Ask Me Stuff?

[Mattie]

I think it's an extinguishment thing, because at first I couldn't tell (and I still can't really) to exactly what degree you're making fun of me. Not that I'm in any way offended, but I just thought that was pertinent to this thread.

I thought the tongue smiley would mark it as a joke, but I'll remember for the future. I don't think we can just make something as passing as "it must be extinguishment" other than it's hard to tell tone of voice over the internet. I can't tell sarcasm over the internet, so maybe I shouldn't use it either

[Pookie]

If a tree falls in a forest and crushes a woman... what the hell is a forest doing in the kitchen?

[Timeless]

Dear silverchris9,

Where would I most and least likely run into an SEI?

[Graham]

Like, last night, I was in a conversation with myself

LOL .. until I realized what the rest of the sentence said.

[discojoe]

silverchris, you remind me of my Asian (yes, Asian) friend Katelyn. I think you both have beautiful minds.

[Nowisthetime]

I'll blather for a page-and-a-half about why I think Michael Jackson is IEI

I would be very interested in this.

Because God exists. But better yet, because the world is structured in such a way that having sex with lots of people rather than with one partner (and maybe even--ugh--only for the purposes of procreation, but we're going to hope and pray that's not the case) inhibits people from realizing themselves, from instressing their inscape, from achieving the fullness of their souls, from enacting all the potentials, from full instantiating their unique Form

Reading this made me sad. I personally feel more whole as a person, happier and nicer and more connected to my soul if I have sex (with the right person or persons). Separating sexuality and spirituality is just so weird IMO. Whoever invented that must have had a really bad day. But type related maybe?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Nowisthetime]

I know no SEI able to make this separation so far, but intuitive types seem able to make it naturally although for me this prioritization doesn't feel authentic - I'm doubtful about this sanctity or superiority of these spiritual matters.

I can somehow understand the separation in my own way. I think of spirituality as poetry or music or religiosity and I see that they are of a different kind than sexuality. But sexuality also has spirituality in it and vice versa. Nothing is "pure" and I like it that way. And saying that we cannot have both is weird. And why is sexuality contrasted to spirituality and why not to - lets say - making pancakes? I agree with you: Why would spirituality be superior? That's based on some philosophy that I don't understand and don't care to understand.

Anyway, I don't like to and I don't have the ability to discuss this in a philosophical way. But sometimes I read something and feel like responding.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

romance isn't that difficult or hard people. It's really simple:

1. You emotionally enjoy a person AND you can also be intimate with them, sexually.

2. You like that person. You just like them. It's emotional. You just enjoy them. They both excite and invigorate you and also alleviate you of your fears and anxiety. It's not some analyzing thing , you fucking farters. Actually I just am realizing how much of a dickheard , cowardly and asshole thing it is to analyze somebody over the internet.

IEIs are so great at pure love, I think. Seeing people make decisions that just sabotage them emotionally is kind of a concern for me. You say how you 'just want to be realistic' but nothing in society is realistic, everything in modern society that humans use is based upon ideas... it's 'real' in the sense that it's now active thought vibration but it's still technically all ideas.

Plus the vibration level of 'ooh I have to be realistic I can't fall in love' means that you don't think love is real that it's always out of reach, that you just have to intellectualize like a dork all day. Plus that vibration itself just feels negative and self-defeating. Man, the popular jocks who throat fuck people are just so much cooler. A bit of balance and acting like a dumb, funny prep that's actually likeable would just be very helpful for all of you.

It's about learning to enjoy people, not expecting too much from others, not taking them too seriously or being codependent. You also never have to commit to anything you don't want, especially in this day and age. You just have to give people a shot, meet in a public place, and stop thinking too hard about them. Like you don't even know them until you know.

[Park]

Ask Me Stuff?

Why haven't you answered my message yet?

[DirectorAbbie]

What is the meaning of "life?"

On the common calculator, what is the last digit of pi?

How many Houses have you seen in your lifetime? Round up to the nearest whole number.

If you had a crab, what color would it be?

If an ESE had a crab, what color would it be?

If you were an ESE with a crab, what color would you be?

Why do stereotypical women fit stereotypes better than stereotypical men do?

Have you ever named your socks?

Have your socks ever named you?

When was the QWERTY keyboard invented?

When you were little, where did you think babies came from?

Does the average middle-schooler know what "yield" means?

Is there any adoption in your family?

Do I have anything better to do today than type out pointless questions?

[Nowisthetime]

No way! Spirit, magic and stuff are for real to me - experimented and different insights - nothing with emotions or poetry, whatever. It's like saying physics is some literary composition.

Good you mentioned this. Lately I've noticed that spirituality/religiosity is all about the experience for me. I don't care about the "true" existence of these things. But that doesn't mean that I feel like a hedonist even though psychologically it could be described that way. It's just not relevant. I can pray or take part in religious rituals (if the rituals appeal to me), but I don't believe in God, but surprisingly that doesn't bother me. But I also think that maybe it's a bit more complicated than this. Like, if I would develop my religiosity I would actually start believing in God somehow through the experience but still being an atheist in the rational part of my mind. I don't think I would have any problem with that, because I don't care about the logical conclusions that could potentially cause a personal religious crisis. Anyway, this is all very hypothetical, in my everyday life I don't think that much about these matters.

I'm a little skeptical to the comparison with physics as a literary composition, because that would be very boring literature, right? Or what do I know, maybe it isn't Still, spirituality as experience for me has everything that is important.

There's something on my mind that I'm trying to formulate: Spirituality as experience sounds cynical, just some hedonistic SEI enjoying it, like good food. But that's more from an outside, psychological point of view. From the inside, for me, it doesn't feel cynical at all, it's personal and rich, just stripped from the things that doesn't belong to it, in my opinion.

Now I'm writing too much.

I never saw spiritual people seemingly more happy, or healthier, living longer or flying, as written in the books, but I think some powers can be gained. Some powers can be gained through earthly meanings, too.

yes.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Rubicon]

I know no SEI able to make this separation so far...

um... hi :-p

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Rubicon]

Hi!

Just to make sure we talk about the same thing: do you think that sex inhibits spirituality as well?

Reading again what Nowistheetc wrote, perhaps I'm not really disagreeing. :-p I don't think that sex in itself inhibits spirituality - just the abuse of it. Similar to food and gluttony. I was brought up as a Christian and to believe that sex before marriage is wrong, so I know there's the possibility that I've been brainwashed in this regard :-p .. but I really don't see the appeal of sleeping around/having multiple partners. Seems to me like sex represents the pinnacle of intimacy in terms of human relationships, like it's the physical equivalent of baring your soul to someone.. so yeah - I feel like treating it lightly - like it's simply just about physical pleasure - degrades the concept. I think that abstinence for its own sake though can give a person a false sense of power. Feeling like they have mastery over something which they actually don't, because they'd lose control in coming into contact with it.. and surely that's the real test - maintaining control in the midst of fire. :-p But I do think that there's something to abstinence - spiritual benefits or not - like fasting, which heightens your senses and clears your mind.

[silverchris9]

silverchris, what do you think of ENTjs?

LIE is definitely the type that I know the least about. I've never known why this is, but I just don't run into a lot of LIEs. I know plenty of examples of every other type, but I cannot think of a single person I know particularly well whom I would type LIE. Actually, that's a lie, I can think of one who *could* be LIE, but she's hard to type (partially because I think she might have grown up in an opposite quadra environment---I suspect she's Fe superego who overcompensates because she grew up in an Fe expecting/valuing environment. But obviously it's a lot harder to prove something like that than a more straightforward typing). I do vaguely know one guy who may be LIE. But he looks ESI. Like, if I purely had to VI him, I'd probably Vi him ESI. Anyway. LIEs seem like LSEs but less unpleasant. They also have a tendency to really stick to the rules and come down harsh on those who fail to understand all of the rules/expectations, but because the way in which they do so is less... gross, to me, it's a little bit funnier. But yeah, I don't really have very much to say about them, 'cause I know so few of them. Maybe I don't understand them so I mistype people as not-them. Agamemnon is LIE, I think. Also, I don't understand Si-polr at all, except for Charles Dickens and how he emotion'd himself to death. That sounds like Si-polr (disregard for the signals one's body is sending or whatever).

But yeah, I know nothing about them. Um, sorry.

[silverchris9]

Dear silverchris9,

Where would I most and least likely run into an SEI?

Well, the snarky answer is that you're most likely to find an SEI wherever the most people are (so, China, I guess), and least likely to find an SEI wherever the least people are, so Siberia, the point being that there are SEIs everywhere and it's hard to say that a particular type congregates in a particular area.

But, purely by functions, you're most likely to find an SEI in an environment where they are comfortable and can remain so with comparatively little effort. I would imagine that SEIs would probably be one of the types least likely to go to a club (not that they wouldn't do it, but just that clubs seem like the opposite of homeostasis), although I could imagine an SEI having a nice low-key-ish bar that they frequent. Maybe a place that tends to have soft lighting and gentle music (but not bad gentle music like non-Sade smooth jazz, like Kenny G---that poor unfortunate soul---but good gentle music, like instrumental with percussion and trumpet and piano).

Now, not by functions but just by examples of SEIs I know, I think artistic environments are common places to find SEIs, but I find that SEIs *don't* like artistic environments that are really competitive and high-pressure. They like sort of chill environments where they can sing or act or paint or whatever they do, but often more as a hobby (because professional work is often so high pressure). So maybe a local choir, or maybe a community theater production, or a painting or acting class at the local university. Some SEIs are more athletic (side note: the SEI I know who is particularly athletic is absolutely *in love* with an IEE teacher we both have. Socionics in (comedic) action), but you're more likely to find them playing a game of basketball with friends, having a swim, etc., than pumping iron and counting how many reps they can do. The SEIs I know are too humble and non-show-off-y for that. All in all, if I had to recommend a most likely place, I would say if there's a comparatively chill local arts scene, more of the "sit around and jam" variety than the "let's bear our souls to one another through Poetry-with-a-capital-P" variety, that's somewhere where you're almost guaranteed to find at least one SEI, playing saxophone or singing soft harmonies to an acoustic guitar melody...

[silverchris9]

Im entertaining the idea, although its highly doubtful

would like to hear your thoughts on it though =X

I dunno. I mean, you display a lot of Fe, a lot of emotional energy going out expecting an emotional response, and it almost seems like you're uncomfortable in non-excited emotional energy states, based on how ardently you sort of put yourself/energy out there. So it would be easy to mistake you for Fe base over Ni base just because so much of your posting behavior seems to reveal Fe (raising emotional energy) over Ni (ummm... understanding... stuff...? Abstract speculation? Whatever Ni is) as a primary motivation. I think it's common to describe the creative/base relationship as creative in the service of base. Although I can guess how you are perhaps using Fe in service of an Ni goal, sometimes it just seems like the Fe is the goal (and then the question is, how do you use Ni to serve it... maybe in guessing how emotional triggers will play out from person to person?)

However, on the pro-IEI side, it seems much more likely that you are Se dualseeking over Se hidden agenda. Honestly, that's why I buy IEI for you. Because you don't seem like you ever want to really handle the Se yourself. I like to handle the Ti myself every now and then; I love it when I'm the one to point out the inconsistency in someone's logic, or I'm the one to catch the comically illogical statement (from last night: "My teeth are more important than hygiene" or something like that---because obviously taking care of your teeth *is* a part of hygiene). If things are really desperate, or if I'm feeling really confident, I'll maybe take over "Se" roles. But I'm *far* more comfortable handling Ti stuff, and I feel that that's an area in which I have a lot of room for development and growth, whereas I feel like, honestly, it's just best if somebody else does the Se, does the volitional pressure. Because I'm kind of too nice and cute (and produce too much of my effect by being nice and cute) to really provide the volitional pressure. I'm not necessarily saying you're too cute and nice to boss people around (not that Se is all about bossing people around, but that is one of the nice things about it). But I am saying that you don't seem to really want to deal with Se matters yourself, more like just rouse someone else to do it. And you seem to prize Se over Ti from other people. I think that Beta Se (i.e., blocked with Ti) is the perfect complement to Beta Fe, energy to feel meets energy of will (sorry, that wasn't supposed to rhyme), and it just goes together, right? Well, you very obviously (to me) seem like you "need" that Se response, like you say, "HEY GUYS! I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT SOMETHING," and then you just need that response that's like, "FUCK YEAH, YOU'RE EXCITED ABOUT IT. NOW GET YOUR LAZY ASS UP 'CAUSE WE'RE DOING IT NOW." I mean, that was a caricature, but do you know the energy I'm talking about? Anyway, you seem Se-dualseeking. I don't know if I explained why very well at all, though. Sorry.

Not that anybody asked/cared about this, but I've been thinking about "respect," lately, in particular "being respectful." I used to think this was bs. And honestly, I still do. I don't believe in respect of place as at all separate from respect of character. A jackass is a jackass; an idiot is an idiot. (Conversely, a kind person is a kind person, and a genius is a genius.) And then one of my acquaintances, an obvious Beta NF (omg obvious beta NF, like lol obvious, SOOOOOO beta), kept talking about how great it was to be "respectful" to adults, people in authority positions (campus rent-a-cops, store workers, etc). And I think that I've sort of come to a realization that, for me, at least, and maybe for betas in general, that sort of "respect" is a self-consciously performative thing. That's in gross english major-y words, but what I mean is that when I act "respectful" because of a person's role, rather than because of who they are, I am consciously... not manipulating them, but consciously enacting a social form. Consciously saying, we have made an implicit contract: I will show deference to you, and you will show kindness/partiality to me. Not that there's any obligation on the part of the "respected" person, but there's... not empty subservience (which I rather despise) on the part of the "respecter". So when you're really respectful to the campus rent-a-cops, it precisely isn't a recognition of superiority on either part. It is solely a respect for form, for position, without any regard to the question of character. And that's OK, because it's as amoral as every other social form. It's how you use it. If you take it too far, you become obsequious. If you don't observe it at all, you become Cordelia in the first act of King Lear (but worse, 'cause at least she was morally in the right, even if she was practically kinda stupid).

Now, all that said, of course, it's important to still respect people because they're human beings and all human beings are bright and luminous and brilliant in some sort of secret (or not-so-secret) sense. I'm speaking specifically of respecting people based on place or role. For instance, I was nice to the airplane guy at the counter today not because of his role, but because he was a really nice old(ish) man, and I wanted to respond to his generosity/niceness with some niceness of my own (being kind is like that). But even if he had been a jackass, there's a certain *kind* of respect I should still give him, in recognition of a given social form.

Also, a brief rhapsode on Beta STs: clear, succinct commands are so, so wonderful. I want to live in a world of clear, succinct commands. Any time there's something to be done, I just need someone to give me a clear job to do, and I'll jump in and do it. But without that clear instruction, I just sort of float, because I can see in my head all the ways that I could be getting in the way or not helping at all. And I suppose, logically, there's no particular reason why the ST should be more right or wrong than I am. But it's about personality; if they act boss, they are boss (to a degree). I mention this, because it's about that great combination of Ti and Se. Se gives the boldness, the willingness to step up and sort of take charge, while Ti gives the clarity and succinctness. Do x, do y. Great. I wish all of the jobs I did could be that obvious, and then we could go have a beer after. (Not that beer isn't disgusting, but it hasn't taken that long for it to go to puke gross to only gag gross, so you know, by the time I have a real people job, I'll be beer-bellying it up with the best of 'em---dear god i hope not)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Rubicon]

Btw, I was raised as an atheist, so IMO not all these are connected to religion, my gf is a declared atheist and skeptic, fierce against religion, but she has the same mentality and I can identify her with myself several years ago concerning this matter.

That's strangely comforting.. to know it's more than just beliefs-related. (-:

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Rubicon]

IMO what are to be found as universal virtues, must have the root in the human nature.

Yes, I think so too!

[Aiss]

Unsolvable for lack of connection here: "Elvis' mother whose first cousin is kindred to Elvis' wife".

[Aiss]

EII, assuming information from the previous post and that you mean 'business' and the rest as socionics and not real life relations.

[silverchris9]

Silverchris, you're scared that duality love will solve all your problems and make you too happy so that you'll stop writing poems and longing for God? Nah. I don't believe it.

Well, I used to write poetry as consolation for not being a cool kid and assuming that I was unattractive to the opposite sex (in reality, I wasn't any more geeky than your average geeky kid, and probably could've gotten SOME girl to date me. But then, who wants to date some girl?), i.e., for being down in power relations. Now that I'm sort of on the rise in power relations, more confident, more whatever, I dunno, I don't know if I feel that longing as intensely. Culture comes up with a thousand forms to make you not feel the longing for original energy without check, including but not limited to money, cars, hoes and all things covered by hip-hop (actually, the real rappers, except maybe Eminem, are quite Whitmanian, por lo general. Certainly Wayne and Tupac are/were/are). And I'm afraid if I have too many external markers of success, it will be easier for me to lull myself to sleep. It's a lot easier to not want what you can't have. It's much more difficult to not want money if you can make money. It's much more difficult to not want sex (okay, not not want sex, but not overemphasize sex as a priority in life, or something) if you can get sex with reasonably attractive individuals of your preferred gender.

Also, re: sex. I think it's really metaphysical and magical. I think that even if it's only emotional, I don't know that it's really possible to have sex without any investment of those "internal images" that are so central to the person, or, alternatively, deadening one's sensitivity thereto (and we all know, being good jungians, that when you push something into the unconscious, it will eventually pop out like a scary demon clown pop goes the weasel). And then if it's also spiritual... but I don't know. I certainly get "multiple sexual partners." It would be dumb of me to condemn that as unreasonable or non-understandable. I get it. But, accepting that it may in fact be brainwashing, I have to guess that having sex with a bunch of girls will fuck me up in some way, because of the vague intimation--which may be overly internalized brainwashing--that I think it will. Meh. I don't have well-developed views on the subject, and probably can't. I do like using phallic symbols in poetry, using sex as a metaphor, etc. I like to compare the poet in the world to a penis in a vagina. "...and such a small organ of sense to discern it!"

MORE QUESTIONS!!!! I just finished a big freelance project, and so I have declared myself off-work for at least the next week or so. MORE!!!!!

I need to state that treatise on Michael Jackson for realz. I'm pretty sure he's IEI. He definitely is interested in exercising creative control, and has a very clear idea of what he wants (Ni "vision") but does not want to exert volitional pressure on others to make it happen, and therefore uses a) emotional manipulation (a less-preferred tactic), and b) management-by-proxy, making other people make it happen for him. IEIs like to have power but not wield it. Michael Jackson seemed to be a sensitive soul. I think he knew and nurtured his inner world in a way an IEI might. I should find some video and some quotes and some interviews and stuff.

[Mattie]

MORE QUESTIONS!!!! I just finished a big freelance project, and so I have declared myself off-work for at least the next week or so. MORE!!!!!

You still have our discussion to continue that you never got around to replying.

[silverchris9]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Remember, I don't ever fall in love. You seem to invent say a red balloon in your head because you like red balloons. To me the idea that it's invented feels even more gut-wrenching than if it didn't exist at all.

You don't want to choose anyone (settle), cause you want to write poetry. How is that not to choose yourself?

Did I ever mention that you beat me, even if only Socratically (i.e., all questions, no answers)? These two in particular were good. I like any and all attention, to be honest.

Maybe one of the hallmarks of being a poet, especially in a "post-modern" landscape (although in this sense we've been post-modern since Wordsworth), is that you prefer imaginary red balloons to no red balloon at all? Invented is a better word than imaginary here, though.



Also, one argument for EII Michael Jackson is that he does seem to have this overwhelming lust/fear for this sort of dominating/overpowering woman. We find it in "In the Closet" (a.k.a., Michael Jackson makes out with Naomi Campbell for four-and-a-half minutes) and "Dirty Diana," and then he does a possibly male version of it in "Give In to Me". Honestly, Michael Jackson was a bizarre man, especially with regards to sexuality. His songs that are about sex are almost always violent. Actually, that's one more reason I think he's IEI, really. Not because he likes it rough (ha ha ha), but because he has this sort of core tension between an id (Freudian id, not socionics id) that's all about this sort of violence, or at least what Blake would call "energy" and then this superego that's SO obsessed with being kind, appearing gentle. And both sides of him are perfectly legitimate and real. And then you have this ego sort of caught in between but that achieves self-expression through art. Yes, I'm projecting, but I'm projecting pretty accurately, I think.

[silverchris9]

You still have our discussion to continue that you never got around to replying.

I'm sorry. It's just hard for me to do. But you arrived at an answer about it, no?

[Gilly]

I think you are an E3.

[silverchris9]

Why?