Results 1 to 40 of 44

Thread: Logic vs Principle: Contravailing experiences of Ti

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Logic vs Principle: Contravailing experiences of Ti

    Well I thought to make this statement clear in front of everyone, because it's pretty essential to our further understanding of socionics. I'm a bit in shock about it though.

    The short answer is that I've discovered at least a big chunk as to why a person's other functions are weaker than the base. The long answer is that the chunk is completely a factor of politics.

    I'd been thinking that there should be four forms of -Ti: organizational, principle, law, and something else. I knew that I experienced -Ti as principle, and that principle is that aspect of mechanation which is conserved between situations: 2 + 2 always equals 4, for example. Well if you take a hard look at why 2 + 2 always equals 4, then according to computer science it's a product of boolean logic. Meaning, that principle exists due to logical necessity. I myself have a habit of integrating any principle I become aware of into my own logic, so for me +Ti is logic. But here we have the problem of principle also breaking down to logic, so there is a definite +Ti in the -Ti I experience.

    Here's the thing: if for me -Ti is principle, then if I use +Ti based on based on principles which I have differentiated -- without telling anyone else -- then my logic should in theory transcend the logic of those who do not accept the existence of the principle. Let's say someone somehow, for some reason, limited their own observation of principle. (the opponents of supersocion theory would be a case in point). A person who is accustomed to modifying their logic as soon as they became aware of a new principle would given the same context of information reach the exact same conclusion as myself with regard as to what modifications should be reached. There are only a limited set of principles, and all existing logic is governed by principles, therefore a person who is exposed to a new principle should immediately integrate it in their logic on top of all previous principles and in exactly the same way as everyone else, provided they are aware of all principles previous to it. If they are unaware of the previous principles, then they will not know how or even why to fit the higher-level precept in their logic.

    If everyone of similar education, under the above pretense, were successfully integrating every principle they came across as it were derived, then there would be no disagreements between people on matters of either logic or principle: X test was made, therefore Y principle exists, and the proper means of response is change in logic Z. But we do have disagreements on these matters; in fact, the Right vs Left divide itself consists partially of disagreements over principle, experienced subjectively, vs logic. Therein lies a clue: the Right's positions are principled, often denying logic outright. The Left is more "cerebral" on the whole, because their subjective experience of Ti from a thinking standpoint is universally logical. Let's take it a step further, and inquire as to what either side would stand to lose from acceptance of the other. The Left stands to lose their sense of idealism, in that the existence of principle means that there is no such thing as a magic formula which solves all of your problems. The Right stands to lose their sense of innate righteousness by accepting the existence of logic: what if the logical solution to a situation is the killing of a loved one? Principle is cruel; logic is cold. Accepting either equates to the loss of one's own aspirations or one's ideals.

    The postulation of +Ti's dual identity as both subjective logic and principle, once tested, yields fruit. Consider the near-universality of LII support for the right to abort: an LII on the SCOTUS would be a reliable pro-choice vote, provided that they were not determined to exhalt +Ne over -Ne. (experienced in that situation as the apparent potential for a person to develop post-conception taking priority over the potential of the mother apart from the pregnancy). We can observe that Ti leading persons -- typically -- have a non-partisan perspective on matters of logical consistency. This conclusion explains, among other things, the profound disaffection of the scientific community for notions of the divine. Even those LIIs who do practice religion are very careful to seperate their faith from their science: they refuse to let the two intermix.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,529
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Too contravailing; didn't read.

  3. #3
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Well I thought to make this statement clear in front of everyone, because it's pretty essential to our further understanding of socionics. I'm a bit in shock about it though.

    The short answer is that I've discovered at least a big chunk as to why a person's other functions are weaker than the base. The long answer is that the chunk is completely a factor of politics.

    I'd been thinking that there should be four forms of -Ti
    I stopped here. Augusta never said anything about "+Ti" or "-Ti", so I'm not interested.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    I stopped here. Augusta never said anything about "+Ti" or "-Ti", so I'm not interested.
    But DarkAngelFireWolf69 did.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this is really good debate material and well worth discussing. I'll go a step further and observe that every single conflict I have with other people on this forum is on basis of this phenomena.

    Allow me to illustrate.

    -Ti+Ne (Model A)

    reduces to

    +Ti <- -Ti <= -Ne <- +Ne (my expansion of Model B, titled B-contra)

    where "<-" means "to impress upon" and "<=" means "to imply". +Ne impresses on -Ne, the result of which implies the -Ti to impress upon +Ti.

    Liberals and conservatives have different ways of experiencing this. Liberals see it as the following:

    logic <- principle <= inherent potential <- situational potential

    Conservatives see the inverse to that:

    principle <- logic <= situational potential <- inherent potential
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 08-31-2008 at 08:59 PM.

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    Tcaudillllg, if you aren't wrong, you state the bleedingly obvious...and always in language that isn't at all becoming.
    Oh, so you've known by in large liberals are naturally more intelligent than conservatives for some time now?

    It's "obvious" that you are lying.

  8. #8
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    But DarkAngelFireWolf69 did.
    To be honest, who is DarkAngelFireWolf69? What did he do to socionics? How does he further the theory? How does "+" and "-" further the already very practical and almost ingenious model of socionics?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    To be honest, who is DarkAngelFireWolf69? What did he do to socionics? How does he further the theory? How does "+" and "-" further the already very practical and almost ingenious model of socionics?
    Because it describes how the functions work. We know what the functions do; +, - describes how they work.

    It actually makes a lot of sense when you consider that anything which evolves must grant the opportunity for advantage over the environment. A system which breaks things down into "good for you" and "bad for you", like +, - does, is just what the witch-doctor ordered.

  10. #10
    Brentano's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plas Penrhyn in Penrhyndeudraeth, Merionethshire, Wales
    Posts
    98
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why I am So Wise?
    The happiness of my existence, its unique character perhaps, lies in its fatefulness: expressing it in the form of a riddle.
    Why I am So Clever?
    Why do I know more than other people?
    Why, in general, am I so clever?
    I have never pondered over questions that are not really questions.

  11. #11

    Default

    I think you waste too much time with metalanguage.
    Stolen Identity by Argentina

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQjC-q5FBgk

  12. #12
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Even those LIIs who do practice religion are very careful to seperate their faith from their science: they refuse to let the two intermix.
    Violation! I happen to mix the two. I also am against abortion, but I am not active enough right now to bother about that thread...

    It's impossible to postulate an idea which cannot be supported from some given element. Some ideas may be more rare in this day and age, but that doesn't mean anything absolute.

    Nice to see you adding negativism to Socionics, though, tcaud - that ILE back at the start really left somethign out.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Violation! I happen to mix the two. I also am against abortion, but I am not active enough right now to bother about that thread...
    Then you are an evil person. You should be condemned.

  14. #14
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Then you are an evil person. You should be condemned.
    Define "evil," "condemned" and "you."

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Then are an person. should be.
    That much is perfectly true.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To illustrate the contrast, I offer this hypothesis. My hypothesis is thus: Christianity and Mormonism are both sustained by false claims. This is only a hypothesis. Christ was never resurrected; John Smith's claims were false. This would miss the point of either religion however, that one believes for the sake of belief alone. Leave logic, even consistency at the door, because belief in anything, even the impossible, has its place in the human experience.

    The Jesus/John Smith claim was a hypothesis; the bit about belief in the impossible having its place is not.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Every person who is against abortion is an immoral and evil person. Such a person should be strongly criticized. There is no excuse for being against abortion.

  17. #17
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,813
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    This thread = fail. My brain hurts.

  18. #18
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry you got caught in the crossfire, B&D; I would never have started this if I didn't think tcaud was INTj.

    Tcaud, why did you retype yourself? Do you consider yourself an authority on Socionics, or just one of the local brainstormers? (If there's any question, I'm in the latter group)

    I still sometimes wonder if I'm ILE... would you happen to hold an opinion on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Yours has no founding at all. There is NO evidence that consciousness "develops" at all, especially not in the womb where there is NO contact with the outside world.
    I based that largely on your statement "You ask when a fetus becomes conscious, I say once its empathy system has developed." So far as I can tell, you used "consciousness" and "empathy system" interchangeably - so I figured they must be interdependent, at least.

    The crux of my argument is that the period between conception and birth is a "fog" where no hard definitions can be drawn. Unless we can draw a hard line during that period, that would not be arbitrary (dividing by 3 and picking whichever slot the public likes better is arbitrary), we must draw the line before or after that period. All told, birth is a very minor change compared with conception; so we must draw the line at conception.

    My purpose is not so much to draw a conclusion from the evidence as to avoid muddled thinking. So far as I can tell, any cutoff point but conception results in muddled thinking; therefore the cutoff point must be conception.

    The evidence in this case is fairly meaningless, as the decision to be made is one of morality, not productivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    You need to drop this crap. Your ideas will never be taken seriously, nor will they ever become law. So drop it.
    That actually has very little to do with whether I'm right. To be clear, it doesn't much matter to me what becomes law. I'm trying to imagine a perfect world, not this mess we have now.

    Now, you said that I was immoral for doing what, so far as I can tell, is substituting for . Is that not what I am doing? If it is, why is that immoral?



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

Posting Permissions

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