Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: How I view reality

  1. #1
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default How I view reality

    I have no idea where this topic should go but I have decided to put it here as it provides insight into the way I view reality and because of it should fall under socionics discussion.

    I think in shapes or structures. Everything I experience can be expressed through these shapes. A shape is everything that a particular phenomenon I observe is, but in one place, in a lump. It's as if all the elements that make up that phenomenon have fused into a new entity.

    By observing this entity I am observing the phenomenon, or more specifically the phenomenon's essence. I will look at it and realize that for instance only that and that part of it is currently displayed. I can see those parts that are not on display.
    This causes me problems with people as they say either convinced by one way or another that "Naturally it is like this". Then I say "No, it is not, that is only a part of it" or "No, it is not a part of it at all". It's worse when it is with accepted dogma because I can see that what they are talking about is a completely different shape and it has nothing to do with the other shape or that this part of the shape is shared with another shape or that they are ignoring other parts of the shape and thus turning it into another shape an so on.
    It's like looking into a room where somebody is telling you that "This black couch is splendid" when they are pointing into a white refrigerator. I mean, wtf??? Can't you not see that that is a refrigerator??? What do you mean it's not, are you blind??? It's a goddamn refrigerator idiot!!! and so on.

    But these shapes can be literally anything. A sentence "Today is a nice day", the act of pushing a chair, a smile from a particular person at a particular moment, a mathematical concept, anything. They are the essence of those phenomenons.
    When I approach things, reality, I approach them always from this angle, the study of essence. It's like another form of sight really. Almost everything can be expressed through this mode (And more).

    These phenomenons change over time, they are dynamic. Some more then others. Some are totally static. They are also dependent on their interaction with other shapes. Just like real matter we observe, they can collide, fuse and so on (Even though I observe this in a different manner it describes the process adequately).
    I can examine these shapes. I can take one and observe it for instance. Isolate it. If you have to picture them in 3D do, but they are not like that. These shapes can have height, emotional state, potential, color, roughness, arousability, any quality conceivable that they wouldn't in the concrete world. For instance I will observe a sentence and it will have height and flavor.

    Often my physical and mental conditions limit my ability to examine, experience them. For instance I can look at a mathematical concept and just KNOW that it is there somewhere but I just can't find it. It can get very frustrating.
    I never give up because I know it is there, I can see, sense it is there but the words, the equation is missing.

    Examining these shapes is a form of acquiring knowledge. It is just as valid as observations of concrete reality even though it is in my mind and thus should be subjective. But so are our eyes in our head, but they are reliable, consistent, this is the same. These are eyes in my mind. Any these shapes totally correspond to reality, just differently viewed.
    When examining these shapes I use my cognitive abilities to process them. Just like with things I see with my eyes I still have to understand them first. I do that by either absorbing them or by examining them.
    Absorption is accepting something as it is. It's like seeing a rhino and accepting it as a rhino. But there is no way to describe it, convey it to others. You have to do that by examination. That way when somebody says "Rhino big!" you say "No, rhino small, rhino chubby, big nose..." and there you go examining the shape in order to find a way to convey it to others.
    That's why I do not accept examinations as understanding as one has to absorb something in order to comprehend it. With examination it is separate from you and you may misjudge it. But with absorption you may absorb a different thing like a hypo and you will cal it a rhino.
    Also even though I can "absorb" them, these shapes are not a part of me, they exist independent of me, just like that rhino would.

    But the world of these shapes is not simple. The nature of these shapes varies. These shapes behave just like matter does in our everyday world.
    Sometimes, often actually, I see shapes and fail to notice that it is in a great big web and a small part of a larger thing. This larger thing is not a shape itself for some odd reason. But it can be made into one.
    An example would be mathematics or behaviour of an individual. These shapes behave like puddles. There exist separate puddles and you cannot enter other puddles from the one you are in. But these puddles form structures that cannot be expressed through one shape. The parts form a whole but are separate. You have to link them yourself and over time a bigger and bigger understanding develops. It's like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. Shapes assembled like this behave like normal shapes.
    Concrete example would be like seeing a pile of stones, then another pile, and another and soon you realize they form a pattern and through your cognitive capabilities you try to find out what it is. It takes time for you to be able to see the entire structure.
    But once able to be put in a form of a shape (when you are able to see the pattern) they can be absorbed in an instant.

