at the song
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I guess I should clarify...I thought of it thousands of times in the context of, "could I ever do such a thing". Like when it comes up in movies or songs, etc... I don't sit around thinking about it obsessively. Yeah and people do not take a lot of things the right way. It is in some people's nature to shoot first and ask questions later though. I try not to do that...Originally Posted by mercutio
Not thousands of times... but I have thought about it... I tried asking other people how it'd feel too. I found that people didn't take it the right way.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
oh ok, my context was in a random moment. in movies i'm more likely to consider if a character could, than if i could.
If everyone's stupid, there is no intelligent point of reference. What is smart then?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Never heard this before... I made it my ringtone.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
The same as stupid.
rephrasing: "I believe that people are not much smart as they are good".
Yeah, I realized that the conversation is stuck if the definition of smart and dumb are the same. I think he is rephrasing my sentence where I said "People are more stupid than evil" and by changing both of the adjectives to opposites he.. ..erm.. ..I don't know what he achieved. Maybe he tried to establish that evil is the same as good?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I am
Well, tbh, the original remark was a joke and I kinda riffed off on that. True, I don't believe in evil/good or smart/non-smart. I'm not really arguing here or making a point, just messing with words (as always, i'm kinda worried that people take this forum actually serious!?).
nondualism is nonsense, ok that can be your assumption.
Ah, there is Allie again, yeah she thouroughly disliked me because I didn't agree to provide a clear and definitive answer to the question "what do you think about euthanasia". I'm sure that counts as arguing for the sake of arguing.
If posing different views, using humor to rattle people's paradigms and or lightenup their self-importance is a crime than i'm guilty.
@Ath, I see some kind of trend in your behaviour which is similar to that of allie. You know, you don't have to reply to me, you can ignore me, I usually don't attack you (except for this one and the post in edumacation) so...for fuck sake go back to your pokemons and please let me be in peace, i don't mess with your style, please don't mess with mine!
@Aquagraph:You are a poster who's post I think are intelligent and well informed. I respond to topics with my own personal view which in no way means that I want to impose it on you. I do take my humor serious, which basically means that as long as I think something is funny i'll riff on it, esp if someone responds cleverly. I also believe it has social worth (despite what others on the forum may think) in that it keeps people aware that there are infinite sides to anything. In that sense I'm not aiming at "achieving to establish anything" but more trying to stirr up the conversation. In cases where you feel it's not going anywhere you can just ignore my imput since I might not be aiming at something similar to what you're aiming at. I do however enjoy conversing with you so..
Great.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
If pressed to the ultimate end I'm obliged to say that i'm a solopsist/extreme relativist. I don't believe in truth.
This means I'm against both dualism and non-dualism (or..against is too strong of a term... I'll give the other options for both).
I don't particularly value insight as that kinda presupposes a right and wrong insight. I value perspective in the sense that anything that "makes sense" for me in the world is valuable. For instance, Socionics is amusing and interesting since it offers a way of looking at people, relationships, groups. I don't think it's true, nor do I wish it to be true. I don't value HKKMR variant as more valuable than the JoBro variant. I'd learn both if I had the time and see which one orders the world in the most pleasing way.
As I said in the post before, I am not trying to convince you of anything. If I actually convinced you of something I'd be sad cuz that's kinda replacing one thing with another. I offer differing oppinions to make people aware that there might be more than just the thing they're thinking. You seem to have a strong conviction which basically means that i'll be tempted to rattle your cage more, just like I feel tempted to attack maritsa and eliza on their faiths. Their strong convictions scare me, make me afraid they'll reduce the social reality to the point where they'll force me to think like them. You kinda trigger the same sentiments in your statements about what I say (according to you), what I believe (according to you) what the worth is of my actions (according to you). I don't think I've ever said your points were stupid, nonsense, or where I ever reduced them to "xxx-ialism". I read your points and give my true and honest reaction, which is always "but isn't there more?". Again, I don't get why you want me to make sense? I don't require you to write in pink text and or behave like a baby-giraffe either do i?
The not believing in truth prohibits me from securely falling down in solopsism. I can't be sure of it can I? There could be more, all is possible. I'm just making sense of the world one minute a time. I've thought different before, I'll think different again. Maybe in a few years I'll believe in the one truthTM but for now I am comfortable in my view that any view is as valid as any other.
I'd go for the throwing shit as long as it feels more authentic than my search for truth. (incidentely I don't think that everything which is not truth seeking is throwing shit. Art comes to mind, which is also what I identify with more than with science anyway).
Also, yeah, solopsism is believe, I never said it was anything else. I believe that everything is believe, which is basically the thing which we are stuck on. You still have hope that there's something else out there that has more value than believe, I have lost that hope. However, you cannot "force" someome to have that hope, just like you can't "force" someone to believe in a higher being (as Eliza seems to believe). In that sense for me the ultimate pleasure would be for you to succeed in finding a good truth (maybe the one? who knows?) and still be tolerant of all the more faulty truths out there (like the one i'm living).
I don't desire advancement, i'm perfectly happy as I am and as the world is. I believe this is both the worst and the best world possible. I will improve my life and others' life if its convenient, easy, comfortable, but I wouldn't go up the barricades for anything. See "my biggest fault" thread by @rat1. I'm complacent, fatalistic in my worldview. Still, at least I can laugh about the world, I have pleasure, I have my own believes which can be discarded as necessary.
You posted a thread with frustrations which kinda reminded me of some of my own, past frustrations. I feel my kind of hedonic enlightenment, dogmatic skeptisism has worth in my life so that's what I live. I believe I can help people if they're stuck in one pov, but wether or not they heed my words is up to them. Whether or not they ignore my humor and throwing shit is up to them. But if anyone is willing to enter the mudfighting with me we'll have fun while doing it.
edit: Perspective as in: Socionics is usefull to me, but i'm not saying it is, or should be, or shouldn't be usefull to anyone else. That's what I mean with "perspective v.s. insight". To me insight demarcates something that would be valuable to everyone.
Your assumption that there ARE reference points is just that, an assumption.
I stated a few posts back that i don't believe in truth, so all we have are either shared assumptions or no shared assumptions.
We don't share the assumption that there is no truth. So...
However, I don't call what you are doing "bullshitting" I let you have your assumptions, why can't you let me have mine?
triangle =/= quadrangle is the ultimate problem of philosophy, the problem of identity. If you have solved that (which I know you haven't) you could become rich by giving lectures to philosophy departments all over the world. But believe me, your post above doesn't indicate that you even start approaching understanding of how complex this topic is.
if you really want to understand this, I'd advice you to take some philosophy classes on ontology and epistemology. (I know you devalue academics, but what you're doing yourself isn't that different)at least than you wouldn't be trying to argue things that have been argued to death before....
What annoys me about you is that you use stuff as "obvious" and "bsing" and "running from". You can have that attitude, but it's not really fair to your conversation partner, it is condencending towards any time I might have spend thinking about the subject. It's arrogant in the sense that you think you can judge the worth of my statements and it's stupid in the sense that it kinda boycots your own project of gathering insight.
Let's cease this discussion since i'm not getting enjoyment out of it.
Instead of calling it nondualism start calling it transcendentalism.
Do you acknowledge something can be more true than something else? And that this infinite relativism of yours is, in itself, a truth? One you consider more true ...
I do value relativism. You overvalue it, and say 'there is no truth'. Relativism just contrasts divisions, and finds unity... assumption being all things already exist (again solipsism). But for a transcendentalist, one is adding division by breaching boundaries of the unknown, and unifying the information. One is searching through empty space for what is 'more true' by comparison. It is the process of searching which matters.
DO you believe in a universal solipsism (everything has conscience), or literally a hard solipsism... ?
