Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 54

Thread: Human Condition

  1. #1
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Human Condition

    Life is one big cluster-fuck.

    Take a human being and subject them to pain, the initial shock will stunt them and they won't know how to deal with it well. But as the pain becomes predictable, they can learn how to focus the mind through the pain, avoiding it won't solve anything, and they adapt to whatever circumstances they are given in order to push through it. The more this is done the easier it becomes, but what about the person that doesn't learn or is said to lack the will to continue? What about the process and motivations that go on beneath these decisions? We can't understand them because WE ARE THEM; this should be obvious, but we can't interface reality without pretending to understand them in some way. By making a rational judgement call we provide a snapshot in time of what went on before us and give a rough rational approximation as to how things work or function. It's always inherent bullshit, always a cheap summary of how we view a particular event. We can't fully understand any phenomenon because not only are we part of that phenomenon, we are our own phenomenon.

    EVERYBODY KNOWS SOMETHING YOU DON'T. The skeptic is ALWAYS CORRECT, but NOT EVER RIGHT. The psychologist that attempts to interpret and understand has to use rational judgement to understand anything. Their judgements will always lack more information that they do not have and will be forever biased by this fact. Why is it that one person can determine a completely different rationale for why a person commits a crime? Take a man accused of murder and raping an 11-year old child. One person might utilize the ethical majority of what they consider to be of their given society and rationalize through their own understanding of their own unconscious ethical motivations that any man that commits such an act deserves only the harshest punishments. Another person might recognize the futility of punishing for punishments and the insane never-ending recurring process it creates and have utter indifference to the fact that no matter what one does they are punishing. Another person might sympathize because they think they understand something about the accused that shows them they were innocently human in some way. The point is, no one is correct, but they are each right. They each fucking contradict each other and make no god damn sense in relation to one another. It's the inevitable curse, do nothing and you condone, do something and you take a side, but you have to choose one to exist!

    What about the society that shuns those that they don't see fall into a criteria of a norm? Take a schizophrenic, in one country such a person might be revered as a prophet that speaks with God and in another country just a crazy person that deserves a straight jacket and forfeiting of all freedom. Ethics...laws...rationale...they are all a fucking joke - something taken for granted as a way of life. For the man that abides by such a rationale loses much for the gain of presumed predictability. He trades the freedom of choosing any such rationale that his unconscious motivations seek for having a comforting prison of clarity. The rationale man becomes most predictable. In his predictability he loses to those aware of his predictability. The psychopath and the sociopath becomes Gods of this world in some eyes, but trapped by their own frustration with not feeling connected like others do and end up just as pathetic as the normal envied ones that end up victims of their own connecting rationality that they share with others.

    Life becomes a chess board where we analyze what we know, or think we know, and create our snapshots that hopefully encapsulate enough that we will come out ahead of another person. Money, women, power, food, comforts, static representations of what our ever-changing motivations come to be. And since we can't truly understand these motivations, we're doomed to rationalize them and then change our stance. One minute we think something shouldn't be done and the next minute we do it! Everything is random from our perspectives. We can't truly be sure of what will come next. YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW. We're doomed hypocrites, doomed to an existence we are completely incapable of fully understanding.

    Which brings me back to the idea of logic and predictability. Consider life as a chess board, then it is the best player that can create the most accurate snapshots, but unpredictably change these snapshots as they are created. The more an opponent repeats snapshots, the higher the chance he will be figured out and defeated. Relationships, friendships, enemies, they are all diplomatic contingencies. Let those around you find the predictability in you and they use you, but leave them confused and they will be eternally intrigued. But the game has no winners. It doesn't matter how long you last because it's never-ending and eventually you will crumble to that which you can't even control, but creates your whole existence - time.

    This forum has been most intriguing in asserting this which always haunts me. No one knows why they live or what they should live for. Who is to say that the cockroach that I kill with my fist or foot has failed in evolution? What is the goal? To live forever? Can that even happen if time goes to infinity? There is no objective point to anything that we can be aware of. We are wandering ghosts looking for science, religion, predictability with logic and ethics, and recreation to fill our existential existence, to fill the unpredictability with predictability to assign the random patterns with meaning, to then give our existence meaning. Socionics is part of that goal. It's a sad goal that a bystander can do nothing to help, the problem being the fundamental nature of existence, and really if motivated to might find it best just to laugh...like a psychopath.

    But take the man that turns 16 and jumps off a building to his death. Who are we to judge that man by saying that he was insane? If he realizes the inevitable foolishness of everything, perhaps he has the greatest sanest will of all to be able to send himself to end of the pointless struggle. To see the insanity of the cluster fuck that is existence and decide not to be a part of that, who are we to pathetically judge for not wanting to participate in the chaos?

    Now take a person and randomize the pain that they feel. They can't pull through it. It's what we aren't conditioned for that completely surprises us...but yet we are supposed to be unpredictable in order to stay ahead of everyone else, to assert ourselves as best as possible. To be unpredictable is painful, it goes against the rationality that we employ. It hurts us. Now that person can not adapt. What it is then that is at all certain?

    It's all such a joke.

    And I am correct, but not right.

    HAHAHA.

  2. #2
    Sir Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, the human brain is a shitty, ca-lunking Rube Goldberg machine held together with moldy thread sewn into patchwork cloth, concealing the chipped, rust-stained gears below, which churn and sputter as they take in the world and spit out decisions and, accompanying them, the cloying sense that we are enlightened rational beings; better than the other animals of the earth because...

    Why?

    An animal has no purpose other than extending life, either it's own or that of it's species by procreation. We think that we are somehow above all that. That because we are oh so rational and enlightened we are somehow deserving of having some greater purpose than just eating and fucking, and our brain is a mess of logical contradictions, confirmation bias, and other such psycho-malarky that will bend the hell over backwards to convince us of that.

    But, even then, so what?

    If a shitty, broken machine still works, then it's doing its job right.
    4w5 sp/sx

    Please, direct all questioning of my self-typing to this thread. Thank you.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    This forum has been most intriguing in asserting this which always haunts me. No one knows why they live or what they should live for. Who is to say that the cockroach that I kill with my fist or foot has failed in evolution? What is the goal? To live forever? Can that even happen if time goes to infinity? There is no objective point to anything that we can be aware of. We are wandering ghosts looking for science, religion, predictability with logic and ethics, and recreation to fill our existential existence, to fill the unpredictability with predictability to assign the random patterns with meaning, to then give our existence meaning. Socionics is part of that goal. It's a sad goal that a bystander can do nothing to help, the problem being the fundamental nature of existence, and really if motivated to might find it best just to laugh...like a psychopath.

    But take the man that turns 16 and jumps off a building to his death. Who are we to judge that man by saying that he was insane? If he realizes the inevitable foolishness of everything, perhaps he has the greatest sanest will of all to be able to send himself to end of the pointless struggle. To see the insanity of the cluster fuck that is existence and decide not to be a part of that, who are we to pathetically judge for not wanting to participate in the chaos?

    Now take a person and randomize the pain that they feel. They can't pull through it. It's what we aren't conditioned for that completely surprises us...but yet we are supposed to be unpredictable in order to stay ahead of everyone else, to assert ourselves as best as possible. To be unpredictable is painful, it goes against the rationality that we employ. It hurts us. Now that person can not adapt. What it is then that is at all certain?
    Fucking beautiful.

    This OP is one of the greatest posts I have ever read.

  4. #4
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Life is one big cluster-fuck.
    Lmao

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Take a human being and subject them to pain, the initial shock will stunt them and they won't know how to deal with it well. But as the pain becomes predictable, they can learn how to focus the mind through the pain, avoiding it won't solve anything, and they adapt to whatever circumstances they are given in order to push through it. The more this is done the easier it becomes, but what about the person that doesn't learn or is said to lack the will to continue? What about the process and motivations that go on beneath these decisions? We can't understand them because WE ARE THEM; this should be obvious, but we can't interface reality without pretending to understand them in some way. By making a rational judgement call we provide a snapshot in time of what went on before us and give a rough rational approximation as to how things work or function. It's always inherent bullshit, always a cheap summary of how we view a particular event. We can't fully understand any phenomenon because not only are we part of that phenomenon, we are our own phenomenon.
    I think that's not always true, people don't always have to decide based on past experiences. There is a lot to be said about time in general and what it means. Consider that memories are not direct experiences, every memory is recalling of an event that happened in the past. One question this naturally leads to is, when someone experiences something are they truely experiencing it rationally in the moment? or are they experiencing it first in a more direct sense, and then rationally recalling it as a memory? The moment you reflect on an event, it immediately becomes the past. So what is the present like? What is it like to be completely focused on the present, what is happening right now, moving with the flow of time, rather than constantly reviewing the past. I'd argue there is something interesting that goes on at that level, when direct experience is getting passed to rational decision making and the memory. It's like time is a weave and the present is absurd without the past and the future absurd without the present. It's constantly moving forward like wave rippling through the ocean. In fact space and time are intimately interlinked. Everything you see around you is already in the past, even a person standing a feet few next to you, is a few nano or picoseconds in the past. Only an isolated object can truely be present to itself, the rest of reality is connected to it through time and space, as well as them to it, very much like how ripples affect each other on a membrane or pond surface, reality is merely a continum of spacetime. We have ourselves fooled thinking the way we do about time and space. No one decides on the past, every moment is the present for you, and all time and space is woven together into a geometric fabric of spacetime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    EVERYBODY KNOWS SOMETHING YOU DON'T. The skeptic is ALWAYS CORRECT, but NOT EVER RIGHT. The psychologist that attempts to interpret and understand has to use rational judgement to understand anything. Their judgements will always lack more information that they do not have and will be forever biased by this fact. Why is it that one person can determine a completely different rationale for why a person commits a crime? Take a man accused of murder and raping an 11-year old child. One person might utilize the ethical majority of what they consider to be of their given society and rationalize through their own understanding of their own unconscious ethical motivations that any man that commits such an act deserves only the harshest punishments. Another person might recognize the futility of punishing for punishments and the insane never-ending recurring process it creates and have utter indifference to the fact that no matter what one does they are punishing. Another person might sympathize because they think they understand something about the accused that shows them they were innocently human in some way. The point is, no one is correct, but they are each right. They each fucking contradict each other and make no god damn sense in relation to one another. It's the inevitable curse, do nothing and you condone, do something and you take a side, but you have to choose one to exist!
    Well everyone's value system makes sense from their own subjective frame of reference. From an objective frame of reference, its much different. From such a frame of reference everything is as it should be. The fact people are inconsistent is merely a fact of nature -- people have subjectivity.

    The illusion comes from people confusing their subjectivity with an objective frame of reference. They convince themselves X person's act is bad in my opinion, so therefore X person shouldn't have acted that way and they conclude reality is absurd. When in reality, it is not absurd, it is what it is. What it is, is they did this, and what it is, is you felt this. There is hardly any sense to unraveling the objective frame of reference, because what anything in reality ever sees or perceives is other things in relation to their subjective frame. They even understand their relation to "existance" and their understanding of objectivity and fact as a subjective relation to the objective reference frame. A train is moving 15 m/s on the earth, you're in the train, what you see is the earth moving 15 m/s away from you.... what another person sees is 30 m/s away from them. There is no problem with inconsistency, both are correct in their frame of reference. Everything is subjective, even interactions with other people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    What about the society that shuns those that they don't see fall into a criteria of a norm? Take a schizophrenic, in one country such a person might be revered as a prophet that speaks with God and in another country just a crazy person that deserves a straight jacket and forfeiting of all freedom. Ethics...laws...rationale...they are all a fucking joke - something taken for granted as a way of life. For the man that abides by such a rationale loses much for the gain of presumed predictability. He trades the freedom of choosing any such rationale that his unconscious motivations seek for having a comforting prison of clarity. The rationale man becomes most predictable. In his predictability he loses to those aware of his predictability. The psychopath and the sociopath becomes Gods of this world in some eyes, but trapped by their own frustration with not feeling connected like others do and end up just as pathetic as the normal envied ones that end up victims of their own connecting rationality that they share with others.
    It's subjectivity like I said. The rationale man is no more objective than the sociopath, this is merely an illusion. He's just as subjective as the sociopath. The sociopath neither gains or looses an advantage. The only true objective things are constantly being assert by the actions of the participants in reality. If a sociopath murders someone.... its not an error.... reality did not divide by zero..... what happened is a sociopath murdered someone. There is no lack of objectivity, that's what occurred. Predictability is ultimately flawed because it doesn't account for free will. You don't have to be a sociopath to have free will, everyone has it, the predictable man is free willingly choosing to be predictable, however at any time he could choose to be unpredictable, but really once again this is all an illusion. People occasionally have themselves fooled that everything is mapped out, its the way our decision making processes fool us, really we adapt a great deal more than we realize, but our mind processes it as "it was my plan all along", when really it wasn't, you formulated that plan from nothing, before you had that agenda, nothing existed, the inception of that plan was an act of free will, before it nothing existed except absolute freedom. The will is bizarre though because its hard to ask what wills our will? No one knows lol. You can't determine what determines things, because you could continually ask what determined what determined what determines things, and add infinity. It's hard to grasp this idea, does this chain ever end, does it arrive at a certain point of pure determination a sort of "god" or does it merely trail on forever in both directions or does it cycle around? In my opinion its ultimately absurd because answering this question for what determines everything, would be the same as the meaning of life, and if a meaning of life was determined, then it would be superfluous to determine things as all would be already determined. The point is to create from nothing, meaning never existed, it was developed, but that doesn't make it meaningless.

    Predictability and the Past are Illusions. Its all Will/Creation/Spacetime -- A collection of subjective entities at present with themselves and interacting in a weave. A fractal pattern of chaotic free will and creation, what we see as "laws of the universe" are really just perceptions concerning the interconnection of elements which remain free and free interconnections of elements which remain constrained both existing in a state of duality. The uncertainty principle. Their is always some uncertainty because of free will, nothing can be determined without will, everything that is determined is a result of a source creating a ripple in a pond, what people see as predictions of reality are really just the ripples of the consequences of their actions in a particular environment at a given state at the inception of that disturbance or event. All scientific predictions require assumptions about the environment and what is occurring, there are no true "laws of nature", as nature can easily forgo satisfying your assumptions.
    Last edited by male; 03-26-2011 at 02:32 AM.

  5. #5
    Airman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The human condition can be very hard but also very good. It all depends on where you're standing, like which country/social class/health conditions you're under. The circumstances basically influence a life to more suffering or less suffering.

    The fact is that we are all just looking at ourselves. There is no 'you' out there and the subject-object dichotomy is a fallacy. Arthur Schopenhauer tried to explain this in his treaty 'The world as Will and Representation'. This is a very strange idea to the ordinary mind of most humans, but in experience it is seen that there is no object and no subject. What we perceive as external objects are our own energy manifesting itself. What we perceive as our body, mind and speech is our own energy also manifesting itself; it's basically all karma being played out as world/subject dichotomy. It's all a Representation, a Manifestation. I don't know what happens if you fully cleanse your karmic storehouse but probably something in this manifestation happens.

  6. #6
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Hehe yea we are finally talking philosophy

    tbh I like this thread because it talks philosophy... but I don't like how it contains this other message about how everything is meaningless, ethics are an absurd illusion, and how sociopaths somehow are in a superior state because they are unpredictable. I tend to look at that as post-modern existentialistic musings from people in society with too much education and restraints on their experiences imposed by the "system".

    Part of philosophy are these debates though: understanding how life and meaning work together and how it relates to ethics morality.

    To be simplistic, I just generally see ethics/meaning as something natural/subjective and not as derivations from some supreme master law of the universe.

  7. #7
    Airman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Hehe yea we are finally talking philosophy

    tbh I like this thread because it talks philosophy... but I don't like how it contains this other message about how everything is meaningless, ethics are an absurd illusion, and how sociopaths somehow are in a superior state because they are unpredictable. I tend to look at that as post-modern existentialistic musings from people in society with too much education and restraints on their experiences imposed by the "system".

    Part of philosophy are these debates though: understanding how life and meaning work together and how it relates to ethics morality.

    To be simplistic, I just generally see ethics/meaning as something natural/subjective and not as derivations from some supreme master law of the universe.
    Ethics is totally natural to the human being. Human beings are ethical animals. Sociopaths are sick animals without this ethical thing present in every human being. There needs to be no law of karma or any God in order for humans to understand the fact that we are ethical beings. We have empathy, sympathy, emotions. It is how nature made us. We are great beings if we look deep into ourselves. We are a great work of nature.

  8. #8
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Air View Post
    Ethics is totally natural to the human being. Human beings are ethical animals. Sociopaths are sick animals without this ethical thing present in every human being. There needs to be no law of karma or any God in order for humans to understand the fact that we are ethical beings. We have empathy, sympathy, emotions. It is how nature made us. We are great beings if we look deep into ourselves. We are a great work of nature.
    Yea I guess, but I'm not totally convinced, sociopathy is something which exists in reality, a deep question is whether or not its a sickness or if its just another valid state? In other words one view is the sociopath is "emotionally undeveloped" or "jaded".... another is that they are merely just another lifeform on the planet.

    Is so hard to tell because if they are "emotionally undeveloped" they can't relate this as they have little emotion to realize what they lack, and perhaps us non-sociopaths have to much emotion which makes us vulnerable to them and therefore we require them to be label as sick when in reality we are projecting our vulnerability onto them.

    I think it would be extremely inspirational to see a reformed sociopath, but then again.... how can you be sure they are reformed and they aren't faking it? Maybe its just another trick. Maybe they are pretending to be reformed to reform you to their state. Maybe we are all sociopaths which are pretending to each other to be reformed, and then again maybe the sociopaths are really those with emotion but they are faking the lack of it to reform everyone else to reality.

    Who knows, its a giant matrix of uncertain motivations and loyalties, its incredibly hard to untangle this mystery.

    Personally I feel as though sociopaths are sick myself, but sometimes I question whether thats because I'm just weak and insecure, other whether their is true power in emotion and empathy. I'd like to think there is, but ultimately only reality will be the judge of that, everyone knows where there true motivation lies, and its hard to know for sure where everyone else has theres, maybe 1000 years from now emotion will be extinct as it was breed out as a trait of weakness, people functioning superficially emotive as baggage from a sort of defense mechanism developed as a means of survival amongst the emotional people, but largely cold calculated efficient machines without empathy.

    Maybe people will just eat, fuck, and sleep... but with no true emotional quality to it, more as an instruction passed to them as a machine. It seems incredibly perverse to our emotions, but is that just weakness or is it strength? Are we attempting to cure a sickness of sociopathy or attempting to weed out a trait which threatens our vulnerability?

  9. #9
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    You all need to simply stop hiding your inner fag and thinking your sensitivity is a weakness.

    Yes, sociopathy is a strength/power- but so is empathy and human fag love.

    So you hate on others and project what you don't like in urself to easy targets. Forget about judging it as 'strong' or 'weak' for a second, and instead look at it like this: Why am I doing this? Why am I afraid to be fragile?

    Other people can always see your vulnerabilities no matter how powerful you are anyway. So why be afraid of them? Why should i be defensive if somebody notices that im social phobic?? Why should they be defensive if I notice they are narcissitic? We build up these social masks, thinking that people can't see through them but they always can.

    It doesn't matter how strong u get, you'll always have some sort of weakness. People who try to become all powerful, always- without exception, become their own worst enemies. So there's insecurity that comes with power, and there is great strength that comes with being a really genuinely kind, and compassionate person. I have a big heart, that's my power. This is many times much more threatening to others on a wider scale then fist fights will ever be.

    It isn't healthy to have all or nothing thinking.

    I think it's much more strong and brave to be nice, then it is to be mean. Personally speaking. It's easy to notice the flaws in others, even easier to bully them cause of their weak points.

  10. #10
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Meh I meant more the philosophy of it, does empathy lead to prosperity or does sociopathy lead to prosperity.

    I think its a pretty typical question, a lot of times I realize how much easier it would make my life if I could just allow myself not to give a shit about other people's feelings.

    It hurts to be fucked with by another person, but largely you can learn to defend yourself against these attacks and fire back. What really sucks is when you get attacked by someone you are trying to help.

    The best way I can describe this is like when men who are brought up with the whole "don't hit women" begin to get assualted by some girl slapping them and throwing punches, while they obviously have the physical power to dominate them in a fight, they just sit there all awkward because they don't know whether to fight back or just take it.

    Meh that's partly my problem, I don't approach first encounters with people as an aggressor, I approach from the viewpoint of "let's be friends", but then I always get pissed off when people take this as weakness and pounce on me... cause I look at it and I think, if I was trying to fight you, I could have won or at least performed a little bit better, but I wasn't and now you've won cause your exploiting my extension of goodwill.

    Then I'll get really pissed off at this abuse and go around with my guard up and approach reality from the viewpoint of "don't fuck with me!", but then I always get pissed off because people pick up on that energy and are all intimidated and offended by my presence... their whole attitude is "you have a reason for not wanting to be fucked with, your trying to hide from the fucking you deserve" or its this paranoid "omg he is going to fuck me, I must fuck him before he fucks me!". It's rather dumb, and eventually it either annoys me more and more till I feel like I am going to kill some people, then I realize it all started out because of some stupid a-hole trying to exploit me and I don't want to become worse off because of them.... so then it loops back around

    let's be friends...... etc etc etc

    back and forth, back and forth..... and its really confusing to me.

    It seems to oscillate so much that I can't tell whether or not which one is better.... is it better to just fold your hand and fuck everyone before they can fuck you.... take what you want and before you loose kill yourself and leave the world with a one up?

    Or is it better to hold onto this illusion of compassion, forgive those who exploit you, continue to love, and trust that in the end love will win.

    At a philosophical level the same constant motion back and forth goes round and round. I'd clearly like to side with compassion in the end, but I'd like to see a return on my investment, rather than feel like I'm the poor sucker getting hook line and sinker by the snake oil salesman. But I'm not in any fear of being a sociopath, because without some meaningful connection to other people through the emotions, life to me seems not worth living, if love did not win in the end, reality would seem too much of a bad joke for me to want to exist in it, either that helps me out... or I'm an idiot with my money down on the wrong hand, but does it really matter if winning means not being able to experience an emotional connection, is that really a victory? I personally wouldn't think so, I think sociopaths that lack empathy don't have any conception of emotional connection, so they don't know what they are missing. Maybe in a way they are victims too of their lack of feeling as much as they are the aggressors to people with the feelings?
    Last edited by male; 03-26-2011 at 06:29 AM.

  11. #11
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wait a sec, divided...you made post that long just to inform us that it all sucks? why do you want to ruin it all for us? Why can't you let us enjoy our ignorance? y'know what, divided? Fuck you Divided; that's what.

  12. #12
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Trevor View Post
    Wait a sec, divided...you made post that long just to inform us that it all sucks? why do you want to ruin it all for us? Why can't you let us enjoy our ignorance? y'know what, divided? Fuck you Divided; that's what.
    If that's what you think, then you didn't understand what I wrote.

    Wait a sec, divided...you made post that long just to inform us that it all sucks?
    No, just explain how everything is relative, and why that sucks for those that wish to find an all-encompassing meaning for anything or everything. You create meaning in reality, as much as reality directs that meaning.

    Socionics attempts to create an all-encompassing meaning by asserting that others assume the relationship predictions, based on whatever type they are decided or convinced on, in considering the future, but it has to convince others that it's true, just as a fortune teller has to do.

    I don't think Socionics is all that bad. It can explain things just as any science can, but it asserts the explicit idea that people have a certain type that shouldn't change and it can be used to know how the future will play out given the typings of other people. Unless the Socionics community is only interested in convincing people that this is true by saying that the future can be accurately predicted with nondeterministic entities, rather than give some theoretical tools for understanding the past, or why things don't work out with people, then this whole fortune-teller thing should be done away with. In this regard, if people want Socionics to be taken seriously, it would be best to leave the typing of individuals as only relative to the past, and not about what is happening now.

    There's a lot of potential in this, but I doubt anything will change. People like fortune-telling, it's seductive to think someone can tell you the future of your relationships. I even wanted to think it could be true, but Socionics doesn't have enough variability or depth to attempt to claim such.

    why do you want to ruin it all for us? Why can't you let us enjoy our ignorance?
    Isn't it a good thing if people know why they are making poor choices? What do you think learning is? You don't want to learn?

    y'know what, divided? Fuck you Divided; that's what.

  13. #13
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's your type, Divided? Is it IXFp something? Your scriptures remind me of that of Dolphin, whom I've tentatively typed as ISFp. Have you ever considered any socionics type for yourself?

  14. #14
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Sociopathy

    To be honest, even though I mentioned the term in the OP, I was just using the conceptually accepted idea of sociopathy to make a point. The idea of sociopathy or even psychopathy is kind of a strange thing to me. On the one hand you have people that claim sociopaths are genetic and just evil or whatever and should be done away with. But I dislike people that think that way because instead of searching for ways to get along and integrate symbiotically with other people, they would rather assert that their lives have significantly more value and attempt to kill or hurt sociopaths/psychopaths in various ways. These people do a lot of long-term harm over various generations because they encourage younger generations to believe they deserve more or are superior and provoke the one's they offend or hurt to have to 'take a stand' in order to defend 'their value' as a human being, inevitably rubbing off the same mindless thinking onto their enemies as a self-defense. This same fallacy can occur in a sociopath/psychopath, but it's not inherent.

    I do think that all living beings have a basic Pavlovian structure to them or we would cease to exist. With this in mind, I believe some things cause us to feel 'cognitive dissonance' while others cause us to feel 'cognitive peace-of-mind'. We want to maximize the cognitive peace-of-mind. It would seem the construct of pain is our way to symbolize how certain stimuli somewhat scramble the circuits in our brains. The greater the pain the greater the scrambling, evidenced in the difference of pain incapacitation in say a broken bone versus a scratch on your arm, and the lesser the peace-of-mind.

    What I'm getting at is that although we have the ability to supersede this fate with our greater individual intellectual capability versus many other lifeforms on planet earth, we still have the problem of how we interpret things on our subjective level, leading to philosophy.

    But nevertheless, my main point being that we all share the aspect of wanting peace-of-mind (you'll have to interpret your own definition of peace-of-mind), and we all desire to be valued in this way. I would be surprised to find a person that wouldn't agree that they would maximize their peace-of-mind if it didn't hurt anyone else's (any takers?). History has already proven that seeing others as of lesser value (as deserving of less peace-of-mind) leads to conflict, thus it seems if the idea is to create a greater all-encompassing peace-of-mind for humanity, or even if just to increase it overall throughout time, the only real option is to find ways to understand each other with this peace-of-mind perspective and attempt to create ways to help each other as much as we help ourselves...because it's clear doing the opposite only creates cognitive-dissonance. But perhaps this idea is truly impossible, being why we haven't achieved it after so many damn generations. I think (keyword think ) from a strictly rational socionics-static point of view that this is the only logical thing that can be pursued. But it's not reality. And this is also probably why Alpha quadra is called Alpha and considered the height of the socion, in a biased sense, because they have the best theoretical capability for achieving this, but never mind that...

    But am I a sociopath? Have I acted on things because I saw that the rest of humanity was fighting against me and I had to assert my value as greater to fight back? Yes. Have I changed my mind about this and attempted to see others as of equal value? Yes. Can I be sure which state, the former or the latter, I will occupy in the future with logic or static rationalizations? No. It's a problem, huh? Knowing what's wrong and how to change it, but at the same time having only a theoretical control on that and existence.

    So the OP was less about being certain of meaning and more about the socionics-dynamic view that deep-down we can't really surmount evidence for one thing being more true than another by the nature of reality. And in that midst we all cluster-fuck together effecting one another with unprovable assuredness to create relative meanings.

    It's crazy because on one hand we can rationalize and make sense of things, but then on another, grand scope, we have no way to truly measure the result of any of our rationalizations. Like you say that it's impossible to differentiate between the dynamic goings of the world and our own static rationalizations. It's almost like that is our unavoidable hell...and our unavoidable transcendent freedom to be removed from it as we see fit...

  15. #15
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Trevor View Post
    What's your type, Divided? Is it IXFp something? Your scriptures remind me of that of Dolphin, whom I've tentatively typed as ISFp. Have you ever considered any socionics type for yourself?
    This is the second time you've asked me that without addressing anything I say. Why must you choose to see me as a type to communicate with me?

  16. #16
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why must you choose to see me as a type to communicate with me?
    Must I?

  17. #17
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Life is one big cluster-fuck.

    Take a human being and subject them to pain, the initial shock will stunt them and they won't know how to deal with it well. But as the pain becomes predictable, they can learn how to focus the mind through the pain, avoiding it won't solve anything, and they adapt to whatever circumstances they are given in order to push through it.
    Ok, so people adapt basically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    The more this is done the easier it becomes, but what about the person that doesn't learn or is said to lack the will to continue? What about the process and motivations that go on beneath these decisions?
    What about them? They die out. They failed to adapt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    We can't understand them because WE ARE THEM; this should be obvious, but we can't interface reality without pretending to understand them in some way.
    We can never have a perfect understanding, but through wisdom and education we can get as close as possible. The more a person knows what they're talking about, the more they minimize the leap of faith they take when generalizing their knowledge to a situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    By making a rational judgement call we provide a snapshot in time of what went on before us and give a rough rational approximation as to how things work or function. It's always inherent bullshit, always a cheap summary of how we view a particular event. We can't fully understand any phenomenon because not only are we part of that phenomenon, we are our own phenomenon.
    What are the odds I'm not going to spontaneously combust in 10 seconds? Wait 10 seconds... It didn't happen. Was that leap I made inherent bullshit? Was it only a cheap summary of how thinks work or function? No. I made that leap based on living 24 years and never spontaneously combusting; as well as never meeting anyone who has spontaneously combusted. The probability of me random exploding has been honed through knowledge and experience. At this point, I can assert with a 99.99999 percent probability I am not going to spontaneously combust.

    The leap of faith you make when applying rational to a scenario is always probabilistic, but the probability is derived from something substantial. It is not bullshit, or cheap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    EVERYBODY KNOWS SOMETHING YOU DON'T. The skeptic is ALWAYS CORRECT, but NOT EVER RIGHT. The psychologist that attempts to interpret and understand has to use rational judgement to understand anything. Their judgements will always lack more information that they do not have and will be forever biased by this fact.
    No, I was right about me not spontaneously combusting. I'm still here. It's like I just showed you. Through years of education and experience practicing, the psychologist can make a very good guess of what's happening in the mind of their patient. They lack the information, but they infer it and this inference is quite accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Why is it that one person can determine a completely different rationale for why a person commits a crime?
    Maybe because you can't read another persons mind? A good psychologist could still take a good guess. If you interview the criminal, the guess gets even better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Take a man accused of murder and raping an 11-year old child. One person might utilize the ethical majority of what they consider to be of their given society and rationalize through their own understanding of their own unconscious ethical motivations that any man that commits such an act deserves only the harshest punishments. Another person might recognize the futility of punishing for punishments and the insane never-ending recurring process it creates and have utter indifference to the fact that no matter what one does they are punishing. Another person might sympathize because they think they understand something about the accused that shows them they were innocently human in some way. The point is, no one is correct, but they are each right. They each fucking contradict each other and make no god damn sense in relation to one another. It's the inevitable curse, do nothing and you condone, do something and you take a side, but you have to choose one to exist!
    I dont know what you were trying to say in the bolded sentence. As for the rest.. the conflict of values is punishment vs empathy. The solution is to make a compromise between them. Just like people can have the facts wrong, people can make the wrong moral judgments. A good moral judgment satisfies the most conditions. In this case you lock the criminal up for a life sentence so he can't harm another child, but you also provide humane living conditions. You aren't going to be beating or torturing the prisoner. That's the compromise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    What about the society that shuns those that they don't see fall into a criteria of a norm? Take a schizophrenic, in one country such a person might be revered as a prophet that speaks with God and in another country just a crazy person that deserves a straight jacket and forfeiting of all freedom.
    Not all countries are equal. The schizophrenic is shunned because he's not functional or evolutionary. Any society who promotes a schizophrenic (i.e. a person with a degenerative brain disease) as their leader isn't going to become the next roman empire. They'll be lucky if they can survive the next drought. They'll be overthrown by a country with a competent leader and developed technology, and all their members will become slaves. That's evolutionary too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Ethics...laws...rationale...they are all a fucking joke - something taken for granted as a way of life.
    Now I have shown this to be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    For the man that abides by such a rationale loses much for the gain of presumed predictability. He trades the freedom of choosing any such rationale that his unconscious motivations seek for having a comforting prison of clarity. The rationale man becomes most predictable. In his predictability he loses to those aware of his predictability. The psychopath and the sociopath becomes Gods of this world in some eyes, but trapped by their own frustration with not feeling connected like others do and end up just as pathetic as the normal envied ones that end up victims of their own connecting rationality that they share with others.
    This is only a problem for a person who makes every decision based on rational. Rational should be employed at the opportune time. The person always has to remain adaptive. If rational is unadaptive, it should be forgotten. There are situations that call for it, and others that don't. All this shows is rational is should not be our sole value. It doesnt dismiss the value of rational entirely.

    The rest of what you say is pretty much a rehash of all these bad assumptions you made.

  18. #18
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    Ok, so people adapt basically.
    What about them? They die out. They failed to adapt.
    You're missing the point. Everyone fails to adapt because we all die. It doesn't matter when or how you die or whether or not you have children because you influence everyone anyway. To say it's just a matter of adapting because one person is alive and another is not or one person had children and another did not is an oversimplification.


    We can never have a perfect understanding, but through wisdom and education we can get as close as possible. The more a person knows what they're talking about, the more they minimize the leap of faith they take when generalizing their knowledge to a situation.
    Some things are more seemingly simplistic to the point that most would agree with you about this on those some things. But laws and ethics all depend on what someone is looking at through time and what they believe to be best. It being right or wrong has nothing to do with cause-and-effect of reality and everything to do with asserting a rational belief composed of the mind's sorting and processing of personal reality.

    What are the odds I'm not going to spontaneously combust in 10 seconds? Wait 10 seconds... It didn't happen. Was that leap I made inherent bullshit? Was it only a cheap summary of how thinks work or function? No. I made that leap based on living 24 years and never spontaneously combusting; as well as never meeting anyone who has spontaneously combusted. The probability of me random exploding has been honed through knowledge and experience. At this point, I can assert with a 99.99999 percent probability I am not going to spontaneously combust.

    The leap of faith you make when applying rational to a scenario is always probabilistic, but the probability is derived from something substantial. It is not bullshit, or cheap.
    I agree, but this isn't what I was aiming that at. Ethics and laws mostly, those things that dictate culture and how to treat one another. They are highly volatile things, but enforced and taken for granted as substantial. It's pathetic.


    Maybe because you can't read another persons mind? A good psychologist could still take a good guess. If you interview the criminal, the guess gets even better.
    It's not about reading a mind. Just that everyone has their own set of circumstances from which they develop their own moral codes and reasonings for how to treat and interact with other people. But the more we assume our codes are true, the less we accept another person's code. But it's a problem because we each have different circumstances. This shouldn't be hard to understand. Whether a psychologist can make what you call a 'good guess' is highly questionable looking through history. And this is my point. We take a lot for granted in relation to one another.

    I dont know what you were trying to say in the bolded sentence. As for the rest.. the conflict of values is punishment vs empathy. The solution is to make a compromise between them. Just like people can have the facts wrong, people can make the wrong moral judgments. A good moral judgment satisfies the most conditions. In this case you lock the criminal up for a life sentence so he can't harm another child, but you also provide humane living conditions. You aren't going to be beating or torturing the prisoner. That's the compromise.
    How can a moral judgment be wrong? It's your reasoning you used to make a choice at that time - it's an effect of reality, the consciousness of others, and your own consciousness and not inherently right or wrong. Right or wrong is dependent on each individual. You can make someone feel guilty and assert that to show that they were wrong or just tell them they were wrong based on some law or reason and maybe they will agree. But that's very relative. There's nothing inherently right or wrong here.


    Not all countries are equal. The schizophrenic is shunned because he's not functional or evolutionary. Any society who promotes a schizophrenic (i.e. a person with a degenerative brain disease) as their leader isn't going to become the next roman empire. They'll be lucky if they can survive the next drought. They'll be overthrown by a country with a competent leader and developed technology, and all their members will become slaves. That's evolutionary too.
    One can be schizophrenic and brilliantly functional in some capacity, while pathetically nonfunctional in another. It's another fallacy to assume these automatic connections, these rationalizations your making. Why do you assume every schizophrenic would be the same or have the same range of difficulties, per say? You're making quite the leap here and something you probably don't even know that much about in terms of personal observation.

    This is only a problem for a person who makes every decision based on rational. Rational should be employed at the opportune time. The person always has to remain adaptive. If rational is unadaptive, it should be forgotten. All this shows is rational is should not be our sole value. It doesnt dismiss the value of rational entirely.
    Rationale is part of the nondeterministic part of us that allows us to make decisions. You can't exist without it. Are rationalizations coexist with it.

    The rest of what you say is pretty much a rehash of all these bad assumptions you made.
    Nope.
    Last edited by DividedsGhost; 03-29-2011 at 01:39 AM.

  19. #19
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's a spectrum between personal morality and objective morality. Personal morality is akin to subjective knowledge. Universal morality ... objective knowledge. Just like with knowledge, each person tries to find what is objectively moral through inference of their personal experiences. The more a person has experienced - i.e. the more a person considers; the life history of the criminal, the needs of the society, the harm done to the child; the closer a person gets to what is more objectively the right thing to do.

    If a schizophrenics disease only disabled him in one sense, but not in the others, then he would only be shunned in as far as he was disabled. The judgment on whether a person should be shunned is just as subject to error as asserting your personal knowledge. That doesnt mean shunning or knowledge is all arbitrary.
    In your schizophrenic example you say a man who's schizophrenic is shunned by modern society. Shunned because he is non functional. I took this to mean he is completely shunned, being completely non functional. Because, in real life, they are.
    Then you say maybe this schizophrenic could lead another society as a prophet. The only society I can see being led by a schizophrenic priest is a primitive tribal one, doing rain dances around a fire and things like that.
    You then make the blanket assertion what is good in one country, and not in another, is arbitrary. But it is only arbitrary if you consider all countries equal - your assumption.
    Modern society evolved out of the primitive tribal societies. In a war, modern society would crush the primitive society. As far as evolution is concerned, modern society trumps the primitive tribal society in every way. Thus leading a primitive society does not refute any judgment on the schizophrenics evolutionary value made by the modern society. That is the point.

    With law and morality, just like with knowledge, given an omniscient viewpoint it can be determined whether your judgment was right or wrong.
    Did I fully represent the scenario I was judging when I made my moral judgment? Are our social norms the most adaptive ones we could of chosen? Those are things which can be answered objectively.
    There's a certain liberty taken in making any judgment about what is objective, at all. Drawing any conclusion based on your personal experiences is always a leap, however small. I have no problem making the leap I am not going to spontaneously combust in the next 10 seconds, and it's no different with morality or laws. I could be wrong. I could explode randomly and splat brains and goo across the whole room and my screen. Objectively, that is possible. But it will not happen - thats the liberty.

    Also, objective judgement is not the same as universal judgments.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 03-29-2011 at 02:15 AM.

  20. #20
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    There's a spectrum between personal morality and universal morality.
    Is there?

    Personal morality is akin to subjective knowledge. Universal morality ... objective knowledge. Just like with knowledge, each person tries to find what is objectively moral through inference of their personal experiences.
    Okay, smarty pants, if there exists a universal morality based on objective knowledge, then tell me what it is.

    The more a person has experienced - i.e. the more a person considers; the life history of the criminal, the needs of the society, the harm done to the child; the closer a person gets to what is objectively the right thing to do.
    They just put more into consideration into making their moral choices, but that doesn't make it any more moral or even universal morality. They could be fulfilling a very seemingly immoral philosophy just because it is shown that it causes the least amount of pain or harm to society.

    Case in point, basic scenario, let's say we have a society that says no person should hurt themselves because it will cause other people pain. The punishment is death for hurting yourself because it makes it so only people that don't hurt one another stick around. We're minimizing the pain people receive by doing this. But let's say you live in this society. And you accidentally hurt yourself causing others pain. Would you personally agree with death? I would not. And I would wreck as much havoc on this society as I could out of rage for treating me that way. But it's considered universally moral here. So how would you answer this?

  21. #21
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Stop editing, LOL.

  22. #22
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Objective morality is not one thing. There's not one fact of objective knowledge, either. Objectivity can be anything, as long as it's real. Give me a scenario. I can try my best to tell you what's right. I dont claim to have the answers, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Is there?
    That's about the first thing they teach you in ethics class

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Case in point, basic scenario, let's say we have a society that says no person should hurt themselves because it will cause other people pain. The punishment is death for hurting yourself because it makes it so only people that don't hurt one another stick around. We're minimizing the pain people receive by doing this. But let's say you live in this society. And you accidentally hurt yourself causing others pain. Would you personally agree with death? I would not. And I would wreck as much havoc on this society as I could out of rage for treating me that way. But it's considered universally moral here. So how would you answer this?
    Their code isn't universal, they're just acting like it is. Universal would be taking into consideration that what you did was an accident, and weaving that in with the code. The code gets refined - the code evolves. Anyone can act narcissistic with their personal knowledge or morals. That doesnt make what they say objective.

  23. #23
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    In your schizophrenic example you say a man who's schizophrenic is shunned by modern society. Shunned because he is non functional. I took this to mean he is completely shunned, being completely non functional. Because, in real life, they are.
    Then you say maybe this schizophrenic could lead another society as a prophet. The only society I can see being led by a schizophrenic priest is a primitive tribal one, doing rain dances around a fire and things like that.
    You then make the blanket assertion what is good in one country, and not in another, is arbitrary. But it is only arbitrary if you consider all countries equal - your assumption.
    This is all I said
    What about the society that shuns those that they don't see fall into a criteria of a norm? Take a schizophrenic, in one country such a person might be revered as a prophet that speaks with God and in another country just a crazy person that deserves a straight jacket and forfeiting of all freedom.
    I said nothing about being functional. You assumed that.

    Modern society evolved out of the primitive tribal societies. In a war, modern society would crush the primitive society. As far as evolution is concerned, modern society trumps the primitive tribal society in every way. Thus leading a primitive society does not refute any judgment on the schizophrenics evolutionary value made by the modern society. That is the point.
    Why are we talking about schizophrenics anyway? I don't care whether you think they make good leaders or not. That's debatable...and kind of funny to imagine. But according to you it seems a good leader is defined by evolution. But we come back to the same problem as before. Which leader is better, the one that gets defeated and killed in a complex war campaign that paves the way for better civil rights acknowledgement or the one that rules a long life with an iron fist, but causes his people much pain, only to be eventually killed off by his country? If he produces a brutish country from this while the other leader produces a more democratic one that advances technology faster, then which one is more adaptable? They both exist. Does technology really matter? What if the brutish country uses the destructive technology of the other country to blow that country up? Then the brutish country is more adaptable and more moral?

    With law and morality, just like with knowledge, given an omniscient viewpoint it can be determined whether your judgment was right or wrong.
    Did I fully represent the scenario I was judging when I made my moral judgment? Are our social norms the most adaptive ones we could of chosen? Those are things which can be answered objectively.
    There's a certain liberty taken in making any judgment about what is objective, at all. Drawing any conclusion based on your personal experiences is always a leap, however small. I have no problem making the leap I am not going to spontaneously combust in the next 10 seconds, and it's no different with morality or laws. I could be wrong. I could explode randomly and splat brains and goo across the whole room and my screen. Objectively, that is possible. But it will not happen - thats the liberty.
    You are laughably wrong.

    There is no omniscient viewpoint. If I had the power to kill 99% of the people on the planet without anyone knowing in order to attempt to create a society that didn't involve as much suffering, it still isn't any more right or wrong than allowing everyone to survive and working with them to better civilization. I can rationalize it any way I want, it's still just a choice. I have my reasons, you have yours, and taking the theory of direct cause-effect evolution and trying to reduce certain axioms of laws and ethics has always had a counter argument.

  24. #24
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's not an assumption, it's an assertion. Shunning is society rejecting something. If something is rejected it's because it's non functional.
    Let's say you're working an assembly line. What kind of parts do you discard? The defective ones. The non-functional ones. Being a social reject means being socially dysfunctional. Function and society are closely related.

    At this point.. I've explained myself. I am right. You will either get it or not, but I'm done playing this game. Goodbye

  25. #25
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    That's about the first thing they teach you in ethics class
    Why do you take their belief for granted as true? Did you not question it? That's probably a good thing though. Society doesn't seem to favor those that question and thus threaten their debatable foundations.

    Their code isn't universal, they're just acting like it is. Universal would be taking into consideration that what you did was an accident, and weaving that in with the code. The code gets refined - the code evolves. Anyone can act narcissistic with their personal knowledge or morals. That doesnt make what they say objective.
    Who says the person is acting narcissistic in that scenario? What's wrong with wanting to live. What happened to your evolution? What if I think I can create a better civilization after killing everyone. And, hypothetically speaking, maybe I can. We can't prove it either way without looking at the results through parallel time spans, but what if I could show you that it resulted in a better happier healthier society, but could only look in time just a little to see in each scenario? See it depends on where you're looking in time for each scenario as to how that affects your decision making. How do you deal with this dilemma?

  26. #26
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dont take it for granted. I agree with it. There's a difference.
    I understand it all, in good detail. I've explained alot of it to you. But like I said, I'm done now. I dont think you're making enough effort to understand what I say to you. This is just going nowhere.

    EDIT: This is sort of interesting so it's worth addressing:
    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Who says the person is acting narcissistic in that scenario? What's wrong with wanting to live. What happened to your evolution? What if I think I can create a better civilization after killing everyone. And, hypothetically speaking, maybe I can. We can't prove it either way without looking at the results through parallel time spans, but what if I could show you that it resulted in a better happier healthier society, but could only look in time just a little to see in each scenario? See it depends on where you're looking in time for each scenario as to how that affects your decision making. How do you deal with this dilemma?
    1: The narcissism is in the values of society killing the person, while not considering the situation. I think you got the person / thing I was talking about confused.
    2: Life is an adaptive process. It's very difficult to control and regulate. A plan to kill off 99 percent of humanity and then repopulate the earth represents an extreme form of regulation. Since regulation is contrary to adaptation and life itself, it would require an extremely drastic and specific situation to justify that level of a response. But this scenario does theoretically exist, and within this scenario the action would be considered adaptive, and moral. It would be the objectively right thing to do, given this very unlikely objective scenario. The scenario justifies it.
    If the scenario does not justify it, then what you're doing is objectively wrong. And this will be the case 99.999999+ percent of the time.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 03-29-2011 at 02:55 AM.

  27. #27
    Airman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    True happiness lies on the transcendental.

    "Outward things cannot touch the soul, not in the least degree; nor have they admission to the soul, nor can they turn or move the soul; but the soul turns and moves itself alone." (iv.3) - Marcus Aurelius

    "Happiness lies deep within us, in the very core of our being. Happiness does not exist in any external object, but only in us, who are the consciousness that experiences happiness. Though we seem to derive happiness from external objects or experiences, the happiness that we thus enjoy in fact arises from within us. " - Ramana Maharshi

    http://www.happinessofbeing.com/

  28. #28
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    It's not an assumption, it's an assertion. Shunning is society rejecting something. If something is rejected it's because it's non functional.
    Let's say you're working an assembly line. What kind of parts do you discard? The defective ones. The non-functional ones. Being a social reject means being socially dysfunctional. Function and society are closely related.

    At this point.. I've explained myself. I am right. You will either get it or not, but I'm done playing this game. Goodbye
    No you haven't. And this isn't just a game. I was actually enjoying the discussion. Why are you taking this personally?

    Ah, but what if that part could be used in another fashion if the company was willing to invest a little money in determining how to use that discarded part? It might provide better income, it might not. That part might end up being more useful in another machine. You don't know until you try. But if you just immediately throw away because of a strict narrow-minded code when the item could be useful if given a little consideration, you are making a mistake.

    It's pretty clear rat that you value whatever reasoning suits your functioning. That doesn't make you right though. In fact, I think people like you are particularly harmful for humanity. You will cause conflict because you don't have the patience to question or limit your aggressive nature. Am I right? No. But that's what I see as well. Interesting how we come from too opposing fields. May you then fail and I succeed.

  29. #29
    Airman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The 'company' is wrong, the administrator of this assembly-line is an incompetent if he's rejecting parts. They are always of some use. What if the error is of the company itself, and not in the so-called defective part?

  30. #30
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    No you haven't. And this isn't just a game. I was actually enjoying the discussion. Why are you taking this personally?
    Because once I see a person missing what I'm trying to say, and I have to reexplain myself, I start to get exhausted and then I inevitably start cursing at the person. And then I get people calling me a troll and eventually I end up banned, which has happened 4 or so times before and has been brewing again as of late.
    Quote Originally Posted by Air View Post
    The 'company' is wrong, the administrator of this assembly-line is an incompetent if he's rejecting parts. They are always of some use. What if the error is of the company itself, and not in the so-called defective part?
    Always of some use.. Yes, maybe so. The parts are still rejected, but not to the trash can. Instead we throw them in the recycling bin. Ok, so let's put our schizos to work making license plates. Was that y our point? I can agree.. It's' not really the heart of the matter, but yeah, I'll give you that. The rejection is still there it's just softer.
    If the company was in error wasting parts needlessly, some other company would outdo it and eventually the company may get bought out by this larger company, if the error is great enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Ah, but what if that part could be used in another fashion if the company was willing to invest a little money in determining how to use that discarded part? It might provide better income, it might not. That part might end up being more useful in another machine. You don't know until you try. But if you just immediately throw away because of a strict narrow-minded code when the item could be useful if given a little consideration, you are making a mistake.
    I'll say the same thing to you I said to Aiss. So we get the schizos to work on license plates. Maybe that's what we should be doing with them. That would be society evolving. Society is always evolving. I'm not telling you not to question norms. I'm just telling you not to throw ALL norms away. The position you take is just too polarized. The norms of society are always evolving. We should always be questioning our norms, trying to make them better. What is it we're reaching for? The objective realization of our evolutionary potential.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Interesting how we come from too opposing fields. May you then fail and I succeed.
    It's hard to believe you're ESFp.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 03-29-2011 at 03:29 AM.

  31. #31
    Airman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    dude, wtf are you high on?

  32. #32
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    Because once I see a person missing what I'm trying to say, and I have to reexplain myself,...
    That's how debate works though. If we both understand each other we wouldn't see the need.

    I'll say the same thing to you I said to Aiss. So we get the schizos to work on license plates. Maybe that's what we should be doing with them. That would be society evolving. Society is always evolving. I'm not telling you not to question norms. I'm just telling you not to throw ALL norms away. The position you take is just too polarized. The norms of society are always evolving. We should always be questioning our norms, trying to make them better. What is it we're reaching for?
    Then we agree.

    The objective realization of our evolutionary potential.
    Except this. It's good to seek what we consider improvement because that at least gives us meaning. But as long as we each have individual consciousness, there will always be the potential for conflict and clashing ethics. To achieve what you seek is to make everything one entity, otherwise we can never be certain we have truly reached such without being able to look into the future. But by looking into the future, we are granted the potential to change it, meaning we can't truly know the future, and are back to fortune telling and acceptance of our nondeterministic nature of existence.

    Do you want to be a borg? Consider the borg as the best manifestation of laws and ethics because they take the whole of every part and consider it in a grand scheme of the whole (still subjective though versus another entity). Is that what you want? Is that what humanity wants? Maybe it is. Maybe that's all we really want is to be become one. I don't know. I'm just not sure you appreciate this fundamental problem.

  33. #33
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I never said we could achieve it, I said we're always searching for it. You act like objectivity is oneness. It isn't. Objectivity is what is real, and there are a practically unlimited amount of real scenarios. The way you realize what's objective is through liberating yourself from your isolated subjective perspective. Universalizing your perspective.

  34. #34
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post

    But take the man that turns 16 and jumps off a building to his death. Who are we to judge that man by saying that he was insane? If he realizes the inevitable foolishness of everything, perhaps he has the greatest sanest will of all to be able to send himself to end of the pointless struggle. To see the insanity of the cluster fuck that is existence and decide not to be a part of that, who are we to pathetically judge for not wanting to participate in the chaos?
    I think if he can recognize all of the bullshit that clearly, then he has also indirectly recognized dignity and/or what all of the foolishness does to human dignity. And it is that very dignity that is pure enough that it would forfeit it's life instead of partake of the foolishness.

    Ironically, this is what should make him stop from jumping. There may or may not be good in the world, yet he has found one good - right in himself. A tiny kernel of good that's fed up. That should make him live. Usually people who have tried to change the world for the better are much like him. Yet they decided to not be fatalistic. They tried to embody this one piece of themselves. Like Gandhi said, "Be the good you want to see in the world." If you don't find it anywhere else, then be it. And it need not just be a drive for embodying philosophical meaning.. It could apply to exploration or science, etc.. When you see a clusterfuck, it should drive you to find a solution. And there are probably better ones than jumping off a building.

  35. #35
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by straytk View Post
    I think if he can recognize all of the bullshit that clearly, then he has also indirectly recognized dignity and/or what all of the foolishness does to human dignity. And it is that very dignity that is pure enough that it would forfeit it's life instead of partake of the foolishness.

    Ironically, this is what should make him stop from jumping. There may or may not be good in the world, yet he has found one good - right in himself. A tiny kernel of good that's fed up. That should make him live. Usually people who have tried to change the world for the better are much like him. Yet they decided to not be fatalistic. They tried to embody this one piece of themselves. Like Gandhi said, "Be the good you want to see in the world." If you don't find it anywhere else, then be it. And it need not just be a drive for embodying philosophical meaning.. It could apply to exploration or science, etc.. When you see a clusterfuck, it should drive you to find a solution. And there are probably better ones than jumping off a building.
    But that's just it... The kid realized the futility of it all. Yes I think it is profound to say he is his own hope, but we cannot escape collective existence in which there is no hope at all. What one needs is integration not conservation. The hope he bears needs to manifest in other people, but what's the point of one, maybe two, being saved? If the masses are still doomed, nothing has changed. The cycle continues.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  36. #36
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    The hope he bears needs to manifest in other people, but what's the point of one, maybe two, being saved? If the masses are still doomed, nothing has changed. The cycle continues.
    I'm ultimately going to be difficult if I stay in the discussion, but I don't know why I have to assume that there really is an ultimate futility to existence anyways. Personally, I can't see it. I think we're in a state of growth. Never to know what the end of the trail is. We are always evolving.. on a philosophical and mental scale, not just biological. And as far as the masses go, various movements and people in history can shake the collective consciousness in new directions, and open up new avenues of thought. Futility is only realized from one, stagnating vantage point.

    What if the 16 year old lived before the time of Galileo? And was standing on top of a building, ready to kill himself? A lot of his preconceptions of what the world even was would be false. He'd be an idiot if he jumped, thinking he had everything figured out. If he was smart, he'd hold back, watch how the world develops..bide his time for 20 years or so until Galileo comes around, and then reconsider. He can get on top of that building again and see if he has the same thoughts as before. He probably won't.

    But back to my other point about one's own hope being enough to live for.. These are actually the Galileos. Instead of worrying about what's "manifest", they imparted meaning instead. The same applies to various philosophers.

  37. #37
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by straytk View Post
    I'm ultimately going to be difficult if I stay in the discussion, but I don't know why I have to assume that there really is an ultimate futility to existence anyways. Personally, I can't see it. I think we're in a state of growth. Never to know what the end of the trail is. We are always evolving.. on a philosophical and mental scale, not just biological. And as far as the masses go, various movements and people in history can shake the collective consciousness in new directions, and open up new avenues of thought. Futility is only realized from one, stagnating vantage point.

    What if the 16 year old lived before the time of Galileo? And was standing on top of a building, ready to kill himself? A lot of his preconceptions of what the world even was would be false. He'd be an idiot if he jumped, thinking he had everything figured out. If he was smart, he'd hold back, watch how the world develops..bide his time for 20 years or so until Galileo comes around, and then reconsider. He can get on top of that building again and see if he has the same thoughts as before. He probably won't.

    But back to my other point about one's own hope being enough to live for.. These are actually the Galileos. Instead of worrying about what's "manifest", they imparted meaning instead. The same applies to various philosophers.
    Growth... Thousands of years of growth and we are still the same animals we have always been. Don't be so deluded.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  38. #38
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What does our biological evolution have to do with what he said?

  39. #39
    Slippery when wet Simon Ssmall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ✈ ↺
    Posts
    2,231
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Growth... Thousands of years of growth and we are still the same animals we have always been. Don't be so deluded.
    No only Alpha quadra people did not evolve. Should I remind you socionics mister?? Alpha -> Beta -> Gamma -> Delta. Delta being the most evolved quadra and INFj being the type most rare and most advanced in humans. Please cherish INFj type.
    Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.

    ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
    The Ineffable IEI
    The Einstein ENTp

    johari nohari
    http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    There is no "right" or "wrong"... there is only what "is".

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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