    Sometimes they are in the shape itself. The same thing as before, the parts form a whole but are separate, but this time I can see the whole and not the parts.
    Again this is hard to spot and one needs to use ones cognitive abilities to notice it.
    An example would be trickery. It often hides in phenomenons and are hard to spot. You think you've spotted it but it keeps hiding. As if it were alive*.

    These shapes are independent of space and time. They can simultaneously be in several phenomenons and can simultaneously exist in different states. You can observe them in the past, in the future, in the present, as a part of something, independent, they exist in every state conceivable and any moment conceivable.

    *Which brings me to another issue. I am pretty certain that among these shapes there is life. Just like when you observe and see a cat, it doesn't take long to see it differs from a rock.
    So it is with these phenomenons. Some are alive.

    Shapes of people and stuff are not always alive here as often they do not realize they are in this world. They change and shape according to how other shapes influence them. Just how a collision is unavoidable to matter they seem to be unable to alter course.
    But some shapes are alive, they change course and navigate in this world. But the interesting part is that they are not necessarily alive in our world. I think most moral concepts, evil, good, trickery and so on are alive. And I think I noticed a couple of these in mathematics also. But I don't know, I could be attributing more to their behavior, existence then there really is.



    Well, there you go . If somebody has any questions feel free to ask.

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wow.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Excellent post! I wanted to get the jist of it first, and now I'm going to read it in-depth. Don't mind me.
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    694
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IEI subtype

  5. #5
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So...you're a perceptron?
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think you would enjoy mathematical topology very much.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  7. #7
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    So...you're a perceptron?
    What is a perceptron?


    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    I think you would enjoy mathematical topology very much.
    I wouldn't know. I haven't gotten to that part yet.

    Rough example?

  8. #8
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    So...you're a perceptron?
    What is a perceptron?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron

    It's a basic unit used for pattern-recognition and pattern-discovery devices.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    So...you're a perceptron?
    What is a perceptron?


    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    I think you would enjoy mathematical topology very much.
    I wouldn't know. I haven't gotten to that part yet.

    Rough example?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism
    Fun. You probably have some synaesthesia going on.
    Or THC in the blood stream jk, but its possible right?
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  11. #11
    oyburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    somewhere overthere
    Posts
    2,528
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can experience synaesthesia from acid, not pot.
    All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyburger
    You can experience synaesthesia from acid, not pot.
    What if I already have it without any substance but pot magnifies it.
    -Slava


    What a great replacement for a nany

  13. #13
    Creepy-aurora_faerie

    Default

    snegledmaca, this post kind of sounds like me on adderal, or me on some sort of drug....


    I liked it but it made me feel nostolgic.

  14. #14
    oyburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    somewhere overthere
    Posts
    2,528
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slava
    Quote Originally Posted by oyburger
    You can experience synaesthesia from acid, not pot.
    What if I already have it without any substance but pot magnifies it.
    Then you're like me minus the pot. Acid gives the experience to those who don't already have it.
    All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster

  15. #15
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aurora_faerie
    snegledmaca, this post kind of sounds like me on adderal, or me on some sort of drug....
    Well that's me normal .

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism
    Fun. You probably have some synaesthesia going on.
    The more I think about it the more I think synaesthesia is a wrong word to describe this. Yes, there is a unity of sensations but they form a new entity.

    For instance there are certain feelings that are shapes. I will feel like that shape. For instance, feeling white. Feeling white is sick, like being emptied, devoured by whiteness. Feeling white makes you sick.
    For me whiteness originates in the stomach area and spreads from it.
    It is also a shape. It is a liquid and is flat as a sheet of paper. It is not viscous, quite the contrary, it is very rare and flows too easily. It is rare as a gas even though it is a liquid.
    In the organism it provokes an emotional state of silent terror (Along with an illness). It seems distant, as if it was heavily dampened.
    I've gotten it a couple of times when I was sick. I can't remember when but I do remember feeling white.

    But nobody I know experiences this so I might just be imagining things.

  16. #16
    oyburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    somewhere overthere
    Posts
    2,528
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, that sounds like synaesthesia to me. For me the feeling you described is red, I get it sometimes too.
    All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster

  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 snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by aurora_faerie
    snegledmaca, this post kind of sounds like me on adderal, or me on some sort of drug....
    Well that's me normal .

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism
    Fun. You probably have some synaesthesia going on.
    The more I think about it the more I think synaesthesia is a wrong word to describe this. Yes, there is a unity of sensations but they form a new entity.

    For instance there are certain feelings that are shapes. I will feel like that shape. For instance, feeling white. Feeling white is sick, like being emptied, devoured by whiteness. Feeling white makes you sick.
    For me whiteness originates in the stomach area and spreads from it.
    It is also a shape. It is a liquid and is flat as a sheet of paper. It is not viscous, quite the contrary, it is very rare and flows too easily. It is rare as a gas even though it is a liquid.
    In the organism it provokes an emotional state of silent terror (Along with an illness). It seems distant, as if it was heavily dampened.
    I've gotten it a couple of times when I was sick. I can't remember when but I do remember feeling white.

    But nobody I know experiences this so I might just be imagining things.
    Profound. This sounds like either creative with exertion , or determining with exertion . Probably the former.

  18. #18
    Darkstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    718
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

    Profound. This sounds like either creative with exertion , or determining with exertion . Probably the former.



    snegledmaca, I found your post very enlightning. It made me think of how you would apprecieate an SLE and how the duality works so beautifully. Of course only if neither the SLE or the IEI is 'fucked up', then it's only sad, pathetic

    I also got the enlightment of how one time I was thinking really hard on something for weeks without making any progression( probably best though as it was mischief). Anyway now I know that what I needed was the functions you use so freely. That's cool, although a weakness. But quite balanced

    This part: (third piece)
    By observing this entity I am observing the phenomenon, or more specifically the phenomenon's essence. I will look at it and realize that for instance only that and that part of it is currently displayed. I can see those parts that are not on display.
    This causes me problems with people as they say either convinced by one way or another that "Naturally it is like this". Then I say "No, it is not, that is only a part of it" or "No, it is not a part of it at all". It's worse when it is with accepted dogma because I can see that what they are talking about is a completely different shape and it has nothing to do with the other shape or that this part of the shape is shared with another shape or that they are ignoring other parts of the shape and thus turning it into another shape an so on.
    I relate to this, I get the same feeling as you when this happen. It is like they are missing an important part and it gives them a distorted view of the world, it can however be hard to pronounce this view as it may be a bit to intuitive for me and it's so far back in my head it is hard plocking it out and making it understandable.

    and this last piece)

    Shapes of people and stuff are not always alive here as often they do not realize they are in this world. They change and shape according to how other shapes influence them. Just how a collision is unavoidable to matter they seem to be unable to alter course.
    But some shapes are alive, they change course and navigate in this world. But the interesting part is that they are not necessarily alive in our world. I think most moral concepts, evil, good, trickery and so on are alive.
    I want you to elaborate this =)

    other then that I think I get it. Good work :wink:

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyburger
    No, that sounds like synaesthesia to me. For me the feeling you described is red, I get it sometimes too.
    sounds white to me.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've never had a feeling I could describe with a color.

    Snegledmaca:
    Describe these "shapes" for us. Are they regular polygons, irregular? Are there vectors, circles, spheres? Are they single colored, many colored? Do they stretch and tear, bend and twist? How do you know what they feel? Do they have eyes, mouths? Do they speak? What do you see beyong the shapes: what is their background like, or do you notice?

    What you are saying suggests that all concepts can be represented by shapes. For example, a personality trait invokes a shape, and combining many traits together can invoke a body.

  21. #21
    Darkstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    718
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Darkstar and tcaudilllg sittin' in a boat...




    :(

  22. #22
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkstar
    Darkstar and tcaudilllg sittin' in a boat...




    Don't push me.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Profound. This sounds like either creative with exertion , or determining with exertion . Probably the former.
    Really? Now if I only knew what that means. But what I think it means is some sort of a mix between the function. Which makes me ask why not and ? Subjective mental imagery () that behaves like concrete and physical () in ones mind ( that creates )

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkstar
    Shapes of people and stuff are not always alive here as often they do not realize they are in this world. They change and shape according to how other shapes influence them. Just how a collision is unavoidable to matter they seem to be unable to alter course.
    But some shapes are alive, they change course and navigate in this world. But the interesting part is that they are not necessarily alive in our world. I think most moral concepts, evil, good, trickery and so on are alive.
    I want you to elaborate this =)
    Well I'm not sure, I have huge issues with whether I'm imagining things or they are actual, real. With these things, I access most from memory when I'm explaining it. And when I think about them they behave just like floppy imaginings, the classical stuff you see with people who think they have paranormal powers. I have no idea on how to verify them, well most of them. Some I can easily, but most I can't and seeing myself talk about it makes me squeamish because I sound just like a new age hippy that is selling one of their many delusions. And that's something I don't want to be.

    The thing with living and dead shapes is that when I think about some things, when I get in the mode where I "see" these things, a mindless mode, I can feel my immediate surroundings, things that are "touching me" to say (I can't actually see them, I'm blind, I can only feel things with my presence, with my body, my shape. I'm like an ameba there), and some things move.

    Also I have to say here that this touching metaphor is just a metaphor. For example I can touch things that span over time, meaning, the space analogy is not in any way literal, some things cannot be expressed through space.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I've never had a feeling I could describe with a color.

    Snegledmaca:
    Describe these "shapes" for us. Are they regular polygons, irregular? Are there vectors, circles, spheres? Are they single colored, many colored? Do they stretch and tear, bend and twist? How do you know what they feel? Do they have eyes, mouths? Do they speak? What do you see beyond the shapes: what is their background like, or do you notice?
    Well, it's all of that except that they have no distinguishable features, there don't have eyes, ears, in fact having eyes ears would be like finding a rock shaped like an ear. Weird.

    No, the shapes are often not dimensional. Mostly I just feel them. To put it this way, I can't understand some qualities so I make up for it through perceiving them through feelings. I'll feel them, this one feels shallow, this one feels tall and so on. But that is just my understanding, I don't know if this is how they really are, if the really have those qualities, it's just how they feel to me.

    As I've mentioned I don't know if this is real or not. One possible proof of them would be what happens when I do math. I write my own math in my free time and through perceiving what I'm doing as entities I can predict whether I have reached an important formula and in what direction to head in next. And this works on some cases, but sometimes it doesn't. Well not that it didn't really work, there was this one time when it was clearly contradictory to what is objectively observable to me. One formula seems to not be there despite the fact that objectively it's really important. But regardless of that one the rest of the times I have gotten important formulas like that and I was aware objectively looking that this is huge and the shape didn't feel right the shape was correct. It felt meaningless and I reexamined my procedure and realized that I made an error somewhere and the formula was wrong. Or realized that through manipulation I'm back at where I started and it doesn’t further me in any way, just a big roundabout. The times it felt big, it was big. Well, big in my book. It gave me a lot of progress.

    Regarding the shapes, most of these shapes have no space. That whiteness is probably the only shape that I remember that had both color and was spatial (And that I could actually *visualize*. I don't remember anything else like that off the top of my head). Almost nothing is spatial.

    Awareness of them is tricky. I think it might resemble a Picasso image because often I'll see parts of something from different angles and very often spread through time. For example I'll perceive something that appears to be a part of it and move to the side and all of a sudden I'll see different entities at a later stage in development. It's like seeing a perfectly normal cake and then turning around and seeing that it's deteriorated, hollow and rodents are eating it from the inside. Then turn back and see the cake as was before, whole and complete. But you have to remember that I'm using this as an analogy, things aren't as nearly mystical as they apery to be. I'm just trying to use analogies that would capture the feelings evoked in me because in reality all I get are fluctuation in feeling and often the nuances are subtle. But continuing, in order to perceive them from memory I need to put myself in a state of suggestibility and "let the image compose itself" from trying to refocus on it. This is why I'm stressing out the I might be wrong thing. But I've had times when I was wrong and the thing was that I could determine whether I was wrong or not. I'd enter suggestibility and for the time being, while in the suggestible mode, I'd experience the shape. And then after observing it later on, when I'm not in the suggestible mode, I can clearly see what parts were true and what weren't. Also I have an incredible tendency to rationalize things which sometimes takes me of course and I lose sight, which also makes me very careful. But luckily this is pure perception so I can't distort anything with my thinking (Although I can now, when I try to explain it)

