What do men and women really want from each other?

[Phil8659]

Well, what did the response have to do with my post about communication between partners?

I have decided to, if not to be merciful, demonstrate how easy the question is.

As a thing is defined as a binary construct, a relative constrained by correlatives, then it follows, that the only difference between male and female is the relative difference of gender aimed at the recursion of humanity. A mind, when functional, cannot possibly differ in judgments as every grammar system is effected by binary recursion in the intelligible, i.e. virtual modeling. Socrates informs you of this, in a quote one will find in Xenophon.

It is not possible, for a literate species, to differ in judgment due to the exact same systems of grammars. As a thing is called a binary construct of a relative constrained correlatives, this can be put into another common grammar phrase, a standard of behavior, that which every Philosophy, and the very definition of mind, seeks to comply with.

But let us say, you only studied the Bible. It is written in that text, that when mankind learns judgment, all of humanity will be in accord with the truth of things, all will see the unity judgment makes possible.

Therefore, if one is capable of comprehending the consequences, that is the only time in history mankind will know what marriage is and the only time man will be capable of it.

So, let us say that someone is driven to be married and would do anything to attain it, being true to that one drive could lead them to understanding, true understanding, a truly rational existence.

[Astro Cat]

Well, what did the response have to do with my post about communication between partners?

I have decided to, if not to be merciful, demonstrate how easy the question is.

As a thing is defined as a binary construct, a relative constrained by correlatives, then it follows, that the only difference between male and female is the relative difference of gender aimed at the recursion of humanity. A mind, when functional, cannot possibly differ in judgments as every grammar system is effected by binary recursion in the intelligible, i.e. virtual modeling. Socrates informs you of this, in a quote one will find in Xenophon.

It is not possible, for a literate species, to differ in judgment due to the exact same systems of grammars. As a thing is called a binary construct of a relative constrained correlatives, this can be put into another common grammar phrase, a standard of behavior, that which every Philosophy, and the very definition of mind, seeks to comply with.

But let us say, you only studied the Bible. It is written in that text, that when mankind learns judgment, all of humanity will be in accord with the truth of things, all will see the unity judgment makes possible.

Therefore, if one is capable of comprehending the consequences, that is the only time in history mankind will know what marriage is and the only time man will be capable of it.

So, let us say that someone is driven to be married and would do anything to attain it, being true to that one drive could lead them to understanding, true understanding, a truly rational existence.

I feel as though this is vastly overthinking the matter. The OP asks, “what do women really want?” (Edit: ok, “what men and women want from each other.” I’m on my phone.)

I interpreted based on the context that the OP was suggesting women are inscrutable. I have merely said that we really aren’t; that all people need to do is to communicate, especially within the context of a relationship. This is a very straightforward thing to say.

I’m unsure what’s meant by “binary recursion” in this context, nor why the Bible was mentioned as an example. It’s just overall unclear what you’re trying to communicate. It’s a lot of words that mean things individually, but the way you’ve strung them together doesn’t seem to impart anything clear.

[Phil8659]

I feel as though this is vastly overthinking the matter. The OP asks, “what do women really want?” (Edit: ok, “what men and women want from each other.” I’m on my phone.)

I interpreted based on the context that the OP was suggesting women are inscrutable. I have merely said that we really aren’t; that all people need to do is to communicate, especially within the context of a relationship. This is a very straightforward thing to say.

I’m unsure what’s meant by “binary recursion” in this context, nor why the Bible was mentioned as an example. It’s just overall unclear what you’re trying to communicate. It’s a lot of words that mean things individually, but the way you’ve strung them together doesn’t seem to impart anything clear.

As psychology is commensurate with the principles of Language commensurate in the mind as grammar systems, then you are an example of the typical human being. You believe that words can impart an understanding which you are biologically barred from. Nobody can make you understand anything which is not on some level functionally present in your own mind.
So, I am not over thinking anything, such a statement is simply absurd.

Once again, and take it slow, as a thing is defined as a binary construct, what, in all of creation, is not the application of it, both in the intelligible and in the perceptible? If the concept of the unit, the thing, unity, is not present in your mind, you cannot possibly understand anything.

