Don't be a cosmic idiot

[ashlesha]

Also:
Can someone please tell their best theory of what Ryan is critizing about E-Prime since I don't know and he obviously doesn't want to share.

i thought it was the implication that anything could even be considered a fact, but i'm not sure.

[Minde]

I never thought of it as a method to spice up communication but it does make sense.

Active tends to be more interesting than passive, so yes.

You can thank my English professor for that insight. Unrelated, students called him Dr. Love because just about every class included a love story and/or advice on love and romance.

Thank you for cheering up the thread before it turned sour. I fail to understand what pisses people off about E-prime.

I was not intending on cheering things up, but I'm happy to have helped. I'm mostly just excited someone else in the world knows about E-prime, lol.

And, yeah, I don't get the passionate opposition, either. It's just a communication tool, people, and a point of interest. Use it or not as per your own discretion or inclination.

[Gilly]

yeah, like i said. dumb.

Why? Things are stupid unless they are clung to and implemented with religious zeal?

[Aquagraph]

i thought it was the implication that anything could even be considered a fact, but i'm not sure.

And how would this be criticism towards E-prime?

[ashlesha]

And how would this be criticism towards E-prime?

from the OP:
"The E-Prime versions communicate the speaker's experience rather than judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion with fact."

if you believe everything is opinion, wouldn't this be kind of pointless and pretentious?

[Ryan]

Also:
Can someone please tell their best theory of what Ryan is critizing about E-Prime since I don't know and he obviously doesn't want to share.

I've already made my point, there is nothing to clarify ffs

here i'll make it simple to you (bold = what you claim, normal = my response):

"The E-Prime versions communicate the speaker's experience rather than judgment, making it harder for the writer or reader to confuse opinion with fact."

"bullshit, prove it*"

*I asked you for a relevant example but you didn't provide any, in fact you said there are no facts in socionics or whatever dumb shit you were implying - that makes your fucking stupid thread useless then, if we aren't speaking of facts at any time (according to you) then there is no need to clarifiy that every fucking single time, isn't?

"Better use that next time you are about to type someone with absolute certainty."

"no, I'm not going to do it"

[Aquagraph]

One of the funny things about that conversation is that he claimed the logical side. I think logic must be subjective...

I am still going to avoid a debate but there's also a priori information like "mother's have given birth" and "2+2=4". But that doesn't take us anywhere, I think. Or wait a minute... Yes!

Although I don't believe in a reality independent from perception if I chose to believe so it would be true since I am to decide what is my reality! Now I have just chosen it the perception-dependent reality.

[Gilly]

I am still going to avoid a debate but there's also a priori information like "mother's have given birth" and "2+2=4". But that doesn't take us anywhere, I think. Or wait a minute... Yes!

Although I don't believe in a reality independent from perception if I chose to believe so it would be true since I am to decide what is my reality! Now I have just chosen it the perception-dependent reality.

Well it's the only sensible thing to do. I mean we have "knowledge" of lots of things, but they are all based on the information we accumulate with our senses, and the rationalizing we do with our brains, all of which is INHERENTLY subjective. There's really nothing to provide evidence against solipsism, except consistencies that are observed within the scope of our potentially solipsistic perception! Ahhh! Nobody knows shit, everything is based on assumptions, a fact which can be refuted only by the appearance of consistencies and predictable factors, which we can only apprehend or observe with our inherently subjective senses and reasoning! The apparent convergence in having such things confirmed by others who we perceive to be like ourselves is very comforting, but far from anything resembling solid proof, as even in the case that we all see the same thing, there is very likely much more to reality than we are capable of apprehending with our senses and reason, regardless of what tools we have at our disposal.

The only serious argument against solipsism is, fortunately, a very weighty one: there is no real evidence to speak of that our senses are seriously flawed, except the sheer possibility of it. On the whole, I find that perceptual convergence is slightly more convincing than the same odds given to a flying spaghetti monster. We certainly don't see it all, though.

Is this shit really news to people? Haven't you fuckers seen the matrix? Or read like...any philosophy text ever?

[ashlesha]

is there any point to acknowledging it outside of sitting around and talking about philosophy?

[willekeurig]

I absolutely love this. I've been using it since forever, which pissed my parents off a lot when I was younger (well, it still does). Whenever we conflicted I was sure to form my sentences in a way that suggested they were merely my perceptions of the situation, so I got to bitch without giving them a change to attack my arguments.

I think there could be a correlation between Ne (valuing?) and this - what personally pisses me off about many Se egos is that they tend to speak as if their opinions or observations were some absolute truths. I've seen this happen especially with Se creative Ne polrs.. Like, I could give you a million examples of how some of my ESI friends or my LSI dad have lost their temper due to me being " too vague" this way.

[Aquagraph]

I've already made my point, there is nothing to clarify ffs

"There's nothing to clarify although no one seemed to understand it. But here's a clarification. Oh but it's about something you wrote and has little to do with E-Prime."

This conversation changed my faith in humanited to a headache. You won. I submit, angelface.

[Aquagraph]

is there any point to acknowledging it outside of sitting around and talking about philosophy?

All metaphysical philosophers are people with too much time in their hands.

[Aquagraph]

if you believe everything is opinion, wouldn't this be kind of pointless and pretentious?

I do still believe in opinions that need changing when they conflict with perception. They'll stick less if I'll point out their vagueness to myself. In my opinion words have a major impact on the reality.

[Gilly]

All metaphysical philosophers are people with too much time in their hands.

Not really; I think you hit on this earlier, and I think its an implicit suggestion embedded in everything Wilson teaches, but the idea is to sync our conscious thoughts, our forms that comprise our abstracted and codified perceptions of the world, with what we know and observe in the deepest reaches of our brain, independent of what we "tell ourselves" with our rational calculations. Lacan would term it seeking to unite the Symbolic and the Real.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

a cosmic idiot is an idiot in space?

[Aquagraph]

@Gilly
You're right and actually the way that I perceive the world in metalevel has changed my life for the better. I have become very cynical towards the relation between concepts and reality.

a cosmic idiot is an idiot in space?

It's Robert Anton Wilson's term. Except it isn't. It's "cosmic smug".

[ashlesha]

Not really; I think you hit on this earlier, and I think its an implicit suggestion embedded in everything Wilson teaches, but the idea is to sync our conscious thoughts, our forms that comprise our abstracted and codified perceptions of the world, with what we know and observe in the deepest reaches of our brain, independent of what we "tell ourselves" with our rational calculations. Lacan would term it seeking to unite the Symbolic and the Real.

definitely too much time on your hands.

[Ryan]

"There's nothing to clarify although no one seemed to understand it. But here's a clarification. Oh but it's about something you wrote and has little to do with E-Prime."

This conversation changed my faith in humanited to a headache. You won. I submit, angelface.

I'm not going to dig at a theory that seems dumb at first glance, sorry. The fact that you are interested in it is of no concern to me. You asked us to apply it to our typings, and frankly that is the only part I was interested in, which apparently is the least interesting part to you.

[Aquagraph]

I'm not going to dig at a theory that seems dumb at first glance, sorry.

Apparently many others have found it helpful. It is your loss that you can't apply it.

You asked us to apply it in our typings, and frankly that is the only part I was interested in, which apparently is the least interesting part to you.

Hence the small font.

[Gilly]

definitely too much time on your hands.

Do you think that modern psychology has anything to offer, in the sense that changing the way you think can change your quality of life? If so, I don't see how this has anything to do with having too much time; on the contrary, it's one of the most important goals of humanity: to make our lives better.

I have taken most of my free time since turning 18 in the service of studying human consciousness and trying to understand how to manipulate it, change it for the better, and make practical use of being able to control its conditions. A lot of people say this is bullshit, because it's basically me taking drugs, browsing the internet, listening to music, and reading about psychology and spirituality and talking to people, but I do not approach it with the lightness of leisure or idly passing time. And in large part due to the fact that I approach it with the mentality of learning about myself and people and the human psyche, and take the conclusions that I reach about myself and others seriously, I can honestly say that I have improved the lives and mentalities of the people around me much for the better using the knowledge and experiences I have gained as a result of these studies, and following that knowledge and using it to make my life choices.

So you may think this kind of stuff seems like a bunch of speculation and bullshittery, but if you decide that then you are just closing the door on something that you (a) don't really know about and (b) aren't bothering to consider. Where would we, humanity, be if there were not always people asking questions and pushing the limits of human understanding, trying to grasp the things people haven't bothered to stick a magnifying glass to yet?

[Ryan]

Apparently many others have found it helpful. It is your loss that you can't apply it.

Sure.

Hence the small font.

Hey, an argument is an argument, no matter how small it is.

[Aquagraph]

I think ESI might be the most reluctant type to deal with metaphysics.

[ashlesha]

Do you think that modern psychology has anything to offer, in the sense that changing the way you think can change your quality of life? If so, I don't see how this has anything to do with having too much time; on the contrary, it's one of the most important goals of humanity: to make our lives better.

i really don't know if psychology has anything to offer or not. i've only ever changed my mindset spontaneously due to time and experience and never just because i wanted to, as far as i can tell. unless wanting to has influenced my reactions to time and experience under the surface. but i still pay attention to things like typology and meditation so i guess that means i haven't really given up on trying to influence myself willfully.

i think talking about the nature of reality is a little different than talking about changing the way you think, but then i'm inclined more towards naive realism.

[ashlesha]

I think ESI might be the most reluctant type to deal with metaphysics.

idk, i find that whenever people talk about this stuff i end up running to hang around, like in this thread, the only thing i'm uncomfortable with is debating any of this as if i actually have some kind of secret knowledge about it, cuz in the end its just who's read the most and talks the prettiest.

[Absurd]

I think there could be a correlation between Ne (valuing?) and this - what personally pisses me off about many Se egos is that they tend to speak as if their opinions or observations were some absolute truths. I've seen this happen especially with Se creative Ne polrs.. Like, I could give you a million examples of how some of my ESI friends or my LSI dad have lost their temper due to me being " too vague" this way.

There's no such thing as an absolute truth as long there is anti-thesis to a thesis. No anti-thesis to a thesis equals absolute truth.

[Absurd]

I think ESI might be the most reluctant type to deal with metaphysics.

Any Ne polr typ(o) is going to. Don't be funny, though. You're going get Ne demostratives and Ne dominants on this site shitting pants when hearing about it, not to mention Ti dominants adoring it, which excludes LSI already. Last time I checked former, former, former admin this forum had to offer self-typed Ne-Fi and has been swimming in it, whereas Ne demostratives, etc., tossed it away plus some Ne dominants. Oh and I do not have to mention those Te dominants who did as well.

Socionics theory.

[anndelise]

I haven't watched the OP's two videos, but I have read about E-prime, and have played with it here and there. I would like to get better at using E-prime, and even found a decent progressive program for gradually incorporating it. I just haven't had the mental energy to spend more time with it. I do believe that the language we use, and how we use it, greatly influences our thoughts and perceptions. I also think that the vast majority of usamericans tend towards lazy thinking, and using E-prime requires more effort than most are willing to even consider.

[Gilly]

i really don't know if psychology has anything to offer or not. i've only ever changed my mindset spontaneously due to time and experience and never just because i wanted to, as far as i can tell. unless wanting to has influenced my reactions to time and experience under the surface. but i still pay attention to things like typology and meditation so i guess that means i haven't really given up on trying to influence myself willfully.

Well experience is one thing; care is another. One of my favorite philosophers, Martin Heidegger, advocates a principle of deliberate attention and mindfulness in observing ones experience, and using one's "care," or deliberate attention and controlled awareness, as a way to influence one's own mindset using the conclusions drawn from giving ultimate attention to one's reality, to bring one's thoughts in line with ones perceptions. He calls this concept "Dasein," literally "of being," or "being there," and often refers to "Dasein in his every-day-ness" as a way of explicating the consistent pattern of attention that comprise the insoluble portion of a person's awareness or psyche. Basically the idea is to transform everyday experience, to meaningful experience, by maximizing what we take away and absord from our every-day-ness; to assign importance, and derive as much knowledge and understanding as possible, from every moment we live. Maybe you haven't noticed, but sometimes it's the tiniest things that flip a switch in our minds, that contradict one of our underlying assumptions, or confirm something we have long suspected; if you pay close attention, you will find even more of these moments, and will be even wiser for recognizing them for what they really mean in relation to your own existence.

Tricks like being more conscious of one's method of speaking seem to me to be a very deliberate attempt to engage this "Dasein," this sense of awareness that can come or go but it as the root of what we define as ourselves, just as a way of forcing more awareness and attention into our every-day consciousness. I think everyone knows the feeling of depressing monotony and inescapability of the cyclical nature of day-to-day life in an agriculture-fed society, where we sleep in the same place every night, do virtually the same things every day, etc. We have an instinct that tells us that this dullness is evil, is somehow contrary to our survival, that urges us to move or get a new job or try to start life over when we feel like we've become too entrenched in our situation. Life can be just so goddamn repetitive like this that we simply go on auto-pilot, and lose the aspect of ourselves that cares about having control over our own lives or affecting any kind of change in them, which is a recipe for downard spiral. I think Wilson's philosophy is a similar one of awareness; not necessarily of anxiety or urgency, like, say, Nietzsche proposes, but simply concentrated awareness and deliberation.

i think talking about the nature of reality is a little different than talking about changing the way you think, but then i'm inclined more towards naive realism.

Well I think the point is that changing the way you SPEAK will affect the way you think, and that of those who hear you, as well. I am inclined to believe this is true, as people give themselves "pep talks" and reassure themselves all the time, and not for no reason.

Wilson is concerned with the nature of reality, but he tries to use his understanding of reality to augment the way he thinks, to improve his life and the coherency of his perception.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Wilson's second video was a treat since it succinctly encapsulates many of the issues I have with this metaphysics-sold-as-science of socionics, especially in its application. I'll give the first, longer video a listen when it's time to become horizontal again.

I am reminded of E-prime each time someone projects their desires as someone else's necessities by saying, for instance, "You need to shut up," when the actual message is, "I cannot tolerate your views or their expression." Likewise, "You would look better in this green dress," said when the observer-speaker is actually signaling a request or an implicit order to behave such that "you adopt my aesthetics and my idealized image of you." So E-prime also springs to mind whenever someone on this forum seeks to confirm or invalidate someone's self typing by saying something like "I know lots of REAL LSIs and you are/aren't one."

I fail to understand what pisses people off about E-prime.

For one , E-prime confronts users with the relativism of their beliefs as well as the apologetics predicated upon them. This drives a wedge between their judgements on one side and their dogmatism and conceits of objectivity or justification on the other.

Secondly, E-prime entails an additional, meta-analytical effort when writing so that the text conforms to a set of admittedly simple but often unaccustomed rules. So in many cases the complaints it generates are simply the pained groans and panting to be expected from the exercise of undeveloped muscles.

Thirdly, since E-prime assists to deconflate the experiential and the objective, and to improve the subject's awareness of personal phantasms and their prominent role in guiding life-navigation, I can only assume that resistance to E-prime is driven by a desire to continue dwelling in a prison constructed of one's own excrement.

[Absurd]

Aquagraph seems 'to be' PC.

[Aquagraph]

It sometimes depresses me when k0rpsy speaks out my mind for me. That was an awesome post.

You'd like "Maybe Logic" though I am sure that it's nothing new to you.

[ashlesha]

on the other hand, haven't you ever known you were right about something you knew you couldn't prove? does e-prime encourage you to repress your instincts? or maybe just know them for what they are.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I think there could be a correlation between Ne (valuing?) and this

No, since many an Ni-head also approves of and/or utilizes e-prime. Wilson as EIE wouldn't be a surprise to me, nor Alan Watts as LIE, who espouses many of the same ideas concerning the nature of the self and its participation in and as the world. I also give E-prime a thumbs-up as a useful instrument for shifting one's perspective and communicating more clearly. Note, too, labcoat's immediate and vociferous objection to E-prime plus Ryan's angrily constipated incomprehension of the topics at hand. Both of them are ostensibly LII.

[Gilly]

Wilson's second video was a treat since it succinctly encapsulates many of the issues I have with this metaphysics-sold-as-science of socionics, especially in its application. I'll give the first, longer video a listen when it's time to become horizontal again.

I am reminded of E-prime each time someone projects their desires as someone else's necessities by saying, for instance, "You need to shut up," when the actual message is, "I cannot tolerate your views or their expression."

Or "I'm going to have you..." instead of "Will you..."

Fucking pisses me off

For one , E-prime confronts users with the relativism of their beliefs as well as the apologetics predicated upon them. This drives a wedge between their judgements one side and their dogmatism and conceits of objectivity or justification on the other.

Indeed

Secondly, E-prime entails an additional, meta-analytical effort when writing so that the text conforms to a set of admittedly simple but often unaccustomed rules. So in many cases the complaints it generates are simply the pained groans and panting to be expected from the exercise of undeveloped muscles.

Thirdly, since E-prime assists to deconflate the experiential and the objective, and to improve the subject's awareness of personal phantasms and their prominent role in guiding life-navigation, I can only assume that resistance to E-prime is driven by a desire to continue dwelling in a prison constructed of one's own excrement.

[Gilly]

on the other hand, haven't you ever known you were right about something you knew you couldn't prove? does e-prime encourage you to repress your instincts? or maybe just know them for what they are.

I don't see how it entails suppression of instincts, unless using conjugations of "to be" is something you consider intrinsic enough to be an "instinct."

[Gilly]

No, since many an Ni-head also approves of and/or utilizes e-prime. Wilson as EIE wouldn't be a surprise to me, nor Alan Watts as LIE, who espouses many of the same ideas concerning the nature of the self and its participation in and as the world. I also give E-prime a thumbs-up as a useful instrument for shifting one's perspective and communicating more clearly. Note, too, labcoat's immediate and vociferous objection to E-prime plus Ryan's angrily constipated incomprehension of the topics at hand. Both of them are ostensibly LII.

IME many promoters of this brand of consistent self-conditioning are Ni/Se types.

[Korpsy Knievel]

idk, i find that whenever people talk about this stuff i end up running to hang around, like in this thread, the only thing i'm uncomfortable with is debating any of this as if i actually have some kind of secret knowledge about it, cuz in the end its just who's read the most and talks the prettiest.

Philosophy is the practice of trying on various hats and adopting, at least temporarily, the thoughts of their makers. Its purpose is the development of critical faculties that discriminate between truth and falsehood, which in turn then sharpen the ability to ask good (i.e. answerable) questions about the world and our experience of it. Its sibling, science, is concerned with finding solutions to the problems philosophy poses, and to extend the frontier of knowledge so that more questions can be asked, and so on. In this way philosophy and science are like two twins who complete one another's sentences in the elaboration of a world-narrative.

[ashlesha]

I don't see how it entails suppression of instincts, unless using conjugations of "to be" is something you consider intrinsic enough to be an "instinct."

you and korp were just talking about the effect of language on mindset so I don't know how you think I'm just talking about words now.

anyway I see the merit in eprime, I'm just thinking out loud and being negativist or something.

[Gilly]

you and korp were just talking about the effect of language on mindset so I don't know how you think I'm just talking about words now.

Oh, I don't know...what is it from these videos, or about his philosophy, that you think implies the suppression of instincts?

anyway I see the merit in eprime, I'm just thinking out loud and being negativist or something.

It's cool dude, I'm not trying to talk you into it or anything, I don't practice Eprime myself, but I see it as an analogue or parallel to the kind of thought exercises and philosophy that I practice. Non-attachment, blank-mind, meditation, prayer...I see these all as universal parallels and different manifestations of the same thing, which I think has been religious-ified for a long time, but in my opinion should be understood in more universal terms in order to be practiced properly and without presumptions.

[Korpsy Knievel]

It sometimes depresses me when k0rpsy speaks out my mind for me. That was an awesome post.

You'd like "Maybe Logic" though I am sure that it's nothing new to you.

Cool, thanks. It's been a while since I've read Wilson but I like his style, so the video will be fun. Track down a copy of the Alan Watts lecture series, Out of Your Mind. Here are a few quotes of his from others works, relevant to Wilson's thoughts and the objectives of E-prime:

"Words can be communicative only between those who share similar experiences."

"Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence."

"We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe."

And regarding what I said earlier about the purpose of philosophy:

"Problems that remain persistently insoluble should always be suspected as questions asked in the wrong way."