The Illusion

[Hitta]

Reality is a myth.

[xyz]

You know, reality really only is the sum of our senses.

[Hitta]

yep

[Hitta]

From a physical perceptive stand point yea, its only a combination of our senses. Even things beyond that our debatable though, even our concept of what it means to "exist". Everything is sort of like paradoxical, like truth doesn't exist or something(not saying there isn't truth, it just seems that way from our perspective). Nothing feels provable or solid; and everything sort of likes exact meaning. There could be worlds out there, things that we couldn't even imagine, something that would make our minds explode to see. Things that would make no sense to us in this plane of perception(maybe a truth or something).

[Phaedrus]

Reality is that which is what it is in itself. So if that which is what it is in itself is a myth, then reality is a myth. And if so, then it is of course not a myth that reality is a myth.

[tereg]

Obligatory The Matrix clip

[Hitta]

Reality is that which is what it is in itself. So if that which is what it is in itself is a myth, then reality is a myth. And if so, then it is of course not a myth that reality is a myth.

You are not really a big picture thinker are you?

[Phaedrus]

You are not really a big picture thinker are you?

Based on what I have seen so far from you, I am clearly more of a big picture thinker than you. You are quite naïve when it comes to philosophizing. If you want to come up with something new, something original with some value, you have to dig much deeper. And to do that you have to read more philosophy.

[crazedrat]

If two people are walking in the desert, and one person sees an oasis, and the other doesn't, then what is happening? And how is this different from both of us seeing the oasis? According to you there is no difference.
Since you have said nothing on the nature of the senses; and only attempt to imply through common sense they are flawed, I don't see you having a strong argument in that regard. It could happen the senses operate on level with the fundamental logic which makes up the universe.
The big picture cliche you use is also annoying. It is easy to look at the big picture if you stop looking at the small picture.
Expanding your point of view recklessly is no talent.
When you feel like you are thinking in the big picture, that is when you aren't.
Many times, as a theory develops, in the end it explains something which was at first obvious.

[Wynch]

Reality is a myth.

Redundant statement. Language in and of itself is myth therefore you can never speak without speaking in myth. Reality, the word, only has so much meaning as humanity gives it. Same with myth. Myth is a myth. Your idea of myth is a myth. Your idea of philosophy and the rules of logic inherent within it are a myth. It could be that your understanding of reality is a myth and in the end reality is the only truth because it is a construct of some higher power. You can never conceptualize anything without conceiving myth. Any and all products of human reason are myth. Ergo your statement is pointless.

I'm going to have to agree with Phaedrus on this one and tell you to come back when you have something pertinent to say.

[Logos]

Reality is a myth.

Did anyone else open this thread expect to be shown a magic trick only to be disappointed? I know I did.

[Wynch]

Did anyone else open this thread expect to be shown a magic trick only to be disappointed? I know I did.

Yeah

[crazedrat]

woa, even cooler picture logos

[tcaudilllg]

Dude, if you must preach something then preach the gospel of Supersocion theory, which you yourself have sired.

[tcaudilllg]

I've always been curious to know exactly how much of hitta's influence has shaped supersocion theory?

It was his dedication to the cause of making Model B known, which caused me to rethink. When he put up a chart showing his ideas -- that the world is made up of positive and negative forces -- I realized right then and there that he was offering a glimpse into the world "below the veil". Positive/negative lends to light vs darkness: it was a striking thing to see two Tis and two Tes, that were in opposition to each other. I already knew that somehow the 7th function moved itself into a sort of advisory or filtrating position ; but when I observed Hitta's thinking I intuitively knew that those elements, if rearranged, could support each other.

What hitta's contribution really was, was to consider +Te and -Ti in the same function. We'd heard of + and - before as "long range" and "short range", but it all seemed very arbitrary to us because we hadn't been shown Model B itself. Hitta's arrangement of "long range" and "short range" as a revision of Model A, along with the underlying negative vs positive philosophy, was the lense through which I observed that the postulation of various symmetrical dynamics between those parts would uncover the workings of the mind. I postulated that anything that held true for the functions in the metabolism type observed by classical socionics would hold also for the exertion type I had already derived from the crosstype theory, and thus was capable of validating various hypotheses in specific cases.

The assertion that I have found what has historically been called "God" (though perhaps Star Wars Force concept is more apt) is the observation of harmony between opposite signed aspects not only existing in the mind as a relation of information, but also as a person-independent relationship between energies that are similarly signed. (although, it is the dualization of those energies which maintains their development and keeps the cosmos humming. The harmony just allows the energies to flow productively. The point is that this energy has a will of its own).

[Wynch]

It was his dedication to the cause of making Model B known, which caused me to rethink. When he put up a chart showing his ideas -- that the world is made up of positive and negative forces -- I realized right then and there that he was offering a glimpse into the world "below the veil". Positive/negative lends to light vs darkness: it was a striking thing to see two Tis and two Tes, that were in opposition to each other. I already knew that somehow the 7th function moved itself into a sort of advisory or filtrating position ; but when I observed Hitta's thinking I intuitively knew that those elements, if rearranged, could support each other.