Addressing solipsism.. everything emerges from nothing. If a solipsism believes nothing exists besides a viewpoint (himself or many), he does acknowledge that nothingness exists. By acknowledging nothingness solipsism is reconciled with objectivism; that bias of nothing is the ideal of objectivism. The transcendentalist, by comparison, is abandoning, to a degree, one prevailing viewpoint, delving into the unknown, and reconciling the findings. New realizations are brought fourth from nothing; the perspective changes. No longer is the universe a redundancy. A solipsist may say 'everything exists that ever will exist, the universe is redundant'. But if you really fathom the vastness of everything; not everything in a limited (solipsistic) sense... everything, as it's conceived to be infinite, renders any solipsistic viewpoint dissolute.
Last edited by rat1; 02-24-2014 at 03:10 PM.
Alright, I've been up for 20 hours; mixing some audio; someone amazing in particular loves what I did all the way through, someone else who rules pointed out that the guitars were lacking something, which I suspect to be mainly highs. He has a point, the guitars are murky enough to make Crowbar's tone sound bright. I love the hell out of that raw, gut-level power that's not in any way harsh or abrasive, I ain't gonna dilute it by fiddling around with the amp head too much or rolling the tone knobs up. I will, thanks to Finale's suggestion, look further into installing a brass nut on my guitar, and maybe even getting a set of P-90 pickups; if that guitar's gonna do anything up top, I'm gonna have it sing instead of hiss.
Anyways, I can't let that comment about the supposed cherry-picking go without a response.
The analogy that you used about triangles and squares had to do with human beings. Every triangle and every square I have ever seen has been either written on something or has been found to exist in the design of a concrete object itself. Since you applied the analogy to certain inherent and fundamentally intangible properties of human beings as denoted by the three-letter format used so commonly here, it made more sense for these analogical shapes to be drawn on something as opposed to being physically structured from, say, a person's bone structure. Going that route is going straight into the lunatic asylum of Pod'Lair.
In any case, anything in the physical realm is malleable. Given people's incredible ability to learn, grow, and adapt, the only proper place for these analogical shapes to actually exist in would be in an object that could also stretch so far without breaking. What came to my mind first was Silly Putty, but feel free to substitute in elastic, rubber, or whatever polymer feels good for you. A shape drawn on, or indented into, any of those aforementioned objects will only remain static for as long as they are unaffected by external physical circumstances. And in my experiences, not only was the shape they started out never the shape they ended up with, but it hardly took any time at all for some obvious change to occur.
If you keep breaking things down into grandiloquent postulates that are to remain almost, if not completely untethered to any actual existence, then you will be left with something that only derives its portability from its weightlessness, something that only achieves clarity via its emptiness.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I'd be leary to state anything about the truth for others.
I think for me, there is no truth "yet" or "anymore". What I basically mean by that is that I don't know how to value one statement above on other. I'd go for there IS a truth, it's however not within my grasp and i'm basically without any clue how to get there. I feel like no singular statement can describe the complexity of what I come across. I feel like using only one interpretaton stiffles me, reduces what is to something that's lesser. However, the entirety, the complexity cannot be stated without reducing it so i'm either left saying nothing (what cannot be talked about should be remain silent about) or, which is my choice, try to get as many perspectives on what is as possible.
"there is no truth", "everything is believe" etc are indeed statements about ontology and are circularly undermining themselves (as the statement is "the truth is there is no truth" and "I believe that everything is a believe" are circular. So I agree that I over value it in these statements. However, they serve as the shield against absolutist statements which are what Ath offered. Maybe I should have stated "there is no ONE truth" or "I cannot demarcate my believe as better from yours". But the problem is that, as my conversationpartner, Ath DOES believe he is speaking the ONE truth and that his core assumptions are right in the objective sense. I reject that notion.
I think it's possible to have gradual truths, or, to be more precize, I think for instance, internal consistency is important to systems. aesthetic worth is important for art. certain emotional notions are important to social conduct. I think if one aims high enough on one of these subjects he'll find a purer form of understanding or truth within that subject. One could grasp a certain truth by making something that really strikes true in art for example. Or a certain theory really describes reality like we encounter it in an elegant way.
