Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 49

Thread: Reality

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Reality

    For... 7 years I have been enamored with socionics and personality psychology. As a reformer liberal, I spent most of my life to that point living in the belief that people were completely chaotic, unpredictable, and quite frankly scary. There was the image of what we wanted them to be to us and what they actually were, and too often the image did not match the reality. When I found socionics, it brought some -- I say some -- order to this chaos. It was not enough order for me, and so I endeavored to discover it for myself. I discovered the subelements and re-discovered the EM type, and upon the study of their relationships built the dual-type and supersocion theories.

    Trying to understand more deeply the systems suggested in the broad outlines of subelement and dual-type relations has basically been my sole intellectual focus since 2004. I understand the world so much now that I also understand how difficult it is to actually change it, that we as people are basically enslaved to our motivations and all we can have is hope that we are on the receiving end of the energy others feel compelled to spend in help to others. Such is opportunity. I want everyone to have opportunity. I know that everyone adds something to the intellectual discourse around us -- even the most extreme and evil voices make substantial contributions from time to time, if only in cancellation of each the others' negative influences.

    So what does a theory of attitudes -- that's what the dual-type, supersocion, and even classical socionics theories really constitute -- afford us? I suppose it is fruitless to try to impress upon you the importance of something you aren't convinced is important, so let's what you have to say and then I'll offer my thoughts on your views.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Belief in the one true power.
    What in your opinion is that?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Knowledge gives you power. The more power the knowledge offers, the more people are attracted to it. You are right, the world is not going to change.. at least not by the stress of you or me. Even if it did, the change would happen incidentally, and you would stumble upon it. It's time you realized that. So use your knowledge for your personal benefit, and for the benefit of people who care about what you have to say. Develop the knowledge to expand your own power. Share it with people who are willing to listen. But you can't stress over the ones who will never listen to you.

    The reason people ignore socionics, and other kinds of metaphysics, is it does not grant direct power; it's just potential energy. For knowledge like that to spread it has to be translated for the people into a usable form. But that translation occurs naturally as you adapt it to your own life. For example Ive always wanted to write my own music (music that I considered good. I can write crap music like the 100s of other bands you hear). I've been developing a way to write music with essentially socionics functions (of many kinds) for years, and I've made substantial progress. If I ever achieved that goal it would have the net result of spreading socionics.

  4. #4
    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

    tcaud, it's a system. Systems are inherently limited in their usefulness. Being Ni-leading and Ti-HA, rather than Ti-leading, I think that the subtler the theory, the more nuanced, the more fluid, the more accurate and useful it tends to be.

    You have to understand that systems are things we impose on reality, rather than reality itself. When we mistake a system for reality, we introduce errors in action.

    That said, I believe in the creation of systems. I believe it is first necessary, and second a beneficial intellectual, even spiritual, activity. But you have to do a lot of work to build your system very strong and very sturdy, and as accurate as you can possibly make it.

    So, go ahead, build your system. It's nice, even fascinating, and I once spent two days on wikisocion trying to figure it out. But... don't mistake it for reality. When the sea doesn't match your sea-chart, go with the sea. If the winds are blowing south even though the forecast says they should be blowing north, take the appropriate measures for conditions as they are, not as the system says they should be.

    What does it afford us? Better guesses as to how reality will actually turn out. We can be a little more prepared for what comes our way, and we'll never totally be subsumed in the waters of cluelessness. We'll always have something to grasp onto when someone's actions make as say, "wait, what?" We'll have a theory that helps us move toward an understanding of reality. But we'll never fully understand human action by using a system or theory.

    All convention is based on nature; all convention fails nature. Nothing is totally true, nothing is totally false. If socionics and supersocionics and whatever it is has more of the truth that you like and less of the truth you don't, well, why not go down that road. But when the truth you excluded rears its head, go with the sea.
    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.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a Ti system of Ni and Fe content. It seems like a means of confronting people about their views, more than anything else. Whether those views are justified or not, whether the individual has a responsibility to moderate them in the interest of the group.

    It seems like an assumption that a person will not be sympathetic with respect to another person's disadvantage, places greater pressure on them to demonstrate sympathy. I imagine an LSI-IEI would gleefully apply such pressure, so it seems to me that this theory is basically a personality tool chest for LSIs. I think they would get the most use out of it.

    I think F types, having a natural disposition to get the straight truth out of someone in a one-on-one encounter, benefit from a system like this least. At least that's what I got out of a discussion with the SEE girl I mentioned in the "I've got my eye on..." thread.

    Silverchris I'm sorry you spent so much time trying to understand the theory as it was described on Wikisocion. But I thank you for trying.

    You know I've had the most profound influences on people just by giving them accurate socionics typings. Knowing your type can give you a strong sense of self-affirmation that you may not be able to find by any other means.

    I think the EM type can be applied in a number of ways, particularly towards job creation, motivation, and curricular planning.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-22-2011 at 10:40 AM.

  6. #6
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My feedback is that I have read some things on your theories, and I think you need someone to help you make them comprehensible to more people. Rat says he understands; maybe he could help you?

  7. #7
    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 crazedratsshadow View Post
    So use your knowledge for your personal benefit, and for the benefit of people who care about what you have to say. Develop the knowledge to expand your own power. Share it with people who are willing to listen. But you can't stress over the ones who will never listen to you.
    (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

  8. #8
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Reality is what you make it to be.

    I like systems. Put things into boxes to see where they poke through the box. As long as you can rip the meat off the bone before you eat the chicken, its all sustenance.

    But i guess with life, there's very specific notions that ring true as important, instinctual even. Security and Happiness. I like deep thinking-type-shit because it makes me feel joyous, and even i feel its beneficial to understand.

    We're all impermanent. Everything we know and understand is going to eventually fade. Some sooner than others. I think the positive impact one has in their direct environment is indicative of how much they enjoyed life. Socionics and the countless metaphorical logical structures(Astrology, Enneagrams, pokemon, elements, etc) all serve as a tool to better understand people and to understand yourself. They put words to thoughts that havent been flushed out in most people's minds, where even if you already know the shit, they make you understand it better in their articulation. I think thats the real value of Socionics: Awareness begets Growth.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think there are opportunities for medical advances. Using information metabolism theory, neurologists and medical scientists could work hand in hand to develop treatments for Alzheimers, focusing their efforts on repairing information-element specific functions and memory systems. Schizophrenia might also be conquered. Antipsychotic meds could be validated and improved.

    I don't see why the necessary MRIs and EEGs can't be done now to affirm whether model T is real. For that matter, does anyone have a clue as to how model T is being substantiated, or is it all untested theory?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As a reformer liberal, I spent most of my life to that point living in the belief that people were completely chaotic, unpredictable, and quite frankly scary.
    Mmm chaos. I love it. Wish there were more of it. If everything in life were entirely predictable I'd be bored out of my mind.

    I know that everyone adds something to the intellectual discourse around us -- even the most extreme and evil voices make substantial contributions from time to time, if only in cancellation of each the others' negative influences.
    What does P.O.O.P. add to the intellectual discourse? You seem to think P.O.O.P. evil. Does that mean P.O.O.P. is canceling others' negative influences? If so, whose?

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy
    trolling
    .

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    You can't speak of such notions to α-NTs. It fucks with their -longings for a safe, orderly, predictable reality.
    I find that I am simply unable to engage Tcaud in constructive dialogue.

  13. #13
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    By Jove, old chap, Bartleby contends that you treat of information metabolism as if it were non-metaphorical. I say, does tcaudillgian dual-type theory embrace objectified forms of energetics or psychological thermodynamics?

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    By Jove, old chap, Bartleby contends that you treat of information metabolism as if it were non-metaphorical. I say, does tcaudillgian dual-type theory embrace objectified forms of energetics or psychological thermodynamics?
    Objectified forms. This is not a metaphor.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The theory works regardless of the position you take on that.

