Complementarity & Reality

[duszek]

Yes, you are probably right.

And if one of the participants is a free agent, can he escape the complementary relationship or is he stuck for ever ?
A violinist or a singer can theoretically refuse to cooperate and start performing a solo part.

[philofra]

A violinist or a singer can theoretically refuse to cooperate and start performing a solo part.

There will be a complementarity in some other way.

[duszek]

Now you sound enigmatic.
Like a magician who is going to take a rabbit out of a bowler hat.

I need clearness and accuracy.
An attempt will be appreciated, no matter how imperfect.
Have courage !

[duszek]

How about this:

There are all kinds of influences, infinite in number, between all and everything.
Some of them are special and deserve to be called complementary.
An influence can undergo a change from being a complementary to being an un-complementary one.

[philofra]

How about a solo artist having a complementary relationship with her/his instrument where one day the artist turns on said instrument and smashes it to pieces, turning it into a un-complementary relationship.

Or a person who has a stroke and loses the influence of part of its brain, making for a mentally un-complementary situation where the person cannot understand abstractions as a result.

[philofra]

Nietzsche´s Zarathustra would be of a different opinion and prefer the solitude of a hermit than the debilitating company of blinking over-civilized humanity.

That got me thinking about the meaning of hermit and how it might apply to the discussion. Probably there is a connection between hermit and complementarity but I wasn't ready to find or make one.

However, like I said, it got me thinking. One of my interests is Kant, who I have mentioned here. So I whimsically googled Kant + hermit and this is what I found: Philosophy Now Forum • View topic - Complementarity & Reality 15 posts - 2 authors - Last post: yesterday Kant wrote, "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point ... and prefer the solitude of a hermit than the debilitating company of..

I am amazed how Google made the connection between hermit and Kant when non was ever mentioned. How did that happen? But then I realized Google had just connected phrases that were used at different instances on the same page.

Anyway, in mythology a hermit is often portrayed as a wise old recluse. Maybe I can find complementarity in that.

Kant was a bit of a hermit and recluse. He didn't like leaving home for too long or travel very far.

[duszek]

Maybe we should distinguish between close complementarity and remote complementarity.
A hermit has a remote complementary relationship with society. He stays at a distance. But every now and then he is overpowered by the desire to go to the common people and to teach them some wisdom. Even if they laugh at him and do not understand.

I like to philosophize with you, you are open-minded and therefore una miniera da sfruttare (a mine to be exploited).


The violinist who smashes the violin ends a complementary relationship which was one-sided from the beginning. I doubt that a complementary relationship between a conscious being and an inanimate object is at all possible.
The violin simply does not care. Only the violinist does care, very much.

[philofra]

The violinist who smashes the violin ends a complementary relationship which was one-sided from the beginning. I doubt that a complementary relationship between a conscious being and an inanimate object is at all possible.
The violin simply does not care. Only the violinist does care, very much.

Nevertheless I still consider it a complementary relationship even though it seems to be one sided. When the violinist plays his instrument it becomes animated and alive, essentially taking on a human quality. And the music that is achieved can be soothing to the soul, which sounds complementary to me.

The relationship between and artist and its instrument is a social construct aimed at being complementary. There are also other social constructs having aims to be complementary. Consider liberal democracy, the pinnacle of human governance. Its aim is to satisfy, as best it can, both aspects of human nature, the desire for freedom and that for equality. One branch — liberal, satisfies economic freedom while the other works to maintain a political and legal equality among people. The political system within it cultivates opposition parties to keep the system legitimate, that overall work in a complementary, balanced manner. What is most complementary about it is the transitions of political power between opposing parties, when necessary, is done fairly seamlessly no matter the political upheaval.

I am glade we are being simpatico. or, should I say, complementary.

[philofra]

MacFarlane writes about the evolution of functionality, the functionality of an agent, the ability of an agent to be or become functional through complementarity. He writes that the individual agent on its own does not have the complexity to handle all contingencies it encounters. Thus it seeks out alliances and partners - complementarity (networking), to deal with the complex world.

He is talking about something similar to what Kant mentioned in Idea for a Universal History... , that individual agents on their own aren't sufficiently evolved to satisfy their own needs and aspirations. They have to find complementarity or partners outside their agency in order to do so. Society, Kant says, is where individual agents will find fulfillment and eventually evolve to a higher level. The agent finds function and its potential in engaging with the complementarity and networking of society.

I, for instance, would not have been able to develop the ideas I have without the complementarity of this forum or other agents.

[duszek]

I am not sure whether the desire for freedom and the desire for equality can be complementary.

Is the extreme freedom is in the anarchy or in the jungle or in the world Hobbes describes ?

The survival of the fittest means that you are stressed out all the time, worried and constrainted by the stronger ones.
This is not freedom.

Was Robinson Crusoe free then ? Having an island all to himself ?

[philofra]

I am not sure whether the desire for freedom and the desire for equality can be complementary.

I didn't say that freedom and the desire for equality are complementary. These desires reside in all of us; we want to be treated as equal yet we want our freedom. But they aren't necessarily complementary. These desires are antagonistic like our unsocial/social behavior that Kant identified. If they are complementary it is that they feed off and drive each other, bringing a creative tension to human affairs. (They are complementary spark plugs of civilization, like competition/cooperation are.)

The point I wanted to make is that a complementarity form of governance has evolved — liberal democracy, to handle and package these contradictory human desires so that they can coexist without destroying each other. Contrastingly, under governances like communism the desire for freedom was eradicated so that people were equal. But force had to be used to reach that desired state, in the process denying an inherent, natural desire that eventually would overthrow that bogus system, which went against the human grain. In other words, a complementarity, a system of governance has evolved to balance those two conflicting, inexorably linked desires so as to make them as compatible and as complementary as possible.

The reference to Robinson Crusoe, I dare say, is an analogy, that l haven't yet figured out.

[duszek]

So the desires are contradictory:
I want exactly the same piece of cake as everyone else,
but at the same time I want to get much more cake for myself and stuff myself with it.

Robinson can have it both: there is nobody else there to compare himself to so he can eat all the cake himself, without sharing it with anyone.

He is equal to himself and he is free.

If there are two Robinsons on the island how can these two desires feed off and drive each other ?
Robinson 1 wants at least as big a piece of cake as Robinson 2 but if he gets a bigger one then so much the better ?

[philofra]

I am not sure why Robinson Crusoe was tossed into the discussion but there are some features that lend him to it.

Perhaps Crusoe did feel like a free man on his island but he did not believe in equality, which is apparent in how he treated his man Friday. He insisted on Friday calling him Master. Crusoe is also emblematic of European imperialism and colonization of the day. Nevertheless, I believe the relationship was mutually satisfactory and complementary for both.

[duszek]

I have never read the book about Robinson, I only remembered that he had an island for himself.
He seemed to be the most free of men, unbound by social constraints.

The desire for freedom could be complementary to the desire for safety.
One wants to be free, but freedom without safety is not worth much.
And safety without freedom is not worth much either.
One wants both but which price is the lowest ?
I have to give up some of my freedom in order to feel safe.
I have to give up some of my safety in order to feel free.
How much ?

[duszek]

When colours are complementary they produce something new together, for example yellow and blue produce green.

Freedom and safety produce ... happiness ?