Just because you are moralistic, does not mean you are Fi!
Just because you are moralistic, does not mean you are Fi!
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
Logical types can be moralistic too. Surely there's more to Fi, and Fe for that matter?
Well, fwiw, your posts don't strike me as being Fi.
Hey..is that a good thing... maybe you want to be Fi ?! :-)
Last edited by Cyclops; 04-07-2008 at 06:40 PM.
....
Last edited by Suomea; 09-27-2008 at 04:17 PM.
Suomea
Is Kamangir calling himself an ESI as a joke? Seriously
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
I saw the Kamangir video...he's an SEI if there ever was one. His recent moodiness is only further proof.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
I wanna be what I want to be ok end of story.
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
....
Last edited by Suomea; 09-27-2008 at 04:16 PM.
Suomea
....
Last edited by Suomea; 09-27-2008 at 04:16 PM.
Suomea
I'm going to put socionics aside for a second because I don't really fully understand the functions ... or rather find it hard to isolate the functions. But what i can tell you is that my system of morals are not contradictory, inconsistent or changeable at all. They aren't based on my emotions and my personal likes or dislikes. My personal dislikes may coincide with what's wrong - in those situations that's great because I don't have to think about doing the right thing - but there are a lot of things that I know to be wrong which I force myself to abstain from doing - things which if I were to consult my feelings about I would think there's nothing wrong with doing. My emotions have very little to do with my morals and my idea of what's right and wrong. That a Ti's morality is objective and a Fi's is subjective is a fallacy IMO. If my morals were based on personal feelings, then I would agree with that statement - but they're not. They are not inconsistent and contradictory when my emotions often are. You say that it is a PoLR hit for someone to say that you're a bad person. Well, to imply that my morals are not logical and change depending on what direction the wind is blowing is a PoLR hit for me.
Last edited by Rubicon; 04-08-2008 at 03:36 AM.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
Chopin +1000.
Anyway, to say that morality needs to be consistent at all times is incorrect. There are extenuating circumstances that can come up in any situation, and to say that your morality is "higher" because of its inflexibility only proves its weakness. Your morals need to reflect partly on the situation at hand and how your beliefs can affect the task at hand. There has never been and never will be one correct way do "attack" a moral question, now matter how "logical" it may seem. Logics hasn't affected the dying children in Africa. To brag upon your moral standards because of the above "qualities" seems foolhardy.
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
First, actually explain what are you talking about. The colonists of Africa subverted the people and removed what little natural resources they had to the coffers of Europe. The majority of African people are not dying of religious strife, it is of malnutrition and poverty.Seriously Kamangir, dogmatic moral and religious division hasn't done shit but kill and murder millions of people in Africa.
And btw, it looks better if you actually respond to the post you quote rather than grabbing a key word and bullshitting. I grow tired of this.
You need to speak up when you see a problem."lets just live and let live and agree to disagree"
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Exactly.
When I say my morals are unchangeable, I mean the principles. I'm not saying that circumstances shouldn't be taken into account. The laws of our land are static, and yet there are allowances made for a person's individual circumstances.
I realise that. It's just easier for me to talk from a subjective point of view.
Saying that you hold yourself to 'a higher standard' than mere personal feelings and what other people think is a confusing concept for me because at the end of the day, your conclusions on morality are your personal conclusions (no matter how logical your process) - so to me what you're saying is that you don't trust others to lay down the laws of morality for you. Rather - you want to create your system of morality based on your own personal conclusions. Great! I don't have a problem with that. That's what we all do. I just don't like that you're implying that we (Fe/Fi types) don't do this as well and that somehow our system of 'morality-building' is inferior to your own.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
First you need to feel you make a difference in the world. Sitting around and trying to keep peace gets old Ms. Dolphin. Jesus knocked the money changers' tables over in Jerusalem, he didn't sit around and wait for things to get better on their own.If you realize there is no end in sight and that people will only get hostile and riled up and that no conclusion is plausible.....why speak up? Why aggravate the problem or create a bigger one? That's pretty pointless IMHO.
Alright friend, thank you hkkmr for teaching us your morality engine. It gets the job done.
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
I'm not meaning to attack your system of morality - only trying to say that mine is not based on personal feelings either ... so I don't see why you keep implying that it is. Don't get mad. Sometimes I can play the devil's advocate without realising it. Honestly, I just really want to understand where you're coming from.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
They definitely don't like anyone.
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
I'm just happy you feel like you make a difference.I do make a difference in the world, thank you very much. But most of the time I don't feel the need to get all combative to prove it, is all.
Oh sorry about that. Do you need an aspirin.I'm not half as angry as I was 10 minutes ago...
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Seriously, SF is so far out of character that I won't even bother with it. I'm NT alright. My main motivation for LIE is that I've been going counterclockwise around the types (as they are laid out on the wiki), and I wanted to maintain the pattern.
Although, come to think of it, at one time I had LII, ILE, SEI, ESE, LIE and ILI in my signature simultaneously.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
well it seems like things have settled down... it's good to have these little breaks in things.
(breaks over)
ABORTION! go! discuss!
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Good to hear that Kamangir is SEI again. I think many will agree with me when I say that one of the primary goals and applications of socionics is to elucidate the nature of interpersonal interaction, and it is always sad when these misunderstandings arise. My sympathies to all involved.
Anyway, in my understanding, and are used to understand the "nature of reality." By this I do not mean that they are necessarily ontological in nature. But they are both highly analytic. The classical definition of these elements is "statics of fields." Now I know Augusta's old definitions of IM elements are not very enlightening, but in this case, they may shed some light.
They are static in that they are structural, containing information that does not change situationally, as though they are snapshots of some larger reality. They are related to fields in that, unlike and (the other statics), they focus on the relationships between things.
Semantically, the differences from here are hard to grasp. Augusta calls this distinction "internal" vs. "external", but that doesn't seem to do a whole lot of good; in fact, it seems as though she was straining to find terms to describe a distinction she perceived rather intuitively. I, for one, have trouble distinguishing between the subtleties. I try the words "logic" and "attitude" to describe these two, and that seems to help.
If we look at as "attitude", that is, the manner or disposition regarding a person or thing, it appears that users are adept at indicating and dealing with emotional states and motivations, which is not necessarily morality or ethics, but rather the ethical structure of a system. This is not a systematically deconstructed view of morality, but a perception of orientations or inclinations toward ethical behavior.
Wow, I don't think that made any sense at all. Perhaps is so hard to describe because analyzing it is a activity, which is by nature a rejection of . Also, I'm theoretically supposed to hate . If someone has a better understanding, please help.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
I'm a forum roleplayer... college student (computer science major)... I should have done my laundry three days ago, I gotta get around to that... For some reason I feel like my brain shuts down in the spring. I don't suppose it really does, though, because everyone goes right on considering me a genius. I love math... but I also love creating a bunch of rules, connecting them together and finding the loopholes. Or just creating rules and forgetting about it, or finding the loopholes in others' rules... I wear glasses; huge glasses, so that I don't see the frames when my eyes wander - it gives me a nervous twitch. I play chess - I got pretty excited recently explaining to lesser players that the most important thing is to "cut off the opponent's options" and that "if you take the pawn, you're dead" (referring to the opening).
Ha ha... go ahead, state the obvious.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari