I may have posted this before but I think the book Hannibal is LIE/ESI duality
I may have posted this before but I think the book Hannibal is LIE/ESI duality
Pavel Tsatsouline books if you are into working out
(ENTj)
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 01:12 AM.
No way man. I am certain he's ENTj.
Have you watched some of his videos?
I bet if you watch one of his videos you are going to change your mind.
Watch this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL30WSaFJu8
All you see here is Te leadership. Also he has a vision, deep knowledge of his thing (Ni).
There is no point disagreing with Ashton, he practices socionix, which is his own warped, albiet predictable version of socionics. In classical (read strictly orthadox, and exclusively adhearent to quadra values) soconics you actually deviated from his perspective in the proper way.
Easy Day
I think Mary Shelley was ILI. I'm judging by a biography I'm reading at her moment. Not her fiction, which I haven't read in quite some time.
CS Lewis most certainly was not. Have you ever even read him? He's terribly sentimental. Even the philosophy.
Sorry for not adding anyone more contemporary, Lungs. I tend to only read fiction by dead folk.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
Don't want to derail this, so do you have reasons why somewhere? I really don't see it
@InvisibleJim No on rand, but there's other threads on that.
Hes very imaginitive but also a bit dry in his presentation. He reminds me of my IEI English professor from high school only a bit more harsh, dry, doesn't have the same softness and emotional malleability. His examination of Christian morality strikes me as Gamma Ni and Fi in nature, he is mostly concerned with the message behind Christianity and the positive moral values it preaches en gestalt, while being somewhat dismissive of the more specific ethical dilemmas its precepts presents.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 01:12 AM.
I have no perspective on the types in question. I've not thought deeply about them. However in lieu of actually taking the time to know even who we are talking about (I honestly don't) Ashton is a credible source of information. His observations are generally valid. I simply translate the conclusions he reaches based on those observations into my own understanding. Like I've said before it works surprisingly well. I would say Ashton, and socionix for that matter, doesn't really get it wrong per se, it or he simply gets it different.
EDIT: @lungs For clarification I don't say don't talk to Ashton because he's wrong. I say don't talk to Ashton because he won't acknowledge the difference.
Easy Day
What JWC is attempting to tell us -- rather inelegantly -- is that he is a dickhead.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 01:12 AM.
JWC3, you need help in defending classical socionics?
Nah, and you can call it niffweedionics for all I care. He and I share a perspective on this matter and our perspective is generally strictly adherent to quadra values beyond the entire rest of socionics. If Gulenko wants to call what he's doing socionics, then he can have the name. Perhaps calling it primarily some sort of quadra theory would be less derisive terminology. However if you want to be derisive towards this perspective and give it a silly name, feel free. I'm a big boy; I'll be fine. I doubt niff wouldn't be either.
Hell it could be kinda fun; niffweedionics. That does have a bit of a ring to it, doesn't it.
EDIT: I vividly understand how my perspective on this matter differs from what is colloquially refereed to as socionics on this forum and I'm completely fine admitting that it does. And explaining that difference if someone asks.
Easy Day
I wasn't serious, not taking up on anything that's not my own.
Before this gets derailed any further and I'm going to have to get serious leaving scorched Earth behind me, I see no need in defending nor supporting anything that doesn't actually function the way it is meant to function, that is, for whomever "it" functions and one get some kind of a benefit out of it, be it a practical one in a sense of established trade agreement between two individuals and more, in real life/on here, well then - it's great. You call it quadra values, and looks like niffweed, does as well, so I see no reason in blabbing about who practises what, for it boils down to one and the same thing - intertype relations, which one doesn't have to acknowledge at all, you can strip Socionics out of every bit of clothing but you/people on here, are still going to talk about it. So ye, joke is on you, Kevin Hart.
I have no idea what the fuss is about in the first place and hah at "gaming mood."
Love me some Hannah.
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
ftr, from that video, what I got from it was that the man is a "constructivist" and some logical type. That really only leaves SLI, ILI, SLE, ILE. This makes your claims transparent, as Reinin is part of socionics and it is not in contradiction to Ashton's typing.
and fyi, from what I've seen/read, Ashton's views are not really incongruent with classical socionics, but disregard everything that has been debunked about classical socionics - mostly anything that amounts more to a stereotype or generalization. And that doesn't make his views warped, it makes them better reasoned and it makes socionics warped to expect people to use them.
And I think what people have a problem with is understanding Ashton's views because he steers away from stereotyping or generalizing them, making it hard to explain or present them. But that doesn't make them "different" from socionics either.
good bye
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 01:12 AM.
From her attacks on rationalists in "Life of the Mind" and from the calls to social action I've read in snippets of her political works, Arendt strikes me as SEE as fuck. I also think Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a probable SEE, even though for some reason he's popularly mistyped (and parroted) as ILI. Compared with Stanislaw Lem, whose thoughts share enough common themes with my own that I'm comfortable with him as an identical, Marquez weaves his writing from the stuff of love and loss, expectations, their achievements, and disappointments. His focus is personal relationships and social upheavals, of lives lived and under what conditions, and other direct and involved aspects of the human experience. So even if he's showing an streak as Gilly maintains, what I see is more prominently , especially when compared with Lem, who treats human experiences as being heavily mediated by mental processes and abstractions. Contrast and compare:
Marquez:
Lost in the solitude of his immense power, he began to lose direction. He was bothered by the people who cheered him in neighboring villages, and he imagined that they were the same cheers they gave the enemy. Everywhere he met adolescents who looked at him with his own eyes, who spoke to him with his own voice, who greeted him with the same mistrust with which he greeted them, and who said they were his sons. He felt scattered about, multiplied, and more solitary than ever. He was convinced that his own officers were lying to him. He fought with the Duke of Marlborough. "The best friend a person has," he would say at that time, "is one who has just died."
Lem:
The number of one's possible fantasies is inversely proportional to the amount of one's liquid assets. For him who has everything dreams are no longer possible.
Marquez:
The most prosperous countries have succeeded in accumulating powers of destruction such as to annihilate, a hundred times over, not only all the human beings that have existed to this day, but also the totality of all living beings that have ever drawn breath on this planet of misfortune.
On a day like today, my master William Faulkner said, "I decline to accept the end of man." I would fall unworthy of standing in this place that was his, if I were not fully aware that the colossal tragedy he refused to recognize thirty-two years ago is now, for the first time since the beginning of humanity, nothing more than a simple scientific possiblity. Faced with this awesome reality that must have seemed a mere utopia through all of human time, we, the inventors of tales, who will believe anything, feel entitled to believe that it is not yet too late to engage in the creation of the opposite utopia. A new and sweeping utopia of life, where no one will be able to decide for others how they die, where love will prove true and happiness be possible, and where the races condemned to one hundred years of solitude will have, at last and forever, a second opportunity on earth.
Note how the above is prescriptive...
Lem:
The twentieth century had dispensed with the formal declaration of war and introduced the fifth column, sabotage, cold war, and war by proxy, but that was only the begining. Summit meetings for disarmament pursued mutual understanding and a balance of power but were also held to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy. The world of the war-or-peace alternative became a world in which war was peace and peace war.
...while this is descriptive.
Marquez:
My agent put [rights to film Hundred years of Solitude] up for one million dollars to discourage offers and as they approximated that offer she raised it to around three million. But I have no interest in a film, and as long as I can prevent it from happening, it won’t. I prefer that it remain a private relationship between the reader and the book.
Lem:
I have fundamental reservations to this [filmed] adaptation [of Solaris]. First of all I would have liked to see the planet Solaris which the director unfortunately denied me as the film was to be a cinematically subdued work. And secondly — as I told Tarkovsky during one of our quarrels — he didn't make Solaris at all, he made Crime and Punishment. What we get in the film is only how this abominable Kelvin has driven poor Harey to suicide and then he has pangs of conscience which are amplified by her appearance; a strange and incomprehensible appearance.
The whole sphere of cognitive and epistemological considerations was extremely important in my book and it was tightly coupled to the solaristic literature and to the essence of solaristics as such. Unfortunately, the film has been robbed of those qualities rather thoroughly.
My Kelvin decides to stay on the planet without any hope whatsoever while Tarkovsky created an image where some kind of an island appears, and on that island a hut. And when I hear about the hut and the island I'm beside myself with irritation... This is just some emotional sauce into which Tarkovsky has submerged his heroes, not to mention that he has completely amputated the scientific landscape and in its place introduced so much of the weirdness I cannot stand.
Marquez:
One minute of reconciliation is worth more than a whole life of friendship.
Lem:
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet.
Two good interviews for anyone curious for more:
http://www.theparisreview.org/interv...garcia-marquez
http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/interviews/federman29.htm
And more quotes:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gabriel...a_M%C3%A1rquez
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Lem
Sorry buddy, I'm going to go with Rick over Ashton every chance I get.
http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/1...e-trivial.html
http://socionist.blogspot.com/2008/1...-are-dead.html
Easy Day