I have. I only need about one more year/8 more classes approximately to have a Bachelors Degree in math and physics from the University of Michigan. I didn't finish because I couldn't afford to and the interest on student loans is strangling me.Originally Posted by Nebula
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
Indeed they are.
But it is likely that those self reports and questionnaires will become unnecessary and obsolete, if we could explain what they must be feeling. Or will be feeling.
Now if that sounds like some incredible arrogance, then let me explain. We could say that for instance, "happiness" is just something that we've evolved to feel, if it's something that's advantageous to our genes. (Say) The only reason and the moment that we feel happiness is when something is advantageous to our genes. So we could say that that's the only context and situations in which we would feel happiness, we can't feel it in any other way.
Now of course, this is complicated by the fact that we're self aware of these, and we can manipulate ourselves into feeling happiness, by say taking drugs. And I'm sure the evolutionary reason above is not the only reason for us feeling happiness. But it also means that why should we be feeling happy, and when, and in what context, to what degree, could be potentially explained. And all that without resorting to self reports or questionnaires.
So if there were ever to be a complete or near complete "Theory of Happiness", then it can explain why should we be feeling happy, when should we be feeling happy, and to what degree we would be feeling happy, in a precise way. Which means that we can also predict when anyone will be happy, or not. In effect, we can control the level of our happiness. And this can only be done by understanding what happiness is.
Last edited by Singu; 12-21-2018 at 07:41 AM.
Singu, Singu, @Singu
Technically there’s a difference between a theory, an explanation, understanding, and operational definitions.
An explanation is just the internal logic behind some phenomena or for a theory. A theory should have an explanation but doesn’t necessarily in and of itself. A theory in itself can act as an explanation, or merely a descriptive representation of something going on. Science aims to explain but must test theories in the form of hypotheses whether or not anybody has developed an adequate explanation for what’s going on yet.
Understanding is how we parse information or our grasp and the overall knowledge we have on what’s going on overall. It is about us.
Operational definitions are our dictionary for the stuff we are dealing with. What happiness is would fall under this in the case of what you described, which would be informed by our understanding.
"Operationalization" is just a method we use to indirectly measure something that is not normally measurable. For instance, we might try to measure "happiness" by analyzing the degree in which a person is smiling. But then this requires an additional explanation of the measurer, such as that the person who is measuring it might interpret the smile as a "way to hide his anxiety", or something, and may not interpret it as genuine happiness. So this doesn't actually tell us anything about what happiness is. That can only be done by coming up with a "Theory of Happiness".
Then that's not a theory. That's just a description of what's going on. If you say, "This is how so and so works", then that's both an explanation and a theory.
Well if you haven't come up with an explanation, then you haven't come up with a theory. You might say, "If you do this, then we'd expect this to happen". You can actually do that. But since you haven't explained anything, the result is rather meaningless. Even if you got the expected, "right" result, you still don't know exactly what caused the result. And we're trying to figure out what caused it, in the form of theories.
@Singu Definitions don’t tell you what anything is?
Time to make a bonfire with all your dictionaries
@Singu
1) What is gravity and how does it work?
2) Why the fuck does gravity happen??? Why is the universe set up this way??
^^^^^
Which of these questions do you think is easier to answer?
Clearly you were never one of those curious kids who thought to ask “why why why” ad infinitum to try to get to the source of things.
Nobody is trying to fucking answer or explain what consciousness is here, okay. We’re still just at the stage of trying to test to see if what we’re seeing is really out there in the environment and proving to the rest of the world we aren’t crazy. Nobody here is trying to pretend to be Isaac Newton.
Are you to tell me, what "happiness" is, is whatever the definition says in the dictionary?
Well what difference does it make? According to my example of "Theory of Happiness", "happiness" is whatever emotion that you feel, when it is advantageous to your genes in some way. So it's defined by the fact that it's based on what's advantageous to one's genes. I don't exactly know how or why this particular emotion is distinctively different from all the other emotions, but that is a subject to be further discovered and understood.
In short, the theory defines the definition of what "happiness" is. Not the dictionary.
I think you're asking the wrong question. The question was, "Why do things fall?", or "Does the same law that apply to the moon, also apply to the apple falling on Earth?".
So in "Socionics", the question might be something like "Why do people conflict?". Well, that is something to be studied and explained. If you say, "Because they're conflictors. End of story", then that's a really boring, unsatisfactory explanation.
STOP
”Despite the controversial philosophical origins of the concept, particularly its close association with logical positivism, operational definitions have undisputed practical applications. This is especially so in the social and medical sciences, where operational definitions of key terms are used to preserve the unambiguous empirical testability of hypothesis and theory. Operational definitions are also important in the physical sciences.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
Oh so you were referring to this irrelevant thought of yours again.
You complaining that you feel bored and unsatisfied with an explanation is a boring and unsatisfying, and not to mention invalid criticism.
You are like one of the high maintenance yet slower kids in my classes who just wants to autistically make the robot spin in circles alone in the corner.
”You program it for me, sbbds.” Then you put your dirty socks/shoes on my dress. You don’t even want to read anything or try it first yourself.
Last edited by sbbds; 12-21-2018 at 10:07 AM.
It’s a theory as long as it’s an idea that accounts for the unknown, but you can consider a lot to be unknown depending on how you see things philosophically.
Then let's say that it's an "inadequate" explanation. You might just as well say that the reason why they're conflicting, is because "they're two human beings". Or that the reason why fire starts is "because of atoms". It's not wrong, but it's totally inadequate in the context of what it is explaining. An explanation requires a context in which to explain something from.
The fact is, I or anyone else can easily come up with a better explanation that is more detailed, more appropriate and has more explanatory power than just saying "They're conflicting because they're conflictors".
And why should anyone other than a bunch of people on a Socionics forum circlejerking with each other and high-fiving each other, care at all about whether someone is conflicting or not, has to do with "Conflictor relations"? That's a totally stupid explanation that no one is going to care about. And even if you could have some sort of a marginally "statistically significant" result predicting that there's a high chance that Conflictor relation actually conflicts, people are still not going to care because the explanation is totally stupid and inadequate.
It's like you keep lighting a match and saying "See? Look! The fire is created every time I light a match! There's a pattern to this and this is repeatable! And the fire is created because of the atoms! Aren't I a genius??". While people will just think that you're an idiot.
Actually it’s “They’re conflictors because Model A, because of philosophical dynamics related to math in the physical world that correspond to consciousness”, which is pretty much extremely interesting and compelling, lol.
Either system is only as good as the practioner of it, so....
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Do you not realize how crazy this is by the way?
You’re literally saying that you’re supposed to let a theory define reality rather than the other way around.
You’ve reached a new low @Singu . This is like the Te polr faux pas version of being an immoral rapist.
Ironic, as you're letting the *theory* of Socionics dictate how you see reality.
And yes, the word "gravity" was defined by Newton, in his universal theory of gravitation.
We *constantly* let scientific theories dictate how we see and define reality, as new theories find more and more counter-intuitive things about the world that worked in ways very unlike how we would have normally viewed the world.
And what are the Functions based on?
How so? You should quote an example from one of my posts.
Well he obviously made a word for the theory but his theory was created as a represention of reality, and not the other way around. Don’t be silly.And yes, the word "gravity" was defined by Newton, in his universal theory of gravitation.
The same kinds of dynamics, consciousness split into sections mathematically presumably.And what are the Functions based on?
Ask me more questions, it’s cute to see you flounder and get mad.
Erm, I just did:
And how would you know that was the "reality", before he created the theory?
It's all basically based on Jung's "People have opposites, because opposites are cool and mysterious".
Don’t tell me you’re shitting yourself at the notion that the dynamics of the mental world might mirror those of the physical world. You’re a little late to the game.
Waiting for you to explain how it proves your thoughts on me.
How else would he or you know that the theory is valid in the first place? How would you verify the theory? Don’t tell me you’re asking about how we know reality exists.And how would you know that was the "reality", before he created the theory?
Please quote an original source that says something like this, besides the aspect of duality in ITR. Also just because Jung thinking this is one of the derivatives of these concepts and you framed it in a funny way doesn’t mean it’s not actually deep or is invalid, or that that’s all there is to it.It's all basically based on Jung's "People have opposites, because opposites are cool and mysterious".
You think the reason why I said it is because I'm "Te PoLR", or it's a representation of "Te PoLR", or whatever, which is based on a *theory* of Socionics. I'm sure you're not going to say that Socionics is above being a theory, to being the Absolute Truth of How Reality Actually Is?
We don't ever know if anything is "valid", or anything can ever be "verified". That's why Newton's theory was later proven wrong (in a way) by Einstein.
That's the entire premise in how Jung came up with the Thinking-Feeling, Sensing-Intuition dichotomy.
And he even admitted that it was all arbitrary, too:
– Carl Jung, “A Psychological Theory of Types,” Psychological Types, CW 6, pars. 958fThe four functions are somewhat like the four points of the compass; they are just as arbitrary and just as indispensable. . . . But one thing I must confess: I would not for anything dispense with this compass on my psychological voyages of discovery.
And again I don’t get how you don’t see that you’re contradicting yourself.
As you said in an earlier post in this exact same thread, the universe exists beyond how scientists or people in general understand and define it.
So that’s why we want to try to match our theories and understandings to something meaningfully unchanging like what happiness actually IS, for example, rather than the other way around. If your theory doesn’t match up with reality or come from it, it’s not a theory about anything at all and it’ll fall apart.
Wah wah wah @ the rest of your weak ass post.
”The four functions are somewhat like the four points of the compass; they are just as arbitrary and just as indispensable. . . . But one thing I must confess: I would not for anything dispense with this compass on my psychological voyages of discovery. – Carl Jung, “A Psychological Theory of Types,” Psychological Types, CW 6, pars. 958f”
This is hardly related to what I asked you to find, but let’s take a look anyway. He said that they’re indispensable too. Arbitrary is probably describing it in a meta/philosophical sense then.
We don't even know what happiness *is* (in a fundamental sense), without coming up with a theory. Without a theory, all we would ever do is to continue to be forever mystified about what actually happiness is. And if you say, "I think happiness is so and so...", then that's a theory of sorts.
Why on earth are you feeding me material that just makes your arguments look weaker? Are you really this masochistic?
Yeah but you derive these kinds of “theories” from almost direct experience and intuitive understanding such that they’re basically inseparable from direct reality. You’re not supposed to use a far-removed theory to change your general understanding of reality, and when theories are created they are done so as to be as representative of reality and non-removed in the first place. Otherwise they’d be explaining or describing nothing.
You don't *understand* or *explain* gravity by just experiencing it.
You claim as if you know what reality *is* beforehand. How would you even know what reality *is*? Or what it's "supposed" to be like or "supposed" to look like? The only way you would know, is through theories.
I was only using the happiness example you used. Hence why I said ‘these kinds of “theories”’, obviously. It obviously doesn’t work for gravity etc; that’s what the rest of my post addressed. Yes, theories of gravity have always been taken from .... hmm, reality. Dumb dumb.
@Singu Also don’t tell me you believe that a conceptual understanding/map of basic sensoric reality is a theory because it’s not. Or otherwise, it’s one automatically generated by your subconscious mind so it doesn’t count.
Granted there is some overlap there eventually but it’s too basic. You don’t need a theory to know what reality looks like.
We didn't "experience" the Earth moving, when Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo came up with heliocentrism.
We didn't "see" atoms when somebody came up with the atomic theory.
They all simply made sense in the context of what they were explaining.
And there was no conflict in observation between heliocentrism and geocentrism, so "tests" wouldn't have exactly proved either wrong. You can come up with any kind of convoluted mathematical contraptions to justify the initial premise:
Heliocentrism was preferred, because it was simpler, and it could explain things better than geocentrism.
Yeah yeah change the subject to divert attention from your retardation lol.
That context... is reality. And known information ...
... from reality.
Again we figured this shit out by observing the world and then thinking about it over many generations. Not by fiddling around with our thumbs in our asses and waiting for theories to come to us as brains in jars.
Please tell me you get my point and are just arguing for the sake of it @Singu because this is too basic. Like idk how you survive in life with your beliefs otherwise.
I call these type ad hominems, where a person's argument is refuted by their supposed preferred functions, instead of the merits of the argument itself. This is a logical fallacy. Besides, you have to accurately identify a function, which is quite difficult given the empirical limitations. It comes down to " I think/feel/intuit you are type x, therefore, you are." There isn't a mathematical formula or algorithm that can identify and validate the assumptions. Make no mistake, socionics is part of the postmodernists' desire to dethrone and undermine the big, bad, "scientific worldview". This was Jung's intention. We of course should understand the limits of science, but that doesn't mean "other ways of knowing" are equally valid. This is postmodern bullshit.
It’s not an ad hominem because I didn’t use it to refute his argument.
You often get carried away, don’t you @Nebula.
Not carried away emotionally. I do miss some details and jump around. I wasn't even saying you personally, just something I see in general here. Also, typing on this small device is somewhat frustating as it is more difficult to see text as a whole.
People do it all the time here though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote