Socionic Realism

[Korpsy Knievel]

"'Ideas exist in nature as patterns or prototypes independent of human minds. The remainder of things only resemble Ideas and exist as their inferior copies.' I am..."

Answer accordingly in the poll above.

Debates hinging on this fundamental issue arise regularly. And that's only natural since one's opinion on it shapes attitudes about the nature, development, and application of socionics.

This matter is of general importance but discussing it usually devolves into another NT slapfest. Because of that I don't think everyone is making themselves heard. However, this survey can shed light on an interesting question and reveal where different values lie. So please, even if you don't care to weigh in with a post or embarrass yourself by moshing with geeks and nerds, be sure to cast your ballot. Thanks!

EDIT: A tip 'o the hat to BG for fixing a couple typos in the poll. He does things for the forum.

[Aquagraph]

What is there of nature besides the perceivable? As reality is only perception, ideas should change the nature of reality as ideas drawn from sensory stimuli are all that there is, the relationship of sensory stimuli and ideas being entwined, "you only see what you want to see" ..yadda yadda.
Then again one could argue that there is an absolute reality from which the perceptions come from and, intuitively, it seems to be the case.

I'll vote for that the ideas are not in the theoretical objective nature but in the nature we are in touch with. And I'll vote assuming that I'm alpha. *Votes "Alpha Irational and I disagree."*

This matter is of general importance but discussing it usually devolves into another NT slapfest.

QFT

[EyeSeeCold]

There are both archetypal ideas and archetypal sense impressions. For some people, their psychological-cognitive apparatus emphasizes the former; for others, their apparatus emphasizes the latter.

[Korpsy Knievel]

What is there of nature besides the perceivable?

By way of answering, allow me to quote the American-Iraqi poet Rumsi:

There are
known knowns.
These are things
we know
that we know.
There are
known unknowns.
That is to say,
there are things that we know
we don't know.
But
there are also
unknown unknowns.
There are
things
we
don't know
we don't know.

As reality is only perception, ideas should change the nature of reality as ideas drawn from sensory stimuli are all that there is, the relationship of sensory stimuli and ideas being entwined, "you only see what you want to see" ..yadda yadda.
Then again one could argue that there is an absolute reality from which the perceptions come from and, intuitively, it seems to be the case.

I'll vote for that the ideas are not in the theoretical objective nature but in the nature we are in touch with. And I'll vote assuming that I'm alpha. *Votes "Alpha Irational and I disagree."*

Interesting post, especially in that you appear to have gone with a gut reaction first and then intellectualized your way to a higher plane.

There are both archetypal ideas and archetypal sense impressions. For some people, their psychological-cognitive apparatus emphasizes the former; for others, their apparatus emphasizes the latter.

Rice necapitulation, bomehoy. Care to venture which is ultimately contingent upon the other?

Double guns, fellas.

[tcaudilllg]

Well there are these things called information elements, of which there are... sixteen, I guess. And they have relationships to each other in specific patterns and ways. So it seems pretty obvious that anything we can think of can be expressed as these elements or their relationships.

[Nowisthetime]

First I read "Social realism".
There's something really fascinating about this style. There was an art exhibition about it in my town some years ago.

"Roses for Stalin"

[anndelise]

"'Ideas exist in nature as patterns or prototypes independent of human minds. The remainder of things only resemble Ideas and exist as their inferior copies.' I am..."

I would say that...
Nature is filled with patterns and prototypes, independent of the human mind to grasp.
And that the patterns and prototypes which the human perceives is but a mere shadow of a shadow, a vastly inferior copy of nature's.

You may place this on the survey wherever you believe it fits.

[PistolShrimp]

I'm not sure I fully understand; is this like Plato's theory of Forms? I disagree because I don't see how an idea could exist without a human mind producing it. I'm sure there are things we can't understand or perceive, but the mind is what pulls the patterns out of the chaos. The concept of patterns is a product of the mind and couldn't exist otherwise.