What hitta's contribution really was, was to consider +Te and -Ti in the same function. We'd heard of + and - before as "long range" and "short range", but it all seemed very arbitrary to us because we hadn't been shown Model B itself. Hitta's arrangement of "long range" and "short range" as a revision of Model A, along with the underlying negative vs positive philosophy, was the lense through which I observed that the postulation of various symmetrical dynamics between those parts would uncover the workings of the mind. I postulated that anything that held true for the functions in the metabolism type observed by classical socionics would hold also for the exertion type I had already derived from the crosstype theory, and thus was capable of validating various hypotheses in specific cases.

The assertion that I have found what has historically been called "God" (though perhaps Star Wars Force concept is more apt) is the observation of harmony between opposite signed aspects not only existing in the mind as a relation of information, but also as a person-independent relationship between energies that are similarly signed. (although, it is the dualization of those energies which maintains their development and keeps the cosmos humming. The harmony just allows the energies to flow productively. The point is that this energy has a will of its own).

I have a question about this, Tcaud. What makes you assume that further division into +/- is more in balance than how the functional relationships exist in Model A? Object and field functions are already in opposition and in each block and object will be matched with a field and a perceiving function matched with a rational function. Hypothetically speaking, we could divide things in half until the end of time and have infinitely balancing polars. What makes the concept of Model B's continued halving correct?

Additionally, you'll have to explain to me how a postulation about the relationship between type and cross-type validates your hypothesis.

FWIW, I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to understand the rationalization behind certain assumptions you've made.

[Hitta]

Redundant statement. Language in and of itself is myth therefore you can never speak without speaking in myth. Reality, the word, only has so much meaning as humanity gives it. Same with myth. Myth is a myth. Your idea of myth is a myth. Your idea of philosophy and the rules of logic inherent within it are a myth. It could be that your understanding of reality is a myth and in the end reality is the only truth because it is a construct of some higher power. You can never conceptualize anything without conceiving myth. Any and all products of human reason are myth. Ergo your statement is pointless.

I'm going to have to agree with Phaedrus on this one and tell you to come back when you have something pertinent to say.

That is the point I was trying to make. Our whole realm of thought and human spectrum is based on assumptions. Even our acceptance of this perception of reality(through our senses) and our acceptance of self(we have no idea if we exist). There is infinite possibilites, as we live in a perception of assumed infinites via subjectivity(truth relativism). Is there a real truth that we can't comprehend at this stage through our current perspective or is life really a nihilistic mess. There really is no definite purpose in our existence, there is no meaning. We have our own subjective purposes, but whether or not they coincide with absolute truth(or whether or not absolute truth exists) we do not know. Its as if we are the toddler in a playpen.

[Not A Communist Shill]

[Hitta]

So is that another assumption?

Well of course it is. Everything is. We don't know anything. We don't know if we know if we know if we know if we know if we know(to infinity). We don't know if we don't know if we don't know(to infinity). We don't know anything(we don't even know that). The human mind cannot think without making an assumption.

[tcaudilllg]

I have a question about this, Tcaud. What makes you assume that further division into +/- is more in balance than how the functional relationships exist in Model A? Object and field functions are already in opposition and in each block and object will be matched with a field and a perceiving function matched with a rational function. Hypothetically speaking, we could divide things in half until the end of time and have infinitely balancing polars. What makes the concept of Model B's continued halving correct?

Additionally, you'll have to explain to me how a postulation about the relationship between type and cross-type validates your hypothesis.

FWIW, I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to understand the rationalization behind certain assumptions you've made.

Because when you consider the scope of relations defined in Model A alone, the political underpinnings of reality are not apparent. Also not explained: how exactly do the functions process information? The assumption of processing is assumed without explaining how. It's not Model B which allows that glimpse, in fact, but a further division of the elements themselves into their component aspect apprehenders. In truth, I consider my model something apart from Model B; I call it "Model B-contra" because it is defined by opposition between aspects on political grounds.

For example, here is ILE ego according to Model B:

+Ne -Ti
-Ni +Te

and this is ILE ego expressed in Model B-contra:

-Ne <= +Ne <= +Ti <= -Ti
+Ni <= --Ni <= -Te <= +Te

Subjective thinking (+Ti) is moulded after theory (-Ti). In the context of this new thinking, which is a paradigm unto itself, new possibilities (+Ne) seem plausible. These possibilities tested against the actual objective potential (-Ne) in the world through experiment.

The background type (the alterego) is largely repressed into the subconscious. However it does have a function which cannot really be understood (hence Gulenko's observation of it happening "subconsciously") without taking the political element into consideration. The political element isn't complicated: all issues come down to matters of comfort with change vs discomfort with it, or conversely . If you think about it, too much change too fast leads to chaos and disorder. Lack of change when it is needed leads to maladjustment. After painstakingly ruling out the alternatives, I've concluded that the political dimension of the psyche is exhibited in the aspects themselves, with the "+" parts indicating your political stance, and the "-" indicating the stance opposite you. This works because if your "+" is change-oriented, then you've got any and all changes pretty much down pat because you know how to cope with them. But, "-" is in that case a problem for you because you won't really know how not to change. "+" is the subject and "-" is the object, meaning that you experience yourself as being "+" and whatever else is utilizing it, and everything you do not identify with yourself is the "-". It was a simutaneously advantageous and tragic (the very birth of tragedy, no less) innovation in evolution's scheme: create a means for social apprehension of the object while also creating the basis for defense against it, all with one trait.