    What you are saying suggests that all concepts can be represented by shapes. For example, a personality trait invokes a shape, and combining many traits together can invoke a body.
    Yes, you've especially hit the target with that personalities can be expressed through shapes. But they aren't necessarily made of parts. Well it depends, sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, and sometimes one shape is both made of shapes and isn't simultaneously. But there are a lot of personalities and although they are different I can notice that they are personalities (Some things are personalities as well). But there is no division like socionics, the main types I'm aware and can think of off the top of my head are what I call predators and self aware people. Predators have a negative potential and self aware people have a floating point for a potential, a point that is not fixated and glides. It's like a triangular needle that is somewhere in reality. And it's retractable. Predators are fixated and don't have a needle. And I know that they are indistinguishable by methods other then observing their essence. They also have a wall separating me and their essence, actually it's like a plate of glass in an aquarium, they're like the animal swimming in the tank unaware of me. And a large lot of people, I'd say more then half, don't have personalities at all. Their essence seems to be fused with something which I'm not quite sure what it is and this prevents them from being seen by me. It's like there are not in my line of sight. I just can't see their essence, I don't recognize it. I know that this one time I realized this girl's essence was the floor I was walking on. Well not really the floor but something underneath me that I mistook for a "common household object", as something insignificant, everyday, something you don't expect to be a persons essence. It's like trying to find a small animal that's hidden in your room where it could be any object in the room. You only notice it's the vase if you see it twitch or something and as you observe more you realize it is, it's the vase. As you converse with the person you see it move, certain actions cause the essence to twitch, but the problem is that they are like corals, highly immobile and change very, very slowly. And yet some are clearly visible because once I realize that say it's the vase I can notice others like it and learn to spot them. Also some personality types overlap. But not intentionally. They overlap only for the individual.

    EDIT: Boy, I really do sound like a new ager explaining one of their delusions. Oh well.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When you mention predator personalities, would you say these include chronically personality-disordered people?

    Very interesting... I'm playing a game right now which is describing one of its character's destinies as being made uncertain by the existence of a fairy in her head.

    I'd might as well explain sensory intuition as I understand it. To be brief I'll just discuss how it would manifest if you were, say, an exertion dominant.

    Accepting looks at the world as a series of points in time. Event X transpired at this point; events Y is transpiring now; event Z may transpire in the future. 's exertion function describes what kind of event this is in terms of information elements: a relational dynamic, an interrelationship, a restructuring, an experience etc. In the case of , the event in question is the liberation of a body due to the exertion of an force upon it. The existence of this force removes the body from the stasis imposed by static fields such as gravity or electromagnetism; one such example would be the act of hurling an object into the air. Although gravity will act on it, the object will remain free for an interval. An ILI with exertion would perceive the relationships between motions at different points in time; an IEI such as yourself would perceive forces influencing personal experiences/internal object dynamics over the same interval. Depending on what the creative exertion function is, these experiences would appear to coalesce either into a time-transient entity perceived either from within () or from without (). To illustrate, an IEI with SLE exertion would perceive the sun as a phenomenon of forces churning within a closed space or "shape", as you say, which produces the static of perception we identify as a "star". In contrast, an IEI with SEE exertion would suggest the churning of the forces to be responsible for the internal field static of fusion within the space. sees the star, sees the fusion.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Please describe these "predators" for us: what do they look like, and what do they do?

  25. #25
    Darkstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    718
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    sneg, fyi:
    I am still digesting your post so wait for me.

    I was surprised by your "don't push me".. wasn't expecting that. Still don't 'get it'.

    :(

  26. #26
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    When you mention predator personalities, would you say these include chronically personality-disordered people?

    Very interesting... I'm playing a game right now which is describing one of its character's destinies as being made uncertain by the existence of a fairy in her head.

    I'd might as well explain sensory intuition as I understand it. To be brief I'll just discuss how it would manifest if you were, say, an exertion dominant.