I have no idea what I'm saying.

[ashlesha]

i wasn't totally sure if i understood the question correctly because i thought wouldn't anyone disagree? but reading tcauds answer i think i did understand it - i think the opposite of what he said, more or less.

ideas are in the mind, obviously.

[Gilly]

I won't poll but I definitely disagree.

[Creepy-Snaps]

I like the statement because it implies there are bigger and better ideas yet to be discovered... it implies there are depths beyond the human mind, which I find exciting, considering the potential. I do not like the statement implying that any idea humans discover, however, is inferior to the 'idea' or principal in nature.

[krieger]

i think if you want to be perfectly puritan in denying* there is anything real about abstract entities, you would have to stop talking about even simple everyday things such as humans, since a person is just an abstract configuration of type cells of which the tokens are in constant circulation.

this being said i regard the whole "Ne exists" mantra as more of a linguistic aide than as anything indicative of a deeper philosophical bent. any bickerings as to how expedient the use of these is seems to me to seed division where there needs to be none.

to me "Ne exists" means something along the lines of "if you try to conceptualize your experiences using a concept of Ne, you get meaningful results", which incidentally it also means when applied to any other concept. perhaps just not always in quite as roundabout a way (though the extent to which the application is roundabout in cases of everyday usage can easily be underestimated; a human is a very, very complex thing when you try to spell it's identity out).

no vote; i don't care one way or the other.

* secular use of the term (Entry 1), like always was the default until people started interpreting it differently due to widespread use in psychological/religious contexts

[717495]

You can never truly know something, you just use your brain and senses to make guesses nevertheless how certain of them you act.

[anndelise]

By way of answering, allow me to quote the American-Iraqi poet Rumsi:

There are
known knowns.
These are things
we know
that we know.
There are
known unknowns.
That is to say,
there are things that we know
we don't know.
But
there are also
unknown unknowns.
There are
things
we
don't know
we don't know.

I usually include that there are things we think we know, but don't.
But that falls under things we don't know we don't know, right?

[Aquagraph]

Lyrics reminded me of Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley; “There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception.” From that quote The Doors got their name.

Drugs had nothing to do with the band The Doors or the book Doors of Perception.

[Gilly]

IMO there are obviously things we have yet to learn of; however having any certainty with regards to their nature seems foolish and rather presumptuous to me.

[Gilly]

Sounds Socratic to me. Forms and such.

[Aquagraph]

I can't but to think that people who concur with this belong to the age of Ancient Greek where virtues such as Valor™ is not a matter of subjectivity and cultural relativism, but a belief that somewhere there's an perfect idea of Valor like Plato would have argued.

Stone the Stone Agers and get stoned!

[Gilly]

See, to me, things like love, honor, beauty, valor, bravery only exist when people practice or experience them, when we make them a reality. I think saying "there is such a thing as valor" is just a kind of...purely subjective way of saying this same thing: that I have the capacity for love and bravery...but they are only REAL, only exist outside of my head and the potential my body holds, when I enact them. They are not something external that I pass through that exists afterwords, just in some way that doesn't affect me; rather, they pass through me, I summon them and when I can no longer sustain them or when they are no longer needed or maintained, they pass on. To me, that's the beauty of them: that they don't always exist, but when we put in the effort, when we make them happen, that we can, in a way, momentarily embody a kind of perfection or virtue, and represent the greatest parts of...existence. But they are fleeting; otherwise they would be just like anything else, unspectacular and commonplace and level.

[tcaudilllg]

I can't but to think that people who concur with this belong to the age of Ancient Greek where virtues such as Valor™ is not a matter of subjectivity and cultural relativism, but a belief that somewhere there's an perfect idea of Valor like Plato would have argued.

Stone the Stone Agers and get stoned!

Do you know what you're saying? You are saying that human thoughts aren't neural connection patterns, which they are.

[Aquagraph]

Do you know what you're saying? You are saying that human thoughts aren't neural connection patterns, which they are.

Please explicate as currently I find this deduction utterly incomprehensible.

[Gilly]

Please explicate as currently I find this utterly incomprehensible.

I don't know how it applies to your statement but he is suggesting that you deny the idea that thoughts are comprised of electrical signals firing between neurons en masse which create the complex subjective experiences which we refer to as "thoughts."

[Aquagraph]

Thoughts appear to be neural connection patterns. Earth appeared to be flat.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Well there are these things called information elements, of which there are... sixteen, I guess. And they have relationships to each other in specific patterns and ways. So it seems pretty obvious that anything we can think of can be expressed as these elements or their relationships.

Thanks. I recall you once asserted:

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

And when asked as to the reification of EM/IM you stated:

Objectified forms. This is not a metaphor.

So we can safely class you with those who agree with our argument's Realness.

Also, tcaud, as an aside to help clarify your thoughts, is your working definition of immanence based upon or congruent with the following? "In the context of Kant's theory of knowledge Immanence means to remain in the boundaries of possible experience." Your recent writing suggest the answer is yes but I'd rather hear it from you directly.

I would say that...
Nature is filled with patterns and prototypes, independent of the human mind to grasp.
And that the patterns and prototypes which the human perceives is but a mere shadow of a shadow, a vastly inferior copy of nature's.

You may place this on the survey wherever you believe it fits.

With the assenters!

First I read "Social realism".
There's something really fascinating about this style. There was an art exhibition about it in my town some years ago.

Sehr interessant. Which brings us to...

I'm not sure I fully understand; is this like Plato's theory of Forms?

...why I paraphrased a paraphrase of Plato to make this thread's central argument: though this forum is brimming with intelligent people, it's also chock-a-block with different kinds of intelligence, as demonstrated, for instance, by Nowisthetime's associative-aesthetic answer. So, anticipating that not everyone is interested in academic philosophy, and wanting the greatest representation of opinions on a general question, I tweaked the phrase as it was received to focus its meaning without the uninitiated having to read a bunch of boring or tricksy crap. But since you spotted the platonism in the woodpile, here's the quote as I received it in its pre-jiggerered state:

Plato ideas in natura velut exemplaria dixit subsistere; cetera his esse similia, ad istarum similitudinem consistencia.

Plato teaches that the Ideas exist in nature, so to speak, as patterns or prototypes, and that the remainder of things only resemble them, and exist as their copies.

- Diogenes Laërtius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers

I disagree because I don't see how an idea could exist without a human mind producing it. I'm sure there are things we can't understand or perceive, but the mind is what pulls the patterns out of the chaos. The concept of patterns is a product of the mind and couldn't exist otherwise.

As nil would say, very well. u r a dissenter and belong with the Nominalists.

I have no idea what I'm saying.

Rest assured that I'm only a half step ahead of you, which is part of why I invoked this convocation.

i wasn't totally sure if i understood the question correctly because i thought wouldn't anyone disagree? but reading tcauds answer i think i did understand it - i think the opposite of what he said, more or less.

ideas are in the mind, obviously.

Obviously you have joined the Nominalists and rejected the Realists.

I like the statement because it implies there are bigger and better ideas yet to be discovered... it implies there are depths beyond the human mind, which I find exciting, considering the potential. I do not like the statement implying that any idea humans discover, however, is inferior to the 'idea' or principal in nature.

Understood since it limits human potential, but what if we call the Supreme Idea the full-blazin' Glory, Grace, and Spirit of the Creator? Does that manifestation of the ineffable then become potentially effed? I smell blasphemy...

i think if you want to be perfectly puritan in denying* there is anything real about abstract entities, you would have to stop talking about even simple everyday things such as humans, since a person is just an abstract configuration of type cells of which the tokens are in constant circulation.

HAAAARDCOOOOOORE

this being said i regard the whole "Ne exists" mantra as more of a linguistic aide than as anything indicative of a deeper philosophical bent. any bickerings as to how expedient the use of these is seems to me to seed division where there needs to be none.

In fact much of this thread's raison d'être stems from how frequently arguments are expediently both made and discarded stating that supervenience of type upon token occurs in a direct and real fashion that goes beyond what is alluded to via rational-linguistic constructions. As originally stated, hypostatization of universals is a fundamental determinant of worldview, though its professed disbelief can conveniently donned as a disguise in the company of inifidels. However, that general comment aside...

to me "Ne exists" means something along the lines of "if you try to conceptualize your experiences using a concept of Ne, you get meaningful results", which incidentally it also means when applied to any other concept. perhaps just not always in quite as roundabout a way (though the extent to which the application is roundabout in cases of everyday usage can easily be underestimated; a human is a very, very complex thing when you try to spell it's identity out).

I'm glad to see you're espousing a more nuanced and self-sufficient view that exists as a synthesis of its extremes rather than dwelling upon either of them. Even within the cruciform binarism of socionics not everything boils down to exclusive answers. Your stated stance here accords with that in recent conversation as well, so I'll assume it's your default position when reading your posts in the future.

no vote; i don't care one way or the other.

So noted.

I usually include that there are things we think we know, but don't.
But that falls under things we don't know we don't know, right?

That can fall under a special reading of "things that we know we don't know."

You can never truly know something, you just use your brain and senses to make guesses nevertheless how certain of them you act.

In the year 2000 I will reveal how you helped inspire this thread.

Fine thinkinz, everbody. I await the next wave with mounting glee.

[Absurd]

I voted very accordingly, that is, ideals with which people have fettered their minds and to which they have shrunk their petty lives. They are for the me as though they were not.

And no, neurons only produce unicorns not thoughts. In fact, brain owes its magical powers thanks to glial cellls which comprise most of the brain, like dark matter comprises most of space.

[The Ineffable]

"'Ideas exist in nature as patterns or prototypes independent of human minds. The remainder of things only resemble Ideas and exist as their inferior copies.' I am..."

"I drink water. I drink soda. I drink pee. I drink beer.":
(a) I concur.
(b) I disagree.

[The Ineffable]

Epykeremorphus, since most poet-philosophers like you promote false dilemmas (aka "either/or fallacy"), I wonder one thing: do you guys do it intentionally or not?

[Absurd]

Epykeremorphus, since most poet-philosophers like you promote false dilemmas (aka "either/or fallacy"), I wonder one thing: do you guys do it intentionally or not?

Better ask what is he talking about in the first place. Besides those fanciful words I can't even find in dictionary I don't have a clue.

[Korpsy Knievel]

To anyone wondering why or how someone could conceive of ideas existing outside of minds, a relevant historical-cultural info-dump of tl;dr:

---

Celestial Archetypes of Territories,
Temples, and Cities

ACCORDING to Mesopotamian beliefs, the Tigris has its model in the star Anunit and the Euphrates in the star of the Swallow. A Sumerian text tells of the "place of the creation of the gods," where "the [divinity of] the flocks and grains" is to be found. For the Ural-Altaic peoples the mountains, in the same way, have an ideal prototype in the sky. In Egypt, places and nomes were named after the celestial "fields": first the celestial fields were known, then they were identified in terrestrial geography.

In Iranian cosmology of the Zarvanitic tradition, "every terrestrial phenomenon, whether abstract or concrete, corresponds to a celestial, transcendent invisible term, to an "idea" in the Platonic sense. Each thing, each notion presents itself under a double aspect: that of menok and that of getah. There is a visible sky: hence there is also a menok sky which is invisible. Our earth corresponds to a celestial earth. Each virtue practiced here below, in the getah, has a celestial counterpart which represents true reality. The year, prayer, in short, whatever is manifested in the getah, is at the same time menok. The creation is simply duplicated. From the cosmogonic point of view the cosmic stage called menok precedes the stage getah."

The temple in particular pre-eminently the sacred place had a celestial prototype. On Mount Sinai, Jehovah shows Moses the "form" of the sanctuary that he is to build for him: "According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. ... And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount" (Exodus 25 : 9, 40). And when David gives his son Solomon the plan for the temple buildings, for the tabernacle, and for all their utensils, he assures him that "All this . . . the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern" (I Chronicles 28 : 19). Hence he had seen the celestial model.

The earliest document referring to the archetype of a sanctuary is Gudea's inscription concerning the temple he built at Lagash. In a dream the king sees the goddess Nidaba, who shows him a tablet on which the beneficent stars are named, and a god who reveals the plan of the temple to him. Cities too have their divine prototypes. All the Babylonian cities had their archetypes in the constellations: Sippara in Cancer, Nineveh in Ursa Major, Assur in Arcturus, etc. Sennacherib has Nineveh built according to the "form delineated from distant ages by the writing of the heaven-of-stars." Not only does a model precede terrestrial architecture, but the model is also situated in an ideal (celestial) region of eternity. This is what Solomon announces: 'Thou gavest command to build a sanctuary in thy holy mountain, And an altar in the city of thy habitation, A copy of the holy tabernacle which thou preparedst aforehand from the beginning.'

A celestial Jerusalem was created by God before the city was built by the hand of man; it is to the former that the prophet refers in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch II, 4 : 2-7: "'Dost thou think that this is that city of which I said: "On the palms of My hands have I graven thee"? This building now built in your midst is not that which is revealed with Me, that which was prepared beforehand here from the time when I took counsel to make Paradise, and showed it to Adam before he sinned . . .'" The heavenly Jerusalem kindled the inspiration of all the Hebrew prophets: Tobias 13:16; Isaiah 59 : 1 1 ff.; Ezekiel 60, etc. To show him the city of Jerusalem, God lays hold of Ezekiel in an ecstatic vision and transports him to a very high mountain. And the Sibylline Oracles preserve the memory of the New Jerusalem in the center of which there shines "a temple . . . with a giant tower touching the very clouds and seen of all . . " But the most beautiful description of the heavenly Jerusalem occurs in the Apocalypse: "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

We find the same theory in India: all the Indian royal cities, even the modern ones, are built after the mythical model of the celestial city where, in the age of gold (in illo tempore), the Universal Sovereign dwelt. And, like the latter, the king attempts to revive the age of gold, to make a perfect reign a present reality an idea which we shall encounter again in the course of this study. Thus, for example, the palace-fortress of Sigiriya, in Ceylon, is built after the model of the celestial city Alakamanda and is "hard of ascent for human beings" (Mahavastu, 39, 2). Plato's ideal city likewise has a celestial archetype (Republic). The Platonic "forms'' are not astral; yet their mythical region is situated on supraterrestrial planes (Phaedrus, 247, 250).

The world that surrounds us, then, the world in which the presence and the work of man are felt the mountains that he climbs, populated and cultivated regions, navigable rivers, cities, sanctuaries all these have an extraterrestrial archetype, be it conceived as a plan, as a form, or purely and simply as a "double" existing on a higher cosmic level.

Mircea Eliade - The Myth of the Eternal Return

^{* in illo tempore: At that time, in that time; used to mark an undetermined time in the past.}

[Korpsy Knievel]

Better ask what is he talking about in the first place. Besides those fanciful words I can't even find in dictionary I don't have a clue.

Qualified personnel only. Dommage, Mécano.

Epykeremorphus, since most poet-philosophers like you promote false dilemmas (aka "either/or fallacy"), I wonder one thing: do you guys do it intentionally or not?

Ah, the strawman cometh. Now if only he had a brain!

Since excited hope of vengeance against your natural master has led you once again to drop your ratty trousers prematurely, pedal your square-wheeled trike back to the post where I addressed labcoat — him whom you praised just yesterday — and personally recognized the merits of his yet-more subtle view. Observe, too, that all respondents are encouraged to explain their full thoughts on this survey, easily overcoming the predictable limitations the poll format presents.

