He said:
I think definition, or the simple fact of defining is more judging then perceiving anyway.
I say:
^defining is not based on judging. That is the point here because it's not based on an opinion which goes back to the book example.
Printable View
He said:
I think definition, or the simple fact of defining is more judging then perceiving anyway.
I say:
^defining is not based on judging. That is the point here because it's not based on an opinion which goes back to the book example.
piss up a rope [verb] to piss up a rope (idiomatic, slang, vulgar)
To engage in futile or impossible activity.
No, it is not a fact...it is a definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Lets use the example of socionics terms.
Fe, Te, Ti, etc.
These terms are symbols for an idea.
Each time we use these terms, we have an idea in our minds which we are trying to convey.
But, as with most abstract definitions, there is no objective fact as to what does or does not align with that term. Which means that when we interpret someone's usage of those terms, we are limited to either our own meanings we've given the terms, or we ASK the person what they meant when they used that term.
When we deal with abstract ideas, we have little choice but either ignore trying to find meaning of it...or we have to interpret it to find meaning of it.
definition:
judging
Form an opinion or conclusion about.
Decide (a case) in a court of law.
defining something is not judging because defining something is not forming an OPINION about it. I don't say "I think this is a book" when looking at a table because we've defined a book to be a book. Why don't you get what I'm saying.
The process of defining REQUIRES making judgments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
What words will you use to try to define what you mean? ...to answer that...you have to make judgments of both your intended idea...AND which word might get thatnintended idea across.
How will you define Te? Fi? Ne? Si? If you don't evaluate which descriptions/words to include, and which to exclude?
You can't. You have no choice but to make those many little judgment calls.
Here is a good example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
You define "judging" as "opinion".
I am defining it as "judging - the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions". Which includes...interpreting.
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos
That was aimed at anne's attempts to straighten you out, Ms. Dunning-Kruger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
*sigh* yeah, I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos
On a side note...I'd obviously make a piss poor buddhist. :lol:
No. ask me why?????Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
the process of defining is not saying "in my opinion, that is a book." It's a fact. "It's a book." So you're saying that it's the rational function that makes speech?
Te: defines the range of something; gives opinion on something to an extent then it exhausts itself and moves on.
In Haitian funerals people are frequently buried with a few handfuls of rice thrown in the casket. This is done so that if the deceased is reanimated through voodoo, it will become too preoccupied with counting the grains to bother escaping its grave. This knowledge can help you defeat the zombie you're battling here.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
I'm not defining judging as an opinion; it is an opinion. Opinion either reached of objective facts or subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
and I'm saying that reaching and drawing conclusions from objects is matter of opinion-ating and not defining an object.
Actually, when you define something, you are saying "I name this 'book'".Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
The only 'fact' there is that you NAMED something.
Names are not facts.
Te takes the fact: book and sees what it is. They can't form an opinion in a vacuum they look at the fact, the movie, for instance and derives an opinion on it, hence judging a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
using this example...Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
How did 'Te' determine what the range was?
Are you sure you aren't confusing Se as Te?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
How would you determine if you were or weren't confusing them?
Alas...I think that is akin this particular zombie's tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos
Te; or any other judging function does not make names/facts for things. you got it. They form an opinion (judge) the things that already exist.
By reading the fucking book or watching the movie to form an opinion (aka judge it). It's a process/dynamic function.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
How do you determine what is or is not 'Te'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
So they read/watch it..then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Te is fed either by Se or Ne.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
They take an object (a book, a fact) and they read it and form an opinion on it; evaluate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Ann, I thought you were intelligent; but now that I have evaluated you based on what I read in this thread, you're dumb. That's my evaluation of you, my judgement. I hope that clarifies it.
Ann - object
My original post;
Determining the nature of an object or person based on judgment is more of EVALUATION
You're dumb, is my evaluation of you. My judgment.
It should be a fact, but it can't be because no one cares.
Ok, maritsa, when you edit posts like that, it fucks up any conver.
Let,s bring it together again.
Maritsa: Te: defines the range of something; gives opinion on something to an extent then it exhausts itself and moves on.
using this example...
Ann: How did 'Te' determine what the range was?
Maritsa: By reading the fucking book or watching the movie to form an opinion (aka judge it). It's a process/dynamic function.
So here, you admit that in order for 'Te' to DEFINE a range, they have to form an opinion.
I am putting you on IGNORE.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Sorry for the triple posting..total error.
God you're an idiot;Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Defining a range of something is not defining the object; it's not saying "a book"
Defining a range is still DEFINING.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
I suggest everyone who doesn't understand what I'm saying to go back and reread my original post, thank you.
Let's see:
My LSE bf says that the Harry Belafonte's book is great. He read the book and evaluated it or should I say, judged it to be good. :)
You can ignore me all you want, but ignoring me does not change the 'fact' that the process of defining things requires making evaluations and determinations, and drawing conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Definition is not made by a judging type; a lamp is coined a lamp because of it's characteristics not because of a man's opinion on how good it feels.
"it is light." a product of sense perception
"the soft light feels great." a product of judgment.
This is like the blind man trying to feel the elephant and decide what it is.
A blanket can be named as such without any opinion about it's characteristics from a subjective evaluation or a view point. It can be "something that covers you to keep you warm."
The range of something based on one's evaluation (aka opinion):
A book (sensed item; a noun, an object) is:
The range (judgement; also known as adjectives):
fair
decent
good
great
To experience a book is to proceed to it with sense perception (a function which drives one to experience things); to give on opinion on the experience or to evaluate it is to judge it.
My great great SEE ancestor stare at the light while experiencing it and said "sun" and all the fellow judgers around him/her (let's be fair) nodded their heads and said "sun! good!" the SEE ancestor stared back at the judger in bemusement of the new word and said "sun is good!"
Let's be fair, they all have to be extraverts because what the fuck does an introvert care about all this nonsensical chatter anyway; we already knew that the damn thing was good when we were taking our siesta time chillin' in the sun while others were busy working or doing other things. The introverts had to eventually use these things called "words" though because honestly, we couldn't subliminally communicate to the extraverts any more and hitting them across the head was no longer working in getting them to do what we wanted. So, eventually, we had to say "Yo, BOB; I need a beer." As we sit their on our lazy chair and try to think about all those pictures that show up in our brains and tune out the chatter of extraverts.
I am now charging $20 admission per page view to this thread.
bemusement (noun): syn. bewilderment, obfuscation, puzzlement, befuddlement, mystification, bafflement - confusion resulting from failure to understandQuote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
true, should have used another word, but thanks. go back and read my story; I added some more things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos
You sure know how to profit Yaaroslav. I'm going take lessons from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos