Hey you homosexual cunt, I don't give a shit about some definitions nor your feelings seeing you talk shit.
I'm so metaphorical as soldiers sin. Having said that, I'm going to wait till you, provide arguments(?) for you being this or that type, according to Gulenko's Cognitive Styles you love so much.Awesome, you should specify substantiate your claims instead of letting your metaphorical dick flap limp in the wind. Or you could be content to look like an idiot. Either way is fine with me.
As for me disagreeing with it, you don't even know what I'm disagreeing with.
In my frequent scuffles with alpha NTs it's common for them to confound the apparent products of my thought with the hidden processes behind them, and not just when I'm playing peekaboo at their expense. To avoid inviting too many tears and recriminations right now we'll just wave away the cause of this confusion as routine - collisions, but on reading Gulenko's description of an ILI agnosticism that denies the existence of objective reality, his conclusion initially struck me as stemming from the same error.
Now, as you stated previously:
The general terms of your metaphysic align with mine, including the implication that epistemic limitations are necessarily imposed on imperfect agents' ability to apprehend the true nature of being. This handicap leaves the possibility lingering that one's perceptions and worldview could, in part or whole, be wrong. Suspension of judgment in the course of critical investigations provides a safeguard against dogmatism and the acceptance of faulty premises or conclusions. From wikipedia:
Now in my observations, the external ambivalence attending a "yes, but" mentality that seeks to resolve incongruities and paradoxes often strikes other persons as relativistic when they unconsciously or intentionally fail to appreciate that this habitual doubtfulness is a processual orientation, not an end in itself. (And of course there's also the plain fact that motherfuckers just dislike it when you stroll in and pop their bouncy balloons.) So what Gulenko seemingly labels as a mindset that denies objective reality is actually one that says "Objective laws exists but because of the necessary conditions they create, mankind can only know of them in an imperfect and personal manner." And so as siuntal has surmised from the revised document (which I'll now read more closely; thx for brushing it up), Gulenko has quite possibly identified the operational form of a generalized ILI's analytical mechanism, though not necessarily the conclusions that it produces. In other words, though my initial impression was true in the general sense (i.e. quasi-identical perceptions), in the particular (this article) I might have been slightly wrong, ho ho.In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:
(a) an inquiry,
(b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
(c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
(d) the limitations of knowledge,
(e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.
You're really bad at this. You should go back to being the chatbox drunk.
Kind of hard to justify the cognitive styles as it's pretty much exclusively experiential...the Dialectical Algorithmic style fits me well because my thinking style mostly consists of balancing opposites, finding middle grounds and relative truths based on the relative strength of opposing internal dispositions; when I'm under stress it kind of feels like I'm walking a tight rope, trying to balance what's going on in my head. To me it feels like a constant balancing act of my own internal tendencies for the things that I consider good and evil, the things I consciously do to improve myself and the world and my ability to promote my own vision of how I think things should be vs. the evils I am compelled to do either by my own impulses that I struggle to control or by circumstance. Everything I do is weighed on these scales, every word that comes out of my mouth, every emotional signal I send, every action I take, and the final outcome, what comes out of me and goes into the world, is dependent on how the scales are balancing inside me.I'm so metaphorical as soldiers sin. Having said that, I'm going to wait till you, provide arguments(?) for you being this or that type, according to Gulenko's Cognitive Styles you love so much.
For example, writing this right now, I am balancing whether or not I should respond, based on how little I care about your opinion and how little I am inclined to respond to your obvious petty bullshit; I balance this with how it would look to others and how it would affect my credibility if I just wrote you off and refused to exlpain myself and the fact that by my own principles I should treat you civilly to some extent even though you royally piss me off and I think you have little use or place in this forum, if not the world (assuming your real self resembles the one you present here, but that's not an assumption I feel safe making because it just might not be true).
If you want to look for examples of the dialectical "balancing act" in my writing I'm sure you could find them, but honestly I don't give a flying fuck about your opinion so you can go find them on your own.
What? You said that you think I'm a different "philosophy" type.As for me disagreeing with it, you don't even know what I'm disagreeing with.
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...
lol ILIs are the "nihilist" type.
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...
I'm always drunk seeing you post and I, actually, drink with real people Gilly.
And this is why you took the time to explain it to me after you dismissed me chatbox drunk. Go get some, I don't know, brain.Kind of hard to justify the cognitive styles as it's pretty much exclusively experiential...the Dialectical Algorithmic style fits me well because
For fuck's sake, it's like reading this paedophile guy, Cat King Cole.
I do.What? You said that you think I'm a different "philosophy" type.
Aww so cute, he thinks he's cool now.
Well I had to do something to reconcile the fact that I really didn't want to respond, so I threw in a barb to make myself feel better about it. Scales gotta balance somehow.And this is why you took the time to explain it to me after you dismissed me chatbox drunk. Go get some, I don't know, brain.
blah blah blahFor fuck's sake, it's like reading this paedophile guy, Cat King Cole.
blah blah blahI do.
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...
lol what irony
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...
That's only true if the following is taken to its logical extremes:
The statement in itself is paradoxical and spoken for rhetorical effect, not to present a dogmatic view that knowledge is wholly inaccessible. Bear in mind, too, that like Diogenes of Sinope (essentially the Don Rickles of antiquity), Socrates was a very clever troll."I only know that I know nothing" - Socrates
Don't want to be killjoy or something, but I hate Socrates.
I assume the "...I know nothing" is a paradigm of their overall uncertain attitude in weighing information and making "rushed" decisions. That's at least part of the picture I get with ILI descriptions. The idea is pretty relateable however it seems like a more accurate reflection of Te-creative's ability to account for details and make workable sense of things, than it does just speculation.
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...
I reacted negatively to these because they seem lacking and unbalanced, I feel like I got one of the crappier ones, yet this whole thing is highly true for me (people always mention my volatility, on the forum as well, and I pick up on the other half that my internal attitude just runs carefree with other's viewpoints as though bearing an unstable skepticism.) It can be a big problem when I just react negatively to other's thoughts and don't think things through enough, taking it all too personally. It helps to have some self-control and to dig deep.
lol
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...
Nor did I make that claim, though in retrospect if one assumes the existence of base or mobilizing Ti in the cited examples then interesting inferences can be made concerning said IE's functional performance vis a vis manifested solipsism (as philosophical creed, plain self absorption, or confluence thereof) within the various models.
Actually, what I got from the LIE description is that they view things in terms of the world just being what it is. It is what it is and it'll go the way it goes. Nature in the sense of the natural world just functions the way it will. 'Animating nature' is just another way of saying they make the most of what naturally occurs, and so they just make the best of a situation.- The Entrepreneur (LIE): the creator of everything is living nature. This sociotype animates nature, itself becoming a dualist i.e. recognizing in equal measures the material and the idealistic beginnings that unite in the natural realm.
I actually think it's a really good depiction of typical LIE mentality assuming I interpreted it correctly.
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...
In a lot of descriptions LIEs are painted as having a romantic and imaginative side too that becomes vitalized with action and innovation, similar to EIEs just more practical and logical-process-oriented (much less so ILEish principle-seeking), which is why they can be wild risk takers, far-fetched planners, and not as 'down to earth' as ESTxs. But more than not they easily manifest an out-of-the-box style of thinking when trying for the most effective solutions, that should be more workable to them in the moment than to others or that a general knowledge is, like inventing a technique on the spot that others may not have thought of and eventually copy. So they are in this sense connecting process knowledge to a larger picture that is not always so traceable in reality, but just as much in their ideals and fantasy (and so even though it doesn't always work out for them, they remain thinking in the same ideal direction.) However I can't exactly interpret Gulenko's meaning here; it's not contradictory and could match up well in essence, but also a bit vague.
Yeah LIEs can be ballers...when they aren't living with their parents.
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...
Actually, after reading it again, I'm starting to think it may have more to do with just life, but.. I just noticed that all the other descriptions basically say "the world is ruled by x." The LIE description seemed to be saying that LIE tries to take the world for what it is. It isn't ruled by anything other than what just happens. Shit goes down no matter how you think about it, and you do the best you can to work with it.
"Whether it makes sense or not and whether it is good or not doesn't really matter. All that really matters is that it is what it is and what we want to do about it."
@Gilly
I don't mean the mentality is about perpetuating whatever is happening or that there is no sense in changing things if that's how you understood me.
No, I didn't mean that specifically; rather that they see it as futile to go against what they see as "natural order," and the unfortunate resignation that comes with such an attitude.
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...
I don't think that resignation is a necessary consequence. People can just as easily decide to change the way they view things to be naturally going.
The significance of the mentality is that it releases you from negative reactions that would cloud a person from being able to react to the situation with a clear and level head. In other words, the situation isn't good or bad, it's just one that is and must now be acted upon through active or passive decision.
Eh, the more I think about it, the more I think this is irrelevant to what Gulenko was saying.
Yeah me too.
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...
FOR THE POLITICALLY CORRECT OF MIND
I'm not accusing all LIEs of being drones. Just saying there is an ironic resonance in the description with I have witnessed in it's most pathetic form first hand.
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...
Aw, the fighting stopped. I was getting excited.
Within prudence.
I'm kind of interested in the implication that Process Theology was made by and for ILEs.
Not sure about the others, but this one seems to be right on target.Critic (TP, OR): the world is governed case. Objective laws there is little, everything is relative and is determined by probability. Most inclined to agnosticism type of intelligence ("I only know that I know nothing" - Socrates). Knowledge is possible only with the full clarity and inner peace that is achieved through meditation