I agree with what you say regarding propaganda, so I guess we're on the same page there.Originally Posted by Sol
Though why refer to it as heresy? Classical socionics isn't perfect, it can be improved upon etc. So I don't see why you use a negative term for something that is not classical socionics.
classic socionics is life
@squark
I'm not a fan of type portraits because they're full of stereotypes. Even Jung is full of them, and all the socionists around alike. It's no surprise though, fe the description of a Te type has actually 2 alternatives, TeSi and TeNi, and they're very different types, because of the auxiliary function. So a Te type alone can't be described if not by falling into a stereotype, simply because there's not a Te type alone. But we all use Te. Some more than others. Because it's a defined function of our brainz.
Let's take Golihov's quote. Let's compare it with the Reinin dichotomies for a LSE: asking, emotivist, yelding, process, aristocratic, negativist, farsighted, ... Now let's take the Reinin for a LIE: declaring, emotivist, obstinate, result, democratic, positivist, carefree, ... They're both Te.
Now compare the Reinin traits of LSE to what the Golihov's Te example says, it won't make much sense. So, who's right? IDK
Compare Sol to the Reinin traits of a LSE, again it won't make much sense.
Ni is not just "connections in time", as all functions are not just a thing alone. Anyway, if we go by classical socionics, there won't be too much use of inner functions, therefore they shouldn't pop out as clear signs to type someone, they can give hints to how someone operates ok, but nothing more. Ni is a dynamic function, it perceives reality through internal associations, exactly what Sol uses to type people, and he can't describe because unlike Ne, it's dynamic, it changes, and it's too internal to be described.
Ne wouldn't focus on such internal states to type someone, and if it did, it would be able to describe what potential is being used, because it's external. Typing based on the impressions given by someone's apparent displays is more Fe than Fi, we're not establishing a real connection (Fi) with the people from the videos, but just evaluate (Ti/Se) what they send out (Fe).
Ok enough. This is a good example of how we can interpret the functions according to whatever we want them to mean. It's no big deal though because the sources themselves are far from* clear and appeal to all sorts of approaches.
Last edited by ooo; 04-11-2018 at 06:32 PM.
I didn't say anything about Ni, that was your determination. I did however talk about what vision is.
How a person writes, what they say and how they say it unless they are writing in a way completely different from how they think - will tell you how they think.Anyway, if we go by classical socionics, there won't be too much use of inner functions, therefore they shouldn't pop out as clear signs to type someone, they can give hints to how someone operates ok, but nothing more.
Of course Ni is changing and dynamic, which means you're not going to form static impressions with it. What you're describing "internal associations" and how Sol uses them is actually Fi. Both Ni and Fi make associations, but what he's using is Fi - how he feels/relates to the other person, and it's not a changing thing. The reason feelings can't be described is not because of dynamicism (Si and Te are also dynamic and can be described) The reason they can't be described is because they are subjective (internal.) Both Ni and Fi are subjective/internal. (So are Ne and Fe btw)Ni is a dynamic function, it perceives reality through internal associations, exactly what Sol uses to type people, and he can't describe because unlike Ne, it's dynamic, it changes, and it's too internal to be described.
Ne is the potential of something/someone, things that could be rather than what is readily apparent. It isn't external, it's internal. Internal statics of objects. Objects just means it is focusing on the person or thing as itself rather than on any connections between it and something else. And you're misunderstanding that connections doesn't have to be any kind of 2-way feeling, how you feel about/relate to something or someone else is a Fi connection.Ne wouldn't focus on such internal states to type someone, and if it did, it would be able to describe what potential is being used, because it's external. Typing based on the impressions given by someone's apparent displays is more Fe than Fi, we're not establishing a real connection (Fi) with the people from the videos, but just evaluate (Ti/Se) what they send out (Fe).
You could, but it wouldn't be the actual definitions, which was my point in my first post. If you're using standard definitions and you understand what they mean, then unless you want to really try to make them into something else, it doesn't really work.Ok enough. This is a good example of how we can interpret the functions according to whatever we want them to mean. It's no big deal though because the sources themselves are far more clear and appeal to all sorts of approaches.
I can see both squark's and Lady Ooo's points...fuck!
Stop messing with my low-T brain.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Thanks for the correction on Ne, I got it wrong. This doesn't change the fact that I can't see Fi in his modality, simply because Fi requires interaction, fields, not objects. I think that everyone gets a feeling of "attraction/repulsion", but unless I interact with something I can't know if that attraction/repulsion will work. So if I establish that I'm being attracted to some traits over others, for how someone looks, it's simply an evaluation of objective external traits, and how I can categorize them, and make them fit into my own theory of "right and wrong", for how they make me feel. Demonstrative can be the most outspoken, as in the case of feeling, and then voicing (not that much) such impressions. The potential is still missing, and looks more like a potential in time, "how things would be if we were really interacting", but since you're not, you're expanding time, foretelling a possible scenario (Ni), in order to draw conclusions on the objects at hand (Se). Ne would create possibilities out of here and now out of objects, unless Ne plays as the function of typing itself. Then we are all Ne in here.
it's ooo's point makes the troubles as her low-T brain resonates with yours what creates the mess instead of normal thinking
The most recent one that reminded me of that LSE guy was this post - http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1266409 - he was in a similar kind of situation where he did a cost analysis on a purchase that his friend has made, which indicated to him that this wasn't a good purchase which he told to his friend and that spoiled his mood and got them into an argument. So the LSE guy felt lost as to what he has done and why his friend was upset with his +Te/-Si advice.Would be interesting to hear those personal anecdot examples.
Fields doesn't mean interaction, it just means connections. When you say that an apple is a kind of fruit this is a connection (a Ti connection as it's static and explicit, you can say exactly why an apple is a fruit) but when you say that the color red reminds you of apples, this is also a connection, but a subjective or internal one, as you can't really say why it reminds you, it just does. Connections are just links, and in those examples the links are apple-to-fruit, and red-to-apple. No interaction of any kind is needed to draw these connections between things. You don't need to physically interact with the apple in order to mentally make connections. And all the field elements make connections - Ni, Si, Ti and Fi, none of which require an interaction in the mental process.
Ti and Fi are similar in that they are both static connections, but where Ti is explicit/external/explainable, Fi is not. Watching videos of people and determining how you feel about them uses Fi. And you've seen the thread, you know that he isn't asking you to pick based on physical features. None of it is based on explicit connections, and he asks you to avoid making those kinds of connections. You're right that everyone uses all the elements, but they put a difference focus or importance on them. Creating a typing methodology that is heavily dependent on Fi isn't something that everyone would do or would want to do.
If you're talking about the demonstrative function, for LSI that is Si, for LSE it's Se. Not really sure where you're going with this.Demonstrative can be the most outspoken, as in the case of feeling, and then voicing (not that much) such impressions.
Sorry squark but this breaking down of apples is just explaining nothing of what Fi is.. ugh. Thanks for the clarification anyway.
If fields connect, then how is watching passively a video where someone talks and moves creating a connection between you and the person in the video? I think interaction is as much a decisive part in typing as it is if when one uses Fi in everyday life. Fi is relation, connection ok, fields ok, subjective and static going by all the proper definitions, ok. But it's interaction, inter-action, relationships between two active parts. Not one active part only, otherwise that is object-directed, external, evaluating based on impressions given by the object itself. What Se is good at.
How is watching a video a subjective evaluation based on field rather than an objective one based on object? Sure, the people in the video move and Te and Si are dynamic, but this doesn't mean that Ti and Se, static, can't similarly evaluate moving objects. The objects that Se is good at estimating are not dead and still life like, they all live and move. Estimating how we feel about someone is not necessarily indicating that we value Fi, because everyone in this world evaluates how they feel about everyone. And Augusta who invented the entire socionics to tell how Fi interactions work had Fi as her polr.