    Accepting looks at the world as a series of points in time. Event X transpired at this point; events Y is transpiring now; event Z may transpire in the future. 's exertion function describes what kind of event this is in terms of information elements: a relational dynamic, an interrelationship, a restructuring, an experience etc. In the case of , the event in question is the liberation of a body due to the exertion of an force upon it. The existence of this force removes the body from the stasis imposed by static fields such as gravity or electromagnetism; one such example would be the act of hurling an object into the air. Although gravity will act on it, the object will remain free for an interval. An ILI with exertion would perceive the relationships between motions at different points in time; an IEI such as yourself would perceive forces influencing personal experiences/internal object dynamics over the same interval. Depending on what the creative exertion function is, these experiences would appear to coalesce either into a time-transient entity perceived either from within () or from without (). To illustrate, an IEI with SLE exertion would perceive the sun as a phenomenon of forces churning within a closed space or "shape", as you say, which produces the static of perception we identify as a "star". In contrast, an IEI with SEE exertion would suggest the churning of the forces to be responsible for the internal field static of fusion within the space. sees the star, sees the fusion.
    Well, I guess it it's not and as what you're describing is not what I'm experiencing. You say it's a time transient entity that is described either from within or without. But there is no time here, there is no space even. There is no within or without by definition, some things have in and out, some don't, there is also no time by definition, some are timeless, some have time. And some even though they exist in time are timeless (For example constants). There are no boundaries as to how I perceive them.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Please describe these "predators" for us: what do they look like, and what do they do?
    The "feed" on other people's psyches. It's like they are a cloud of toxic gas that is harming you. I can't describe it other then a stifling sensation brought on by the person's existence. It's literally like something out of start trek with their interstellar entities. The only way you notice it is when you notice that stifling sensation as you gradually lose the ability to function from the toxicity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkstar
    sneg, fyi:
    I am still digesting your post so wait for me.

    I was surprised by your "don't push me".. wasn't expecting that. Still don't 'get it'.

    Perhaps I don't want this thread to continue? Perhaps I want it to die?

  27. #27
    Darkstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    718
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca

    Perhaps I don't want this thread to continue? Perhaps I want it to die?
    Is it because the thread is so one sided. You only give and give and get nothing in return?
    Almost like a rare animal taken to the zoo and everyone looks and pokes at it. (??)

    I'm kind of lost in your thoughts now and I cant see the light of reality anywhere. That's why I havent given you any feedback. I can imagine what you think, I can also imagine what they mean and is in the "real world" but I can not relate to it in any way =)
    That's why.. It is not like I want you to be a circus monkey :(

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The "feed" on other people's psyches. It's like they are a cloud of toxic gas that is harming you. I can't describe it other then a stifling sensation brought on by the person's existence. It's literally like something out of start trek with their interstellar entities. The only way you notice it is when you notice that stifling sensation as you gradually lose the ability to function from the toxicity.
    That's what I suspected. I was talking with my mother about that yesterday, because she's married to one such person and his aggression is destroying him. (which is tragic, but these people -are- tragedy.)

    I think psychology may have done itself a disservice by focusing on "personality disorders" that are states of extreme neurosis, without asking whether there may be a persistent aggrivating factor in some -- but not all -- of these cases. I think many psychologists and psychiatrists alike make the mistake of believing that the people who possess these factors are "victims", whereas they are actually the generators of the evils which consume them. Positive psychology gone too far....

    I think the character of Loki, from Norse mythology, captures your predetor idea well. Such a person tries to deny the existence of ideas which do not agree with their own, and is so consumed in their determination to destroy everything irrelevant to their own strategy that they create ruin for themselves and for everyone around them.

    What is the experience of these predators like from your standpoint? Can you perceive the flow of energy from other people into them? What are they desiring to accomplish? ...I have a hunch they are motivated by the "absolute object", the drive to produce information that is reconciled to all points of view. I'm not sure how to approach such a "truth" from an ethical standpoint however, because it seems to deny the existence of ethics all together.... (which I do not believe, but it is a logical conundrum regardless.)

    I should say, that when I label someone "pathological", I am doing such because I feel that someone is attempting to prey on my psychological situation in a matter similar to what snegledmaca has described here. I sense this activity and am very vigorous in my defense against it. It is also worth considering that people can be mislead by "corrupt values" -- prejudices and intolerances -- into creating conflicts where there is really no basis for such. If I can contact people directly and interface with them I can manage to purge their corrupted values, but if there is no opportunity for contact I have little recourse save self-defense.

Posting Permissions

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