  16. #16
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Objectified forms. This is not a metaphor.
    I see, I see. And do you subscribe to property or substance dualism? If the latter, how do the material body and immaterial mind interface, and in what manner is the energy of EM types realized?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    I see, I see. And do you subscribe to property or substance dualism? If the latter, how do the material body and immaterial mind interface, and in what manner is the energy of EM types realized?
    I don't think I'll respond to that because you seem to be taking a disrespectful "tounge-in-cheek" tone.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I don't think I'll respond to that because you seem to be taking a disrespectful "tounge-in-cheek" tone.
    That K0rpsey's question was tongue in cheek makes it no less valid. Perhaps you realize that answering his question makes your theory look dumb. If that is the case, your theory probably is dumb. A theory that is reduced to absurdity under the light of hard ontological inquiry is probably an absurd theory.

    The burden of convincing others of your theory's value rests in your hands alone. You find K0rpsey's question distasteful because you feel his tone insinuates incredulity, and yet the most significant obstacle you will face in your effort build support for your theory will be overcoming others' skepticism. If you cannot or are unwilling to defend your theories, you might as well abandon them today or else treat them like your own little way of looking at the world (as opposed to some hard theory that others ought to support).

  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 tcaudilllg View Post
    I don't think I'll respond to that because you seem to be taking a disrespectful "tounge-in-cheek" tone.
    rofl.

    Tcaud, Freud constructed his theories out of the air. So can you. You'll just have to be as brilliant as Freud, and as dogmatic. Freud actually reminds me of you, with his whole insistence on the objective truth of his system, the frequent omission of necessary supporting evidence, the dismissal of alternative POVs as absurd. That sounds like a criticism of you, and it partially is, but it's partially to say that such criticisms (what I perceive as flaws in your presentation of your theory, and Freud's presentation of his) are not strong enough, in themselves, to sink anybody's theory. Freud has had enormous medical, cultural, psychological, interpersonal, etc., influence, and he wouldn't have achieved what he did if he did not have just that combination of logic, negative capability, and just plain stubbornness of perspective that I see in you tcaud. He's also done a lot of harm, but then, theorists usually do as much harm as good (only literature is sometimes inoffensive, or at the least, operates at such a deep level that we must call it amoral sea change, rather than that which can/must submit to ethical valuation).
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Listen dipshits - the mechanics of the theory are what's important, and they hold true regardless if you're a realist, a relativist, or a materialist.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow View Post
    Listen dipshits - the mechanics of the theory are what's important, and they hold true regardless if you're a realist, a relativist, or a materialist.
    If that is the case, it'd be tremendous if Tcaud could present his ideas in a way that others could readily comprehend and relate to. Who's going to spend hours of their time trying to make sense of what on surface appears to be a bunch of meaningless, ungrounded intellectual masturbation.

    In case Tcaud needs some direction, P.O.O.P. theory is an excellent example of how clearly and succinctly to present an idea.

  22. #22
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I don't think I'll respond to that because you seem to be taking a disrespectful "tounge-in-cheek" tone.
    It was a straightforward inquiry meant to clarify a fundamental aspect of your thinking so that my understanding of dual-type theory can be situated within the appropriate ontological framework. You affirmed a reification of IM and EM. It's only natural to wonder whether you regard them as physical processes or if you hold that they're realized immaterially, and also what their mechanisms might be.

  23. #23
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The fact that you schizophrenics are discussing reality here. Is fucking hilarious. Keep the joke going. Reality as a joke. How long can it live ?

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    If that is the case, it'd be tremendous if Tcaud could present his ideas in a way that others could readily comprehend and relate to. Who's going to spend hours of their time trying to make sense of what on surface appears to be a bunch of meaningless, ungrounded intellectual masturbation..
    You like that phrase, don't you? It must of hit home when I used it on you when you first came to the forum. He does have some communication problems. The focus on materialism and not form is what confuses people. People want to know the structure of the model, and think material applications are disorienting. I can read what he says and interpret it though. Because I understand the basics of the theory. Everyone else seems to have just not bothered to read and interpret it. Yet every time I've re-explained the theory to someone, they've basically agreed with me that it makes perfect sense and is actually somewhat obvious.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow View Post
    Yet every time I've re-explained the theory to someone, they've basically agreed with me that it makes perfect sense and is actually somewhat obvious.
    so why don't you start a thread explaining his theory?

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because I dont feel like exerting myself for you.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow View Post
    Because I dont feel like exerting myself for you.
    If you see value in Tcaud's theories, then do it for all the other people who fail correctly to understand them. Instead of explaining yourself again and again to members on an individual basis, you could simply create a thread and refer others to it when they have questions.

    You like that phrase, don't you? It must of hit home when I used it on you when you first came to the forum
    I almost let that one slip past me! You are referring to the phrase, "intellectual masturbation," are you not? Something didn't seem right about your comment so I checked the history. I cannot find any examples of you accusing me of that! Rather, I accused you of "intellectual masturbation" twice on the first day I posted here.

    See for yourself.

    Incredible! Projecting projection and insecurity onto others rat? You, my friend, are a fascinating case study. I guess MY comment must really have "hit home."

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    nah that was you copying me again. haha.
    I could offer a crash course in the theory or I could do a good job and explain every minute detail of it. I'm such a perfectionist I tend to set my sights for the second option. But I wear myself out because then I struggle to meet that standard of perfection and reject the whole task outright.

  29. #29
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hittasshadow View Post
    nah that was you copying me again. haha.
    I could offer a crash course in the theory or I could do a good job and explain every minute detail of it. I'm such a perfectionist I tend to set my sights for the second option. But I wear myself out because then I struggle to meet that standard of perfection and reject the whole task outright.
    He doesn't know what he's saying and hides behind expert authority, so his disdainful refusal to answer is simply a face-saving pose. The same pattern appears time and again in the awe-struck reverence he has for his coonass astro-daddy as well as his adoration of tcaud and his confusedly obfuscatory dual-type sales brochures. Since tcaud can only talk about the theory but doesn't have the strength or honesty to disclose how it actually works his grandiose-paranoid blather serves no purpose but to sustain interest in pseudo-intellectual garbage derived from a lifetime of hallucinating to Japanimation RPGs, and hopefully hopefully hopefully drive up traffic to his site that's chock full of nuts with insipid commentary on the same. Keep fucking that chicken, boys.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    607
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    nah that was you copying me again. haha.
    Sure it was.


    I could offer a crash course in the theory or I could do a good job and explain every minute detail of it. I'm such a perfectionist I tend to set my sights for the second option. But I wear myself out because then I struggle to meet that standard of perfection and reject the whole task outright.

    I'm often the same way, so I can relate. All the same, you'd be doing Tcaud a lot more good by helping him explain his ideas than by telling off those who do not or cannot understand them.

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    It was a straightforward inquiry meant to clarify a fundamental aspect of your thinking so that my understanding of dual-type theory can be situated within the appropriate ontological framework. You affirmed a reification of IM and EM. It's only natural to wonder whether you regard them as physical processes or if you hold that they're realized immaterially, and also what their mechanisms might be.
    Of course the functions are physical processes. The information aspects themselves are properties of objects and even the objects themselves, so you might think of them as a mix of the material and immaterial.

    Humans cannot think of things that are not information aspect or relations between them. It cannot be done.

  32. #32
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Of course the functions are physical processes. The information aspects themselves are properties of objects and even the objects themselves, so you might think of them as a mix of the material and immaterial.

    Humans cannot think of things that are not information aspect or relations between them. It cannot be done.
    Thanks for the circuitous and pedantic admission of dualism. Your fluffy answer reminds me of a chap I know of obvious "ethnic" extraction. He's a ladies man who uses slippery language to maintain an aura of exotic mystique. When asked about his heritage he nonchalantly purrs that he's part Spanish, part Native American. From that he's able to embroider upon a personal narrative with far more romantic and glamorous allure than simply stating, "I'm Mexican."

  33. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can't be a monist and a socionist. It just doesn't work, man.

  34. #34
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    You can't be a monist and a socionist. It just doesn't work, man.
    Socionics is a reductionist joint construct of the imaginary and symbolic that purports to represent the real. None of those are denied by substance monism. That socionics falls under the rubric of functionalism further demonstrates that it need not be ontologically Cartesian. Though I admit the possibility that dualism may be correct, it pushes mental causation off to a mystical plane inaccessible except conceptually; it is deductive and does not concern itself overmuch with evidentially determining the actual operation of brains or other physical structures that instantiate psychological states.

  35. #35
    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 k0rpsey View Post
    Socionics is a reductionist joint construct of the imaginary and symbolic that purports to represent the real. None of those are denied by substance monism. That socionics falls under the rubric of functionalism further demonstrates that it need not be ontologically Cartesian. Though I admit the possibility that dualism may be correct, it pushes mental causation off to a mystical plane inaccessible except conceptually; it is deductive and does not concern itself overmuch with evidentially determining the actual operation of brains or other physical structures that instantiate psychological states.
    ...the fuck?
    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.

  36. #36

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    He doesn't know what he's saying and hides behind expert authority, so his disdainful refusal to answer is simply a face-saving pose. The same pattern appears time and again in the awe-struck reverence he has for his coonass astro-daddy as well as his adoration of tcaud and his confusedly obfuscatory dual-type sales brochures. Since tcaud can only talk about the theory but doesn't have the strength or honesty to disclose how it actually works his grandiose-paranoid blather serves no purpose but to sustain interest in pseudo-intellectual garbage derived from a lifetime of hallucinating to Japanimation RPGs, and hopefully hopefully hopefully drive up traffic to his site that's chock full of nuts with insipid commentary on the same. Keep fucking that chicken, boys.
    No, I just care about Hitta and Tcaud. They're my friends. That's something you won't understand. I also know that they're right, because I've discussed it with them before. Anyway, nice rant of... speculation into my dark motivations and roundabout intentions? LoL, all of it's wrong. Truth is exactly like I said. If you want me to show dual type theory OR astrology to you, come into tinychat.
    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    ...the fuck?
    It's called nerd rage.
    Last edited by rat1; 04-25-2011 at 07:18 PM.

  38. #38
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow View Post
    If you want me to show dual type theory OR astrology to you, come into tinychat.
    Hand-waving. Write it up here so everyone can understand and you don't have to repeat yourself. You've already complained of being taxed by your attempts at individual tutelage.

    It's called nerd rage.
    It's called reconciling differences in ontological viewpoints, and between entertaining ideas and believing in their reality. That's something you won't understand.

  39. #39
    Sir Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    ...the fuck?
    To pull out my k0rpsey decoder ring, "Your theory has no rational or physical basis in reality. You lose. Good day, sir."
    4w5 sp/sx

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

  40. #40
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Knight View Post
    To pull out my k0rpsey decoder ring, "Your theory has no rational or physical basis in reality. You lose. Good day, sir."
    I wouldn't argue too much with that reading. What underlies it is that my preferred approach to socionics is skeptical and metaphysical, not dogmatic and hypostatizing.

    Physicalist theories of mind have their own problems, mostly stemming from the as-yet unknown workings of the brain. That means physicalism pushes causal explanation off to the future where research has presumably answered presently vexing questions. That may be equally unsatisfactory when compared with dualism's endemic forms of dodginess. However, I find it more scientifically realistic and intellectually honest to say "I don't know yet" than it is to confidently chink the gaps in one's understanding with ectoplasm, horseshit, and airy suppositions. The latter approach results in a self-jenked smugness that benightedly confounds the signifier with what it signifies.

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
  •