Originally Posted by
Bertrand
i think polr is when you subconsciously make something your life's mission and that's where you're seeing the Te
to me its got this deeply recessed quality under-riding a bunch of Fe noise, athough you may ultimately be right and I have it switched
I feel like he's essentially verbalizing what amount to feeling judgements and its hook is the "lyrical" quality to them--its the inviting appearance of substance, but there never is any. I feel like ILI would be throwing out plausible hypothesis, but these aren't actually plausible, they're more like thinly veiled conspiracy theories. its these synthetic descriptions arising out of feeling premises aimed at the logical theories themselves have an implicit aim, but none of it is logical its quixotic to the max, the kind of Te that is Te polr and is in keeping with how I think beta closes itself out.. by this I mean this is what it takes to unwind an endless bureaucracy and not go insane. balzac just submits, which I think is the basis for their admiration of maxim, in a brutal depraved kind of way, in other words, balzac recognizes the futility, or if not futility prohibitive effort at the onset to try and fight maxim, and secretely envies him for that fact, and can do that because the logic dominates the ethic, if it weren't so he would simply fight it for the abomination it is
I just don't think balzac stands for this particular brand of weirdness, this seems more like normative Ti. and this is where the plausibiltiy thing comes in, I think he'd have a real shot if the Ti were 4d because it would stand a chance of developing things on the level of logic, but there's no logical novelty or development here--there's no real contribution or even an attempt at contribution, he's not going to the logic he's talking about the logic, its not like developing a further theory that criticizes it in order to replace it, its more like the science-populizer kind of talk--the ethical supplement to the real logical workers, this time on the offense in a more negative capacity. its rote recitations of existing logical concepts applied to bizarre feeling based premises as far as I can tell. they may not even be that bizzarre, its like if you take the premise that socionics causes more harm than good and have observed as much in your own life, it seems like people might try to be a reverse-evangelist to the people and try to redirect them onto science. I think balzac is characterized by a high degree of fatalism too, like I have a friend that I can see pieces of Singu in, but they would never devote this kind of effort to the task because they could see how it ends up front, I think ethical intuitions work differently but thats a whole other thing. suffice to say balzac is more fatalistic so-why-bother, IEI is fatalistic but totally ok with that fact for some crazy reason, probably because they're tripping the whole time anyway
niehls bohr didn't just shit talk einstein, etc. maybe that's the manifestation of "unhealth" but I don't feel like that's it at all, this feels more like a misplaced attempt at involution for some ethical purpose