Fi can become role if I use it to type, rather than the direction I try to follow and that guides me, (but that I'm not good in) DS. Si is the demonstrative of a LSI, of a ESI too anyway. They're both strong in it.
squarks break down is useful. i see fields as she says as a sort of literal, holographic field-- it can be real, like the interior of a person's living room containing all kinds of pictures and nick-nacks that says something about the person living there -- and this living room is an external placement in this conceptual field. This goes inwards as well, as the person viewing the living room makes a million inferences, if they are more inclined to Ne they do this adeptly. At any rate the field is more of a mental map, a conceptual hologram of where people, feelings, personal and impersonal, the inter-relationships, the connection and associations in your minds eye about the living room your are viewing. Where, what and how are people and objects standing in that field, inside the conceptual holographic field.
You are relating to the video you speak about in your mind's eye, thus your own subjectivity enters the field, as does the object you are viewing as well. An actual interaction need not take place, because the field doesn't literally exist in the first place, although it does remain static. Make sense?
All your family members are standing on a soccer pitch. Each one is holding a ribbon and all the ribbons are strung out to other members who are also holding a ribbon. The ribbons represent a number of things: from the title of their relationship: mother, bother, son, sister, cousin, uncle...to how each person feels about each other: hate him love her, argumentative, gentle, boisterous, spiteful...to the shared history and experiences...to how each person feels inside, their inner worlds and how those inner worlds play on each other's. The ribbons are about easily discernible attributes such as interpersonal relationship titles, and they are also about character attributes of each other, including how they relate (this is where Fe over laps).
This entire field and the static people with their static ribbons that represent over all the bonds shared can be considered white ethics, introverted feeling. The cherry on top and the most important part is that you are the most important spectator, and your own feelings, your own bonds, your own ribbons to each team family member is the sum total of your own Fi.
You do not like Fi.
The test works by same way, like IR work IRL with people you know a few about. The test gave useful info for typing not a single time. It needs the improvement of examples, - clips and people should be more similar to reduce the influence of the non-types noises. Mb other improvements too. The idea is correct. Also I mentioned other ways and purposes of this approach, besides to help someone to understand own type.
At now a possible influence of non-types factors on the used sorting criterion is _minimized_ by using of a comparision between types related groups of people (intead of direct sympathy marks for every man, what is closer to what you assumed). It's doubtful that a group of one type has influencing non-types side factors singificantly stronger to good/bad side than the group of other type. Also the more examples per type are used to generalize the impression, the lesser is non-types influencing on the general group impression.
IR begin to influence when you watch other human for 1st minutes in your life. This happens as people get intuitive impressions from the nonverbal and such their unconscious forms personal sympathy and trust to others, it evaluates the possibility for good friendly relations and expresses this in irrational friendly feelings. IR nonverbal is important factor of such initial impressions, and of later impressions too.
If ooo would use my IR test correctly, she'd understood own correct type already and removed bs from her profile. Instead of this, she prefers useless negativistic flood, unreasonable and ignorant arguing.
Last edited by Sol; 04-12-2018 at 09:15 AM.
@Owl
Nice to see the state of Owl have improved and now she accepts that has some type.
The problem which stay - the type from the correct one IEI was by unknown reasons changed to her orderer.
Let's hope the further state's improvements will lead her to the correct type again.
Your mind connects things together. Whether they are explicit/external connections or implicit/internal ones is the difference. Your mind is doing the processing. How you feel about someone else is an implicit connection. The feeling -- of how you relate -- is what connects you to them. I wish you could have understood the apple example, so what am I not saying that could explain this better? The elements describe thought processes, they are ways of thinking about things. The aspects both define the elements and states of reality, but aren't the thought processes themselves. Hmm, thinking out "loud" on how to communicate this more clearly. . . let's use Fi since that's where the focus has been.
Fi is defined as - internal statics of fields. Static fields = present connections. So, the literal aspect meaning of this is easy to describe in comparison with Ti. Put two objects down on your floor, table whatever. Now measure the distance between them. Let's say you get a distance of 2 meters. That distance is the relationship between the objects. That it's a measurable, reproducible number that other people can understand makes it explicit. This is Ti (or rather represents Ti, but to not complicate things, I'll just call it Ti)
Now, without measuring the distance let's say that you say the two objects are "close." You know what close means to you, but it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to someone else, and you can't specifically describe what close is. This is subjective or implicit. So this would be Fi.
Take that example and apply it to mental processes, how you think. So, Fi, is going to be subjective, it'll be hard to explain what it is, it's not measurable, all of these things are what make it an implicit/internal element. But, it's about the relationship between objects. So, just like you could say that two objects are "close" you could also say how you relate to another object since you are an object. You like or dislike someone, you feel a bond with them, or you feel that there is tension, or you sympathize with them. These are all descriptions of how you relate to that other object. You don't need to know the person in real life in order to feel these things. You can just as easily like or dislike a character in a movie or a book and that still describes your relationship to that character, and it's still Fi. Because the elements are processes of the mind.
Neither one of the parts needs to be doing anything at all. It's a mental process of how you define a connection between objects. It doesn't just apply to people either. It's all the undefined static relationships between anything that you make in your mind. You can use Fi all by yourself all alone just thinking.I think interaction is as much a decisive part in typing as it is if when one uses Fi in everyday life. Fi is relation, connection ok, fields ok, subjective and static going by all the proper definitions, ok. But it's interaction, inter-action, relationships between two active parts.
You absolutely can evaluate people in a video using Ti and Se. Someone posted a video with Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson in it, and I commented on body language, how they sat and moved and how that related to type. The things I pointed out were things other people could observe as well. None of it had anything to do with how I felt about either person. When you're making evaluations based on how you feel about someone this is not objective and nobody else feels what you do, obviously, so it cannot be an objective element being used (both Se and Ti are objective/external/explicit) -- Sorry for the interchangeable words, when I realize I used a new word I add in the others with slashes so it's clear that they all mean the same thing. Not trying to confuse the terminology. Objective=external=explicit. Subjective=internal=implicit.How is watching a video a subjective evaluation based on field rather than an objective one based on object? Sure, the people in the video move and Te and Si are dynamic, but this doesn't mean that Ti and Se, static, can't similarly evaluate moving objects. The objects that Se is good at estimating are not dead and still life like, they all live and move.
Yes, everyone makes evaluations on how they feel to more or lesser degrees, and everyone uses Fi and every other element. You can talk about how you feel without "valuing" Fi.Estimating how we feel about someone is not necessarily indicating that we value Fi, because everyone in this world evaluates how they feel about everyone. And Augusta who invented the entire socionics to tell how Fi interactions work had Fi as her polr.
@squarks posts here remind me why I ever liked socionics.
I just want to say I liked that post before I saw lungs like it so I'm not a total shill
it actually got me to revisit the dual nature of man to check some things out
1523487532488.jpg
Excuse me, weren't you the one who wouldn't leave a forum member alone and persisting in a pig headed way even after they asked you to stop?As I suspect you assume yourself as not "pig headed". Then taking into account IR, that base Fi are more polite than you, that you wrote alien perception and mistunderstanding of LSE there. It would be sequentially and reasonable for you to change the opinion about your type from ESI to what fits you much better.
Especially in case you as being "not pig headed "assumed your type as wrong ESI by following heresy like Reinin's bs, subtypes or other.
Neither IR, nor your personal traits fit to my holly ESI. You are weird and alien.
As for your typings I've noticed they'r based on things like " i like this" which is like the likings and dislikings of a child, you use Fi the worst way possible.
And anyway, it is said that LSE are not good judges of character of other people.
Well @squark, your example is precise and to the point, as Ti describes the objective relationships between more things, so Fi “feels” the relationships between more things.
I’m saying -more things- instead of -two-, because I’m talking of the 2 apples that you used as example, but I’m adding the subject, that I think you’ve overlooked. Because both these functions are introverted, therefore they require subject(-ive) involvement.
You describe it yourself, in the example of how we like movie characters -but this can happen on all levels and for all things, not just for attraction/repulsion among people-; with Fi, what someone sees in a relation of people, or apples, involved with the subject, is their own subj(a-)ctive evaluation of the factors that are playing, factors that the subject considers important or not. This relationship is dependent on the subject that observes, but not simply with the purpose to describe, or establish, whatever the subject is seeing, the position from which Fi operates is one of involvement. (Ti is abstract instead).
If Ti measures the distance between the apples (and anyway of himself too, in relationship to the apples), Fi wonders what kind of relationship is worthy to be established between himself and the apples. But it doesn’t say “I like how this apple looks= good relationship”. What it does is more in the line of “how do these apples relate to what I value?”.
There’s a passage more that subjective, introverted, but especially feeling functions do, that is “core evaluation”. This evaluation must pass through the channels that are important to the subject, and that in case of a Fi dominant shape all that the subject does. This is even why Fi dominant can appear judgemental, cold, dismissive: they’re just evaluating mentally what the situation has to offer, and what they can offer back. This requires a sort of withdrawal from the situation itself, in order to judge it. Before of that though, all the parts are examined, not just "the looks", that bring too little and not decisive information.
This is why involvement is so important in a Fi dynamics -dynmics as in a situation-, because you’re not evaluating with Fi if you simply say how someone you see attracts you from their looks, or how you like someone that crosses the street, instead you have to put yourself in the condition of being touched by the situation in order to evaluate it.
In the case of a movie, or when reading a book, you can virtually do this operation better, because there’s a context, and imagination comes to fill the gaps between the character and the situation in which the character operates. You can imagine to be part of the story, and consequentially the evaluation can really happen on a real ground. It’s a real, although virtual, abstract, involvement. But it’s based on some objective data, Te (that Fi really needs), not impressions. Fi: “I like Myshkin because he’s a gentle-mannered prince who’s overlooked by everyone”, not “because he moves his eyes to the left when talking and I like that” (I think this is Se), because I have no idea of that!
Yes, we all use Te on a daily basis when reading the news, and we all use Ti when paying at the supermarket, Se when parking the car and Fi when judging someone’s behavior; but this doesn’t make a news reader a Te, or all investors Ti, or car racers Se, or all forumees Fi, even if they probably enjoy doing what they do. Aha.
I can agree that the core idea of the IR test of Sol resembles Fi, but it even limits and makes Fi look like a mere exercise of seduction, while it’s something more complex altogether.
Last edited by ooo; 04-12-2018 at 08:15 AM.
whenever anyone uses objective to characterize Ti I die a little inside
I don't know if you realize it but you're working off of logic being equated to objective and ethics being subjective, when there is objective ethics and subjective logic, and the latter is precisely Ti
just because Ti is by definition the rational function that is divorced from affect, doesn't mean its not subjective. its defined by its subjective factor, and I think its a big source of confusion where people think cold bloodedness is somehow objective in virtue of that fact. people reason in cold blood subjectively all the time; there's some weird thing where people assume every manifestation of cold blood is Te, so when Ti is considered to be affect-free they think that makes it "objective"
Ti describes the relationship between things in terms of logic, not objectivity
Last edited by Bertrand; 04-12-2018 at 07:50 AM.
it's good to see u so overdramatizing over smth I said, while I was just reusing a word used by squark in one of her last posts in order to communicate to her. if u read the first paragrah u'd see i actually attribute to both Ti and Fi the subjective spectrum, but as squark said, T(either E/I) is anyway more objective than F(E/I), this because it's defined "external" whereas F is always "internal" blah blah blah
now you're getting confused about explicit/implicit vs objective/subjective. "explicit/implicit" just refers to the distinction between judgements nested within judgements as either being broken out and specified, or left to implication in the gaps. objective is object oriented which is a different category of judgements altogether and they run orthogonal to eachother. this is also why I think this sort of rigid Ti/Se approach to socionics is not useful for most people because it just layers complexity on top of things that if you don't understand on the perceptual level, the layers can't really explain it, but only redescribe the same thing which is not perceived to begin with. its like describing some object you can't see, but 10 different ways. its not helpful if you've never seen it before, except on a superficial level--you could then "telephone" the description to another person, and act as a conduit for the words, but never having understood what was there. sort of the distinction between Se and Ne. this is why squark's view is interesting but subject to serious limitations which involve repeating a lot of the same words because its just a body of words start to finish. at a certain point one can only repeat the same tired language to impose a structural overlay, a kind of forceful Ti imposition, but it misses the point because to call this "learning" is from a different perspective a kind of dying, where you haven't so much gained an understanding as been prevented from expressing all alternative understandings down to a singular remainder, which you don't understand either but are nevertheless forced to repeat on command. this is the fear of reducing minds to automatons and in doing so destroy creative potential
Last edited by Bertrand; 04-12-2018 at 08:10 AM.
nah. i'm just pointing out how u pick fights over trivia when u don't like someone rather than the subject discussed itself.
objectivitwist~
im not picking fights I'm pointing out exactly where you went wrong, and that's actually in order to resolve the fight that was already going on when I arrived. just because this would entail you admitting you might have been wrong about something doesn't make me your enemy
as I've already said, I was using a term used by squark (that actually aligns with the theory), but since I agree that introverted elements are subjective by definition (as Jung says), I pointed that out in the very beginning. if you don't like a term used by 2 people why making up a fuss only with me? alright, you wanna talk about implicit/explicit? cool, cos Ti is explicit either way. explicit aka evident aka more objective than what is hidden and implicit (Fi), but let's just use the umpteenth term that creates more confusion and doesn't add anything to the point made.
lol smh why am i even answering
I think @ooo is just using causal deterministic approach. Which in itself is chains of connected information from point A to point B to point C. Whereas Bert uses insufferably many multitude of perspectives starting from point A which ends in B,C,D,E,... and has very little to do with anything that deals with sure conclusions.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
because possibly having same types you think in similar way
being F type you are motivated much similarly
the meaning of the subject is also lesser meaningful for you than should, as in other case you'd prepared better for discussions and said lesser of funny in them
Introversion/fields looks at the relationships between things, any things. You make an evaluation of the relationship between any objects, oneself need not be included as one of the objects. It is only subjective in that it is your own thoughts and feelings about something.
Reference material:
Certainly, I agree that Fi has more to it and can be much more complex. I simplified the elements down to the bare minimum for sake of discussion, and Fi is of course about value judgements as well and more than just like/dislike especially in more developed higher-dimensional forms. People will have a different depth of knowledge and experience beyond the basics, but understanding the basic lowest-common-denominator form helps to distinguish it from other elements. Just because someone is not using Fi at the same level that you are and doesn't have the same complexity of understanding within it doesn't mean that it is not still Fi. Everyone has at least a 1D use of every element.
A good site for understanding dimensionality if you haven't looked at it before: http://en.socionicasys.org/bibliotek...ernost-funkcij
adam strange eii lol
Very true good point here. Using your phrase it can look very idiosyncratic from the Ti person. As can Te logic, yet even less so because logic of actions has more iniversal application- driving a tractor is pretty much the same in any country.
