychology can’t be practiced cross-culturally and theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race.

You’re acknowledging a distinction between knowing and believing on the one hand, but reducing it to a degree of uncertainty on the other. You’re revealing here an overarching structure of potentiality that collapses to value certainty above all - not unlike our lonely savage.

This takes us back to the main discussion here. The dominant, influential individual will always value certainty above all, and view any uncertainty that inevitably persists in his choice of actions as overwhelmingly negative. The life of our lonely savage is attractive to him: no one questions his decisions or points out conflicting, alternative or unsettling information. Ignorance is bliss. An individual’s social connections and collaboration increase the uncertainty of his autonomy, dominance and influence. He is more aware of the universe, but less certain of his individual position in relation to it.

FWIW, I see an alternative to the self as a dominant, influential individual to be the self as one possible manifestation of truth.

If we remove this culturally arbitrary distinction, we are on par with our lonely savage. If you doubt that, you might as well think that psychology can’t be practiced cross-culturally and theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race. — Congau

I agree that ignoring the distinction puts us on par with the lonely savage - but that doesn’t improve our understanding of truth - it only reduces it. I DO think that psychology can’t be practiced with the same accuracy cross-culturally, and that cultural differences should always be taken into account when making decisions globally for the human race.

Culture is not arbitrary - it’s the uncertainty that diminishes its perceived value in your perspective. The diversity of human culture and ideology reflects the perceived potential of humanity’s interaction with the universe. To exclude this information from how we interact with the world is to limit the accuracy of our predictions, including its uncertainty. You can’t attempt to reduce the potentiality and value structures of the human race to the certainty of a ‘common denominator’ and expect to make accurate predictions. This is the issue with morality, politics, religion, logic, language, etc. It’s similar to the problem faced when train travel made time zones necessary, instead of opting for one ‘common’ world time. And the relativity of time in a four-dimensional reality - except what we’re talking about is a fifth dimensional aspect of perceived value or potential.

Okay, I am ready to offer an explanation of why matriarchal societies did not develop technology. This is a weak argument because it appears no one has specifically paid attention to human social organization and technology. There is a study of apes and social organization. https://www.damemagazine.com/2013/05/10/five-things-we-know-about-societies-run-women/

A separate source of information was a video about how mother chimps transmit information to their children and how female children stay close to the mother and learn from her, while the males wander off and are slow to learn from their mothers. For sure among higher IQ species relationships are very important to learning, but that is not the driver for learning math, developing writing, and the technologies of civilization.

“In matriarchies, mothers are at the center of culture without ruling over other members of society,” says Heidi Goettner-Abendroth, founder of The International Academy HAGIA for Modern Matriarchal Studies. “The aim is not to have power over others and over nature, but to follow maternal values, ie. to nurture the natural, social and cultural life based on mutual respect.”

Now there is a technology driving force statement. Living in harmony with nature, as the native Americans and others around the world have done, does not drive technological development. It gets jars and baskets and art and jewelry but not math and writing. Picture writing I would put with in the female side of things, but not the symbolic letters of Jews and Greeks, and darn it but I gave away the book that explained what is important about the change in written language. I just remember the book said this change shifted power to males. But I found this online

How the Invention of the Alphabet Usurped Female Power in ...
https://www.brainpickings.org › shlain-alphabet-goddess
Mar 17, 2014 - God worship, masculine values, and men's domination of women are bound to the written word. Word and image, like masculine and feminine, ... — brainpickings

It is not that women can't do math. One of the most famous female mathematicians was killed by Christians, putting her in our history, and it is known Pathagorians included females. But I assure you, math is not typically what women talk about. I just do not believe a matriarchy would develop math and they did not develop writing as we know it. Now let us consider architecture that requires moving heavy stones. Not a whole lot of women are going to do that, and my first thought when I brought up the subject is that the civilizations we know of, that may have been matriarchal, did not have large buildings of any kind and they didn't have temples with huge statues of gods and goddesses, nor huge statues of their leaders. They had small sanctuaries in nature. And all buildings were small and modest. No massive government buildings or temples.

The very notion of many gods had to have grown from city living where life was too complex for one god to manage everything and some who study the gods see evidence of the male gods replacing the ruling goddess.

Essential to developing technology is metals and mining them. This is not a female activity. It is the boy wandering around hitting everything with a stick who is going to find that special rock and explore its potential and shove his friend into the hole to get more of them.

What do you think? Is that a good argument for what gender has to do with different social/political organizations and the development of technology?