I am quite familiar with all this. But just because a dichotomy has been around during the conception of the system does not necessarily make the dichotomy less arbitrary a decision.Originally Posted by The Ineffable
Even Jung did not recognize Rational/Irrational as fundamental? Huh.
Lol, Im sure your gene pool will not allow your children to be any less ugly than that baby is.
Also, I do not consider external/internal to be a real dichotomy, like I said. I prefer these terms, for which external/internal only applies to Fe and Te:
- the internal activity of objects
- the external activity of objects
- the hidden traits of objects
- the apparent traits of objects
- the subjective systems of fields
- the objective systems of fields
- the intangible processes of fields
- the tangible processes of fields
I found he mentioned that for Introverted Thinking. I find it appropriate only for Ti and Se, when their understanding is as in intension/intensional definition (necessarily requires to accept Ti) and extension/extensional definition (accepting Se is necessary). I don't see other meaning to interpret them.
For the record, Ostensive definitions mandatorily require Ne. The clash between extensive and ostensive definitions is found in law, among others, as argumentum o contrario VS analogy. The Decisive/Judicious evidently applies: AOC can be applied (take a decision) immediately, analogy requires further judgment every case that is not covered by the examples, in some cases analogy reveals that some examples tell the opposite in new contexts which are not covered by the law. Basically in analogy no example should be taken literally and no rule of thumb exists, since nothing is concrete but depends on the initial intended meaning, in AOC the opposite is true, the definitions are designed to solve problems by being applied literally.
You dont care that Labcoat is talking shit about you? I wouldnt either, except that others listen to him and you risk having this community turned against you.
They are the same. "Internal", "hidden" or "intangible" are subjective and not justified, they exist in the eye of the beholder. The external information, even when false or Fields, is limited by previously formed constrains.Also, I do not consider external/internal to be a real dichotomy, like I said. I prefer these terms, for which external/internal only applies to Fe and Te:
Labocat*
I hardly think one person could turn an entire forum against a person. Or... maybe. I certainly would not be persuaded like that.
Well, my point is that
Yeah, maybe Im just being catastrophic. I've seen one person person turn everyone against another though, just in smaller scale communities. Still, I dont understand the indifference.
I haven't noticed that. No, labcoat is fine to me (I also enjoy to tease him and LSIs in general), people who would turn against me because of such things would not matter to me anyway, even when it would be the entire forum.
Beleive me, you are not fine to him. Seems like you might have trouble understanding the true disposition of someone towards you in mutual relations? Not to polr hit or anything. But if you dont have a problem with it, neither do I, I wont stand up for you in the future, and for the record i dont think hes LSI.
the entire forum is already turned against Bolt. he is regularly being named in one breath together with maritsa as examples of how not to type. my only task is to expend the minimal effort to keep this fundamentally just situation as it is.
Heh, Betas...
Typhon, I really appreciate your support, just I'm not interested in politics and pickings sides, etc. To me being supported when I'm wrong is as bad as supporting someone else who is wrong, entering any sort of deals forces me into a compromise that I will most likely not be able to sustain in the future. My target are people who understand when I'm right and when I'm wrong, people who "turns against" me and disagree with me no matter what, as well as the other way around, are none of my concern, as they tend to fail understanding what I'm talking about case-by-case either way. I'm not interested to be seen as reliable, reliability is fallacious (hasty generalization), and I totally disagree with it. Let labcoat be "reliable" and me be "one breath together" with Maritsa, this does not change the meaning of my posts.
Anyway, interesting situation.
---
Taknamay: I'll come back later on those, need to prepare for New Year crap.
About two years ahead of you, but thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote