Kamangir

[Jimbean]

Just because you are moralistic, does not mean you are Fi!

[Creepy-Cyclops]

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 ?! :-)

[Suomea]

....

[Jimbean]

Is Kamangir calling himself an ESI as a joke? Seriously

[JRiddy]

I saw the Kamangir video...he's an SEI if there ever was one. His recent moodiness is only further proof.

[Mediator Kam]

I wanna be what I want to be ok end of story.

[aestrivex]

I think we need to differentiate between the two ethical functions in the context of socionics...

While is situational and changing and dependant on the response and emotional consequence of others, is rules based and subjective, and independant of others.

So what is identified as deals with subjective and static ethical rules and what the individual considers "Good" and "Bad".

So when we verbalize, "This(object) is Good(our relation to it)".

Also there unlikely many individual without or , what your psychological type indicates is a preference of another function instead.

There are certainly many types who practice what we may consider more "moral" behavior such as turning the other cheek or being good to others or loving our neighbors and consequently be viewed as moral individuals. However, their psychological state prefers more logically consistent, non-contradictory systems of behavior.

As a ENTp I don't think Aushra worked very hard to define morality in her system as it is her attempt to explain the differences in human behavior and compatibility of human duality and other intertype relations. For her morality is one of compatibility and conflict rather then good and bad.

The rules that are more universally held dear, such as a not wantonly murdering, robbing and raping appeal to many psychological functions.

But the core of what constituents murder, robbery and rape are not determined subjectively but rather we attempt to determine these via more objective legal means. However people can use these terms subjectively outside the legal context in order to advocate a position or to demonize a opponent. So when we talk about , it is imo that we are really talking about this more subjective form of morality.

there are parts of your argument i could not possibly disagree with more.

[Suomea]

....

[Suomea]

....

[Creepy-bg]

And it's ok really, I think I understood you...
As I said, I get frustrated when I'm misunderstood by others...

I think the hardest yet most rewarding thing I do is when I try to understand others and explain to others. Yet often time it is also a source of great frustration.

what are you trying to say? I don't understand

[Creepy-bg]

Poppers..

[Rubicon]

As for conscience, it is not a matter of conscience. For ENTp's, it is a matter that our conscience should be logical and consistent, non-contradictory and that others do not impose what can appear to be illogical, inconsistent and contradictory subjective standards upon us.

In short... I do not believe that ENTp's hold ourselves to "common" "illogical" and "contradictory" standards of morality. We hold ourselves to a "higher" standard of morality that is consistent, non-contradictory and usually not very "common". Often times this may mean that we refrain from commenting on moral issues until the logical issues are resolved.

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.

[Mediator Kam]

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.

[Mediator Kam]

Seriously Kamangir, dogmatic moral and religious division hasn't done shit but kill and murder millions of people in Africa.

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.

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.

"lets just live and let live and agree to disagree"

You need to speak up when you see a problem.

[Creepy-bg]

Maybe I'm just lazy but it's much easier to try to reconcile people's opposing views into a "lets just live and let live and agree to disagree" approach....

If I had clear tangible morals I would never be able to defend them...because in the back of my mind the opposition's view would be screaming to be acknowledged. In fact, the entire complexity of the issue would be screaming to be acknowledged.....

Actually just smiling goofily at everyone and pretending to be dumb/flippant works too.

exactly... totally... I'm in 100% agreement

[Rubicon]

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.

Exactly.

Well, is a static element that implies it is not changeable, and it might not be contradictory or inconsistent within your mind. But there are possible variations of moral rules that also valid for other people that will be inconsistent and contradictory to your subjective rules. So in order to resolve these subjective contradictory rules that exist in the world, and exist in people's minds. I apply my standard of morality which requires that morality be more then just "Good" and "Bad" within individuals but that it reflects other standards, in which a consistency of thinking and possible variations of moral situations can be resolved.

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 don't remember addressing anything to you in this thread specifically?

I realise that. It's just easier for me to talk from a subjective point of view.

I said that I hold myself to a higher standard of justification for my morality then my personal feelings and what other people think of what is good or bad. Whatever moral beliefs you hold, it is likely there exist people that disagree with you. And these other people's morality will put your ideas about what is good and bad into contradiction. And it is not likely that both of you are right or one of you are right, but that both options are wrong.

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.

[Mediator Kam]

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.

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.


Alright friend, thank you hkkmr for teaching us your morality engine. It gets the job done.

[Rubicon]

What I am saying is that I do not hold that my personal conclusions on good and bad are worth very much, but once again you misunderstand me and write words I did not say. I have morality, but it is not based on my personal feelings about good and bad and I try to eliminate such considerations from my moral system and instead try to respect many different perspectives on good and bad. Of course there are some more universal things that everyone holds dear that I hold dear as well, because these morals are held dear and consistant by much of humankind.

But I don't think it's fruitful for me to deal with you guys since you choose to twist my words in ways I did not say such as thinking that is somehow objective vs subjective.

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.

[Brilliand]

First you need to feel you make a difference in the world. Sitting around and trying to keep peace gets old 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.


Alright friend, thank you hkkmr for teaching us your morality engine. It gets the job done.

Good to see you're back.

I'll probably be back in Alpha soon myself - I like Gamma just fine, but they don't seem to like me.

[Mediator Kam]

They definitely don't like anyone.

[Rubicon]

Good to see you're back.

I'll probably be back in Alpha soon myself - I like Gamma just fine, but they don't seem to like me.

Brilliand - lol you're LIE again??

[Brilliand]

Brilliand - lol you're LIE again??

I don't think I was ever LIE. I don't even have a good reason this time, I just wanted to visit every part of the Researcher quadra.

[Mediator Kam]

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.

I'm just happy you feel like you make a difference.

I'm not half as angry as I was 10 minutes ago...

Oh sorry about that. Do you need an aspirin.

[Rubicon]

I don't think I was ever LIE. I don't even have a good reason this time, I just wanted to visit every part of the Researcher quadra.

Why don't you try Sei for awhile? You haven't gone down that road yet have you?

[Brilliand]

Why don't you try Sei for awhile? You haven't gone down that road yet have you?

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.

[Rubicon]

Once again I never talked about you. There are certainly people that base their system of morality on their "personal" feelings I don't even know what you're twisting my words to be at this point.

I don't like how some people formulate their system of morality, it's dogmatic and intolerant. And they base it on their subjective feelings of "good" and "bad"... so if you are not this kind of person, I wasn't talking to you. And if you're offended, you need to figure out why you did get offended.

I'm not offended. You seem like you're offended. Anyway, nevermind ...

[Rubicon]

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.

So why don't you tell us some random things about yourself? We can have fun if nothing else attempting to type you.

[theMime.]

I need some breathing exercises... or some gummy bears... STAT.

<3

[Creepy-bg]

<3

[Rubicon]

Well, you thought I was talking about you at least. So if you thought I was refering to you.. then you should ask yourself why you think I was refering to you.

Weren't you talking about Fe/Fi types?

[Rubicon]

I was talking about how relates to morality.

Well - yeah exactly. Assuming that my morals are Fi-based than your post would relate to me wouldn't it? Like I said, I find it easier to write in the subjective tense - that's all.

[Rubicon]

If you're ISFp, why would your morality be based? You value more then you value . Also your ego functions are or ...

Isn't a 'weak and unconscious function' for us (according to wikipedia)?

[Rubicon]

But would be your hidden agenda, this is something that you desire and want from your dual. Althrough you are not strong in it, it is still a desirable information element for you.

Desirable - yes. That doesn't mean I'll necessarily use it when I can use other much more developed functions to achieve the same result with less effort.

[Rubicon]

I'm not going to argue with you on this. I didn't refer to ISFp's in my posts, nor did I want to refer to you. If you thought I was referring to ISFps, then you have a different understanding of the subjects then I do.

ok

[Creepy-bg]

well it seems like things have settled down... it's good to have these little breaks in things.

[Creepy-bg]

(breaks over)

ABORTION! go! discuss!

[Brilliand]

First I have my own personal subjective feelings about what I do and don't approve of, which I generate a system of "right/good" and "wrong/bad" from... and then I impose this system on everyone else wanting them to conform to my subjective moral values... and for unfathomable reasons [/sarcasm], others don't like this.

However, these subjective systems often agree with each other - just as often, perhaps, as systems. It's a different way of doing things, and certainly seems unreliable, but I think it's actually more functional in everyday life (i.e. situations).

[JRiddy]

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.

[Brilliand]

So why don't you tell us some random things about yourself? We can have fun if nothing else attempting to type you.

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.

[Rubicon]

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.

What do you enjoy doing in your spare time? Do you hang out with friends much? What do you love about math?