For me a very good novel makes me experience "truth". this truth to me is no less than the "truth" of a good theory or a nice song or a remark that changes my life or moves me deeply. In this sense, within these subjects I experience different levels of truth so to speak. One theory is just better than another. One piece of art strikes deeper at the core than others etc. TruthTM (the hard, objective truth that one can grasp, catalogue, describe exhaustively) is not something I believe is possible to grasp. the subjective (and maybe objective, but I'll never no) "truths" i just talked about can be grasped and are all I grasp at... My hope is to experience as many different varieties of those as I can before my puny life gets swallowed by the collective winds of change.
As for solopsism, I do not know about the whole. Or rather, I don't know where I start and "the rest" begins. So, I asume it's all one. Either I'm moved by the collective "consciousness" (used in the widest sense possible) or the whole is moved by me. In the end it doesn't really matter which way, since one is one. It's probably a matter of a level of consciousness where I ascribe "me" to that which i'm conscious off and "the rest" to what i'm not conscious of. This is no truth, just focus.
I believe you to be childish and not ruthless. I believe you to use ad-hominems and appeals to "authority" or "common oppinion"(see your Allie remarks). I believe you to state things as absolute truths which are still debated over. I believe you than reject those debates as worthless and only value your own opinion. I believe i'm arguing with someone who wants to read something i'm not writing. I believe this is just pointless because we don't share the same language and assumptions.
My suggestion to take philosophy classes wasn't meant to appeal to authority, nor did I say that to devaluate your disrespect for academics (as, I just found in the other thread we seem to be agreeing on the deeper level on that subject).
I think you are ignoring a lot of opinions of people who have thought long about this. I think you could benefit from reading them. That's all. It was meant to contribute to your search for insight. I didn't find value in them in the end.
I gave you feedback to what your posting style does to me. That made it long. I think the discussion is worth having, but not with you since you seem to be intent upon making it personal where it's not. I don't like being attacked personally. I don't like attacking personally yet this is what is happening and what i'm doing. Every Xth posts gets reduced to ad-ridicule or ad-hominem and i'm not finding enjoyment in that. I do not enjoy being strawmanned/attacked personally.
I would like to get along with you. We dont seem to. thats a shame.
Lets agree not to interact with eachother anymore ok? I'll "back off" and i'm hoping you'll not approach me again.
Truth defies recognition, and lies in the void. Time, memory, & all aspects of reality are latent aspects of infinite; they may be seen holistically or isolated. Experience may be used as a reference point. It is not necessarily one. Everything in the universe has an experience. There is this universal solipsism. But to a solipsist, the experience itself is truth. I wouldn't argue for a hard solipsism, but for defining truth there are two ways... a universal one, or a personal one, depending on which form of solipsism you prescribe to. We do exist in a differentiated experience (apparently), and so there is duality in every truth we claim; but also illusion, and falsehood.
Last edited by rat1; 02-25-2014 at 12:48 AM.
Fuck I feel like I'm making the same argument to myself over and over again until I masturbate so hard my head explodes.
Killing is nothing. It's got to be one of the most popular activities in the world.
Cannibalism is the shit. Plumper, the better. Dose of barbeque sauce, hannibal lector style. ; )
Fuck that pussy shit. Necrophilia all the way -- we can keep the BBQ sauce though...
It's clear highschool kids are allowed to post on this forum. VERY CLEAR.
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Raskolnikov
you are a pussy, though. you write gay poetry. you have that gay mcbain stamp in your signature.
you and djarendee need to start a group for EIEs that have nerdy avatars and signatures. don't you dare fuckin' talk to me with a loser avatar like that. did you leave your personality on your type thread. go read it. the real you talks in airy, long-winded prose, full of flowery, attention-whoring platitudes...all of a sudden you're all about 'fuck that pussy shit". You have no core. On top of it, I saw your picture and think you're ugly. I don't like ugly people. Three strikes, you're out. You're into necrophilia? i have an idea! find some necrophiliacs and let them fuck your corpse.
In any event, the distance between any two types would have little to do with the distance between wheat and rye, which is at the genus level, which is what Lysenko was trying to overcome when planting wheat in certain ways to make it turn into rye, and I can think of no practical reason to do such a thing anyways. The human equivalent to that wouldn't involve changing types, it would involve changing into either a gorilla or a chimpanzee.
All of that which I have color-coded in burgundy has been largely handled by what I posted above. Furthermore, one person who would work within the parameters of one category moreso than, say, fifteen other categories, would by no means definitely be precisely at the theoretical center of that category. Even further, it wouldn't be impossible for there to be more commonalities between two people at the edges of certain different categories than would exist between either one of them and a member of their own category who would be on the other side of the edge. There's less distance between Youngstown and Pittsburgh than there is between Youngstown and Cincinnati.
I've got a decent amount of cash in the bank, approximately 25 pounds of meat in the freezer, approximately 25 pounds of various dry grains, some delicious spices, and the means to make wonders from all of the aforementioned. My bed's comfy, and I'm working on eliminating extraneous sources of light so I can get a better sleep. For that and various other reasons, I think I'll survive just fine. What would "long-term" even be, and what good would it do for me to take guesses at that stuff when I could just live, learn, take care of the people around me and myself, and have a good time doing so?
And there is less "rewriting" and more, just simply, writing. Everything I see and everything I do and everything I read just sticks into my mind, and I've got a good catalog of stuff to draw from.
Again with the extremes. The chunk of text I left up right above that is a slice of what I do; in short; live, learn, grow, and love; don't let anything get in the way of those four.
I can't find any reason at all for that to be true.
Focusing on the obvious is mandatory to tether any of this to the very "reality" you called to the witness stand. Otherwise it's just gonna be a hell of a lot of one-word containers floating around, with some pairs of two of them bolted to opposite ends of some phantasmal rod, and then any of three things will happen: someone's gonna attempt some sort of mathematical action with the containers, someone's gonna have a bunch of feelings about stuff, and/or someone's gonna reference Nietzsche. It's beyond beating a dead horse anymore, that poor horse has rotted, decayed, turned to compost, and there ain't nothing left to beat on but the ground that none of these word-containers ever seem to land on.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
High school kids make the best meat. Fresh.
Yes...Kill'em while they're still too stupid to know better.
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Raskolnikov
LMAO, aww the weak little cannibal attempting to act all immoral gets mad and insecure when he gets topped and mocked by the necrophile -- gay poetry huh? gay stamp? All your talk about gayness is giving me a clue about you, I'm sure you'd like me to top you again real soon. Ugly? So am I expecting you to think me pretty? Further evidence -- I think I'm going to cry thoughyou are a pussy, though. you write gay poetry. you have that gay mcbain stamp in your signature.
you and djarendee need to start a group for EIEs that have nerdy avatars and signatures. don't you dare fuckin' talk to me with a loser avatar like that. did you leave your personality on your type thread. go read it. the real you talks in airy, long-winded prose, full of flowery, attention-whoring platitudes...all of a sudden you're all about 'fuck that pussy shit". You have no core. On top of it, I saw your picture and think you're ugly. I don't like ugly people. Three strikes, you're out. You're into necrophilia? i have an idea! find some necrophiliacs and let them fuck your corpse.that's alright you can bend over so you don't have to look. It's okay little guy, you'll soon be able to face it, it gets better. Grouping me with @djarendee? You mean @Azure Flame or whatever he calls himself, okay, now that's cold blooded. Actually I don't have a response to that...Shit, fuck you then, you play way too rough. Why even bring him up, do you have a hard-on for him too? That's three strokes I've given your ass, you want more? Thanks for the attention by the way, I love closeted bottom boy whores.
Last edited by male; 02-25-2014 at 06:21 PM.
