It is the IEI who asserts a long-term historical narrative of our society that is still predicted to unfold (T), wherein individuals are reduced to classes (L) locked in a state of struggle (F).
Those people who assert Alpha NT see the L, sure, but they are not looking at the Beta T/F values surrounding this.
Naw, ILE's are the big super long term thinkers, but they don't control the timing very well. Which is why his predictions are largely true 150 years later instead of right after his death, his timing was off but we largely live in a world where alienation and commodity fetishism has taken hold, where finance capitalism rules the day. is good at figuring out potential outcomes but devalues timing, which is focused on(which devalues alternative possibility for subjective vision). Marx was not fully committed to his vision of communism and this is where his break with Bakunin arose. Almost all "Marxist" revolutions occurred based on Bakunin's idea of peasant revolution(). Marx believed in organized rational action(Ti), and Bakunin the impulsive mass of force(Se) which included criminals and such. This is the fundamental conflict of later Marx vs earlier Marx when he shifted from a accepting sub-type to creative sub-type.
Originally Posted by echidna1000
ILE's also have as the role function and this is the primary social function they perceive which is something they observe keenly and react against yet is not something they prefer. Marx observed this keenly and he could not dismiss what he saw, and as an Spinozist his view was "Might makes right" and although this may seem like it values , the core aspect of this philosophy is devaluing because it's about redefining "What is Might". Marx is no different here, because in his world Capitalists had the might and the lower classes did not, his view like that of Spinoza was to redefine the perception of Might. There is also a huge misconception about because it's purpose is not passive, and as a Pe function it is not boundary respecting, but in a more cognitive, internal fashion rather than the external sensory fashion. Marx's goal was to unlock the potential of the proletariat class and use this organized power of such a movement to change the world. This is an educated, competent, decent class that was socially involved but oppressed, this is a remark on potentiality of this specific class and not one based on impulsive reactionary revolutions of the past which largely consisted of peasantry, criminals and demagogues.
So essentially Marx's idea was that a educated, socially involved, oppressed class(with high potential) can organize and unlock their potential power to overturn the social order. This is essentially - - information transformation. But Marxist-Leninism which was created by a SLE is essentially a - method which takes power and then organizes people.
I think most individuals that criticize Marx do not understand his work and attribute many of the actions and consequences of individuals(betas) who came after Marx towards Marx and this interferes with the typing.
Communist solutions have essentially been beta but this is very different than the half glorification, half lament for capitalism that exists in Marx's writings. For Marx, Capitalism was something that freed people from aristocratic slavery, and as such an advancement for humanity, but it is plagued with many problems. This is essentially a Alpha Democrat's criticism of Gamma Democrats. From his background as an dialectical philosopher he was attempting to posit the anti-thesis and synthesis which would interact with capitalism in order to form a new order, unfortunately this is probably not his cognitive strong point and he was only able to describe the problem and the solution is woefully lacking in detail. And he was dealing with these psychological and sociological problems long before these became every day issues of social science. So what Marx did well was describe the mechanism of capitalism, and it's effect on the psychology of individuals and the mechanism in the psychology which created problems in his environments, and in potential environments that would arise from capitalism. What he failed to do was foresee how long it would take to do as well as what his own calls for intervention would do. Humanity is once again in a time of great growth in wealth disparity, great alienation and it once again portends great struggle(of class and other sort). Because humanity has not been able to solve the problem of alienation, solve the problem of our own psyches rebelling against itself. Earlier in this conversation many individuals talk about political systems that dismissed human nature, but Marx did not create these systems and you cannot attribute them to his thinking, what is clear is that human nature is the problem and this is implicit in Marx's thoughts. For all our advancement, there is still so solution for our will towards destruction and self-destruction, these patterns start from the small from individuals and families and arise also when people cooperate and group. The individual diseases are infectious and sometimes the groups go mad.
Modern sociology and psychology have begun to study some details of these phenomena that Marx only began to observe and understand. The economic conditions today also are trending towards the description Marx presented and as such Marx is experiencing a resurgence, because what he described is hard to dismiss when it's smacking you in the face.
Also from a remarkable standpoint, Marx never thought communism would work in Russia(which it did not), he did not see Russia as being capable of implementing communism. The only major power that is still based in Marxist-Leninist philosophy(despite all the capitalism running around) is China and this country doing quite well, while bringing hundreds of millions of people to the middle class. Industrial modes of production are actually a prerequisite for communism yet it's difficult to create this industrial world in communism, which is why capitalism is the mechanism by which overturned feudalism, and you can see this occurring in China under essentially Beta/Gamma leadership. Yet the problems of capitalism plagues China like no other place because it's vastness and growth in recent times. China is caught in a great dialectic between it's capitalist industry and its communist origins, and from this there is a potential for synthesis. Marx is taboo in the US/UK for the most part but it is still required reading in China to almost everyone and furthermore they see the problems Marx laid out in everything day to day.
From what I've read in his manifesto, he intellectually grasped the essence of history, flipped it around and came up with rules to aid the new order --> NeTi 5w6 So/Sp.
2 EVIL I
Last edited by golden; 01-11-2017 at 07:06 PM.
Originally Posted by mu4
The idea that ILEs are primarily super long-term thinkers is basically denying that ILEs are focused primarily on and have as an Ignoring function. On the contrary, they are interested in what is possible, and expanding the horizons of possibility, not in forecasting how something will eventually end up. To do the latter is to envision a linear outcome, and by doing so, limit alternatives to that outcome. The idea of 'timing' is not the same at 'Time'. It is irrelevant to as it requires a knowledge of what is concrete and present to know exactly what is going to happen. Timing is the sort of thing you need to dodge falling pianos. deals with imagined, general trends, based on an idea of where things are going/how they're developing, rather than anything as specific as an actual date. This is especially the case for IEI which uses in the absence of factual data and general empirical study , it frequently tends towards the mystical and harder to falsify. This is exactly Karl Popper's (ILI) criticism of Marx, the lack of awareness of how his model exists beyond falsification. To also say that the IEI can do 'timing' but the ILE cannot is also false. ILEs have Strong , they just don't value it. If an ILE needed to, it could use like an IEI, it just wouldn't volunteer such an approach due to Leading . I wouldn't say either are particularly good at this 'timing', but perhaps the ILE is actually better.
It is also not unusual, even expected, for an IEI to emphasise as a means to changing the political system, rather than which is their Suggestive, weakest function, something they are not inclined to make confident decisions on. This doesn't necessarily reflect on the valuing of but rather the strength and confidence of making an assessment using it. It is still evident that Marx emphasised linear outcomes and focused on how the world should be changed to reach this outcome, even if he personally, through the fact that his was so much stronger than his , thought it would be inevitable, rather than through someone taking direct action.
On the contrary, the Role function is not how we elect to perceive and arrange our understanding of the world. It is instead an external demand that we are able to adjust to and deal with better than our Vulnerable function. To make sense of societies in terms of hierarchical oppression already suggests a cognitive preference for framing ideas in terms of + . For an example of a more Alpha approach to Marxism, I recommend Friedrich Engels (I think he was ESE), whose work concentrated far more on appalling conditions and the adverse affect on working people's health, rather than on the idea of hierarchical oppression from a Bourgeouisie. He was also far more empirical in his approach than Marx, who never deigned to live among the proletariat. Similarly, if one were to look at Albert Einstein's (ILE) contributions to Socialism, we see once again, a focus on the conditions of capitalism and their adverse effects, rather than on hierarchical oppression of lower classes by upper classes, he basically said that capitalism makes people selfish and focused on competition, rather than enabling people to learn and flourish intellectually: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
Furthermore, what you say about Marx wanting to 'unlock potential' in the proletariat was not Marx's original idea, but arose from Engels' Principles of Communism, where the proletariat put together a democratic constitution. That was Engels' contribution to Marxism. Marx's contribution was the approach of a timeline of systemic development for the west, whereby the relationship between hierarchical classes changes over time. This is a similar approach to other IEI philosophers, like Oswald Spengler.
You're right that we should attempt to properly understand Marx's work. However, a crucial part of that is recognising the role that Engels played, which ideas were Marx's and which were Engels'. There is some Alpha there, but it isn't from Marx, who provided much in terms of + (especially in his commentary on his idea of 'alienated labour' as creating psychological impact on the proletariat) and , with the sense of inevitability that is typical of Suggestive types.
You think Democratic/Aristocratic actually culminates in criticisms of aristocracy vs. democracy? I wouldn't say so. That lacks a Model A basis. All this dichotomy has to it is the blocking of Sensation/Intuition with Logic/Ethics. Alphas/Gammas focus on an idealised objectivity and a concrete subjectivity, e.g. theoretical/strategic conceptualising and real life social interaction. Betas/Deltas focus on idealised subjectivity and a concrete objectivity, e.g. meaning, purpose and goodness, as well as how to get things done in real life. There is no basis for this to be applied to political views and criticisms. Instead, I think one should look at the Quadra values for that.
I'm not sure you understand what possibility means. Possibility, potentiality, probability is a time based term in everyday usage as well as in science. The possible is not about the now, as all that is possible is technically actualized now. ILE's are super long term thinkers because the many distant possibilities are perceived as having great meaning and sometimes as closer to the present. Also there are potentialities which converge due to time, such as death(inevitable destruction of capitalism), which is inevitable(yet not fully know the exact time). Most of what you've wrote is kind of irrelevant, since it doesn't address the core issue of what Ne and Ni are.
Originally Posted by echidna1000
Both are perceptual function distant from present sensory reality, and the nature of human perception is time based as we travel in this dimension. The aspect deals with and attitude towards the object, which plainly tells us that there are multiple future potential states from any present state. The aspect is subjective and driven by internal attitudes and as such becomes personal, often rejecting various potentialities for its personal vision.
As far as timing, there's a lot to timing beyond dodging pianos, such as say when to sell off a stock and many other timing specific decisions related to various decisions. But metaphorically it's sort of funny since I know a ego that uses a dodging piano to characterize the strategic planning he does.
The extratim nature of sees potentialities in time(as potentials all exist in some future) and often these are many, but some can be seen as inevitable and singular such as death. directs attitudes towards such potentials based on subjective attitudes, it's not that in the potentials cease to exist, but rather the attitude becomes personal and some potentials may lose meaning.
does not follow the flow of time like does, because it keeps the various potentials in focus due to its static and object nature, travels the flow of time from one state to another focusing on currents.
Some of what you've mentioned do not relate to either or but rather rational functions which do not work with the flow of time but the structure of the physical and abstract.
Anyways what you say about Marx I see as misinterpreted, what Marx did was not a timeline but rather a sequence of events, IEI's as vortex synergistic thinkers do not deal well with with sequencing, this thinking style seeks to do all things all at once in a chaotic fashion. LIE/ESE characterize this very vividly as they do everything at once and can be quite the whirlwind of activity. Sequencing is step by step often along a single place and this is primarily a casual determinism attitude, Marx's sequencing of events is not a timeline, and his work had a sense of the inevitable because some logical steps are deterministic and not time sensitive.
For example take this piece of his work.
He says essentially, something happens A, something else happens B, people become conscious of what happens, people become conscious of the contradiction in A vs B, thus social conflict between A and B. This is a logical process, and is time agnostic.
Originally Posted by Marx
Marx's work is essentially time agnostic although he was working from the past, the forces of A, B still exists, the contradictions still exists, the conflict still occurs. Due to the past 150 years of social sciences, more is known about these observations he made and solutions and non-solutions to them, but the general pattern and contradiction still creates great struggles. But ultimately he was speaking of the static.
You can fit all this in your interpretation of things but from what I see of his writing it is time agnostic(but also not present tense), and there is a sequential logical flow to his work which is causal deterministic in nature.
It looks like you're completely conflating and here. The core of the difference between the two is that broadens the scope of what is possible, while narrows that scope to what is, yes, inevitable. You won't find ILEs focusing on perceptions of what will inevitably happen. You will find ILEs entertain multiple alternative scenarios of what could happen. You'll also find this to an extreme in 4 types like LSEs, who simply won't gel with the idea that things in life happen inevitably, rather than being one of multiple choices that come about directly through their work and good decision making.
Originally Posted by mu4
It is incorrect to assert that one kind of Intuition is more 'personal' than the other. All Intuition is 'internal' and thus personally interpreted. All Intuition is 'detached' and thus thought about and considered rather than felt with attachment. Object/Field has nothing to do with our conventional understanding of things being objective and subjective. It has everything to do with the objects themselves, vs. the relations between the objects. This is why is about multiple, disconnected instances and scenarios, while is about a linear sequence of cause and effect, with the sense that something will definitely happen one way and not any other way.
A timeline is a sequence of events... Literally the same thing.
I think bringing non-canon ideas like Gulenko's theory of cognitive styles like this is exactly why we should just stick to the canon until there is a common understanding that works. The sense of an inevitable path is clearly 1 and your non-canon additions, like some of the more batty definitions of the Reinin dichotomies, are confuddling that. This isn't 'time agnostic'. Time is implicit to this description. It deals with a linear sequence of cause and effect, with no sense of alternative to that sequence.