|
Post by vincent on Mar 1, 2021 14:38:37 GMT -5
Here is what i think is a smoking gun proof of his Fi polr
"Le moi n'est pas seulement haissable, il n'a pas de place entre un nous et un rien."
Ego is not merely hateful. There is no room for it between a we and a nothing.
(a reference to Pascal's "Ego is hateful")
Why isn't it situating himself in found Fe (through achieved Si agenda) to stave off the nihilism of Ti frame with Ni demo and Se PolR vincent ?
Hmmm. It might be actually.
I had a few more reasons to think NeTi was indeed right. I try to post them and will look at it again.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 1, 2021 14:45:37 GMT -5
Like I said, he looked Se PolR to me with the monkey (rather clearly), but not with the pipe. With the childhood photo I did feel he seemed to show introversion TOO and that I could imagine a young Anthony getting captured like that in a photo. I mean, I don't think he looked THAT inconceivably NOT Se PolR. The other photos on the expedition are inconclusive really, it could go either way, and then you get the Carballidos (along with other stuff too).
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 1, 2021 14:51:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 1, 2021 14:56:35 GMT -5
The thing is he was a poseur.
But that doesn't mean he was a NeTI poseur.
(And based on that photo I'd say TiNe creative.)
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 1, 2021 14:58:13 GMT -5
Like I said, he looked Se PolR to me with the monkey (rather clearly), but not with the pipe. With the childhood photo I did feel he seemed to show introversion TOO and that I could imagine a young Anthony getting captured like that in a photo. I mean, I don't think he looked THAT inconceivably NOT Se PolR. The other photos on the expedition are inconclusive really, it could go either way, and then you get the Carballidos (along with other stuff too).
Yes, you're right. They are not inconceivably Se polr. I ruled out TiNe too fast.
Another argument for NeTi was the intertype relationships. Mirage for me.
Contrary and identical in shadow for you.
But the thing is, he is going to be an extreme creative subtype anyway, and we are jumpers, so intertype will also be kind of inconclusive.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 1, 2021 15:53:20 GMT -5
One thing is that his "we" is often not a human we. It's a cosmic we. That should suffers no boundaries and should be extended as far as possible, to all living beings.
Not just by principle, but to shield us from collapse and destruction :
I will get back to him tomorrow. There is a few quotes i want to dig up and translate.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 1, 2021 17:54:22 GMT -5
Yes, by all means, please do dig them up!
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 2, 2021 14:33:52 GMT -5
What he denounces in this quote (and in a few others scattered in his body of work) is the cartesian dualistic opposition of Culture/Humanity and Nature. For him, this dualism is a category mistake. Bad Si. Since Culture emerges from Nature and is still part of it.
Which could very well be Si agenda delineation. And the ominous tone itself sounds very much like Ni 6th.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 2, 2021 14:39:26 GMT -5
With strong creative subtype people, it can be quite difficult to say what is absolute value and what is relative/instrumental value.
But it's pretty hard to see his Si as anything else than absolutely valued here :
Proposed translation :
The rights of mankind stops precisely when their exercise puts another specie's existence in danger. The right to life and free development of all living species still present on Earth can only be said imprescriptible, for the very simple reason that the extinction of a specie digs a gap, impossible to close at our scale, in the system of Creation. The environmental right, which get talked about so much, is a right of the environment over man, not a right of man over the environment.
tbcd.
|
|