I told you I don’t want you to talk to me, Mc-pain-in-the-ass. Just accept the fact that I don’t like talking to mistyped people, you obscenity. You're a social flake with no substance who writes garbage poetry. You want to amuse me. Make some homo videos dancing around with a hot dog like your EIE fruitcake identicals. After that, go join a circus act where you can put your low IQ miming to use impersonating down syndrome kids. Beatings from a lead pipe would drastically improve your ugly mug, old school style with a pillow case over your head, even more than a vice grip would benefit your low intelligence after it crushed your head like a soda can, and I would happily oblige you in turning the crank until your eyes popped out of its socket. That's enough tips from k4m to stick in your Jerry’s Kid jar as you limp on in your one-monkey circus act. If you don’t know what I mean by an obscenity, jump off a bridge to nowhere and you’ll get the point.
LOL OOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhh shit bruh bruh lol. The Dozens. respect lol, at least someone doesn't take themselves too seriously on this site. Now back to our regular scheduled programming where I have a life.I told you I don’t want you to talk to me, Mc-pain-in-the-ass. Just accept the fact that I don’t like talking to mistyped people, you obscenity. You're a social flake with no substance who writes garbage poetry. You want to amuse me. Make some homo videos dancing around with a hot dog like your EIE fruitcake identicals. After that, go join a circus act where you can put your low IQ miming to use impersonating down syndrome kids. Beatings from a lead pipe would drastically improve your ugly mug, old school style with a pillow case over your head, even more than a vice grip would benefit your low intelligence after it crushed your head like a soda can, and I would happily oblige you in turning the crank until your eyes popped out of its socket. That's enough tips from k4m to stick in your Jerry’s Kid jar as you limp on in your one-monkey circus act. If you don’t know what I mean by an obscenity, jump off a bridge to nowhere and you’ll get the point.
Mmmmm, so hot.
I didn't realize you got off on that hentai porn. Hot, are @Reficulris @woofwoofl @truck and I still down to gangbang you? Since you're his lackey I'd ask @Kill4Me to join in but he's still dealing with some issues -- edit: I realized that you're a guy so nevermind, like his craigslist personals: k4m is dtf.
Last edited by male; 02-25-2014 at 04:44 PM.
Yes, you've got me pegged -- now peg me AGAIN! Love me, loooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeee me.
Call it transcendentalism instead of nondualism. But yes, the transcendental is unnamable... can never be identified. It's beyond language. Just as truth is beyond recognition. By experience, I simply mean that. You can divide experience into the observer and the observed, but both are within and without eachother the same. This unity can only be felt at by awareness of the infinite void beyond perspective. It is in here, in the void, everything lies together, unified. But you cannot identify this. It is infinite, it defies identification. You can only experience its presence. WIth this recognition all things are redefined by uncertainty, truth is an unattainable illusion, and it's self-evident with the passing experience that every experience is itself true and unnamable.ah too bad, refi.you seemed to be more sure in #105. As for childish vs ruthless, seems like such views could be common amongst (NPA) narcissistics. If all is one, then few narcissistics would want to be one with ruthlessness (more of aggression thing it seems, so far) and thus they're forced to reframe the character of the other into various things. "Childish". "Insane" (as if that absolves anyone of heinous acts, objectively its the same regardless of motive; maybe I'd make an exception for clear accidents). "Immature". These are all reductions of other ppl's individuality. N-type is pretty fearless as it instinctively reframes that way. The alternative would be to recognize the gravity of others' actions (and thus also their individuality, causing division) and thus refusing merging, mating, love or what-have-you. Which is another way of necessitating and affirming aggression as a vacuum will inevitably be filled.
Narcissism is root of entitlement mentality so probably the source of human rights too. I imagine many narcissistics are opposed to death penalty (too ruthless). ppl often ask who should carry out the execution, as if that'd be a hard thing to do... To narcissistics, probably, as it would merge ruthlessness with the narcissistic. Lets not forget absence of swift death penalty makes more govt jobs. Hope I'm not coming off as continuing the argument you wanted to end here, cuz I'm sharing insight here. And perhaps there are a few ruthless N-trait-ers but I intuit there's a difference between them and ruthless A-trait-ers...
@Kenneth Chesney believes type to be related biological neural networks. You'll also find this interesting. Science also supports certain dichotomies like E/I and even S/N and F/T. And this (which I linked you in TC) also claims to be scientific. So I'd say its based in sth material.
Well, you gotta consider the laws of averages. If everything was incredibly fluid then yeah, static categories would be significantly less useful. But thats not how it is. Some things are simply very not-malleable (and can be considered naturally "stronger" than other things for this reason), thus we need the cognitive apparatus to deal with this fact of reality. A survival strategy which constantly rewrites itself is useless, unless you consider pure tactics as a strategy i.e. constantly rewriting itself a sound strategy, but then how can you even think about where you're going long-term? Solipsism (chickening out, iow) or just suicidal recklessness (no one is like that all the time) are possible responses. According to reality there must exist static, systemizable parts of the personality. Claiming otherwise is senseless subjectivity.
Focusing on the obvious deters the subtle.
I won't necessarily see that as a fault. Some quote "Virtue is what we praise in our benefactors" so by extension sin would be what we deride in our enemies.
When you say experience, do you mean a singular, particular experience or generally? One way or another experience is a reference point, a sign of differentiation and duality. This is one of the best arguments I've seen so far for why. To even talk about nondualism is contradictory cuz it exists in opposition to dualism. Perhaps its more of a useful tool, like... imaginary numbers?
It is not like an imaginary number, it's like Pi... Pis value will never be identified. You can try to get closer to it... you are chasing it. This shows the illusion of certainty that's inherent in math, language, any system of measurement or identification. These illusions ... I'm not sure if they are useless (in some ways they are), but they are secondary to what is self-evident.
The good thing about reading out loud is that I get to hear my own voice.
When you read out loud what Kill4Me wrote, is it still your voice?
Socionics is based upon the works of Carl Gustav Jung; specifically, ones that involved notions of Extroverted and Introverted Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling.
"Static archetypes" will be unavoidably different depending on the person they come from. Even the one-word descriptors that involved human beings none of us have ever even seen photographs of have ended up changing. Those moving, nebulous figures are built upon constellations of functions built on functions built on Jung's work.
Socionics is NOT based in "static archetypes" like that.
A type itself is based upon a constellation of functions. The functions should have this sense of purity. The problem occurs when people, by virtue of being human, end up, to some degree, outside of those specifically positioned and weighted figures. The solution is to have some means of gradience, like you've shown yourself by self-typing "INxx". Feel free to preface that with "Ti/Fe"; it's a notation I've used quite a bit, and it's not only served me incredibly well, but it did great for a few other people around these parts.
Absolutely correct. Both of the aforementioned are excellent, incredibly useful, and foundational to even more fine-tuning I look forward to doing.
My obsessive perfection works differently than yours, and the novelties I look for are different from the novelties you look for.
Then what's to say that you're not one of those very people?and where does Socionics do that?
What's wrong about profitting? And what material would there be an ounce of?
Not odd at all.
The "type change" you are referring to would almost always consist of an incredibly minor move across a metaphorical state line, like from Cincinnati to Youngstown, and in these cases, merely concretizing a type would be nearly impossible in the first place. A notation that houses multiple types, like "INxx", would be far less effort-intensive and useful to use than to go into detail about a "type change" when the suggestion of such a notion would bring all manner of argument out of the woodwork to hammer home the supposition that "type is static". By the way, I do have two instances of extreme and extensive subtype change in the musical world alone, and they occurred over the course of over a decade.
False.
Also false.
Controlled?
"Stronger"? In what manner?
"Inclined to criminality"? Criminality is dependent on what the laws of the specific region are that the inhabitant is in, and is therefore NOT STATIC. The laws change. People physically move, and oftentimes they move to areas in which the laws are different. This can take but a handful of miles of movement, and therefore a single-digit number of minutes, to achieve.
Nope. He said that written stereotypes about a certain type weren't universally true for the actual type's human inhabitants. None of what he said there has anything to do with any notions of "type change".
Nope, and I have no idea how you got to that conclusion.
Plus/minus functions. Glad to see you use Gulenko as a source. Accepting the works of Gulenko as being part of Socionics opens up the doors to dual-types and beyond.
Conform to what, precisely?
I propose starting by notating the DCNH system as follows: D = 0°, C = 90°, N = 180°, and H = 270°. A extreme inclination towards relative Extraverted functional dominance would be at 45°, Static dominance would be at 135°, Introverted functional dominance would be at 225°, and Dynamic dominance would be at 315°.
The very fact that these words are given form by computer light proves otherwise.
Examples?
Anything in burgundy was dealt with way up at the top of this post.
And hell yes, I agree that the foundation is the functions, everything else is built upon this foundation.
What do you mean by "exist"?
A lot of why people die has to do with their physical environment around them. Getting shot, dying of starvation and disease, getting run into by an automobile, etc.
The extensive at-the-least subtype change happened in a musician who, four decades ago, would be unquestionably Ti-LII. Over the course of living a lot of life, he, without the shadow of a doubt, transcended theoretical type limitations to a degree I never suspected as humanly possible. "Ceiling unlimited" indeed.
Everyone is born with the capacity to do little more than to make terrible noises and to soil clothing that they couldn't put on their own body or anybody else's. As people get older, they generally gain the capacity to do more, gaining definition by their accomplishments borne from transcending limits as opposed to being defined by them, and a few of them ended up leaving the confines of the entire planet, paraded around on its moon, planted a flag there, flew back here to Earth in working condition, lived to tell the tale, and told it. Repeatedly. Because they fucking could. And also, to extend the RPG analogy; once you rank up enough, there comes the opportunity to multiclass.
Humankind is an active molder of reality, as is all of sentience. As for "duality", here's one: what's the opposite of driving over a pothole? Driving over a bump made of asphalt in the same dimensions of the space in said pothole that would otherwise be occupied by either asphalt or concrete? Both of them would rattle the hell out of that car, and there wouldn't be a neat, concise, mathematical way to resolve that one...
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I Do the Clowns in Different Voices.
I was told, by a wise old man, that if I couldn't hold my tongue when I should, then go... go fuck myself. I wonder if he meant it literally.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Cunnilingus?I was told, by a wise old man, that if I couldn't hold my tongue when I should, then go... go fuck myself. I wonder if he meant it literally.
I swear Mcbain. Arendee and you are the same shit responding to me with likes. “Hi my name is mcbain. I put the name mcbain in my avatar because I’m so fucking stupid that I might forget it. I'm the dumbest 16type member ever.” Pompousness amuses me. Arendee thinks he looks like a supermodel and that people "hated" on him because he has charisma. Only problem with that is, in real life, people react positively to good-looking, charismatic people. Like Arendee, you have nothing worth being jealous of. By all indications, you don’t have a hot girlfriend. You aren’t a multi-millionaire. You don’t fuck supermodels. You bring nothing to the table in terms of the shit people typically get jealous of. You’re just a vain motherfucker. That's why you pompous doves amuse me. Open your fuckin' eyes. Goodlooking charismatic people get a shitload of friend requests and a ton of visitor messages. You get picked on because you’re a person that’s not good-looking, doesn’t have charisma, and deosn’t have brains, but nevertheless manages to kid himself into believing the opposite. Those opposing elements in combination indicate your desire (and ripeness) for psychological torture.
Hehehe. Go pull a pity me farewell thread where you cry about how you’re not wanted here any more. In the end, all guys like you have left to bank on, after I get through with you, is pity. No pity from me, though. That’s why I’ll mind fuck my kid when he's young, so he’s not waving hot dogs and having head spasms later on in the public eye like some limp-wristed daisy sniffer. Truth be told: if I had a kid and my kid ever turned out like you mcbain, I would disown him. Too bad I wasn’t admin of this place. Mistyped people like you bring down the quality of discussion. No insight is gained into your self-typing because your self-typing is wrong. I would deal with guys like you real easy. Month to fall in line with your right type. End of every month the mistyped undesirables like yourself would be systematically purged. That’s the only legitimate function of moderation. Bottom line Mcpain-in-the-ass: go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote