Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 75

Thread: Question for Beta quadra: no lands left to conquer

  1. #1
    Linas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    533
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Question for Beta quadra: no lands left to conquer

    How do You face this problem?

  2. #2
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default x

    Conquer the seas
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  3. #3
    Linas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    533
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Humor, right.

  4. #4
    Linas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    533
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    and that's like 55 and 5 ?

  5. #5
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Find some Alphas to generate more lands for you to conquer? Heck, what sort of lands are you conquering that don't have some sort of defender giving you constant trouble?



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linas View Post
    and that's like 55 and 5 ?
    124 and 14.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Find some Alphas to generate more lands for you to conquer? Heck, what sort of lands are you conquering that don't have some sort of defender giving you constant trouble?
    The Moon, I think.

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Erect an empire to stand the test of time. The stage past conquest is the most glorious of all. Hitler never started his rise to power with world wars and genocides in mind, they were just stepping stones. He wanted to found neo-Berlin.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Hitler never started his rise to power with world wars and genocides in mind, they were just stepping stones. He wanted to found neo-Berlin.
    What ?

  9. #9
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linas View Post
    How do You face this problem?

    Where do you live? I claim it as my own.

    Submit as my vassal or suffer being hit by a big stick.
    IEE-Ne

  10. #10
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Write poetry. Of all things not impossible, the most difficult.

    Alternatively, try to become a good person (by which, yes, I mean a good Christian).
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  11. #11
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by somavision View Post
    Where do you live? I claim it as my own.

    Submit as my vassal or suffer being hit by a big stick.
    Speak softly and carry a big stick.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  12. #12
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    Speak softly and carry a big stick.
    If you want a fight, speaking loudly is more effective.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  13. #13
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    Speak softly and carry a big stick.
    You're going to get shot for toting a big stick around.

  14. #14
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    What's to stop re-invasions?

  15. #15
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Well this is a ridiculous question because there are plenty of lands to conquer....

    but I guess if your really desperate, switch sides to those you have conquered and do what they could not! Rinse and Repeat, and you'll never face boredom again.

  16. #16
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Write poetry. Of all things not impossible, the most difficult.
    Wrong. Writing poetry is easy; making art is hard. Not every poem is art.

    Alternatively, try to become a good person (by which, yes, I mean a good Christian).
    Only Christians are good people? You're a shitty Christian.

  17. #17
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The greatest territory yet unmapped is the human brain.

  18. #18
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    The greatest territory yet unmapped is the human brain.
    lol true
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  19. #19
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Wrong. Writing poetry is easy; making art is hard. Not every poem is art.
    I use the word poetry to refer to anything that's actually art. I actually use the word poetry to refer to any work of literature that is insightful or perceptive.

    Only Christians are good people? You're a shitty Christian.
    Not at all. No one's a good person. And every person is good insofar as they are. So Shakespeare was a great person. But then he also wasn't.

    Serious answer: I was really just saying "good person" to avoid saying "good Christian," but then I realized I was being unclear. It's pretty easy to be a moderately average okay good person, unless you're in really tough circumstances. And it's totally possible to be a great person without being a Christian (i.e., most of the poets). But what I meant was specifically the whole business about humbling yourself and submitting to the authority of others/God/the church, which was effectively a reference to my own life.

    And yes, I am a shitty Christian, and am even shittier for having said that in the way I said it. Have you read St. Simeon Stylites by Tennyson?

    The greatest territory yet unmapped is the human brain.
    Shakespeare. The mind is more interesting than the brain anyway (to whatever degree that distinction is valid, which, to my mind, is an awful lot, but I think you think differently on the matter). But yeah. See the badly worded signature. More interested in the psyche than in the brain, but I think its actually sorta the same thing from two different angles.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  20. #20
    heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,722
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This topic presents itself as cultures develop integral types. China is an example of a nation very much in a Beta phase of development as they struggle to rise to prominence as a developed nation. Eventually they will finish this phase. There is plenty of stuff left to conquer-- it doesn't involve violence always.
    asd

  21. #21
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    I use the word poetry to refer to anything that's actually art. I actually use the word poetry to refer to any work of literature that is insightful or perceptive.
    Fair.

    [quote]Not at all. No one's a good person. And every person is good insofar as they are. So Shakespeare was a great person. But then he also wasn't. [quote]



    And yes, I am a shitty Christian, and am even shittier for having said that in the way I said it. Have you read St. Simeon Stylites by Tennyson?
    I'll bite. No.



    Shakespeare. The mind is more interesting than the brain anyway (to whatever degree that distinction is valid, which, to my mind, is an awful lot, but I think you think differently on the matter). But yeah. See the badly worded signature. More interested in the psyche than in the brain, but I think its actually sorta the same thing from two different angles.
    See, I disagree, because the mind only goes so far; if we limit our study to what is accessible to us consciously, then we're just running around in circles and splitting hairs. The brain has infinitely more potential, not only on a pure level, but also in the sense that understanding the brain can help us understand the mind better than we do by simple observation. Serotonin and dopamine have nothing to do with my mind directly, but if I didn't know about them I sure couldn't manipulate it as effectively.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'M INTERRUPTING THIS TOPIC WITH AN OBNOXIOUSLY OFF-TOPIC POST DESIGNED TO PROVOKE THE IRE (ATTENTION) OF ANYONE WILLING TO BITE.

  23. #23
    constant change electric sheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,296
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Try taking over Afghanistan. People have been trying to conquer that place for thousands of years. As far as I know it's the last level in the empire conquest game. No one's been able to beat it yet.
    The saddest ESFj

    ...

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by electric sheep View Post
    Try taking over Afghanistan. People have been trying to conquer that place for thousands of years. As far as I know it's the last level in the empire conquest game. No one's been able to beat it yet.
    The mountainous terrain makes it politically unmanageable.

  25. #25
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll bite. No.
    I didn't mean much by it, it was just that it's somewhat analogous to why I'm a worse Christian for asserting that I'm a shitty Christian. It's like "look how humble I can be" and on top of that it's an argumentative strategy. You shouldn't use central doctrines of the Christian faith to win an argument, etc. Stylites' speech about his Christianity is similarly counter-productive. The more he talks about how Christian and saintly he is, the less Christian and the less saintly he is. The more he demands that God recognize his goodness, the less goodness he has.

    See, I disagree, because the mind only goes so far; if we limit our study to what is accessible to us consciously, then we're just running around in circles and splitting hairs. The brain has infinitely more potential, not only on a pure level, but also in the sense that understanding the brain can help us understand the mind better than we do by simple observation. Serotonin and dopamine have nothing to do with my mind directly, but if I didn't know about them I sure couldn't manipulate it as effectively.
    Meh. I think it's certainly a very valuable avenue of study, but I don't see any scientists who know as much about people as the poets do. But then, I'm really just prizing my.profession/favorite thing over everything else. Plus, like all english majors, I have a bias against the scientists. They get cooler stuff. Between, theater and poetry, science and sports are like my mighty opposites. Also, I think Freud figured out an awful lot about the unconscious through means that were rather more like a poet than like a scientist, or at least someone in the hard sciences (i.e., observing and analyzing human behavior, rather than examining physiology, how aspects of the physical body relate to behavior).

    Also, I was prepared to agree with your last statement, and I really do agree in principle/meaning, but I can't help saying that you don't really have to know shit about serotonin or dopamine in order to chemically manipulate them. But then, you said effectively, and I guess you are right there.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  26. #26
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    I didn't mean much by it, it was just that it's somewhat analogous to why I'm a worse Christian for asserting that I'm a shitty Christian. It's like "look how humble I can be" and on top of that it's an argumentative strategy. You shouldn't use central doctrines of the Christian faith to win an argument, etc. Stylites' speech about his Christianity is similarly counter-productive. The more he talks about how Christian and saintly he is, the less Christian and the less saintly he is. The more he demands that God recognize his goodness, the less goodness he has.
    ...and you're an even shittier Christian for insisting upon being shitty for being humble. Funny how there's no right way to turn when you're lost in a maze of cognitive dissonance, isn't it?



    Meh. I think it's certainly a very valuable avenue of study, but I don't see any scientists who know as much about people as the poets do. But then, I'm really just prizing my.profession/favorite thing over everything else. Plus, like all english majors, I have a bias against the scientists. They get cooler stuff. Between, theater and poetry, science and sports are like my mighty opposites. Also, I think Freud figured out an awful lot about the unconscious through means that were rather more like a poet than like a scientist, or at least someone in the hard sciences (i.e., observing and analyzing human behavior, rather than examining physiology, how aspects of the physical body relate to behavior).
    I just think anyone who is willing to isolate and exclude the influence of hard science in any realm of study is just ignoring part of the truth.

    Also, I was prepared to agree with your last statement, and I really do agree in principle/meaning, but I can't help saying that you don't really have to know shit about serotonin or dopamine in order to chemically manipulate them. But then, you said effectively, and I guess you are right there.
    Well, studying how things work is not just about knowing the processes that go on, what results they produce, etc; it's just part of ascertaining a more encompassing holistic perspective on how we work.

  27. #27
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Meh. I think it's certainly a very valuable avenue of study, but I don't see any scientists who know as much about people as the poets do. But then, I'm really just prizing my.profession/favorite thing over everything else. Plus, like all english majors, I have a bias against the scientists. They get cooler stuff. Between, theater and poetry, science and sports are like my mighty opposites. Also, I think Freud figured out an awful lot about the unconscious through means that were rather more like a poet than like a scientist, or at least someone in the hard sciences (i.e., observing and analyzing human behavior, rather than examining physiology, how aspects of the physical body relate to behavior).
    Science will not tell you about people in the language of the humanities which cannot see far beyond our own storylines. This is useful, but limited. Science can however tell you about human beings as part of the ecology we are sprung out of. It is about stepping out of our storylines into the possibility of seeing the world around us on its own terms. In the Duino Elegies, Rilke writes, "To whom can we turn to in our need? Neither angels nor humans. And even the perceptive animals know we are not quite at home in our world of interpretations." He was right. We aren't at home in our interpreted world. And it's because, on some level, we become aware that it's a house of cards.

    I hope at some point you'll see beyond your "school of resentment of scientists" and come to see science -- not simply as an obstructionism to religiosity and art -- but as a genuine alternative wisdom tradition to which we owe a huge debt of gratitude. Most of the scientists I know will humbly acknowledge the limits of scientific inquiry -- that it can give a how and what but not always a why and that there is so much we have yet to know. Similarly, we as humanists need to acknowledge our own limits.
    Last edited by Animal; 04-09-2010 at 05:55 AM.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  28. #28
    heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,722
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby View Post
    Science will not tell you about people in the language of humanism which cannot see far beyond our own storylines. This is useful, but limited. Science can however tell you about human beings as part of the ecology we are sprung out of. It is about stepping out of our storylines into the possibility of seeing the world around us on its own terms. In the Duino Elegies, Rilke writes, "To whom can we turn to in our need? Neither angels nor humans. And even the perceptive animals know we are not quite at home in our world of interpretations." He was right. We aren't at home in our interpreted world. And it's because, on some level, we become aware that it's a house of cards.

    I hope at some point you'll see beyond your "school of resentment of scientists" and come to see science -- not simply as an obstructionism to religiosity and art -- but as a genuine alternative wisdom tradition to which we owe a huge debt of gratitude.
    Excellent post. Beats my response, as a scientist, which was, "fuck you asshole!!!"
    asd

  29. #29
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    The mountainous terrain makes it politically unmanageable.
    What about Graubunden and Tyrol?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  30. #30
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...and you're an even shittier Christian for insisting upon being shitty for being humble. Funny how there's no right way to turn when you're lost in a maze of cognitive dissonance, isn't it?
    Sure.
    I just think anyone who is willing to isolate and exclude the influence of hard science in any realm of study is just ignoring part of the truth.
    Do you mean the comment about Freud? Certainly scientific ways of going about things, scientific method, etc., played a role in what he and Jung did, but (correct me if I'm wrong), their methods were really more humanistic than scientific, no? Psychoanalysis (however discredited it now is) is basically literary criticism on a human being, no?

    That said, yes, of course, our understanding of the human being is profoundly influenced by the hard sciences of course. Even in the wonderful world of poetry, half my metaphors are stolen from/influenced by scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby View Post
    Science will not tell you about people in the language of the humanities which cannot see far beyond our own storylines. This is useful, but limited. Science can however tell you about human beings as part of the ecology we are sprung out of. It is about stepping out of our storylines into the possibility of seeing the world around us on its own terms. In the Duino Elegies, Rilke writes, "To whom can we turn to in our need? Neither angels nor humans. And even the perceptive animals know we are not quite at home in our world of interpretations." He was right. We aren't at home in our interpreted world. And it's because, on some level, we become aware that it's a house of cards.
    I don't think it's possible to "see the world on its own terms" through science or through anything else. At least, it's much more difficult to do so than we imagine. Our interpretations are a house of cards, but objectivity is a lot harder to achieve than simply trusting the "facts" of science, if for no other reason than that those facts have to be interpreted for them to mean anything. I think great art actually progresses much further towards objectivity, or seeing the world without any interpretations, filters, assumptions, etc., than science does. Science is necessarily bound by its assumptions, which I think is something scientists accept. Great art at least tries to transcend its assumptions.

    I hope at some point you'll see beyond your "school of resentment of scientists" and come to see science -- not simply as an obstructionism to religiosity and art -- but as a genuine alternative wisdom tradition to which we owe a huge debt of gratitude. Most of the scientists I know will humbly acknowledge the limits of scientific inquiry -- that it can give a how and what but not always a why and that there is so much we have yet to know. Similarly, we as humanists need to acknowledge our own limits.
    ha. I suppose you rather nailed me with the school of resentment of science. You're right; we certainly owe a debt of gratitude to scientists. They have achieved a lot. They have enlarged our world. But no more than the humanistic disciplines certainly, and with no less mixed results, ethically speaking (although the disciplines themselves and the information they discover are equally value-neutral). Yet the culture at large vastly prizes science over art, not only as a way of finding truth, but also as a source of value. That's what frustrates me. But I do probably go too far in the opposite direction. Science is not merely an obstruction (although the over-valuing of science as a means of achieving truth does obstruct and mislead, but I realize that is philosophy, or science-as-cultural-force, not strictly science itself).

    I think the limits of literature/the humanities are a lot farther out than they're made out to be right now. So much of our communication and our meaning relies on metaphors crafted by writers, or those who learned to speak (and therefore think) better by reading literature. Emerson said in The Poet, "The people fancy they hate poetry, but they are all themselves poets and mystics" insofar as they believe in signs. Even me believing, for instance, "owning a home" = stability, respectability, a necessary part of the "American Dream"/happiness, etc., that's a cultural sign. Or believing that I'm more of a man if I own an enormous gas-guzzling SUV. That's a cultural sign. It takes language, representation, art to create these cultural signs, and as such it takes language, representation, and art to change them. The humanities are so fundamental to our lives because language (and more broadly, relationships between concrete signifiers or "images" and abstract signifieds or "ideas") is so fundamental to our lives. Scientific methods can vastly improve our understanding of the signifier-signified relationship, as seen in the great achievements of the so-called "social sciences." But humanistic methods are, to me, more immediately and intimately connected to this relationship, and as such have more capacity to act upon it. Art, I think, is more powerful than we give it credit for.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  31. #31
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it's possible to "see the world on its own terms" through science or through anything else. At least, it's much more difficult to do so than we imagine. Our interpretations are a house of cards, but objectivity is a lot harder to achieve than simply trusting the "facts" of science, if for no other reason than that those facts have to be interpreted for them to mean anything. I think great art actually progresses much further towards objectivity, or seeing the world without any interpretations, filters, assumptions, etc., than science does. Science is necessarily bound by its assumptions, which I think is something scientists accept. Great art at least tries to transcend its assumptions.
    I think you're being disingenuous. Scientists do not work off of assumption – they work off of observation. Any assumptions scientists make must be tested against observation of the actual phenomena at play. The scientific method is about challenging assumptions with empirical evidence. This has its limits, but science can tell us enough about the “truth” to tell us which antibiotics will prevent you from dying if you have a bacterial infection and how to engineer a bridge so that it is both environmentally efficient and won't collapse, etc.

    ha. I suppose you rather nailed me with the school of resentment of science. You're right; we certainly owe a debt of gratitude to scientists. They have achieved a lot. They have enlarged our world. But no more than the humanistic disciplines certainly, and with no less mixed results, ethically speaking (although the disciplines themselves and the information they discover are equally value-neutral). Yet the culture at large vastly prizes science over art, not only as a way of finding truth, but also as a source of value. That's what frustrates me. But I do probably go too far in the opposite direction. Science is not merely an obstruction (although the over-valuing of science as a means of achieving truth does obstruct and mislead, but I realize that is philosophy, or science-as-cultural-force, not strictly science itself).

    I think the limits of literature/the humanities are a lot farther out than they're made out to be right now. So much of our communication and our meaning relies on metaphors crafted by writers, or those who learned to speak (and therefore think) better by reading literature. Emerson said in The Poet, "The people fancy they hate poetry, but they are all themselves poets and mystics" insofar as they believe in signs. Even me believing, for instance, "owning a home" = stability, respectability, a necessary part of the "American Dream"/happiness, etc., that's a cultural sign. Or believing that I'm more of a man if I own an enormous gas-guzzling SUV. That's a cultural sign. It takes language, representation, art to create these cultural signs, and as such it takes language, representation, and art to change them. The humanities are so fundamental to our lives because language (and more broadly, relationships between concrete signifiers or "images" and abstract signifieds or "ideas") is so fundamental to our lives. Scientific methods can vastly improve our understanding of the signifier-signified relationship, as seen in the great achievements of the so-called "social sciences." But humanistic methods are, to me, more immediately and intimately connected to this relationship, and as such have more capacity to act upon it. Art, I think, is more powerful than we give it credit for.
    You remind me of a certain disgruntled graduate student I once had a discussion with who was lamenting a society that “glorifies the sciences and technology and neglects the humanities.” The reality is his qualms had more to do with his dismal prospects of skirting the poverty line upon graduation while his friends in the sciences were already making quite a bit more than any real grudge against science itself. It's been a long time since I've taken Socionics seriously, but I can't help but see your trivialization of science as a compensation for a oversensitive -PoLR by retreating into a sort of hyper-subjectivity that immunizes you from standards of objectivity.

    The esteem in which society holds science is the result of the simple fact that science offers solutions to very ancient problems that the arts simply cannot. These problems are somewhat more fundamental in Maslow's hierarchy of needs than the lofty pursuit of truth for its own sake: Dante's Divina Comedia cannot help eliminate the threat of smallpox, polio or cholera for future generations like immunization can. Shostakovich's Symphony No. 14 cannot help bring unprecedented access to educational resources in the way broadband can. A poem by Ryokan cannot solve the logistics of sewage disposal in third world countries. Art can, however, inform the execution and administration of that science and technology. It can even rehumanize us in the age of consumerism.

    Even your favorite Harold Bloom is symptomatic of what is wrong with the humanities in this country. He is well-read. In fact, he is so well-read that he is positively festering in the mire of his own knowledge. He's quite passionate about the virtues of Shakespeare. At those moments where he steps out of the convoluted self-referential nexus of his “anxiety of influence” he can quite persuasively articulate what Shakespeare has to offer us today. But, honestly, his knowledge is rather useless if it cannot reach people with power. He is a prolific writer, but his work has failed to penetrate the consciousness of the people who would most benefit from it. To the general public, he is merely the grumpy old professor who occasionally condescends from his ivory tower to take potshots at Stephen King and J.K. Rowling.

    In a time when, as Thomas Benton writes, “we need more people who appreciate literature, history, philosophy, and art in the 'real world'” where it could inform the ethics of our policy-makers, our social workers and our scientists, the relegation of our humanists to the effete and ineffectual isolation of academia is quite unfortunate. My brother's Jiu-jitsu instructor has a poster on his wall with a quote from Mark Twain: “Actions speak louder than words, but not nearly as often.” We need a movement of engaged humanists who do not merely use the shelter of academia as a conceit for decrying the problems of our society while hiding from them. We need more doctors who appreciate music and more poets who appreciate engineering. Hell, we need more poets like Keats, who are also doctors.
    Last edited by Animal; 04-09-2010 at 04:37 PM.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  32. #32
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    A few hundred years of reason did more to improve the moral understanding of man then thousands of years of "humanism".

    All the trappings and chains of tradition and culture with its pretense to virtue only made the world a cesspool of degradation and pain.

    It's not that science is something against humanity, rather it is no more then the direct study of god. But some people have the pretense of knowing god when all they know is sin.

  33. #33
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    science is impossible without a stable society founded on humanitarian traditions. The fundament of all science is the exchange of information between individuals, which necessitates that said individuals regard eachother as parties for cooperation rather than as threats or enemies. Today we take the idea of living alongside eachother without bashing in eachothers' heads for granted. It wasn't always like that.

  34. #34
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    science is impossible without a stable society founded on humanitarian traditions. The fundament of all science is the exchange of information between individuals, which necessitates that said individuals regard eachother as parties for cooperation rather than as threats or enemies. Today we take the idea of living alongside eachother without bashing in eachothers' heads for granted. It wasn't always like that.
    You mean stable societies that won wars against their opponents and enslaved them for hundreds of years because of technological prowess.

    Our needs to gather together is not merely for our defense and peace, but sometimes, in fact often, to brutalize those that are weaker and less advanced for profit.

    The history of man is often the history of "us's" and "them's"... usually a us kill some them, for god, for money, for goodness. Living alongside other is not something anyone should take granted, because it's still hardly there.

    The fundamental of science is about truth rather then deception. All this trash about the peaceful societies built on humanitarian values...

    Yes, I have some blankets to give and opium to sell. All full of deception and lies.

  35. #35
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hkkmr, are you sure you know what humanism is? Because reason is a pillar of humanism. Modern science grew out of the humanistic tradition.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  36. #36
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby View Post
    In a time when, as Thomas Benton writes, “we need more people who appreciate literature, history, philosophy, and art in the 'real world'” where it could inform the ethics of our policy-makers, our social workers and our scientists, the relegation of our humanists to the effete and ineffectual isolation of academia is quite unfortunate. My brother's Jiu-jitsu instructor has a poster on his wall with a quote from Mark Twain: “Actions speak louder than words, but not nearly as often.” We need a movement of engaged humanists who do not merely use the shelter of academia as a conceit for decrying the problems of our society while hiding from them. We need more doctors who appreciate music and more poets who appreciate engineering. Hell, we need more poets like Keats, who are also doctors.
    There is no lack of people who appreciate literature, history, philosophy, and art in the 'real world' nor in science.

    The unfortunately thing is that there is also no lack of people who appreciate vanity, artifice and pretense instead of mere common decency.

  37. #37
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby View Post
    hkkmr, are you sure you know what humanism is? Because reason is a pillar of humanism. Modern science grew out of the humanistic tradition.
    Of course, because science is humanism. But "humanism" is often not humanism but pretense and folly.

  38. #38
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    A few hundred years of reason did more to improve the moral understanding of man then thousands of years of "humanism".

    All the trappings and chains of tradition and culture with its pretense to virtue only made the world a cesspool of degradation and pain.

    It's not that science is something against humanity, rather it is no more then the direct study of god. But some people have the pretense of knowing god when all they know is sin.
    That's not entirely true, under Queen Nefertiti (ESTj) and Amenhotep IV (ISTp), a single religion was established, but historians report that country exprienced the most prosperous and generous time.

    I guess a humanitarian is a better deffinition for me..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian

  39. #39
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby View Post
    Science will not tell you about people in the language of the humanities which cannot see far beyond our own storylines. This is useful, but limited. Science can however tell you about human beings as part of the ecology we are sprung out of. It is about stepping out of our storylines into the possibility of seeing the world around us on its own terms. In the Duino Elegies, Rilke writes, "To whom can we turn to in our need? Neither angels nor humans. And even the perceptive animals know we are not quite at home in our world of interpretations." He was right. We aren't at home in our interpreted world. And it's because, on some level, we become aware that it's a house of cards.

    I hope at some point you'll see beyond your "school of resentment of scientists" and come to see science -- not simply as an obstructionism to religiosity and art -- but as a genuine alternative wisdom tradition to which we owe a huge debt of gratitude. Most of the scientists I know will humbly acknowledge the limits of scientific inquiry -- that it can give a how and what but not always a why and that there is so much we have yet to know. Similarly, we as humanists need to acknowledge our own limits.
    Reminds me of this, particularly 3:18-4:10

    INFj

    9w1 sp/sx

  40. #40
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    There is no lack of people who appreciate literature, history, philosophy, and art in the 'real world' nor in science.
    My experience actually agrees with you. Some of the most insightful patrons of art and readers of literature I know are scientists. My pediatrician growing up loved to quote from Hemingway, lol. My friend's sponsor for a opera study-abroad program in Italy was an engineer. However, I think people would benefit from being more aware of the possibility that being human is more than being a consumer.

    The unfortunately thing is that there is also no lack of people who appreciate vanity, artifice and pretense instead of mere common decency.
    I probably agree with you, depending on what you mean by common decency?
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •