Results 1 to 40 of 42

Thread: Transhumanism (h+)

Threaded View

  1. #20
    Whoobie77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Appalachia/Midwest Borderlands
    TIM
    ILI Counterphobic 6
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
    Uhm. Your reasoning seemed very LIIish (I'm not implying you're). You're dealing with Nature in a sort of Gaia fashion, that is, almost as a self-aware entity (at least in a superficial level), or self-behaving entity. Like if it has an internally stablished purpose and "knows" how to do for achieving it. Not that this is a bad thing, just that it seems to be a common way many LIIs see Nature. DarkAngelFireWolf69 mentioned ecosystems as a very INTj idea, and I also think Lynn Margulis was LII (see my answer to mfckr). Although probably it was the way you've expressed it, more that what you're actually thinking.

    I disagree with such way of interpreting the issue, and particularly the concept of life. I do not like to go excessively offtopic in my own threads, so I'm not going to argue against it, the same way I've not argued against other opinions which has been expressed; my goal is collecting data for stablishing a potential correlation. Although participants are welcome to discuss as much as they want of course.

    My answer to this would require a very long argument combining Physics, Chemistry & Biology. I will only point that I think you're wrong (or could be wrong, in case I'm misinterpreting you) basically because life is not equilibrium as people usually think, but the opposite. All life is, in certain way, a disease, as it can only prosper by "destruction". So what is happening with humans was somehow inevitable (also quoting Agent Smith). Well, technically more than "destruction", life is a catalyst of it.
    Well just about everybody on the forum has told me I'm an ILE and most non-socionics MBTI tests I take say I'm either ENTP or INTP so...I'm kind of inclined to just accept that I'm NeTi this point.

    Ti is a logical function, and is therefore prone towards analogical processes, such as "A is to B as C is to D". Combine this with a love of disparate juxtapositions (Ne), and you'll have a proclivity towards speaking sometimes with metaphors. Because this analogical process is deeply personal, sometimes it is prone to being faulty. (On the other hand, sometimes it can lead to the same conclusions as Te. We're both capitalists, but probably for different reasons. I assume your reasoning has something to do with efficiency, but me, it has to do with the only economic system which seems to adhere to the starting premise that evolution is a contest and this will direct people's behavior)
    I don't actually think that if a typhoon hits India that it is Mother Earth making a sentient decision to do a cleansing. I'm just saying that human beings often fail to realize the constraints that physical laws have placed on them. In another thread I might have said that men are like Icarus. There are no perfect metaphors, but I do the best I can to help others understand the "visions" or whatever you want to call information that I'm seeing.

    Sorry for the derail, but I don't think we need a whole other thread for me to just say that.





    Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
    Nono. Maybe I've not expressed myself properly.

    First to all, I was not considering Keirsey's clubs (does Keirsey fits as jungian typology, by the way?) but Socionics clubs. That is, the collection of strongest functions. And definitely I was not implying that clubs are the single (or even main) source of ideological views. I was not stating it from a true ideological POV, but more in the line of personal goals, which fits in Soc-clubs.

    As we know, members of each club share goals, professional inclinations, hobbies, etc, (at least in a superficial way), because with the same strengths, they tend to focus in the same things and they're (more or less) equally capable .

    About LIE vs ILI, well the question is simple. LIE is more an achiever & pragmatical thinker, so any skill, resource, etc which could provide personal improvement and advantages against competitors, has high potential for being welcomed. ILIs are much more deep thinkers. This, combined with their pessimistic nature, makes them more inclined to focus in the potential risks of human modifications.
    I said Keirsey because Keirsey doesn't seem to care about functions, which is the problem in my mind with the club groupings in either system. You yourself said it is a "superficial" grouping, so I was just wondering why you were collecting the data in the first place. Yes, the club system has some degree of merit. But I'm just wondering what it is you are trying to prove. Perhaps "NTs should love technology" ? As I've already shown with the Ben Stein thing, it runs counter to the theory to say "X type should be in favor of this or that". You can be an INTJ that is arguing for human cybernetic programming or an INTJ terrorist living out in a wooden shack in the wilderness trying to bring down contemporary civilization (Norbert Wiener and Ted Kaczynski are both INTJ/ILIs in my opinion, for example). What is important is the processes, not beliefs or "goals".

    In any case, your pointing to the Positivist/Negativist dichotomy as reasoning to why an ILI would be more skeptical is a good point.
    Last edited by Whoobie77; 09-22-2014 at 06:59 AM.

Posting Permissions

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