The Confusion of Evil

[tcaudilllg]

Until today a Model-B based solution to the problem of destructive, as opposed to merely violatory, mentality remained elusive. However, I was just thinking today about Sephiroth from FFVII, when I noticed that one of the lyrics to his theme song, One Winged Angel, didn't make sense....

"Burning inside with violent anger"? Doesn't sound INFp to me, yet we know that Sephiroth was an INFp. How to account for the descrepancy?

What was Sephiroth angry about? The betrayal of his "race", the Cetra, by humans. This makes sense given his +Te PoLR, against which practical matters of economy are an all-too-potent threat. (of course Sephiroth was never a Cetra, but there again, the -Te thing.) What is significant, is that Sephiroth has adopted this erroneous -Te for personal truth: +Te is processing -Te.

Wait, what's that? Elements processing the aspects of their antithesi? What's going on here?

Let's look a little closer. Sephiroth believed himself worth of becoming a god. He would do this by leveraging the lifestream of the planet (+Fe) toward a single point (-Fe) and receiving it there (-Fe) to elevate his own spirit (+Fe) -- what's that, using +Fe to support -Fe, -Fe to support +Fe? Whoa....

What does one do with +Fe corrupted by -Fe? Obviously it must be eliminated, because it is an obstacle to processing from the point of view of the mind.... Thus the evil type seeks to corrupt their elements' aspects by confronting them with their antithesi; by this corruption the antithesis is thus empowered, and the cycle begins again from the point of view of the antithesis. A quote from Neon Genesis Evangelion captures the situation adequately: "the fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth."

These types are the world's serial killers, the torture (thus the West's intolerance of torture as a method of interrogation), and a significant portion of the criminally insane. They may also account for some of the world's dictatorial cast as well, but most of these are extremists and shadow types. Most people do not have direct experience with them, however portrayals of such types in fiction have created uniquely compelling characters. (Sephiroth among them) The nature of these characters, which command forces far beyond the comprehension of most, illuminates their purpose as an evolutionary phenomenon; for there are indeed such processes at work in the world, the forces of destruction which bring . Seeing as how we do not not usually process these forces in our minds, we are ignorant of them to the extent that we engage in them ourselves. Over time, these unknown aspects of reality accumulate, coalescing into an unconscious compensation, to which only the evil pay adequate heed. The evil type thinks in terms of these compensations, and is thus aware of him. What is man to think of something that represents his own unconscious, the evil in himself, no less? Certainly those who bear witness to the ways of evil and practice its methods (via an exertion type similarly misaligned) may serve as vessels for the projections of the evil in man: a leader of this type may themselves be thought of as an avatar or personificition of a greater evil which is beyond man's knowledge. So it is that the evil type personifies the ominous threat to humanity, and victory over the person bearing it, who has manipulated this threat to their own ends, corresponds to a greater salvation versus the threat itself.


Phemenological Breakdown:

A given Model-B element processes the aspects of its antithesis. The antithetical aspects contradict the aspects belonging to the element, reducing its content level. (for example, claiming +Te subjective truth over -Te objective truth; in one's own mind, this diminishes -Te.) On the turn of the element's antithesis, the antithesis processes the aspects belonging to the element, thus reducing its own content level. The paradox is that either element is psychologically empowered when its antithesis' content level is reduced, even though the empowered element will itself be disintegrated further on its turn. (thus the "truth" of the phrase "the fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth", where the "fate of destruction" is the disintegration of an element's content, and the "joy of rebirth" is the resurgence of its antithesis.)

[crazedrat]

clarify what you mean by notations like +Te and -Te

[tcaudilllg]

I mean them the same way Hitta does.

+Te as an aspect: subjective fact or truth
+Te as an element: the imposition of subjective fact/truth against objective fact/truth

-Te as an aspect: objective fact or truth
-Te as an element: the imposition of objective fact/truth from without against subjective fact/truth

+Te processing -Te is effectively attempting to misinterpret objective truth as subjective truth. It thus confuses one's sense of self, by leading to misidentification of oneself to that which is outside oneself. One loses sense of what they really are, and what truth really is.

-Te processing +Te masquerades subjective truth as objective truth: in the face of conflict between what one believes and apparent empirical reality, one loses sight of reality in favor of what one believes. One's own viewpoint alone becomes reality.

[Phaedrus]

So, in essence, the whole system, which tcaudilllg and hitta are defending, is logically incoherent. Both tcaudilllg and hitta also openly admit -- in posts and videos -- that they are self-refuting relativists, and they are proud of being relativists. How many people here realize the logical implications of such a stance?

[Phaedrus]

Are you sure about that... correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. If they really are relativists, which may or may not necessarily be true, that still doesn't automatically invalidate the possibility that in the process of being relativistic one of their relativistic observations has contained within it the absolutely correct objective truth, if even only in part. ie. how do you know their system is logically incoherent without examining it first?

When they talk about the system they are making logical errors in the form of stating logical contradictions as truths. If there is another way of understanding the system than through tcaudilllg's and hitta's own words, maybe you can explain how we shall understand it. But until then it is natural to assume that they don't know what they are talking about, because if they were, and the system itself was logically coherent, they wouldn't have to contradict themselves. The only point of contradicting yourself is to hide the fact that you have nothing substantial to say or that your views are false.

And is the system itself so wonderful that it is worth the time and effort to indulge in it? I have seen no indication of that yet. There are better ways to talk about the types than seeing them through tcaudilllg's and hitta's theoretically clouded and ideologically infected eyes.

Also, don't you care to examine the process by which they came to their conclusion? Since even though their conclusion was relativistic, as you say, the mechanism by which they came to that conclusion is very much possible to study objectively in some form or other.

Yes, that might be both interesting and worthwile, but should it be done? Do you have any ideas on how to proceed in order to get a better objective understanding of that mechanism?

But more importantly, don't you care about the content of what they are examining? Maybe they're onto something of empirical substance despite being hampered by "relativistic" thoughts.

I care about the truth, but the problem is that they can't express their ideas in a logically coherent way. So where to begin? How to determine which parts of their logical contradictions are true?

I'm not trying to be hostile to you or anything.

I don't suspect that either.

I'm just genuinely curious about your thoughts, since you are one of the more prolific posters here.

I am mostly trying to correct people's mistakes when it comes to understanding some types, especially the difference between leading and creative types, since that seems to be a major cause of mistypings. Even prominent socionists make these mistakes, and that is a cause of concern.

These incorrect understandings of the types must be corrected before we can move on, and that's why I have been repeating the same truths over and over again on this forum. There are disgustingly many mistyped people here, and they are polluding everybody's correct understanding of the real types with their presence. I wish that it was simple, and that we could just wipe those mistypings out. But people here are not interested in the objective truth but prefer to stick to their prejudices and the consensus of the group, despite the fact that the group is wrong in this case.