Curiosity at your persistently shocking displays of stupidity compels: do you perform regular pratfalls for the pleasure of your audience, or is buffoonery simply intrinsic to your nature? Perhaps in resigned submission to your indelible signature of slop you've elected to showcase this defining handicap, cultivating your fans' endearment to a hapless fool in the bargain. Yes indeed, if you've chosen this middle way it's a wise one, for it amply affords a great boon to your artistic service and again to the ready comfort of your pride.

Donkey Hodey, Avaunt!

[Saberstorm]

I was (formerly) pursuing a PhD in philosophy, my specialty being the first 40 years of philosophy after Kant. Basically, I am sick of philosophy. I am converting my research over to business theory.

Now, back to the subject at hand: According to Aristotle, "the efficient cause of thought is the will to know." Not a bad start for a discussion. Now we can add to this a statement from Heinrich Krug, the man who took over for Kant as department head of philosophy at Konigsberg University. "The central dilemma of knowledge is this: There is Being, and it’s Representation in our Own Being." Krugian philosophy denies subjectivism, but assumes philosophical ignorance instead.

Karl Jung based his system off of Krug's interpretation of Kantian philosophy. If Socionics is Jungian, it assumes Krugian philosophy. It thus assumes two types of ignorance, the deeper sense of self, and the deeper understanding of being apart from the self.

I am too burnt out from philosophy to discuss it further.Basically the idea is that which is "most known is least true, that which is most true is the least known..."

A similar philosopher to Krug (and also an influence on Mircea Eliade) is Jakob Frederick Fries. Go to www.friesian.org to read his stuff. It is pretty close to Jung... and very deep.

Here is a Friesian introduction to Eliade: http://www.friesian.com/eliade.htm
Here is a Friesian introduction to Jung: http://www.friesian.com/jung.htm

[woofwoofl]

I've been thinking about this lots, and really it depends on where I'm at in time specifically, and if one approach is leaving me stuck or not...

A few months or so ago, I thought about how concepts, ideas, and the like simply don't exist as would a tangible object, and how these abstractions would likely be meaningless to the trees, the cockroaches, the grass, etc. On average, I have ideas being subservient to the reality that spawned them in the first place, though I'll go off the deep end and get really conceptual and shit; during this rarer time period, I'll start with a sense of order and then work out from there, all the while having in the back of my mind that it won't align perfectly, and that it probably shouldn't...

[Gilly]

though I'll go off the deep end and get really conceptual and shit; during this rarer time period, I'll start with a sense of order and then work out from there, all the while having in the back of my mind that it won't align perfectly, and that it probably shouldn't...

Interesting, I am like this as well but I think I situationally determine whether or not I think things will align, based on the early stages and initial input. Sometimes I let my meanderings really sink in, if I feel like they are worth it, but I try not to have expectations based on them, but rather use them as inspiration.

[The Ineffable]

Better ask what is he talking about in the first place. Besides those fanciful words I can't even find in dictionary I don't have a clue.

Yeah it's just gibberish, for instance he didn't define the meaning of "inferior" in the context - and I doubt he gives a shit, it just sounds catchy - but considering how many assertion were bulked together, the fallacy is necessary; even more so when the either/or question addresses ambiguous premises.

If he had asked instead, "we don't know the empirical things in themselves but form internal ideas about reality which do not necessarily represent it accurately" then I could have answered.

[The Ineffable]

Since excited hope of vengeance against your natural master has led you once again to drop your ratty trousers prematurely, pedal your square-wheeled trike back to the post where I addressed labcoat — him whom you praised just yesterday — and personally recognized the merits of his yet-more subtle view. Observe, too, that all respondents are encouraged to explain their full thoughts on this survey, easily overcoming the predictable limitations the poll format presents.

Curiosity at your persistently shocking displays of stupidity compels: do you perform regular pratfalls for the pleasure of your audience, or is buffoonery simply intrinsic to your nature? Perhaps in resigned submission to your indelible signature of slop you've elected to showcase this defining handicap, cultivating your fans' endearment to a hapless fool in the bargain. Yes indeed, if you've chosen this middle way it's a wise one, for it amply affords a great boon to your artistic service and again to the ready comfort of your pride.

Life is dull out here, just for your information. What is that which you snorted?

[ashlesha]

I wouldn't have known to frame it this way before but this really is the source of a lot of differences I've had with people over socionics. nothing has really gotten to me as much as seeing something like, "so-and-so is XXXx but doesn't always appear that way because they are disingenuous." as though type is the real thing and people are fakes and posers if they don't line up. thats why I'm so disgusted with people seeing type as something "real."

Person > type every time, imo

[Korpsy Knievel]

Yeah it's just gibberish, for instance he didn't define the meaning of "inferior" in the context - and I doubt he gives a shit, it just sounds catchy - but considering how many assertion were bulked together, the fallacy is necessary; even more so when the either/or question addresses ambiguous premises.

An encore performance so soon. It's amazing you'd keep ignorantly reacting to posts you lazily refuse to read that are printed on the exact same page you're typing on. Apparently you really do want to look like a fool. See the portion addressing Pistolshrimp http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post847746

If he had asked instead, "we don't know the empirical things in themselves but form internal ideas about reality which do not necessarily represent it accurately" then I could have answered.

25 thoughtful posts were written by adults before your tantrum began. Any problem with comprehension lies entirely with you.

[squark]

"'Ideas exist in nature as patterns or prototypes independent of human minds. The remainder of things only resemble Ideas and exist as their inferior copies.' I am..."

I disagree. Ideas are a construct of the mind. An idea is a conception of reality, a conception of the patterns etc that exist as your mind has put it together. There are certainly things that have not yet been discovered or formed into ideas that nonetheless do exist, but they are not ideas.

People observe, measure, test, perceive and interact with the environment around them, and with other people's perceptions and observations as communicated to them, and from their interactions with their world they form ideas of their own, and accept other's ideas as true/false or plausible/implausible or maybe just plain nutty, depending on the idea and their own knowledge/experience. There are yet concepts and ideas that have not been formed, waiting for the right observer to arrange their observations into an idea, well, that we are aware of anyway, as not every idea ever conceived has been recorded or is known to us. But, ideas are not something that is floating around out there outside of a mind. Ideas come only from within a mind.

[squark]

To anyone wondering why or how someone could conceive of ideas existing outside of minds, a relevant historical-cultural info-dump of tl;dr:

I'm familiar with this, having had this discussion with people before as their religious belief, of all things on earth being copies of a corresponding heavenly something. If anything, it represents an idea coming before the tangible fulfillment of it. As in, what you see before you has been created beforehand either in another realm, or within the mind itself. It doesn't imo demonstrate an idea existing outside of a mind, because a model is something already created by a mind.

To say however that a model or representation exists in complete form, as an "idea" that is then grasped onto by someone is slightly different. It is a way of seeing things that makes minds merely conduits for preexisting thoughts and creations. It's like asking the question, "Is there such a thing as original thought?" My response to that is that yes, there is. And we are not merely puppets of our biological wiring, spitting out materials conceived before us like a spider weaves a pattern in its web that is built into its genes. Some of what we are is predetermined, and I had an interesting discussion once re. whether knowledge can be passed on in genes giving rise to "natural talent" in various fields, but imo we are more than biological robots, and our minds do more than copy pre-existing knowledge and ideas. Our minds can form and synthesize things in new ways, making things that have never existed before. We do have creative power, and are not merely copycats.

[Saberstorm]

I figured I should look it up.

"Ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek ἐκπύρωσις ekpurōsis, conflagration) is a Stoic belief in the periodic destruction of the cosmos by a great conflagration every Great Year. The cosmos is then recreated (palingenesis) only to be destroyed again at the end of the new cycle."