Transhumanism (h+)

[Whoobie77]

Imo you're a bit dark and pessimistic in a classical ILI fashion. ILEs can be, of course, but I think it seems a natural part of yourself instead something caused by external conditioning. But I'm not sure.

In a broader sense all intuitors have a big inclination for using this resource, although the style is different in each case. .

I just wanted to briefly respond to this. you were right, I was being stupid. After talking to hkkmr/point and xerx about historical patterns (both self-identified ILEs, if I recall correctly) I realized how differently we viewed history. To me, history has a pattern which cannot be escaped. To them, they were very quick to bust me about other possibilities.

On another MBTI site, someone said this to me in a discussion to differentiate between the two. "[Ne types] are content to ~describe~ the historical record with little discrimination to time, place, or party. They seem to view the historical record as an all-purpose toolbox where every incident is significant in its own right ...With the Ni types, rather than being content to describe the evolution and patterns of history itself, they are interested in coming up with some mental schema of their own design, which they then superimpose on the historical record. Once the pattern is imposed, the historical record is no longer an all-purpose toolbox from which you can pick and choose at your leisure; which events that are significant is now determined by the pattern that has been imposed on history, ~prescribed~, as it were. Events are therefore less significant in their own right, but rather significant in relation to the overall pattern."

On another resource on the site, this was said, "If a person has an Se/Ni axis, then that person’s observations will be more singular and intense The person will stress one point of view (Ni)...On the other hand, if a person has an Si/Ne axis, that person’s observations will be more multifaceted, drawing upon multiple perspectives at once."

I also looked at a functional breakdown of Nietzsche and Socrates (ENTP), pointing out that Nietzsche was indulgent (Se) while Socrates was ascetic (Si).

I also remembered being frustrated with Daniel Dennett (ENTP) despite us being interested in similar phenomena (club) due to his total unwillingness to commit to a viewpoint on anything he talked about. On the other hand, Oswald Spengler's (INTJ) historical overlay remains hugely influential on my thoughts today.

So I've recovered from my temporary bout of insanity. To be honest, both my sense of own personality and command and comfortability with this system is more tenuous then I let on. Other people knocked me off course; sometimes I am prone to seeing outside conversational input as a bastardized form of peer review, where this may not be the case in all situations. In any case, just wanted to express my gratitude for your incisive and clearheaded perspective. (that was a lot more long winded than I intended).

[marooned]

i think "acting against nature" is a difficult idea. i do believe that humans act against nature in that human activity is destroying the natural world. if humans were to, say, transform the entire globe into a major city, i would consider this an act against nature in the extreme. however, it's also an act that is in our nature, and we're not the only ones. as far as i can determine so far (and i think about this a lot but really haven't been able to resolve it in my mind yet) the acts that humans have committed that destroy the natural world arise out of natural tendencies, such as claiming and keeping territory (this allows one to better control their resources and establish shelter), gathering and caching resources (lots of animals do this, birds, squirrels, you name it), social and sexual competition, social and emotional needs/bonds, and a strong proclivity for tool use (and tool use is not an "unnatural" development... it arises again and again in the animal kingdom, sometimes out of instinct forged through evolution and sometimes as a more sophisticated cognitive ability to think about what you need, what resources are present, and how you might be able to adapt those resources to fulfill your needs). perhaps the most destructive feature that humans possess (which is also observable in other animals to varying degrees) is the ability to proliferate knowledge incredibly efficiently and in incredible detail.

but... if there is an "error" here, it's an error in "nature" itself. what living creatures need to do to survive and how they evolve over time in response to survival pressures, is the process that created creatures capable of destroying the natural world (and capable of destroying themselves). it honestly seems like an inevitability to me, at least given the conditions on earth. and perhaps if one could view things from the perspective of "god" none of it would matter because the universe would just be this expanse of pure consciousness and energy, and why would you care if the configuration of energy changed on one little rock floating in the void for a brief spot of time? it would be no more or less beautiful or grand for that change. but to me, the "natural world" does matter a lot, and the thought of us reducing all of the varied consciousness and intriguing adaptations in other species that can provide a wealth of knowledge that we've only begun to tap, down to only humankind, is a huge, tragic, horrifying loss. i find other species *incredibly* fascinating and as adding a richness, meaning, and truth to the world, and i can't stand the idea of losing that.

i don't really see transhumanism as at odds with the natural world though. keeping the natural world means keeping wild spaces and and not endangering the creatures that live in those spaces with extreme poaching, toxic materials, or other destructive interference. it's about finding a way for civilization and wilderness to coexist on earth (a way that we can keep both). and really i think that overcoming our nature is the biggest challenge with this because we are only doing what we are designed to do. our nature tells us to expand and proliferate and find ways of using resources for our needs, and compete for resources and social status... everything we're doing is natural. it's just that without anything else in the environment to keep us in check, this becomes destructive. invasive species are everywhere now, but really i think that we were the first one. it's difficult having to establish our own bounds. animals don't ever have to do that because other natural forces keep them in check--instead other animals are always struggling to survive against these forces. we're still acting like we're also struggling (as a species) because all of our evolutionary ancestors lived in that kind of world. it's encoded in us. so really, the only way to save "nature" is to overcome our nature.

also, i don't really know if thinking of people's supposed types according to views in this way - e.g. most Alpha NTs hold this view, but she doesn't, could it be she's not an Alpha NT?! - really gets one anywhere. it doesn't even hold in one person, imo. some "views" we hold stick for a year or two, others for a week or two, others maybe for most of our lives... but the views we hold are, imo, often transient and arise out of our experiences as much as anything else.