[tcaudilllg]

@Phaedrus
If you are speaking of the topic of this thread as being expressed as a contradiction... then I don't see what the problem really is. Contradiction is a mental phenomenon that transpires in human thought; the problem of evil, examined theologically, is just one such case in point. If we can indeed express human contradiction through model B, then why not? Certainly a person more inclined to observe their own contradictions as a plague upon the world, would seek to destroy it as a means of purifying it from its "innate" corruption. Why else would people self-mutilate themselves as a form of worship, epecially when they have other options?

...More to the point, perhaps, is the case of politicians who indulge themselves in corruption, and think it natural. The protagonist governor of "All the King's Men" comes to mind. I'd go so far as to suspect that Moses himself was afflicted of such mentality, and probably many of the Hebrew prophets, that they would claim the hearts of the people as filled with wickedness.

Perhaps this is the greatest failure of Christianity as a religion, especially thanks to Paul, that church services have come to see the world as so corrupt and needing of purfication. (I would count the call for Jihad, explicitly stated as a duty to carry out one's "inner struggles", as Islam's most prominent).

[Phaedrus]

@Phaedrus
If you are speaking of the topic of this thread as being expressed as a contradiction... then I don't see what the problem really is.

The problem is not the topic itself, it is the way you contradict your own stance when you talk about it.

Contradiction is a mental phenomenon that transpires in human thought;

False. Contradiction is a logical relation between two propositions. It is totally independent on human thought, even though we must be able to think in order to understand what it is. What is a logical contradiction and what is not a logical contradiction is an aspect of the objective reality itself. It is definitely not a mental phenomenon.

the problem of evil, examined theologically, is just one such case in point.

What do you mean "theologically"? Do you believe in God?

If we can indeed express human contradiction through model B, then why not?

There is no such thing as a "human contradiction". That is a nonsensical syntactical construction. It has no meaning. Contradictions do not exist in reality, because that is logically impossible. The world itself cannot contain contradictions.

Certainly a person more inclined to observe their own contradictions as a plague upon the world, would seek to destroy it as a means of purifying it from its "innate" corruption. Why else would people self-mutilate themselves as a form of worship, epecially when they have other options?

Contradictions are unacceptable. Period.

...More to the point, perhaps, is the case of politicians who indulge themselves in corruption, and think it natural. The protagonist governor of "All the King's Men" comes to mind. I'd go so far as to suspect that Moses himself was afflicted of such mentality, and probably many of the Hebrew prophets, that they would claim the hearts of the people as filled with wickedness.

Perhaps this is the greatest failure of Christianity as a religion, especially thanks to Paul, that church services have come to see the world as so corrupt and needing of purfication. (I would count the call for Jihad, explicitly stated as a duty to carry out one's "inner struggles", as Islam's most prominent).

Are you a Christian, tcaudilllg? Do you confess to some version of Christianity? Do you believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Bible? Is that the explanation for your strange way of expressing your ideas?

[tcaudilllg]

The problem is not the topic itself, it is the way you contradict your own stance when you talk about it.


False. Contradiction is a logical relation between two propositions. It is totally independent on human thought, even though we must be able to think in order to understand what it is. What is a logical contradiction and what is not a logical contradiction is an aspect of the objective reality itself. It is definitely not a mental phenomenon.


What do you mean "theologically"? Do you believe in God?


There is no such thing as a "human contradiction". That is a nonsensical syntactical construction. It has no meaning. Contradictions do not exist in reality, because that is logically impossible. The world itself cannot contain contradictions.


Contradictions are unacceptable. Period.


Are you a Christian, tcaudilllg? Do you confess to some version of Christianity? Do you believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Bible? Is that the explanation for your strange way of expressing your ideas?

I believe God is humanity; specifically, I believe God is the set of all wills acting in a mutually beneficial harmony, through acts reshaping the world to make it fit for consciousness and capable of sustaining life. God is the 6th function.

I believe Jesus had profound insight into the nature of man and felt to question it. In essence, Jesus sought to calm the trouble in his own soul. I don't think he succeeded, but he did find people who could sympathize with his contempt for the larger problems facing mankind.

He escaped, however. He did not face the world as it really is, he did not deal with it.

No, I express my ideas primarily due to the mentality which I have learned through experience is the safest to adopt. When I was younger, I was often taken advantage of and unfairly singled out socially. I know that by staying close to those who share my beliefs, I can keep that from happening. A culmination of experience and internal psychochemistry allowed me to adopt the correct state of observation so as to discern the values and bonds between the people around me, thus allowing me to identify disparities between values and to notice similarities between the values of many people. (by which I can find "my" people, the progressives, and our complements, the liberals)

You may despise such thinking, but without it I, nor could any INTj manage neither to survive nor to offer authentic scientific insight in this harsh world. It was how I found, too, my liberal girlfriend, who I've lived with for a year. She tells me the most wonderful things, and the only tension that ever comes between us, comes from her Fe naivete of the outside world. ;-) (she's also a few years younger than I) I don't find her threatening at all, but she's very impressionable and easy for others to take advantage of.

Without the transcendent function one cannot even validate one's own ideas. The best one can do is aspire to others' ideas, only to lack the confidence to implement even them in full. For -Ti to deduce logical truth, it must be substantiated against -Te empirical truth. +Ti will surrender -Te only in return for +Te. This is classic Jung, the Faustian wager and such. Subjectivity is indeed the devil but, our inner darkness makes our light shine all the brighter. Darkness does not corrupt light, but illuminates its brilliance.

Just look at an eclipse....

[Phaedrus]

I believe God is humanity; specifically, I believe God is the set of all wills acting in a mutually beneficial harmony, through acts reshaping the world to make it fit for consciousness and capable of sustaining life. God is the 6th function.

I believe Jesus had profound insight into the nature of man and felt to question it. In essence, Jesus sought to calm the trouble in his own soul. I don't think he succeeded, but he did find people who could sympathize with his contempt for the larger problems facing mankind.

He escaped, however. He did not face the world as it really is, he did not deal with it.

No, I express my ideas primarily due to the mentality which I have learned through experience is the safest to adopt. When I was younger, I was often taken advantage of and unfairly singled out socially. I know that by staying close to those who share my beliefs, I can keep that from happening. A culmination of experience and internal psychochemistry allowed me to adopt the correct state of observation so as to discern the values and bonds between the people around me, thus allowing me to identify disparities between values and to notice similarities between the values of many people. (by which I can find "my" people, the progressives, and our complements, the liberals)

I know from real life interactions with INTjs and their own explicit explanations of how they think that the both the structure and to a certain extent also the content of what you say here is very typical of your type. It is almost as if you INTjs have invented a unique LII version of what it means to believe in God. The similarities are reather striking actually.

You may despise such thinking, but without it I, nor could any INTj manage neither to survive nor to offer authentic scientific insight in this harsh world.

Yes, in a sense I despise such thinking, because it is so unscientific and so much based on subjective fantasies with no connection to objective facts. But I can also understand, at least partly in some remote way, that you see it as a necessity for your survival "in this harsh world". My own INTj father has actually said something very similar to what you say here, and that he really thought that way came as a rather big surprise to me. It reveals a side to the INTj type that not many people are aware of, I think.

I cannot share such an attitude, and I can't really understand it in depth, but I can feel some sort of sympathy for your type's weakness of the mind. Maybe you INTjs have to sacrifice truth and objective knowledge in order to survive -- my father has explicitly explained his relativism and subjectivic stance in those terms -- but to me such a sacrifice is too big. I put the value of truth and knowledge above the value of my own existence, and if I have to die in defending those ideals, so let it be.

We are clearly not the same type, tcaudilllg. You are an INTj and I am an INTp. We will probably never understand each others position completely, but we can agree that the fundamental differences between INTjs and INTps exist, and that those differences manifest themselves in different, in some respects totally opposite philosophical world outlooks.

It makes me slightly sad to think about the fact that there is an insuperable gap in understanding and acceptance of our different philosophies, but it is good to realize more and more of the exact nature of that gap. Other people here could definitely learn a lot about the fundamental differences between INTjs and INTps by looking at our recent interactions.

Everything is there in the type descriptions of course, for those who bother to read them thoroughly and try to understand them in more depth. But Paul James's INTP profile is not a description of an INTj, and it is very important to realize that. I hope that everyone will do that eventually.

I stick to my opinions that it is better to be an objectivist than a subjectivist, that relativism is a plague, and that a correct scientific approach and correct scientific methods rest on the kind of objective attitude that I am myself a proponent of. But my choice of words in these recent heated debates has in some posts of mine been too harsh, too brutal, and expressed in too much affect. I apologize for that.

[crazedrat]

Are you seperating objectivity from subjectivity? One cant be talked about without mentioning the other.
You are implying the existance of an absolute objective truth, from which all knowledge springs and is defined by.
The only objective truth which would qualify, is the existance of the subjective, and relativism.
Truth is always considered a relative judgment.
Something can be absolutely true within a particular subjective structure which you are functioning in.
I didn't think these were still questionable points of discussion.. I thought Wittgenstein & Kant had thoroughly layed the whole thing out for people to understand ... ??

What I see Tcaud doing here (& other people who like to post their theories) is trying to unwind their frames of mind; unify them into singularity & come closer to expressing the universal objective which is relativism... to take things which have meaning, and deprive them of their meaning, with the ultimate goal of achieving rest in coherence, which is peace in meaninglessness.

What this means, is when people talk... they are babbling to themselves, and everything they say makes sense "in their frame of mind" (as is probably occuring in this paragraph as well) .. but when you take this written information, & try and cross it over to another person frame of mind (the mind of the reader); and have the language being used in the written statement shift from being defined relative to one subjective set of informations... now redefined by another... the meaning is deprived and lost to some extent; it is now being defined in a different sense (by different subjective impressions).

In reading what Tcaud says, you should only focus on extracting a certain meaning from it, and not in interpreting it "objectively" (as objective, is only a word for your assertion of the absolute meaning of your particular subjective impressions). By extracting meaning from what is written, you are putting it into your terms.. translating it into your frame of view. By critisizing it in a concrete fashion, you are not speaking to the underlying implications of what has been written (which exist in and are defined by the subjective mindset of the writer); but you are critisizing the boundaries of language, & critisizing the extent to which your frame of mind and the writers frame of mind do not coincide (both flawed in their specific deviance from absolute relativism... a realization of meaninglessness).
A bunch of stupid word games

So what? um....
1: it seems stupid the way you talk about relativism as if it shouldn't exist (or doesn't really exist), when it's all that exists.
2: Just let tcaud keep talking.. he will make sense eventually
3: ... instead of critiquing other peoples points of view, it only makes sense to develop your own point of view (the first places emphasis on asserting your understanding, the second on developing your understanding)
3b: it makes no sense to assert your understanding into something. It is comparing an apple to an orange
..yeah
The End

[crazedrat]

I mean them the same way Hitta does.

+Te as an aspect: subjective fact or truth
+Te as an element: the imposition of subjective fact/truth against objective fact/truth

-Te as an aspect: objective fact or truth
-Te as an element: the imposition of objective fact/truth from without against subjective fact/truth

+Te processing -Te is effectively attempting to misinterpret objective truth as subjective truth. It thus confuses one's sense of self, by leading to misidentification of oneself to that which is outside oneself. One loses sense of what they really are, and what truth really is.

-Te processing +Te masquerades subjective truth as objective truth: in the face of conflict between what one believes and apparent empirical reality, one loses sight of reality in favor of what one believes. One's own viewpoint alone becomes reality.

.. I typed out that whole reply, then I reread this... now I may have to backtrack.
What is objectively true? How is that different from what is subjectively true?
How is it you are imagining the seperation of objective & subjective? That is not possible

[Phaedrus]

Are you seperating objectivity from subjectivity? One cant be talked about without mentioning the other.
You are implying the existance of an absolute objective truth, from which all knowledge springs and is defined by.
The only objective truth which would qualify, is the existance of the subjective, and relativism.
Truth is always considered a relative judgment.

Don't tell me that you are a complete idiot too, crazedrat. I thought you were smarter than that. Are you not an INTp? Don't make logical contradictions if you are. It doesn't suit you.

Something can be absolutely true within a particular subjective structure which you are functioning in.

No. If something really is absolutely true, then it is true in every particular structure, it is true from every perspective.

I didn't think these were still questionable points of discussion.. I thought Wittgenstein & Kant had thoroughly layed the whole thing out for people to understand ... ??

But apparently you misunderstood what they said. Kant was wrong, Wittgenstein was right about a lot of things but not everything.

What I see Tcaud doing here (& other people who like to post their theories) is trying to unwind their frames of mind; unify them into singularity & come closer to expressing the universal objective which is relativism... to take things which have meaning, and deprive them of their meaning, with the ultimate goal of achieving rest in coherence, which is peace in meaninglessness.

That is totally meaningless Hegelian-influenced mumbo-jumbo. Stop polluding your mind with such crap, will you. Relativism is false. Period. Try to understand that fact.

What this means, is when people talk... they are babbling to themselves, and everything they say makes sense "in their frame of mind" (as is probably occuring in this paragraph as well)

Wrong. Meaning is objective.

.. but when you take this written information, & try and cross it over to another person frame of mind (the mind of the reader); and have the language being used in the written statement shift from being defined relative to one subjective set of informations... now redefined by another... the meaning is deprived and lost to some extent; it is now being defined in a different sense (by different subjective impressions).

Wrong again.

In reading what Tcaud says, you should only focus on extracting a certain meaning from it, and not in interpreting it "objectively" (as objective, is only a word for your assertion of the absolute meaning of your particular subjective impressions).

Wrong. You don't understand the meaning of the word "objective". Learn it.

What is an 'objective, absolute truth'? It is a proposition that identifies facts of reality that are basic, universal, and inescapable.

Such a truth is objective because it identifies something that exists and is what it is independent of the proposition. If one states that the sun is shining today, and it is shining to today, the sun would be shining no matter who made the proposition or whether the proposition had been uttered at all. This view is known as the 'correspondence' theory of truth.

A truth is absolute if it states a fundamental, universal, and inescapable fact, a fact that holds no matter what other facts might also exist. Not every objective truth is absolute. The sun, after a time, will no longer shine. But all absolute truths are objective, else they would not be truths.

See #75 and #76 in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...822#post359822

By extracting meaning from what is written, you are putting it into your terms.. translating it into your frame of view. By critisizing it in a concrete fashion, you are not speaking to the underlying implications of what has been written (which exist in and are defined by the subjective mindset of the writer); but you are critisizing the boundaries of language, & critisizing the extent to which your frame of mind and the writers frame of mind do not coincide (both flawed in their specific deviance from absolute relativism... a realization of meaninglessness).
A bunch of stupid word games

Yes, that's exactly what you are playing.

So what? um....
1: it seems stupid the way you talk about relativism as if it shouldn't exist (or doesn't really exist), when it's all that exists.

Every form of relativism is either trivial or self-refuting. Period.

2: Just let tcaud keep talking.. he will make sense eventually

We may have to wait a very long time for that to happen. And how long do we have to wait for you to make sense?

[crazedrat]

If meaning is objective, then explain to me how I can say "this is my pencil" when I am writing on a sidewalk with a piece of chalk.
Am I using the word pencil incorrectly?
If so, why do the people around me understand me? Why aren't they baffled? ..
I'm going to read what you have to say on the word objective in depth later, and reply to you in depth tomorrow.
...you didn't say much besides "wrong, wrong" .... in some places where I know I am right.. particularly when I am talking about the subjectivity of language.
.. I mean, explain this: There are two people.. one has never seen an SUV, the other has seen an SUV. To one, the word "car" encompasses in his mind and includes the concept of SUV.. to the other, the word "car" is foreign to SUV. These are essentially two different words. Hence, the meaning of car is defined subjectively based on experience.

Or take the example of Joe, a man timewarped here from 1936; and a man who's never seen an SUV, or anything which remotely resembles one.
The guy who's never seen an SUV (named Joe) says to the guy who has seen an SUV (named Billy.. Billy is from 2008)
Joe: Hey Billy, what the hell is that thing?
Billy: That's a car Joe! Where are you from?
Joe: I didn't know what that thing was! That's a car?!

if you are correct, how is it possible that this conversation is unfolding (and do you accept this as a natural flow of conversation) ..?

Can you tell me I am wrong, and give me an absolute definition for car? Even where the word car itself (and the idea of car) is a construct of our own making (I mean.. men created words)

Also.. what did the word car mean before SUVs were invented, and how did it mean something different after they were invented? Was the word car to the exclusion of SUV "objectively wrong" before it included the idea of SUV?
Or is there an underlying tie between a regular car and SUV which qualify them both as "cars"; and so the definition of car didn't change after the invention of the SUV- only the application of the word. ?
But if that is true, this suggests there must remain at all times a single commonality which all cars share.
But then what the fuck is going to happen to the word car after we invent flying cars, and why won't we be calling them airplanes?
...

But then how about the word "game" (I think this is the example Wittgenstein uses)
What is the objective meaning of the word game?
You can have jacks, and that is considered a game.. and something like dodgeball; and they are similar in a number of ways... they both involve a ball, they both have the objective of "winning"... and so on. But then you can also find examples of games which have none of these qualities, yet we still define them as games. Playing mind games.. there is no ball, there is no "winning" .. or is winning now used in a different sense? How about a person who plays the game of losing?
What happens to the word game when I invent a new game.?
Or how about something that isn't fun, but is still a game, like hunting.. where one person may call it a game since they enjoy it.. but the person next to them does not enjoy it, and doesn't call it a game. They say "life and death is not a game"
Yeah, objectively define what the word game means for me.
If this question is answered in your objectivity bullshit then ignore it, and I'll talk about it tomorrow.
Or even better, refer me to a post-Wittgenstein philosopher who refutes what Wittgenstein concluded on the subject, & arrives at a new conclusion, so I can read up on it by myself.. and not have to endure your cockiness
You know, now that I think about it, thats really all I'd prefer from you.. a referal. I'll admit Wittgenstein was the first and last philosophy book I ever read.. after I read it I thought to myself "there is no need to read anything else.. it is all babble". But maybe I'm wrong, so educate me

[Phaedrus]

If meaning is objective, then explain to me how I can say "this is my pencil" when I am writing on a sidewalk with a piece of chalk.
Am I using the word pencil incorrectly?
If so, why do the people around me understand me? Why aren't they baffled? ..

What's the problem? How do you come to the conclusion that meaning is not objective from that example?

...you didn't say much besides "wrong, wrong" .... in some places where I know I am right.. particularly when I am talking about the subjectivity of language.

Haven't it occurred to you that you might be wrong in assuming that language is subjective?

.. I mean, explain this: There are two people.. one has never seen an SUV, the other has seen an SUV. To one, the word "car" encompasses in his mind and includes the concept of SUV.. to the other, the word "car" is foreign to SUV. These are essentially two different words. Hence, the meaning of car is defined subjectively based on experience.

No, it isn't. The meaning of a word is objective, or you could perhaps say intersubjective. At least one of these two people has an incorrect understanding of the meaning of the word "car".

Or take the example of Joe, a man timewarped here from 1936; and a man who's never seen an SUV, or anything which remotely resembles one.
The guy who's never seen an SUV (named Joe) says to the guy who has seen an SUV (named Billy.. Billy is from 2008)
Joe: Hey Billy, what the hell is that thing?
Billy: That's a car Joe! Where are you from?
Joe: I didn't know what that thing was! That's a car?!

if you are correct, how is it possible that this conversation is unfolding (and do you accept this as a natural flow of conversation) ..?

I can't see any problem with it. Joe made an incorrect assumption about the scope of the word "car" and assumed (wrongly) that what he had in front of his eyes was not a referent to the word "car" when in fact it was.

Can you tell me I am wrong, and give me an absolute definition for car?

No, I can't, because there is no absolute definition for the word "car", and it doesn't need to be. To assume that we need absolute criteria for the (correct) use of our words is a very common mistake that Karl Popper has discussed and criticized convincingly in his Appendix (from 1961) to his work The Open Society and its Enemies, volume 2. I recommend taking a closer look at that appendix if you have access to it.

I can also recommend taking a closer look at Saul Kripke's causal theory of reference, which I have talked about in some posts of mine in the past, when I tried to explain to Expat and Rocky that they were making the exact same mistake of insisting on absolute criteria before we can talk about types.

Even where the word car itself (and the idea of car) is a construct of our own making (I mean.. men created words)

We invent new words, but we don't always know the full meanings of the words we invent. Check the causal theory of reference ... for reference.

Also.. what did the word car mean before SUVs were invented, and how did it mean something different after they were invented?

How can you be so sure that the meaning of the word "car" has changed? And even if it has, how can you be so sure that that constitutes a problem?

Was the word car to the exclusion of SUV "objectively wrong" before it included the idea of SUV?

No, I don't think so.

Or is there an underlying tie between a regular car and SUV which qualify them both as "cars"; and so the definition of car didn't change after the invention of the SUV- only the application of the word. ?

There is also the possibility that we didn't know the full meaning of the word "car" before the SUV was inventend. And we might not yet know the full meaning of the word "car". We dont' have full control over the meanings of our words.

But if that is true, this suggests there must remain at all times a single commonality which all cars share.

That is a mistaken assumption.

But then what the fuck is going to happen to the word car after we invent flying cars, and why won't we be calling them airplanes?...

We will probably continue to use it without facing any major problems.

But then how about the word "game" (I think this is the example Wittgenstein uses)
What is the objective meaning of the word game?

In a lot of cases we can say that the meaning of a word is it use. (Who said that? Was it me or Ludwig? )

You can have jacks, and that is considered a game.. and something like dodgeball; and they are similar in a number of ways... they both involve a ball, they both have the objective of "winning"... and so on. But then you can also find examples of games which have none of these qualities, yet we still define them as games. Playing mind games.. there is no ball, there is no "winning" .. or is winning now used in a different sense? How about a person who plays the game of losing?
What happens to the word game when I invent a new game.?
Or how about something that isn't fun, but is still a game, like hunting.. where one person may call it a game since they enjoy it.. but the person next to them does not enjoy it, and doesn't call it a game. They say "life and death is not a game"

A lot of questions but no real problem.

Yeah, objectively define what the word game means for me.

It is a mistake to try to define exactly the meaning of words. Karl Popper has written a lot on that subject, for example in The Open Society and its Enemies. And he is right in his critique. We should focus on solving problems, not providing definitions.

Or even better, refer me to a post-Wittgenstein philosopher who refutes what Wittgenstein concluded on the subject, & arrives at a new conclusion, so I can read up on it by myself.. and not have to endure your cockiness

Kripke and Popper is a good start.

You know, now that I think about it, thats really all I'd prefer from you.. a referal. I'll admit Wittgenstein was the first and last philosophy book I ever read.. after I read it I thought to myself "there is no need to read anything else.. it is all babble". But maybe I'm wrong, so educate me

Oh, shit! Then you just had a bad luck. Wittgenstein's philosophy is definitely not what I would recommend to a beginner who wants to get introduced to philosophy. I first saw his Philosophical Investigations and skimmed through some parts of it when I was about 10 years old, but I couldn't see the point of it. I became much more hooked when I found Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, which was the first philosophical book I read seriously. Many people around the world have had similar experiences when reading it. It is still a very good introduction to philosophy.

[crazedrat]

What I meant was I read Wittgenstein, and concluded he had told me everything I felt like I needed to know. From that position, everything else seemed like babble.
You failed to properly critique the statement I made.
In many places you do not refute what I am saying, but you reword the point I am making... and what you say is actually in agreement with what I am implying.. where I am giving an illustrative example of an inconsistency, you are giving a step by step explanatory narrative of these inconsistancies ... however, you do not discuss how these inconsistencies apply to your position (which was the point... lol), and you overlook the big point, for which each statement was made to illustrate as a whole (you don't say anything about the thesis statement on games, or its equivilent in cars) ...
From what you have said, I am choosing to let this rest rather then get into what would be a three to four page debate with you.
I don't want a beginners referal. I want you to tell me what you think refutes Wittgensteins post modernism.
Why refutes? Because Wittgenstein can only be either absolutely correct, or absolutely incorrect (according to you).

At this point you seem to contradict what you are saying.. here:

Wittgenstein was right about a lot of things, but not everything.

Roughly translated, the above sentance says "Wittgenstein was right in one way, but not in every way"
...?
You seem to be supporting a relativist point of view on truth, and on being right.

After that, I want you to briefly define relativism for me, just so I can make sure we are talking about the same thing.

On an entirely different note, I want you to tell me whether you think Einsteins theory of relativity is falacious. If you do, perhaps go into a brief explanation on how and why.. use referals if you don't feel like going into the necessary full detail. If you have nothing to say on the subject, then that is fine too

[Phaedrus]

What I meant was I read Wittgenstein, and concluded he had told me everything I felt like I needed to know. From that position, everything else seemed like babble.

Many disciples of Wittgenstein have felt like that after reading him. I know the feeling because I have studied Wittgenstein for years, most intensively during a period of some 4-5 years about 20 years ago. He can be alluring.

I don't want a beginners referal. I want you to tell me what you think refutes Wittgensteins post modernism.

In that case we have to be more specific about what the problem really is, because Wittgenstein is not a postmodernist. Some people have misused him to support their own relativistic postmodernist views, but Wittgenstein's own thoughts were quite different.

Why refutes? Because Wittgenstein can only be either absolutely correct, or absolutely incorrect (according to you).

What do you mean? Why would he have to be either absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect? Where have I suggested anything like that? I mean exactly what I said. He was right about a lot of things but not everything. That is no more strange than the fact that Expat is right about a lot of things but not everthing.

So you agree Wittgensteins conclusion be right in one way, and wrong in another?

No, of course not. What exact conclusion are you talking about? In his philosophical ideas overall Wittgenstein was right about some things and wrong about others, that's what I am saying.

After that, I want you to briefly define relativism for me, just so I can make sure we are talking about the same thing.

There are many different forms of relativism, and every such form is either trivial or self-refuting. It is not a particularly good idea to define exactly what we mean by the word "relativism" in general, because you can always invent a new form of it that doesn't exactly fit the definition. Why can't we instead focus on a specific problem? When we know what the problem is we can try to define the relevant words if we need to.

On an entirely different note, I want you to tell me whether you think Einsteins theory of relativity is falacious.

Fallacious? In what sense?

[crazedrat]

If Wittgenstein is not a post modernist then why don't you describe what you think he is / what you think he is saying. Maybe give him a name label like "post modernist" except .. not that .
Also specify which of Wittgensteins philosophies you are thinking of.. his later philosophy, the tractatus, etc. Because he refuted / reformed his own opinion a number of times

[crazedrat]

Here is where I stand in how I think of words now. Maybe you can tell me where I am wrong. :

In a system of thought (like ideas in science) pieces of information support one another. If a new piece of information enters into the system of thought, the old pieces of information now have a reformed meaning in their relevance to this new piece of information. A good way to think of this is to examine a word, and think of a word as a system of thought. Like the word cars I used earlier. Before SUVs were invented the idea of a car was different then what it became afterwards. Do you agree? (Answer this question, then move on)

k. Before SUVs you may look at a landcruiser and say "that car performs average on gas mileage". After SUVs were invented you will look at a landcruiser and say "I wish I had a landcruiser instead of my SUV.. Landcruiser is a good gas saving car".
etc.
The meaning of each piece of information has changed in light of the new piece of information. Land cruiser now has a new relativity to SUV, and is defined in its relation to it in a new way.
What you are saying is, essentially (from what I can see), that the meaning of Land Cruiser.. or anything.. is objective and does not change.
You are saying meaning is not relative.
If meaning is not relative then how is it possible to define something? What do we define things using? A relativist would say "a thing is defined by its relation to other things". One of the first lines in the Tractatus is "the world consists of facts, not of things"; where a "fact" is considered to be a relation between things; and things are considered to be "states of affairs" or "arrays of facts" ..
If that's not how it works, then tell me how is it possible for words to have meaning (how do we define words)?

[Phaedrus]

If Wittgenstein is not a post modernist then why don't you describe what you think he is / what you think he is saying.

You cannot possibly ask me to explain his whole philosophy. If you have any specific problems related to his views, maybe we could discuss them, but every short summary of his ideas would be misleading. And I don't know of any label that would capture the essence of what he is in a non-misleading way either.

Maybe give him a name label like "post modernist" except .. not that .
Also specify which of Wittgensteins philosophies you are thinking of.. his later philosophy, the tractatus, etc. Because he refuted / reformed his own opinion a number of times

Some parts of his philosophy remained the same, some parts changed. But what's the point of discussing his philosophical views in this thread? What is the problem we are trying to solve?

[Phaedrus]

Here is where I stand in how I think of words now. Maybe you can tell me where I am wrong. :

In a system of thought (like ideas in science) pieces of information support one another. If a new piece of information enters into the system of thought, the old pieces of information now have a reformed meaning in their relevance to this new piece of information. A good way to think of this is to examine a word, and think of a word as a system of thought. Like the word cars I used earlier. Before SUVs were invented the idea of a car was different then what it became afterwards. Do you agree? (Answer this question, then move on)

I disagree with that view on how words have meaning. What is missing in such a theory of meaning is the importance of the referents to the words. In a sense, the referent is completely left out, and that inevitably results in the kind of self-refuting reletivistism that we find in postmodernism. In a correct theory of meaning we should incorporate the insights of the the causal theory of reference that is associated with Saul Kripke and others. I have talked about that theory in posts on this forum, and you can find information about it on the Internet.

k. Before SUVs you may look at a landcruiser and say "that car performs average on gas mileage". After SUVs were invented you will look at a landcruiser and say "I wish I had a landcruiser instead of my SUV.. Landcruiser is a good gas saving car".
etc.
The meaning of each piece of information has changed in light of the new piece of information. Land cruiser now has a new relativity to SUV, and is defined in its relation to it in a new way.
What you are saying is, essentially (from what I can see), that the meaning of Land Cruiser.. or anything.. is objective and does not change.

The only thing that has changed in that scenario are the connotations of the word "car". The referents are still the same as before. An example that is used by Kripke is the concept water. A lot of different uses, and a lot of different associations have been attached to the word "water" at different times in history. But water can be seen as a rigid name. We can point to the liquid and say: That is water! Whatever the real nature of that substance is, we now decide to call that liquid "water". What has happened since the word "water" was first introduced is that we now know the real nature of water. We now know that the essence of water is that it has a certain chemical structure, and that that structre is dihydrogenmonoxide or H2O.

Many words in our language work like that. In a sense, we often don't know exactly what we are talking about, becuase the meanings of some of our words are "in the hands of nature itself" so to say. The referents to our words are what is important, not how we choose to define them. Definitions in general are quite irrelevant as long as we know that we are talking about the same "thing". I have mentioned many times on this forum that Karl Popper's Appendix in the second volume of his The Open Society and its Enemies is a good explanation of the mistakes that "criteria philosophers" are making. They all make the mistake of insisting on definitions instead of focusing on real problems.

You are saying meaning is not relative.
If meaning is not relative then how is it possible to define something?

There are several ways in which we can define something, but the most important thing to realize is that we usually don't need to define the terms we are using. A definition should not be more exact than necessary for our practical purposes. Some of our words are not defined, and we cannot define all of our words. The meaning of the word "meaning" is for example impossible to define exactly, because every definition of meaning is necessarily less fundamental than what it is trying to define. Meaning is a concept that we understand without a definition.

What do we define things using? A relativist would say "a thing is defined by its relation to other things".

Yes, and that's why the relativist is wrong. The fundamental mistake that all postmodernists are making is to confuse language with reality. Wittgenstein didn't make that mistake himself, but some idiots, like Richard Rorty and others, have misused his arguments to give credit to their own self-refuting ideas. The example with the concept water illustrates why it is a grave mistake to say that "a thing is defined by its relation to other things".

One of the first lines in the Tractatus is "the world consists of facts, not of things"; where a "fact" is considered to be a relation between things; and things are considered to be "states of affairs" or "arrays of facts" ..
If that's not how it works, then tell me how is it possible for words to have meaning (how do we define words)?

Now it is getting a little bit more complicated, because you confuse a few things here. It is correct that according to the Tractatus the world consists of facts, not of things. But it is not correct to say that a fact is a relation between things, because a relation between things is the same as a state of affairs, a Sachverhalt. It is a fact that there are states of affairs, and that they persist, but it is also a fact that some things don't exist. If a certain Sachverhalt does not exist, it is still a fact that it doesn't exist. So things are not facts, and states of affairs are not "arrays of facts" but rather arrays of things.

Wittgenstein's early theory of meaning does not contradict Kripke's causal theory of reference in the same way that some of Wittgenstein's later ideas could be interpreted to contradict it. And the view on language and the world that Wittgenstein presents in the Tractatus is logically incompatible with postmodernism. The Tractatus contains a completely different world outlook that is much more realist in essence than the idealist views that lie at the core of postmodernism.

[crazedrat]

So you are saying words like "water" are spawned from and bound to reality or something? So I can be drinking gatorade and say "this is my water" because it has an abstract similarity to water. Then I can be taking a piss and say "polluted water" .. and there is no similarity between the gatorade & the piss (this is really arguable, but just accept it for what I am saying); but they do have an abstract similarity in that they both share something with the essence of water. ... (Is that right- yes or no)
I can see how that works with things, but not with words which are descriptions of things... words which "tie two things together".
Like the word "fat" ... it is different then water. How can you call something fat if you don't have a subjective impression of something similar but thinner?
Even with this, it still seems like it could be said most peoples minds & words are "lost in subjectivity". For that reason relativism will still have use in understanding certain situations, even if it is not coherent from the greater point of view.. it is reflective of what is happening

[Phaedrus]

So you are saying words like "water" are spawned from and bound to reality or something?