You, like this entire planet, cannot even point to one factually correct book on grammar. By definition, and definition alone, how many parts of speech are even possible? Plato told you. The Bible tells you, your own biology tells you, the computer tells you. Yet you still don't get it.


Binary: Noun and Verb, 0 and 1, point and line, male and female, good and evil, right and wrong, sense and nonsense. What judgement is possible without a firm grasp of let your yea's be yea's and your nay's be nay's? Like most people who only see the perceptible, you have never transformed into the universal intelligible.

[Astro Cat]

I feel as though this is vastly overthinking the matter. The OP asks, “what do women really want?” (Edit: ok, “what men and women want from each other.” I’m on my phone.)

I interpreted based on the context that the OP was suggesting women are inscrutable. I have merely said that we really aren’t; that all people need to do is to communicate, especially within the context of a relationship. This is a very straightforward thing to say.

I’m unsure what’s meant by “binary recursion” in this context, nor why the Bible was mentioned as an example. It’s just overall unclear what you’re trying to communicate. It’s a lot of words that mean things individually, but the way you’ve strung them together doesn’t seem to impart anything clear.

As psychology is commensurate with the principles of Language commensurate in the mind as grammar systems, then you are an example of the typical human being. You believe that words can impart an understanding which you are biologically barred from. Nobody can make you understand anything which is not on some level functionally present in your own mind.
So, I am not over thinking anything, such a statement is simply absurd.

Once again, and take it slow, as a thing is defined as a binary construct, what, in all of creation, is not the application of it, both in the intelligible and in the perceptible? If the concept of the unit, the thing, unity, is not present in your mind, you cannot possibly understand anything.

You, like this entire planet, cannot even point to one factually correct book on grammar. By definition, and definition alone, how many parts of speech are even possible? Plato told you. The Bible tells you, your own biology tells you, the computer tells you. Yet you still don't get it.


Binary: Noun and Verb, 0 and 1, point and line, male and female, good and evil, right and wrong, sense and nonsense. What judgement is possible without a firm grasp of let your yea's be yea's and your nay's be nay's? Like most people who only see the perceptible, you have never transformed into the universal intelligible.

I guess this arcane wisdom is simply beyond me.

Not trying to be rude, I just don’t find it very clear.

[Phil8659]

I guess this arcane wisdom is simply beyond me.

So, as the definition of a thing, your own biology, the Bible, Plato, Geometry, Arithmetic, the computer, all tell you that a mind has to only master two concepts, is it really beyond you, or do you just lack any self respect?

[Astro Cat]

I guess this arcane wisdom is simply beyond me.

So, as the definition of a thing, your own biology, the Bible, Plato, Geometry, Arithmetic, the computer, all tell you that a mind has to only master two concepts, is it really beyond you, or do you just lack any self respect?

Now this becomes an oversimplification to say minds must understand only two concepts. I’m afraid I just don’t think along these lines, I’m sorry.

[Phil8659]

I guess this arcane wisdom is simply beyond me.

So, as the definition of a thing, your own biology, the Bible, Plato, Geometry, Arithmetic, the computer, all tell you that a mind has to only master two concepts, is it really beyond you, or do you just lack any self respect?

Now this becomes an oversimplification to say minds must understand only two concepts. I’m afraid I just don’t think along these lines, I’m sorry.

That you do not should be evident to anyone, including yourself. And if binary recursion is over simplified, how in the hell is that computer working at your finger tips?
Plato called it the inability to see the one in the many, and the many in the one. And you should be afraid, afraid that you are wasting your life with gibberish.

[Astro Cat]

So, as the definition of a thing, your own biology, the Bible, Plato, Geometry, Arithmetic, the computer, all tell you that a mind has to only master two concepts, is it really beyond you, or do you just lack any self respect?

Now this becomes an oversimplification to say minds must understand only two concepts. I’m afraid I just don’t think along these lines, I’m sorry.

That you do not should be evident to anyone, including yourself. And if binary recursion is over simplified, how in the hell is that computer working at your finger tips?
Plato called it the inability to see the one in the many, and the many in the one. And you should be afraid, afraid that you are wasting your life with gibberish.

Yes, I should be more careful about spending my time on gibberish. But what’s a girl to do waiting on an oil change?

[Phil8659]

Yes, I should be more careful about spending my time on gibberish. But what’s a girl to do waiting on an oil change?

I post free audio books on the Archive, just put some into your phone or ipod and listen to some of the really great thinkers in history, pay attention to how they use words and why. I have the Works of the Underground Grammarian, Plato, Aristotle, and more, just do your best to understand what they say, and even mentally argue with them.

[Agent Smith]

The answer to the OP's question seems obvious, but they say one must always be on guard when one encounters the word "obvious".

[Dontaskme]

The answer to the OP's question seems obvious, but they say one must always be on guard when one encounters the word "obvious".

Apparently ''obvious'' when one's senses informs one of the obvious answer as it becomes evocatively clear to both who are intoxicatingly flooded by their bodies own supply of dopamine and oxytocin. The chemistry simply takes over with reckless abandon, overpowering all rational sense in a very clear headed kind of way.

[Agent Smith]

Si, si, somethin' like that señor/señorita.

[Iwannaplato]

The answer to the OP's question seems obvious, but they say one must always be on guard when one encounters the word "obvious".

As some have said it depends on the individuals involved. Further, as far as I can tell, most people want a few different things from the opposite sex (perhaps even if they are homosexual but certainly if they are heterosexual).

Then we have the Darwinian answers, which are confused. They want to procreate. That's confusing the reason we might be the way we are with our motivations. Even from a Darwinian perspective, if we have been naturally selected (long before our species arose) to be motivated to procreate, HOW this happens is not determined by the function. If it ends up creating babies if our strongest reason for wanting the other person is emotional intimacy, then that stands a great chance of being selected for. People are confusing the cart for the horse.

IOW our motivation may well be to be near THAT, so the other sex, for most of us, will tend to have qualities we want to be around (in their non-toxic forms). We want to be around THAT. And to experience all sorts of things with THAT: sure, sex, emotional closeness, someone we can be open with, someone who receives us, someone who is rooting for us, someone we find very interesting even after enormous amounts of time togetherx, a best friend, a partner, someone to have kids with, someone with that THATNESS we can experience when we want, someone to talk through shit with, and so on.

But we can't underestimate the desire to experience the specific THATNESS of that person. I mean, that sure seems to be what romantic love is and if you're lucky and it becomes mature love, well, THATNESS is what you are after and what you grieve if it goes away. That particular person who is so central.

[Agent Smith]

The answer to the OP's question seems obvious, but they say one must always be on guard when one encounters the word "obvious".

As some have said it depends on the individuals involved. Further, as far as I can tell, most people want a few different things from the opposite sex (perhaps even if they are homosexual but certainly if they are heterosexual).

Then we have the Darwinian answers, which are confused. They want to procreate. That's confusing the reason we might be the way we are with our motivations. Even from a Darwinian perspective, if we have been naturally selected (long before our species arose) to be motivated to procreate, HOW this happens is not determined by the function. If it ends up creating babies if our strongest reason for wanting the other person is emotional intimacy, then that stands a great chance of being selected for. People are confusing the cart for the horse.

IOW our motivation may well be to be near THAT, so the other sex, for most of us, will tend to have qualities we want to be around (in their non-toxic forms). We want to be around THAT. And to experience all sorts of things with THAT: sure, sex, emotional closeness, someone we can be open with, someone who receives us, someone who is rooting for us, someone we find very interesting even after enormous amounts of time togetherx, a best friend, a partner, someone to have kids with, someone with that THATNESS we can experience when we want, someone to talk through shit with, and so on.

But we can't underestimate the desire to experience the specific THATNESS of that person. I mean, that sure seems to be what romantic love is and if you're lucky and it becomes mature love, well, THATNESS is what you are after and what you grieve if it goes away. That particular person who is so central.

Well, at the very least, you get points for attempting to be thorough!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Women want men to be like women, but at the same time they want them to be the opposite of women. Men just want women to be women. Work that one out if you will.