Phaedrus, I'm curious as to your thoughts about ILI/SEE duality. If you could explain how you think it works, or at least why you think an SEE would be your "ideal" partner, I'd appreciate it.
Phaedrus
Phaedrus, I'm curious as to your thoughts about ILI/SEE duality. If you could explain how you think it works, or at least why you think an SEE would be your "ideal" partner, I'd appreciate it.
btw, I'd like to make it clear that I don't want this thread to turn into a flame war or a place for people to come in and bitch/troll. I won't be hesitant to use the "report to moderator" feature.
Re: Phaedrus
What exactly do you want to know that isn't already explained and described in the descriptions of duality in general, or specifically in for example in Gulenko's description of the ILI/SEE relation?Originally Posted by Joy
She's not asking you for enlightenment, you toolbox, she wants you to give her your actual thoughts about duality so she can rip into you for being such a dolt. Unfortunately, she doesn't realize that you, being a complete fucking parrot to your own misguided intellectual ego and lacking any kind of independent thinking skills or imagination, are going to just copy from other sources and drag her into nit-picking arguments over meaning and interpretations.
Nah, I'm not willing to argue or debate. I'm just curious as to what he thinks he could provide an SEE, and vice versa.
You reconsidering your type, Joy?
what?
Well, you have expressed in the past that you think ILI is a possibility, and if you're asking a supposed ILI about ILI/SEE duality, I thought perhaps your motivation for doing so was because you want to reevaluate your relationship(s) with others, in thinking that you may be an ILI.
If I wanted to learn more about ILI's or ILI/SEE duality, this would not be the route I would take to do so.
I think Joy wants to hear Phaedrus's understanding of ILI/SEE duality in words underived from the use of the copy and paste function.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
And what would be the purpose of that? Why would I try to outsmart Gulenko, unless I happen to disagree with something in his description? What's the purpose of everyone doing the same thing as others? Why invent the wheel again?
the purpose would be to see what your understanding of the duality is by a more direct method than scouring your posts.
Exactly. I want to hear your understanding of it, Phaedrus. This topic sprout from the debate about Ezra's friend's type (obviously). I just cannot see a SEE being the dual of someone who's so concerned with logic... so I was wondering how you think ILI/SEE interactions work. What does an ILI offer an SEE, and how does the SEE respond? What does the SEE offer the ILI?
Whatever, have fun wasting your time, Joy.
Some people are unwilling to state things that aren't from another source, not because they don't know but because they might be uncomfortable.
Yeah, I tend to be like that with things I don't have experience with.
I second this.
Why are you trying to dodge the question that you should easily be able to provide with your empirical experience?And what would be the purpose of that? Why would I try to outsmart Gulenko, unless I happen to disagree with something in his description? What's the purpose of everyone doing the same thing as others? Why invent the wheel again?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
There seems to be this pattern....
How it begins:
Phaedrus: You are wrong that X. It is actually Y.
If people continue to disagree:
Phaedrus-type response: If you don't agree that it's Y you are blind to the truth. Or you are an idiot.
...
When evidence is asked for:
Phaedrus-type response 1: I have presented evidence time and time again, but no one pays attention to it. I don't know why I have to restate it when I've already stated it. You will only ignore it again.
Phaedrus-type response 2: The truth has been stated repeatedly by person's A, B, C and D. All you have to do is read what they wrote. If you don't agree that Y then you are disagreeing with notable persons A, B, C, and D. (All credible persons agree that Y.)
...
If reason Q is pointed out to disprove Y:
Phaedrus-type response 1: Yes I have noticed Q about Y, but I was referring to R about Y.
Phaedrus-type response 2: Now I don't know what you mean by this. S aspect of Y is about Q, but R aspect of Y is not.
...
If some sort of blatant contradiction is pointed out or some other statement pointing out that what Phaedrus has said doesn't make sense:
Phaedrus-type response 1: You are avoiding the truth.
Phaedrus-type response 2: You are wrong here. You're clearly an intelligent person. If you would just...
Phaedrus-type response 3: It isn't apparent to you perhaps. You just can't see it.
Phaedrus response-type 4: I have studied this more thoroughly than anyone else has.
...
The point is that these sorts of arguments repeatedly go in circles around the point, never arriving at the pith of the matter. And any argument someone makes against one of Phaedrus' views or that attempts to get to the point of the matter is redeflected out by Phaedrus in his response.
It does rather seem like Ti unbalanced by Te. Occassionally some deductive reasoning is thrown in (for instance 'if most qualities are of Type A, but all are of Type B, then which type is more likely, A or B?') but it is only used to send things back into the realm of talking in circles.
It reminds me of this sort of image:
When you trace these you're always moving towards the center, but are always deflected away, instead making the ring around the center increasingly complex.
The words begin to appear hollow. I had waited for something to fill the center, or thought perhaps something had filled it in prior Phaedrus posts... but it appears that it is always hollow like this.
Very accurate and insightful observations, Loki. I think you have described correctly and well the structure of many of the discussions I have been involved in. But your conclusions concerning the functions can be questioned.
Reply With Quote