Not spawned from reality but bound to it in the sense that once we have baptized water as "water", the referent to the name "water" is fixed. It has become a "rigid designator". From that point in time the name "water" will always refer to that stuff. And we don't need to know exactly what we are looking at; we don't need an exact definition with specified criteria in order to use the word "water" correctly. We all know that we are talking about that stuff when we say "water", and since we all agree on what we are referring to, we can investigate the object further. That's also exactly what we have done, and we have found that the essence of being water is to be H2O. We didn't know that when we invented the concept water, so in a sense, we have found out something about the meaning of the concept water that we didn't know before, and that meaning was not up to us to decide, because it is an aspect of reality itself.

So I can be drinking gatorade and say "this is my water" because it has an abstract similarity to water. Then I can be taking a piss and say "polluted water" .. and there is no similarity between the gatorade & the piss (this is really arguable, but just accept it for what I am saying); but they do have an abstract similarity in that they both share something with the essence of water. ... (Is that right- yes or no)

Yes, both gatorade and piss contain the essence of water, which is H2O.

I can see how that works with things, but not with words which are descriptions of things... words which "tie two things together".
Like the word "fat" ... it is different then water. How can you call something fat if you don't have a subjective impression of something similar but thinner?

Not every word refers to an object, not every word functions like a name. But it was an improvement when Kripke suggested that words that refer to natural kinds, like "water", are names instead of "clusters". The "cluster" theory of meaning, which is the one you presupposed when you talked about cars, is practically falsified as I see it, at least when it comes to words like "water" "diamond", "wood", etc.

The most important thing to realize here is that types are also natural kinds. The word "type" is a name, it is a rigid designator. That's why we should not focus on defining what we mean by a "type", that's why all arguments against my ABCD=ABCd thesis (that an INTP is the same type as an ILI, etc.) are missing the point and are thus irrelevant, and that's why we may found out some things about the types that we didn't know before. We could even (hypothetically) find out that an ILI does not have in the ego block but have some other structure that we need to invent a new name for. We could find out (hypothetically) that the whole Socionics model of the psyche is false and should be replaced with some better model.

We don't know what the essential structures of the types are yet. Model A is only a hypothesis, and that goes for the rest of Socionics as well. It is a good hypothesis perhaps, but it is not necessarily true, so Expat and others who claim otherwise and refer to how the types are defined in each model have not understood what a real type is. Their arguments are essentially bullshit.

[crazedrat]

Yes, that is a good way of describing the stupidity of Expat and Joy... and others.

Well... you said "yes both gatorade and piss contain H2o" ... what if i say "it's time to give my car some water" when I fill it up with gasoline. .. ? (there is not h2o in gasoline) ... from your outlook on words is this sentence coherent? In the statement, the word water is being used to describe what the gasoline does for the car

[Phaedrus]

Well... you said "yes both gatorade and piss contain H2o" ... what if i say "it's time to give my car some water" when I fill it up with gasoline. .. ? (there is not h2o in gasoline) ... from your outlook on words is this sentence coherent? In the statement, the word water is being used to describe what the gasoline does for the car

I see no real problem, because you don't intend to refer to the same liquid when you say "water" in that particular situation. You don't believe that it is water that you intend to fill up your car with, and you know that you are using the word "water" in a figurative sense. You utter the same sound but it is not really the same concept. It is different use of the expression "water", but it is not the same concept and therefore it doesn't have the same referent. I think this illustrates again that referents are usually more important than definitions. As long as we know what we are referring to, we also know what we are talking about.

[crazedrat]

What are we doing when we are speaking figuratively
It seems to me we are using the relative standing a word has to another word, to define the relative standing of things we are describing to one another.

[tcaudilllg]

What are we doing when we are speaking figuratively
It seems to me we are using the relative standing a word has to another word, to define the relative standing of things we are describing to one another.

(this thread has gotten interesting and relevant)

Trying to parse what that means...

Anyway, that note about the Tractus was compelling. It gets to the heart of socion-based models. We conceive of "things" by collecting various relations (facts) and assuming they themselves have a common relationship. I believe the moment of assumption corresponds to the notion of "epiphany", or sudden insight.

Epiphany is difficult to study because at the moment you have it, you are completely absorbed in the epiphany and not in awareness of the experience as a phenomenon. However, the moment one has conceived of a new thing, it is possible to engage instantaneously myriad relationships between that new thing and everything else which had been previously known. I think this is what MysticSonic means by his quote "Becoming is like falling asleep... you can see it all."

The problem is finding information aspects which have a common relationship to each other, which I think is what you were meaning by the above, crazedrat.

[crazedrat]

And do you believe type is a system for describing the dynamics of object relations?
That is a place where relativism can meet objectivism (at least in the way I think of relativism)

[tcaudilllg]

And do you believe type is a system for describing the dynamics of object relations?
That is a place where relativism can meet objectivism (at least in the way I think of relativism)

Absolutely. Object relations are, after all, the substance of thought and the content of sentences. Although, "type" is prioritization of these based on one's ability to observe them.

How do you suggest they "meet"?

As regards epiphany, I've had at least one in the past 24 hours, although that one led to several, I think.

Think about the way seeing something brings up a memory. What this is, is the passage of Si to Ni. Passage between blocks is something that just "happens" -- it's a relational mechanism in the brain which unites rational with rational and irrational with irrational. To put it in perspective, the passage of Model A functioning flows like this:

EGO BLOCK

[base] acccepts [creative]
[creative] produces [base]
[base] implies/triggers emergence of [role/passage to SUPER-EGO]

SUPER-EGO BLOCK

[role] acccepts [vulnerable]
[vulnerable] produces [role]
[role] implies/triggers emergence of [vulnerable/passage to SUPER-ID]

SUPER-ID BLOCK

[suggestive] accepts [HA]
[HA] produces [suggestive]
[suggestive] implies/triggers emergence of [program/passage to ID]

ID BLOCK

[program] accepts [determinative]
[determinative] produces [program]
[program] implies/triggers emergence of [base/passage to EGO]

The passage between blocks illuminates IM aspects we may previously not have noticed. At these moments, our minds instantaneously process these aspects in relation to others we are aware of. (kinda cloudy on the details...) Sometimes we are able to integrate this new information into sets of existing data we perceive relevant to it, and conceive of a new concept altogether, with its own set of IM aspects. This is epiphany.

[crazedrat]

How do you suggest they "meet"?

That is where I am still confused. Information, thought of objectively, possesses a fixed potential for relations to other objects. These potentials can be thought of as what define it as an object. But the objects potential for relativity exists innately, before it is defined.. before any actual relation is established. (as Phaedrus pointed out..).

