Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Don't Even

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Don't Even

    Edited for gayness.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tallinn
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You really did it in this time! It got me thinking and it did it deeply with all of this material you posted, which is so far of what I knew untill now.
    Where did you got this material?
    Semiotical process

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Transigent: I think it's good except for the basic reference to (Dream) and (Insight).

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good work Transigent!

    I now realize that I am not that smart as I thought I was

    BTW, how did you associate , & , together and , & , together? I mean, how did you think of it that way?

    When I tried to break down the uses of the functions I at one time categorized the functions as . & , as direct adherents to reality and , & , as indirect adherents to reality. Therefore I categorized them for what they could do opposed to where the functions came from.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This seems to conform too much to western cultural understandings.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What I mean is it uses western cultural standards of understanding what the universe and body are to the exclusion of other possible interpretations. In some cultures the body and the soul are not seperate concepts for example. Also in some cultures the universe has a "soul" but personal manifestations of that soul are not considered seperate from the universal soul. Also I think the understanding of the universe as something that can be described as a series of measureable properties is a solely western concept. The model you are proposing appears to be simply an abstraction of western cultural concepts into model form and as such does not approach the relationship between the functions and their objects of manifestation in an unbiased manner.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    An emphasis on consciousness is at the root of dishonesty; it is when one thinks that one’s own ego has a higher importance than the cause and effect nature of reality.

    For example, Joe Doe gets lazy and does not turn his paper in on time. Instead of taking points off because it is late, he tells his instructor that he could not do it on time for some reason that just is not the truth. Now, Joe Doe really does not want to hurt his instructor, but as long as he rationalizes that his dishonesty is not bad for either him or the instructor, its okay. Joe Doe has put an emphasis on his consciousness over the reality of the situation, Joe Doe has now done what many people do daily. Any why? Because there are many philosophers who advocate that (and here we go again) the mind is of higher importance to reality, or that dishonesty and mysticism is okay have been socially accepted and have been implicitly adopted by the masses who has a tendency to want to escape from reality anyway.

    Conclusion: Eastern philosophy, or anything like it, is about an emphasis on consciousness, an escape from “conditioned” reality.

    PTL wrote
    [quote]What I mean is it uses western cultural standards of understanding what the universe and body are to the exclusion of other possible interpretations. In some cultures the body and the soul are not seperate concepts for example. Also in some cultures the universe has a "soul" but personal manifestations of that soul are not considered seperate from the universal soul. Also I think the understanding of the universe as something that can be described as a series of measureable properties is a solely western concept. The model you are proposing appears to be simply an abstraction of western cultural concepts into model form and as such does not approach the relationship between the functions and their objects of manifestation in an unbiased manner.[end quote]

    How would you do it?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    What I mean is it uses western cultural standards of understanding what the universe and body are to the exclusion of other possible interpretations. In some cultures the body and the soul are not seperate concepts for example. Also in some cultures the universe has a "soul" but personal manifestations of that soul are not considered seperate from the universal soul. Also I think the understanding of the universe as something that can be described as a series of measureable properties is a solely western concept.
    All right, well here is a better way of saying it. If eastern philosophy (for example) were incorrect, would including it make what we are doing more objective?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The very implication that the assumptions upon which the model is based are proven precludes any ability on my part to say anything other. It's like if you say "Prove to me that there is no proof." The very act of doing it would mitigate any arguement. The reason I brought up the objection is not because it says anything empirical about whether or not Transigent's model works but because I wanted to point out a probable origin for the model. I happen to disagree for various reasons because I am working under different initial assumptions which have at least equal potential of being true. My point is that this model is no more credible than an infinite # of other models that work under different initial conditions.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbean.
    When I tried to break down the uses of the functions I at one time categorized the functions as . & , as direct adherents to reality and , & , as indirect adherents to reality. Therefore I categorized them for what they could do opposed to where the functions came from.
    Actually I belive I am wrong here. After doing some thinking I now belive that each function has the potential to directly corrispond to reality. I will explain more later.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tallinn
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Then you spoke how there are two ways of acting, either change the state in actions or plan the change ahead, the static-analytical and dynamic-synthetical difference came into my mind. See more from www.socionika.com translated lins Model A . If likn I gave didn't work, I meant the tommylove's new site in independent server.
    Semiotical process

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But what if "you" are not "you"? Some people project their consciousness onto other objects than their physical body. Granted these people are insane but we should cover the "special case" scenarios as well as the most common ones.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    But what if "you" are not "you"? Some people project their consciousness onto other objects than their physical body. Granted these people are insane but we should cover the "special case" scenarios as well as the most common ones.
    How many times do I have to say that this kind of stuff is a bunch of bull.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Poland, Bielsko Biala
    Posts
    59
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This framework is just ok :-)

    Just add energy and information flow

Posting Permissions

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