This is where the problem happens: you've got an existential tension between the subject and the object, which also serves as a tension between change and stasis. For change to be effective, it must be made as a means of adaptation to that which does not change. Conversely that which is preserved should only be that which can weather change's storm however incredible the change is; else it is not conserved between situations and should be discarded on behalf of creating more positive change and thus, better environmental adaptation. (the better your adaptation, the less severe your problems seem). However YOU are on one side OR the other; you can never be on BOTH sides. You would be asked to choose, except the decision has already been made for you by your DNA. You are either change or stasis, and it is your task to cope with the alternative as it is relentlessly forced upon you from without in a million guises.

There is only one way to cope with something you can do nothing about: you must learn about it and adapt to it. It must be accepted. On the other hand, if you are faced with a threat which is more than a mere obstacle, you must defend yourself. This is where the human dimension comes in, because a human obstacle can itself adapt and remain an ever present delimma. If you don't adapt in tune with it, it will take the advantage and end up destroying you.

This is where things get speculative and interesting: there are people, whom historically have been called radicals, whose preferred way of confronting the object is to debilitate it. They do not cope and do not know how. They actively set energy in motion trying to overcome the (human) threats they are posed with. These energies are intended to clash with the energy of others and thus, interfere with dualization and the harmony of the world. It's an open question as to whether conflicting energies, and the disharmony they cause, exist in the universe apart from human intervention, although it's probably useful to assume that they do. After all, the purpose of the psyche is not to create things that are not there, but to adapt to the problems nature has already put in humanity's path.

So now we see that the problems humanity faces are not truly of its own making, but are rather a matter of conserved principle, and that for purposes of effective coping you cannot anchor just any "-" element to any "+" element: they must agree with each other first. Historically these agreements, which exist as a dynamic of energy independent of man's apprehension, have been revealed through sacrifice. The question of what should be sacrificed and what shouldn't be are the life interest of the population segment directly opposite the radical. (think of them as "saints"). When through sacrifice an agreement is forged, then and only then do things work out as Gulenko suggests. If change must be oriented around that which does not change to be effective, then every extension of an existing idea must be anchored on the principles of the ideas which preceded it. The "+" which is anchored on the "-", you see, is actually a "-" which is, from a point of view, a "+". (the personage behind the idea, you might say). And that's as far as I can go, because beyond that I've not yet differentiated what the situation actually is.

[tcaudilllg]

Well of course it is. Everything is. We don't know anything. We don't know if we know if we know if we know if we know if we know(to infinity). We don't know if we don't know if we don't know(to infinity). We don't know anything(we don't even know that). The human mind cannot think without making an assumption.

That may be but, some people are better at making assumptions than you.

@jxrtes:
Hitta's contribution was his making us aware of it. And his view of things in utter positive/negative terms was quite frankly a revolution in thought not unlike Einstein's relativity.

In any event, you have to give him credit for actually making sense of something in those Babelfished articles.

[Wynch]

Right, I'm not going to bother quoting you, we know what I'm talking about.

While I understand the sociological underpinnings of this +/- construct you're described and I think it is structurally sound, I have difficulty seeing how it contributes directly to the application of the info metabolism itself. I feel as thought you've abstracted it just a little too far in your application to the broader context and are having difficulties pulling it back to the core concept. I want to understand how your model and theory itself actually functions, not in the applicable sense, but in the nature of it's system. Is there any way that we can chat about this on AIM or something later on in the day? I live in EST and I work until after 5, but perhaps you can PM me with a way for us to discuss this in real time. I'm interested in learning about your idea, but I think it would work best for both of us if we can discuss it directly rather than in an essay format such as this where we're easily side-tracked from the essentials of our individual ideas and understanding.

[tcaudilllg]

Right, I'm not going to bother quoting you, we know what I'm talking about.

While I understand the sociological underpinnings of this +/- construct you're described and I think it is structurally sound, I have difficulty seeing how it contributes directly to the application of the info metabolism itself. I feel as thought you've abstracted it just a little too far in your application to the broader context and are having difficulties pulling it back to the core concept. I want to understand how your model and theory itself actually functions, not in the applicable sense, but in the nature of it's system. Is there any way that we can chat about this on AIM or something later on in the day? I live in EST and I work until after 5, but perhaps you can PM me with a way for us to discuss this in real time. I'm interested in learning about your idea, but I think it would work best for both of us if we can discuss it directly rather than in an essay format such as this where we're easily side-tracked from the essentials of our individual ideas and understanding.

I'm going on #socionics (at sorcerynet), and I'll be there all night.