I see it playing out something like this, though I have not yet recorded the specific workings of this system:
First off, there are the simple object potentials. A certain Ni potential supresses Fe potential... A certain Se potential supresses Ti potential; an objects potential in one sense will be its lack of potential in another sense. As of right now the object & its potential is what we refer to as the I.M. type; & we already have the language for coherently describing object potential.
And I.M. type is considered to be a part of the realm of content. An I.M. type is an objective, fixed potential energy system. Where a type is objective, and dual type will be considered "relative" typology... concerning relations between the types.
Dual type will be a matter of how objects interact with one another, in light of each objects specific I.M. potential, to form relations between the two. (& here is where we get dynamics like superid fulfillment, ego maintenance... etc. Each dual type interaction will have a specific effect on the objects of the dual type [their coherence, their meaning; their emotive energy, etc.])
Simple so far... and that is the model we have. It is coherent.
The trouble with this is it is limited in scope.. it doesn't apply well to the specific situation.
Right now our model is functioning in an ideal world.
To correct this problem, & have our model "meet with the specific universe", we must expound the models dynamics onto themselves exponentially. From this there is something called an "elemental object", and then a "complex object" ... where an elemental object is the simple I.M. type, and a complex object is a combination of I.M. types in different structural senses, the dynamics of these combinations being defined by how elemental objects interact relative to one another through dual type. And these relative elemental objects seen as a whole would form a coherent "complex object impression" from which you can spring fourth a relativity to other complex objects in the form of a "complex dual type" .........
etc.
The potential for specificity becomes exponentialized.
I am not sure the systems potential for specificity is infinite, or just huge...
It seems to follow directly in the footsteps of the Tractatus.
It is almost like we would have to merge our theory with string theory, where right now it is functioning at the level of the theory of relativity.
Once you reach the point of defining complex objects consisting of elemental parts relative to one another, you have merged objectivism with relativism, & you have the capacity to describe objects of any nature coherently.
Hope that made a shred of sense.

[crazedrat]

I have a question for Phaedrus.
...
Do you believe the philosophy written in the Tractatus to be true? Do you see or know of any necessary modifications to Wittgensteins position?

[Phaedrus]

I have a question for Phaedrus.
...
Do you believe the philosophy written in the Tractatus to be true? Do you see or know of any necessary modifications to Wittgensteins position?

The most fundamental problem with Wittgenstein's position in the Tractatus is that it is self-refuting. And contrary to what Wittgenstein believed himself, the Tractatus, taken as a whole, is not nonsense but false. That can be proven, and it has been proven by Karl Popper in a note to The Open Society and its Enemies. So for a start, we need to modify Wittgenstein's position in such a way that we get rid of the logical contradiction.

[tcaudilllg]

@crazedrat:
You want to create a comprehensive architecture for the modeling of information, right?

[crazedrat]

yes tcaud. Then take that architecture and start applying it to crazy things like music, pictures, etc. by breaking down these things into atomic parts.

[crazedrat]

The most fundamental problem with Wittgenstein's position in the Tractatus is that it is self-refuting. And contrary to what Wittgenstein believed himself, the Tractatus, taken as a whole, is not nonsense but false. That can be proven, and it has been proven by Karl Popper in a note to The Open Society and its Enemies. So for a start, we need to modify Wittgenstein's position in such a way that we get rid of the logical contradiction.

yeah, i read the tractatus again earlier today and it didn't really click all that well with me, as it did the first time i read it.
i don't know where to start, jumping in to other peoples ideas.
at the same time i don't want my ideas to be flawed, and feel i must understand other peoples ideas to prevent this from happening.
so there are kind of two choices.... 1: continue developing my own ideas 2: stop developing my own ideas, and start trying to synthesize them with other peoples.
.... 1 = creative process 2 = reviewing process
...
Maybe I need to write my own personal "tractatus" and then try and edit it for coherence.
I don't know which way to go at this point, I'm kind of confused. I will read about Karl Popper though

[tcaudilllg]

1: continue developing my own ideas 2: stop developing my own ideas, and start trying to synthesize them with other peoples.

I do 1, then 2 after 1 is finished for any given idea.

[crazedrat]

yes that is what i decided on.
on a different note, i've been trying to reconcile cross type w/ dual type, & I think I have succeeded w/ the model below
like this:
Objects A & B are I.M. types.

ObjectA - - - - combine together to form a cross type- - - - - OBJECTB

This cross type is defined by the relativity Object A has to Object B.

Object A sees Object B as its "dual type"; Object B sees Object A as its "dual type"

The parts of Objects A & B which are not relative to one another, and do not combine to form the "cross type" are left in limbo

.......................Object A - - - - - - Object B
...................../..............\............./..........\
Repression type - - - - - - Cross type - - - - Repression type


Where the notation (Object A, Dual Type B) would imply both Object A's Cross type & Repression type.

Repression type is (vaguely) the part of your I.M. type which you must ignore, constrain, etc. when around another type.

Together Repression type & Cross type combine to form the I.M. type; and their specific attributes vary in relation to one another. The attributes of the repression & cross type are specified all at once w/ the notation "dual type"

This comes from treating I.M. types as objects with innate potentials, as was discussed earlier in this thread.

[crazedrat]

Using this model... in the observation of any duality, the observers I.M. type will experience coherence (the lack of a repression type, among other things [something happens to the cross type also]) ... this will be a duality contingent on external objects. ...The duality will have an otherly feel to it.
This explains why you can watch a love story, and experience the feeling of love.. yet the dual pair being observed is of a different type from yourself.
Cross type is the ego of dual type, repression type is the superid of dual type

[tcaudilllg]

Using this model... in the observation of any duality, the observers I.M. type will experience coherence (the lack of a repression type, among other things [something happens to the cross type also]) ... this will be a duality contingent on external objects. ...The duality will have an otherly feel to it.
This explains why you can watch a love story, and experience the feeling of love.. yet the dual pair being observed is of a different type from yourself.
Cross type is the ego of dual type, repression type is the superid of dual type

Now the repression type is a reverse-signed version of the type, right?

Crosstype is ego of dual-type... not sure what that means. Oh you're referring to crosstype as the exertion type, aren't you? The exertion type is the content which the I.M. type relates. (still working the details on how the content relates to itself).

[crazedrat]

Now the repression type is a reverse-signed version of the type, right?

Crosstype is ego of dual-type... not sure what that means. Oh you're referring to crosstype as the exertion type, aren't you? The exertion type is the content which the I.M. type relates. (still working the details on how the content relates to itself).

yeah.. well, thinking of exertion type as the ego allows you to think of the exertion type having a superid, a superego, & an id. That is all that was saying.
Content relates to itself- The object (The I.M. type) relates to itself- the object is defined by things outside itself, & these things together create a coherent array of relevances to one another. (this is simultaneously objective & relative)

On the specific notations (& furthermore, function workings) of repression type this I am still not sure about. There are instances where repression type dissolves (for example, when interacting w/ your dual) ... so yeah, it needs to be thought through first. (& something I am thinking of along the lines of maintenance and destruction type.. still not sure what to call them. superego & id, basically.. & how they are expressed toward the world, given a particular I.M. dual type)

an INTj-ENFj would have a minutely different exertion type then an INTp-ENFj.