How about you?but, I just don't feel like I require internal coherence
How about you?but, I just don't feel like I require internal coherence
Can you clarify what you mean by that?
For me, internal coherence is almost always secondary to external effectiveness. Any mental systems I have, if they exist, are generally loose, analog, localized, and ever-shifting...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
meh. i was going to vote i did relate but then i was waiting for you to elaborate first to be sure.
it doesnt ring any bells for me anyway. sometimes i think making things more coherent makes them less true. but other times things feel "off" somehow and it comes back to them not fitting together coherently. so i think its more of a tool than a need, if that makes sense.
I NEED internal coherence. I absolutely have to have it. Thankfully, I almost always do have it.
I generally don't even think about the world as such. If it works, it works. Oftentimes, things have to be coherent in order to work, so internal coherence can definitely be useful.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Crap, I voted the wrong option... I actually am in need of logical consistency. By this, I understand like something that makes sense and drives to a certain conclusion (it has some support), but it could be understood differently, I guess. For instance I don't relate to the idea that one must necessarily stay true to his view (though neither change it for no reason), except that when this affects other people, one should make a statement, I guess.
(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
agreed. in most situations I just react to pings, gradually tie things together, etc. maybe if I'm actually analyzing something, I'll need some kind of finality; but even that will be gauged through a feeling of symmetry, not some obsessive breakdown. I used to be more controlled in this respect, but it always ended up feeling grating and repetitive.
4w3-5w6-8w7
(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
Yes. I mean no. Wait what was the question?
I was originally going to answer no, as in I generally desire internal coherence, but then thought better of myself. Though it could be said that I desire internal consistency, I would by no means say I require it. Rather then requiring consistency or coherence, I would actually say that I require the means to create consistency and coherence. Actually acting by creating said consistency and coherence would be redundant much of the time because contradictory data could be introduced and then all traces of certainty would be erased. So rather, I think it would be good to have enough data from which to produce independently and dependently consistent systems which could be seen as a schema.