Logic as a process is objective. You can explain its mechanisms, how this will lead to that, and that is objective. Of course, all logical deduction is based off on axioms, or assumed truths or facts, and this needs to be constantly updated. This means that if you FOLLOW the axioms, then logically the conclusion will be OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Whether the axioms actually correlate with reality or not is another matter. You can derive false things from it, and that is still objectively true as a logical conclusion.
If we all use the same "logic", and provided that we all start off with the same premise/axioms, then we will all arrive at the same conclusion, no matter who is using the logic.
"Feelings" are subjective, because the experience is yours and yours alone, and it cannot be explained, until when there's a method for us to be able to explain feelings via objective measurements.
My guess is that emotions or "feelings" are simply a much, much quicker way of arriving at a logically sound decision (as a biological imperative of survival). For example, you could, after a significant amount of computation and analysis, logically deduce that you should run away when a saber tiger is coming after you. Emotions make this process simpler, by the simple emotion of "fear" or "anxiety". This computation is done in the background that do not reach conscious awareness. This is also based off on very incomplete data, which leads to things like biases and prejudices.
It's weird that Augusta describes logic as a "feeling", and also that logic differs in people, as it is not. Perhaps the KNOWLEDGE and understandings of logic in people can be different, but that is also a linear progress towards even greater objectivity of logical correctness. I think Augusta's writings are a bit too vague to be truly meaningful.
lol Singu <333
undoubtfully, when are compared to yours
As long you're the same wanker of the Queen Mother Maritsa (the self-proclaimed guru of socionics) days, I think I "bumped" into you on here before. You were and maybe still are that kommie cunt I remember. Pardon the language, but it is heartfelt and I don't really give a toss about ajusting.
No reason to get worked up about a post concerning your warm brother over there - some people just like pain, nothing you can do about it.
Anyway, I have always wondered whether or not your username is latin derived and if yes, no offence but, you're not very bright, meaning your socionics or whatever you call it does not concern me in the slightest and if you think you have some upper hand here, nerd, then there are some people who are eager to discuss the kommie Dugin and paedophile Limonov with you face to face.
For the last time, do not waste my time and inform that chink in armour or his faithful lackeys magic boots of escaping don't work in real life.
h ttp s:/ / www. you tube.c om/wa tch ?v= VlGuoD HDCAY
lol these very posts are testament to subjective logic
its just as subjective as feeling, and its the hierarchical impulse that attempts to justify itself
you could define subjective logic as feeling that has got a big head
to characterize the difference in terms of fast/slow is just an attempt to subsume a qualitative difference into a quantitative measure, in this case time with slow being better, which is itself a nested and buried qualitative judgement that forms the circle to begin with. this is pretty straightforward Ni/Ti looping. you can think of a lot of Singu's posts not as scientific, but as poetry devoted to science
If you wish to say that "logic" is subjective, and that it's just some man-made silliness that is no more arbitrary than mere opinion, then you must be able to refute, or at least say that it is nothing more than a subjective opinion that could simply be put aside.
But then you'd have to be able to refute these propositions of classical laws of logic:
1. The law of identity. "Whatever is, is". e.g. If an apple is a fruit is true then it is not something else other than a fruit.
2. The law of non-contradiction. Something can not be true and its negation to be also true.
3. The law of excluded middle. Something is either true or false, there is no in-between.
These are the laws that basically all logic are based upon.
But then to be able to refute those ideas, you'd have to still use those logic in order to refute it, which will be self-negating. So you could say that ANY kind of thought is logical in its nature. It is obvious, that logic also applies to reality, as new information could be gained from the reasoning process, which could be true.
Kant already describes from whence these laws come
We're not talking about where logic "came from", we're talking about whether logic is objective.
So basically, you tried to refute it, and it turns out that you used logic on yourself and you have negated yourself. Good job, you failed at logic.
She's EIE, while I prefer EII.
have a nice med
can't you see how ridiculously circular your arguments are? I recently read an IEI talking about feeling trapped in their own head, is this just an expression of what goes on inside? it sounds like hell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote