Demonstrative and Mobilizing functions are Accepting NOT Producing.

[niffer]

@ooo shit no they are different LOLOLOLO

crisis averted lmao

[ooo]

@ooo shit no they are different LOLOLOLO

crisis averted lmao

wut

[niffer]

@ooo yeah no they are different

accepting/producing is all rational or all irrational functions (depending on if you're an irrational or rational type)
inert/contact is base ignoring vulnerable activation / demonstrative creative role suggestive. it mixes up rational and irrational IEs.

*basks in nooby self-cringe*

[ooo]

@ooo yeah no they are different

accepting/producing is all rational or all irrational functions (depending on if you're an irrational or rational type)

no no, look for you accepting is Se, Fi, Fe, Si. Same as your Inert.

[ooo]

*CONFUSION*

[Bertrand]

yeah convoluted and redundant like accepting/producing

its okay youll get there someday

[niffer]

yeah convoluted and redundant like accepting/producing

its okay youll get there someday

I'm not the one who doesn't understand how the process of questioning theory works at least.

That shit was pretty dumb. Like Singu's long lost twin level.

[niffer]

He's fucking Ti polr so he's mixing and matching shit interjecting his own in his explanations lol. Just give him a break.

I agree with the list of classic socionics theory elements he mentions otherwise.

[Bertrand]

yeah but it isn't. I mean its not blind or whatever private definition of accepting you attach to it, i.e.: it is capable of receiving information, but it is not accepting within the meaning of model A (SLI doesn't see the world through Ti, they see it via sensing [1]). this is like many attempts I've seen to try and attach a more colloquial less technical meaning to terms, but it loses rigor when you do that, its just rigor you don't perceive thus assume is not there. there was another attempt just like this a while back that followed this exact pattern. it was like "im going to bring socionics to the masses!" but it lost irreducible complexity. this is sort of the opposite of people who say its unscientific, this would make it even less so

a streamlined model without accepting/producing is model G. which I'm pretty sure was designed to accommodate weak thinking in a way model A doesn't. the main problem is there are no good translations or access to it

i really wish I could remember this same thing that happened with some other person, basically the idea was they can call it a different model and get around the need to describe the phenomenon with a certain degree of rigor, because they dismissed that rigor as an artificiality originating in the model and not an aspect of phenonena itself requiring coordinates assigned to it. the idea was since people have trouble with it it could be let go, but its like killing the patient to cure the cancer (this logic ultimately undoes the potential of a model to ultimately be measurable, pushing it closer to astrology than science, which is counterproductive across another dimension--I mean this within the meaning of socionics dimensionality). this is why when gulenko doesn't talk about accepting producing its not because he exploded the distinction, he accounted for it in a way that is elegant, not by simply ignoring it. this ability to move forward in time is the hallmark of a 4d function

in another sense, if you want to create a socionics for the masses I guess I could see that being useful, but its going to essentially become another pop theory like MBTI which is going to be criticized as illegitimate for lack of rigor. on the other hand this confirms in my mind you are more of a hippy delta type than a scientismic beta or alpha

[1] this is to preserve consistency of rationality/irrationality. model G makes demonstrative the creative function (function #2 in model A), to point out they nevertheless have a strong manifestation of (ir)rationality in the form of creative function, but they don't view the world, first, through that lens, it only comes out in response to an irrational perception (in the case of an irrational type) which both base and ignoring he labels "control" because it essentially governs on the level of perception (strong accepting) the "producing" functions

in the final analysis accepting/producing determines irrespective of rationality/irrationality, which function manages the other. you can say this is all obvious by implication from the language of the "dominant" function, but it breaks down as a product of the vital block being arranged the way it is in model A. the implication would result, as you point out, in demonstrative being accepting. this obviously breaks model A so the answer is create a new model, but if you create a new model where demonstrative is accepting it is a model where the person cannot be said to be either irrational or rational, rather everyone is both in equal measure, and what separates them is conscious awareness. this is an interesting hypothesis but it explodes the distinction between irrational/rational and simply loads management on conscious/unconscious. in other words for a SLI they're not irrational they're simply managed by conscious Si and managed by unconscious Ti, but that mistakes their creative output for the lens the world is viewed through. in other words, it removes the transformative process of the creative function that in virtue of being creative transforms perception to product and vice versa. instead it says they already viewed the world in terms of Ti, but that makes them out to be what we mean by Ti valuing. what this would ultimately entail is a collapse into 8 types instead of 16 but by a very pernicious means. this is what I mean by its subtly regressive or reductive character. I do think in some highflown ethical sense there really are only 8 types so I can see how this might come about in the mind of IEE, because it breaks the Ti hold on things which artificially separates the two camps, but I do think its a meaningful distinction although a somewhat divisive and therefore unethical one. I think this is an interesting look into the mind of Ti polr

the main thing to realize is that all this goes to preference and not capacity. accepting/producing is somewhat unclear in that respect because it makes it sound like a mechanism, but it is all within the context of personality which is itself a pattern of what amounts to preference. when accepting functions "manage" producing ones, its not because they can't swing both ways, its that its describing the essence of personality in saying they prefer to view the world in that order. thus there is a kind of equivalence in capacity, which you would describe, but it messes with the deep mechanics of preference. you could say this is inextricably linked to the creative process in humans, its this preference itself that what allows humans to be creative, which is nothing less than selectively ordering the world and transforming it in accordance with that preference. this is also how conflict arises when people are at odds with their preference, and when extroverts clash in the world its for this reason

the consequences of this model would be a look at the world with the premise that conflict is illusory and that we are really just 8 types, which is true in a Ne sense, but certainly untrue in a Se sense. its a Ti polr assertion of Ne over Se. I actually really like it, and maybe it will revolutionize the world if it catches on. if there's a downside its that it would greatly diminish the capacity of Se egos to realize themselves in the world, which isn't really a downside in my mind, but there is enantiodromia to consider (Ni ignoring could be a problem)

[niffer]

what the fuck domr

[niffer]

@domr Can you give an irl example of where Demonstrative or Mobilizing seemed more like accepting than producing in tandem with their other shared block IE?

[niffer]

You're such a shit stirrer lol.

For those who are confused about domr's stance here's the summary: The concept of accepting/producing seems awkward in the case of the demonstrative and mobilizing functions, due to the concept of the strength of functions.

Why would theoretically stronger functions with wider scope "bend" to fit the more limited perspective of weaker functions with narrower scope? It doesn't really make sense. And that's what he's arguing in this thread.

[niffer]

You really need to be able to give an example from irl using the Demonstrative vs Ignoring or Mobilizing vs Suggestive specifically, otherwise this is just theoretical speculation.

[niffer]

Lol. That's obviously not the point of what I brought up and you know it.

"But when I clear my mind and focus on the audience and I think about what they want and how can I deliver that, I can find a vision. In those situations my public speaking skills are god-tier. I'm using Fe first, to judge what the audience wants, and then relying on Ni to provide the vision."

I missed this part earlier. Eh it's a start.

OR IS IT

"But when I clear my mind"

That's fuckin Ni m8. You describe yourself as using it first subconsciously confirmed @domr .

[niffer]

@niffer

No, it's me letting go of my ego block and allowing the id to manifest itself.
Fe samples first and determines what the audience wants, Ni provides the vision to deliver.

Nah it sounds more like everything bending to fit Ni to me. You already got busted saying it subconsciously so it's pointless to try to backtrack now.

If you want you could try giving another example though.

I think the problem is that you don't know how to functionally (the non-socionics sense of the word) separate the concept of accepting/producing and the concept of how dimensionality works. You see them as overlapping too much but actually they touch on slightly different things. Accepting functions in theory are supposed to be like which window you open first, while dimensionality would speak to the strengths of the different kinds of breezes going through the windows. They are not set up to contradict.

[niffer]

^ no that's irrelevant in this case actually. but yeah he seems confused regardless.

[niffer]

/thread ....

[niffer]

look















you need to get rimmed :9

[Bertrand]

well i agree that you can't help but move things forward even if you're making what seems to be an error, so by all means sally forth

I like the idea of you essentially posing a challenge they will either adapt or die in response to. its sort of like what Singu tries to do but in a much more constructive manner

[ooo]

I think you're stuck to the axioms of the greeks, moderns evolved the concept of axiom to this

It is not correct to say that the axioms of field theory are "propositions that are regarded as true without proof." Rather, the field axioms are a set of constraints. If any given system of addition and multiplication satisfies these constraints, then one is in a position to instantly know a great deal of extra information about this system.

[Soupman]

@niffer
....continued


Sorry I got lost in other questions, nevertheless I'll try to explain succinctly as possible:


Accepting information is always the foundation and there people in sync (rationality) always want to make sure the base point is unanimously agreed upon (if not disorientation will build). ILI and ILE will focus on establishing base-ideas, base observations on whatever they are thinking about; they make prepositions about that thing and need to come to an agreement. On producing information they are more flexible - open to information so long as it doesn't antagonize what their prepositions are; and are very open to whatever is complementary to their point, if given a hundred and one reasons to reject a project ILI will take 'em, when rationals (LIE & LII) debunk one, they always have the other to fall back on and they don't get annoyed... ILE will take mutually a hundred and one justifications to support a project, re-justifying how it'll work.


Now rationals, for example LII and LIE have their accepting vs producing in reverse. To summarize they need reason on forefront justifying their direction and focus. They need to establish a main reasoning line to fall on, and need to keep this sturdy and stable without much endless questioning - they are slower to come to this and slower to change their mind (without irritation). On producing matters they are very flexible, open to all complementary ideas and perspectives supporting their reasoning. LII will re-explain ideas a couple of ways, and aren't afraid of discarding viewpoints so long as they remain complementary to how they view things. LIE will always be open to a hundred perspectives on their projects but don't want their reasons scrutinized.


The accepting vs producing conflict happens quite obviously with irrationals pondering "irrelevant" ideas from the basis of rationals, since they are slower to come to focus. Whilst rationals want to get direction and which looks like looking for conclusions firstly for irrationals. LIE will be most irritated by ILI who'll start to pick apart their projects, and they'll feel like they are invading their personal space for reasoning. However oddly ILIs are figuratively "conservative" in their outlook minimizing chaotic viewpoints - when LIEs won't want such a restrictive outlook; LIE will find ILE's lack of immediate focus annoying but find they aren't too bad with plenty of complementary ideas and observations (ILEs will notice that LIEs are sensitive to their reasons being picked apart with questions critiquing justifications). LIE and LII will find common ground in accepting information - but can get irritated with the introversion vs extroversion angle (LIIs looking to fit everything together whilst LIEs want evidence, supporting facts in reasoning).

[Soupman]

Have you read Jung's original work? Because everything you said about accepting/producing is already in Jung's work as the principle (dominante) and auxiliary functions (p. 405). Your description of accepting/judgement and how the functions work together is virtually identical to Myers Briggs in Gifts Differing. You are rehashing Jung, with your own anecdotal experience, the same way Myers Briggs did. Just like Myers Briggs, you don't seem to have a good understanding of how the functions work together (which is the entire point of the accepting/producing dichotomy) as your descriptions focus on each function (perception & judgement) individually, rather than how they work as a pair.

You know it's hard to have discussions when you can't meet eye to eye on fundamentals. Our perspectives have pronounced divergences.

I used to worship Jung and I read as much of him as possible - especially psychological types and his function descriptions. I used to be a hard head claiming that socionics, Jung, and MBTI were compatible with all deviations being failure to respect and understand Jung.

After 7 years with typology now, my general conclusion is that Jung is a mess because everyone comes out with their own interpretation of his work and it is cryptic and convoluted. After investing the effort in understanding Jung, it's apparent his ideas aren't amazing, on one hand they are incomplete and the other without much depth (compared to assumptions about them).

The worst thing about Jung is that everyone comes out with their own interpretation of his ideas - that's after actually investing time and effort to understand them.

Nevertheless you've illuminated why I have an easier time discussing things with ILEs compared to IEEs. With ILEs we meet each other half way with our mutually flexible producing functions TiTe in ILIs and TeTi in ILEs. Explanations with evidence (TiTe) Vs facts to illustration (TeTi). We can allow our producing functions to influence our premise Ni and Ne.

Whereas my mirages IEEs I can't critique their dominant producing functions - FeFi intellectually. Instead we have to meet halfway with our accepting functions - it's hard since when we disagree we don't understand our producing rationalisations. Like with duality, it's a matter of taking information as it is.

[domr]

@Soupman @Tigerfadder @ooo @niffer @Bertrand

I found the origins of accepting/producing dichotomy. As you can see, this dichotomy is only clearly defined for the dom/aux functions, where the dom function is stronger and more differentiated.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking.

[ooo]

@Soupman @Tigerfadder @ooo @niffer @Bertrand

I found the origins of accepting/producing dichotomy. As you can see, this dichotomy is only clearly defined for the dom/aux functions, where the dom function is stronger and more differentiated.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

good find, basically the auxiliary produces feedback for the base, yeah i wouldn't call it negative either, it's what creates 16 types instead of 8

[Soupman]

good find, basically the auxiliary produces feedback for the base, yeah i wouldn't call it negative either, it's what creates 16 types instead of 8

The creative function makes the correction but it is not strong intellectually since that instead is the Demonstrative. Assuming you are EII, it is your intellectual "Ni" that tells you were to look for observations - information, which your "Ne" retrieves. However your "Ne" doesn't just retrieve the information "Ni" wants, it retrieves all the information it deems relevant. Some of what relevant information is what is used to add sanity to your accepting conjecture "Fi".

In extroverts it's pretty odd, there the creative function applies analysis - looking for contradictions in the premises set out by the management - accepting function.

[ooo]

The creative function makes the correction but it is not strong intellectually since that instead is the Demonstrative. Assuming you are EII, it is your intellectual "Ni" that tells you were to look for observations - information, which your "Ne" retrieves. However your "Ne" doesn't just retrieve the information "Ni" wants, it retrieves all the information it deems relevant. Some of what relevant information is what is used to add sanity to your accepting conjecture "Fi".

In extroverts it's pretty odd, there the creative function applies analysis - looking for contradictions in the premises set out by the management - accepting function.

yes, there's a constant flow from the unconscious to the conscious (and then back to it again). it makes sense on many levels: from when we're little and absorb the world and that becomes the foundation of our character/ego; from Jung's view of how we're seen to look like our unconscious from the eyes of who observes us; ultimately from Augusta's model that tells us that the model starts by combining the E elements with the I, the two strongest elements of one of the two groups then will be mirrored in their E/I reflection. Augusta's model gives a very similar weight to the base and the demo, demo that then can become the auxiliary.

[Soupman]

@Soupman @Tigerfadder @ooo @niffer @Bertrand

I found the origins of accepting/producing dichotomy. As you can see, this dichotomy is only clearly defined for the dom/aux functions, where the dom function is stronger and more differentiated.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking.

Good quote - haven't read it in years.

Jung's work is incomplete and fails to explain the mess, that becomes the inclusion of the "ID" functions were the dominant socionics perspective is that those functions interact with the conscious ones with bizarre symbiosis.

IXTP (SLI & ILI) have a dominant and subordinate "Ti" that is much stronger and influential than "Te". Socionics doesn't have "Dominant & Auxiliary", but the more accurate yet confusing "Management, Creative, and Demonstrative". @Betrand explained this to you in a quite verbose "Ti" explanation that XLIs have 4D products of thoughts that get summarized in an incomplete 3D manner were people are left with only the essential factoids they need to know. Nevertheless if you ask XLI to explain their "Te", without them being in a crappy mood - since there they'll be frustrated and simply repeat the same facts to you, instead you'll be given the 4D Ti that connects the facts together.

For example lets say an XLI Doctor says: "smoking causes cancer so don't do it", that's "Te" creative selling an intellectual informational Si/Ni worldview. Ask them to fully explain why that is if feeling annoyed - they'll reply with more disparate facts expecting you to fill in the blanks; ie - because of tar,... the tobacco, the cigarettes... all of this is just bad (creative Te). Or instead use their intricate 4D Ti product that explains how statistics from lifestyle/life expectancy... analysis of organ health... (in short a complete explanation about how everything links together - in other words 4D Ti of the most rational explanation, around a subjective perspective of how everything makes sense)

"Dominant and Auxiliary" - that's MBTI terminology, derived from an interpretation and expansion of Jung.

[Bertrand]

when he refers to positive or negative thinking what do you think he means and do you think it relates to Kant at all

[Bertrand]

But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking. Such a thinking, therefore, ceases to have any interest for our present discussion. Our concern is rather with the constitution of that thinking which cannot be subordinated to the dominance of another function, but remains true to its own principle. To observe and investigate this thinking in itself is not easy, since, in the concrete case, it is more or less constantly repressed by the conscious attitude. Hence, in the majority of cases, it first must be retrieved from the background of consciousness, unless in some unguarded moment it should chance to come accidentally to the surface. As a rule, it must be enticed with some such questions as 'Now what do you really think?' or, again, 'What is your private view [p. 444] about the matter?' Or perhaps one may even use a little cunning, framing the question something this: 'What do you imagine, then, that I really think about the matter?' This latter form should be chosen when the real thinking is unconscious and, therefore projected. The thinking that is enticed to the surface this way has characteristic qualities; it was these I had in mind just now when I described it as negative. It habitual mode is best characterized by the two words 'nothing but'. Goethe personified this thinking in the figure of Mephistopheles. It shows a most distinctive tendency to trace back the object of its judgment to some banality or other, thus stripping it of its own independent significance. This happens simply because it is represented as being dependent upon some other commonplace thing. Wherever a conflict, apparently essential in nature, arises between two men, negative thinking mutters 'Cherchez la femme'. When a man champions or advocates a cause, negative thinking makes no inquiry as to the importance of the thing, but merely asks 'How much does he make by it?' The dictum ascribed to Moleschott: "Der Mensch ist, was er isst" (" Man is what he eats ") also belongs to this collection, as do many more aphorisms and opinions which I need not enumerate.

he's saying that when thinking is dominant, or free from dominance by something other than thinking at that moment (which is rare), it is analytic, and when thinking is subordinate to another function it is synthetic. synthetic describes things already given, thus thinking subordinate to intuition describes whats already there in the intuition. analytic thinking breaks things into its constituent parts for its own sake. he says people don't wander around, even thinking dominants, in analytic verbal mode so it usually needs to be coaxed out of them in order to be verbalized. but they do have it going on all the time in their consciousness, which entails a kind of trying to break things down so they can fit them into a broader structure. this can be introverted or extroverted thinking, the difference is the object is valued as most real in the consciousness of the extrovert, in other words he takes the objects as they are and constructs the system around them (this is more natural science), whereas for the introverted thinker the subject has free reign (to some extent) to understand the objects however they so choose and construct the system in a way that the objects are made to fit (the subjective nature of the object is what is most real, reducing things to symbols and signs). in feeling types often synthetic forms of thinking are thinking in name only, they merely present themselves as thinking statements but they're really describing feeling judgements and so forth.

analytic extroverted thinking is most in keeping with the spirit of natural science, although it incorporates all kinds. introverted thinking is more mathematics. theoretical physics is more intuition dominant because it becomes less about fleshing out a system and describing fundamentally new modes of viewing things. extroverted analytic thinking is often simply looking at things for what they accomplish detached from any significance beyond that, i.e.: strictly the work a thing does. I.e.: "this is nothing but an attempt to do x" [1] introverted thinking: "this is nothing but 2+2. this is nothing but an ape" the difference between subjective and objective thinking and feeling in general is hard for objective feeling types to understand because they immediately cognize all forms of thinking as subjective appropriations of the object. By this I mean there entails an implicit fork when one views things as either feeling toned or thinking toned and from the point of view of dominant feeling both kinds of thinking entail the same kind of subjective leap i.e.: the person in question views them as thinking not feeling (not realizing the starting point could be viewed in terms of extroverted thinking itself--this is what this description is--this is an "ontological stance" subjectivist v objectivist--anti realist v realist in philosophy, which subsumes all else into its perspective) this is how projections occur, they work with other Ti types, but fail on Te types because its an entirely different mode of objective apprehension of the world. objectivists view subjectivists as if they were objectivists which is where problems arise and vice versa. objectivists read intent to accomplish goals into actions where there may be none


[1] this is why Te egos are dynamic. this is why dynamic and static are different words for Ti and Te in logical types, but they go to the phenomenology of how Ti and Te are experienced differently

[Singu]

lol @ Bertrand talking about "science". His thinking is so infantile and ridiculous. It's like a 6 year old trying to impress the adults around him.

[Singu]

You know, the funny thing is that if people actually understood science, then they would no longer see anything with Socionics because they'd see all the methodological and epistemological flaws and the ridiculousness of Socionics. In fact, most people abandon Socionics after discovering science, and discovering all the interesting things that goes on in the world of science. Their belief in Socionics was nothing more than the fact that they didn't know anything better, that they didn't know of the alternatives. It's like people are still stuck in the world of myths, superstitions, legends, stories, faith healing, etc.

This is not a battle between science and non-science. It's just the fact that Socionics has some serious methodological flaws. Flaws that most people are ignorant to and unaware of, until they do some research and thinking on their own.

So until then, these people are just going to be looking completely ridiculous. Once they are aware of it, it's so obvious that one wonders how can they not see it.

[Bertrand]

if I could make the material that simple I'd have written your book for you. people aren't just being lazy or incompetent in not bringing Jung to the masses, its literally that difficult. its not that there's special insight waiting to be uncovered, its mostly all there, its just an irreducibly complex way of thinking about the issue. its the same reason not everyone knows string theory or whatever. usually people only know enough about a thing to talk about it. but just because you can mention a thing doesn't mean you understand it at all. the exact same thing is all over the place here

[Bertrand]

1) I think most of Jung's work, at least the most famous work, is NiFe, speculation about humanity, like the collective unconscious & the archetypes.

2) I need to read his work carefully and determine for myself what I believe and what I do not believe and the rationale for that.

3) Writing skills are a skill for a reason. Your writing is not clear and you make rookie mistakes. You make common mistakes that a lot of other people make. There are many articles about improving your writing skills. https://hbr.org/2014/11/how-to-impro...siness-writing

I can communicate them you're just confusing yourself for everyone. Jung also says something the opposite, which is someone cannot receive something unless they already have it within them. something must go out to meet it, if that thing is not there no amount of punctuation will help

[Singu]

Why don't you identify the flaws then propose solutions?

I did, but then people won't get it or believe it, as they won't let go of the faith in Socionics. The problem is inductivism. God knows that others have tried, too. They're not going to get it, until they do some research and thinking on their own.

[Soupman]

Why don't you identify the flaws then propose solutions?

He actually did, it is his extremely odd epistemological foundation that observations DO NOT lead to knowledge. Given that the core axiom is that don't go looking for stuff, it makes the process of figuring socionics impossible because the observations we make are not knowledge nor can they amount to knowledge.

[Singu]

He actually did, it is his extremely odd epistemological foundation that observations DO NOT lead to knowledge. Given that the core axiom is that don't go looking for stuff, it makes the process of figuring socionics impossible because the observations we make are not knowledge nor can they amount to knowledge.

And you're obviously unfamiliar with the problem of induction. This is a rather famous epistemological problem.

How can observations alone lead to any new knowledge? Unfortunately, the myths and the misconceptions of inductivism and empiricism are so strong in our culture, that people think that's the way people actually create new knowledge.

[Soupman]

And you're obviously unfamiliar with the problem of induction. This is a rather famous epistemological problem.

How can observations alone lead to any new knowledge? Unfortunately, the myths and the misconceptions of inductivism and empiricism are so strong in our culture, that people think that's the way people actually create new knowledge.

Dude we PM'd these past two days, I got to understand your worldview - your perspective; it has these key axioms I've summarized lucidly put as "knowledge can't be generated from observations". You oddly interpret the ideas you use to justify your worldview relative to that axiom under the assumption that your interpretation of those ideas is the only logical one - questioning that axiom is just people not getting it. You believe there's only one interpretation against induction - which is that it's always wrong.

The anecdotal point of Newton's observation of an apple falling from a tree, and how that lead to the theory of gravity - is in your worldview proof that observations and knowledge generated lack causal a relationship. To you knowledge is some mysterious attribute impossible to derive from observation - and you reiterate this by referencing esoteric conclusions from complex scientific theories - such as that gravity is objects being attracted to each other.

Once people accept that axiom, then the subsequent rationalizations make sense.

[Singu]

Dude we PM'd these past two days, I got to understand your worldview - your perspective; it has these key axioms I've summarized lucidly put as "knowledge can't be generated from observations". You oddly interpret the ideas you use to justify your worldview relative to that axiom under the assumption that your interpretation of those ideas is the only logical one - questioning that axiom is just people not getting it. You believe there's only one interpretation against induction - which is that it's always wrong.

Once people accept that axiom, then the subsequent rationalizations make sense.

It's not an axiom... it's about the only way to create any new knowledge. I would like to know how you think you could come up with a theory on your own, by observations alone.

So please, try to come up with any kind of a theory by observing the things around you.

The anecdotal point of Newton's observation of an apple falling from a tree, and how that lead to the theory of gravity - is in your worldview proof that observations and knowledge generated lack causal a relationship. To you knowledge is some mysterious attribute impossible to derive from observation - and you reiterate this by referencing esoteric conclusions from complex scientific theories - such as that gravity is objects being attracted to each other.

You're still making an assumption about how Newton came about creating that theory, without actually knowing how he did it.

[Bertrand]

lol you continually expect people to cowtow to whatever dumbass standard you throw up, you'd be telling Jung the same shit were he alive. put him through the test. and remember you write like him

[Bertrand]

lol, probably almost no one actually reads Bertrand's posts, while he is in his own bubble thinking that he's a unique genius.

yeah domr relax, the mob doesn't even care

And when you see my work, you'll realize that maybe you could have made these discoveries if you only cared to improve yourself.

if your book accomplishes what I could have but failed to do no one will be happier than me, godspeed domr