|
Post by Roshan on Mar 28, 2021 13:25:00 GMT -5
Yeah, and they do quite a lot of yakking too.
But why "but" ?
Maybe it pertained to the conversation of sensor Tx doms(which is already a fishy exclusion), but my emphasis was on the fact that it's not special to a particular type, just to the Nx PoLR ones, so why only include an example, if you can say the whole group. What 'fact' is special and to who? It's not special to a particular type? Just to Nx PolR? Meaning it's special to Nx PolR, therefore other types don't have it... or something else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2021 15:38:21 GMT -5
Maybe it pertained to the conversation of sensor Tx doms(which is already a fishy exclusion), but my emphasis was on the fact that it's not special to a particular type, just to the Nx PoLR ones, so why only include an example, if you can say the whole group. What 'fact' is special and to who? It's not special to a particular type? Just to Nx PolR? Meaning it's special to Nx PolR, therefore other types don't have it... or something else? Because of:I am making the argument that Nx PoLR can appear as something else than what they are, and any qualities of expansiveness, complexity in Je dom, or contrarily simplicity in Ti dom, or whatever it would be in FiSe, is all caused by Nx PoLR. Which, considering how this exception revolved around a conflictor category to intuitive doms, makes me suspicious of a pro-N bias. But that's besides the point. What it felt like is that there was a redundant pointing out of examples within that category, as opposed to just pointing out the category.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 3, 2021 4:07:33 GMT -5
Anyway, give me some time to articulate my thought on this"people vs things" dichotomy, which is already not quite right btw. Then will see about that.
I'm not done with this, but i'm still working on it.
It has turned out to be quite a rabbit hole that lead me into the territory of german philosophy around and before Jung's time.
Anyway, the main thing here is that T and F are both judging functions, deliberating and interfacing ones. They are both about articulating reasons and motives. They are both dealing with causes and reasons.
T is about physical and formal causes.
T is about facts.
F is about values.
If F is "about people", that's because people have will, purposes, goals, intents, ethics and aesthetics.
But any value-making process, even if it doesn't apply specifically to people, would be F.
On the other hand, looking at people in value-neutral terms of "facts and figures", as sociology, economics or behavioral psychology does, would be T.
tbcd.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 3, 2021 10:49:41 GMT -5
Of course it's not just [Genghis Khan]s and fanatical tyrants, Fi itself produces value by pointing out value, but by doing so sacrifices all else that didn't fit the criteria in a merciless way.
Wait wait, what type (or quadra) do you think Genghis Khan was ?
You seem to assume he was a Fi user. Why ?
Also, what do you mean by "fanatical tyrants" ?
What makes Genghis Khan one of those ?
Could you give other examples ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2021 13:40:30 GMT -5
Of course it's not just [Genghis Khan]s and fanatical tyrants, Fi itself produces value by pointing out value, but by doing so sacrifices all else that didn't fit the criteria in a merciless way.
Wait wait, what type (or quadra) do you think Genghis Khan was ?
You seem to assume he was a Fi user. Why ?
Also, what do you mean by "fanatical tyrants" ?
What makes Genghis Khan one of those ?
Could you give other examples ?
Gamma extravert, and I suppose that "fanatical tyrants" was the wrong term, since who they are is far less rigid. What would be perhaps more appropriate is "merciless plunderer of the unknown", or something like that. Other examples would be Alexander the Great or Napoleon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2021 13:43:22 GMT -5
Anyway, give me some time to articulate my thought on this"people vs things" dichotomy, which is already not quite right btw. Then will see about that.
I'm not done with this, but i'm still working on it.
It has turned out to be quite a rabbit hole that lead me into the territory of german philosophy around and before Jung's time.
Anyway, the main thing here is that T and F are both judging functions, deliberating and interfacing ones. They are both about articulating reasons and motives. They are both dealing with causes and reasons.
T is about physical and formal causes.
T is about facts.
F is about values.
If F is "about people", that's because people have will, purposes, goals, intents, ethics and aesthetics.
But any value-making process, even if it doesn't apply specifically to people, would be F.
On the other hand, looking at people in value-neutral terms of "facts and figures", as sociology, economics or behavioral psychology does, would be T.
tbcd.
It sounds like "meaning" in a personal context. However, how would you benchmark final causes and values? I know they are most likely that which benchmarks, especially Tx, but that still doesn't mean the benchmark isn't subject to benchmark. And how do you incorporate aesthetics in all this?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 3, 2021 14:51:57 GMT -5
It sounds like "meaning" in a personal context.
Hmm, meaning per se would be Nx, i think. But maybe "meaning in a personal context" is a way to approach what it is from a Fi polr perspective.
Well, yes, the F functions are that which benchmarks indeed.
Well, yes, but that's exactly why Fx isn't simplicity. Judgement of values have their own problems, their own systems, their own dilemnas and their own hierarchies. And that's also why F and T are in axis together, they are not complete without each other.
I'm not sure what you're asking. What do you mean by "incorporate" here ?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 3, 2021 14:56:43 GMT -5
Gamma extravert, and I suppose that "fanatical tyrants" was the wrong term, since who they are is far less rigid. What would be perhaps more appropriate is "merciless plunderer of the unknown", or something like that. Other examples would be Alexander the Great or Napoleon.
Hmm, i would think Genghis was beta. Quite paradigmatically so.
And most likely SeTi.
Alexander and Napoleon might have been gamma extravert, yes, but the thing is, if they were, then they were not Fi absolute valuers. They would be inferior Fi and expedient auxiliary users. Potentially jumpers.
Most of what you described about them doesn't come from Fi, imo. It comes from Se and Te. And if anything, from a lack of Fi.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2021 15:45:46 GMT -5
It sounds like "meaning" in a personal context.
Hmm, meaning per se would be Nx, i think. But maybe "meaning in a personal context" is a way to approach what it is from a Fi polr perspective.
"what Peterson describes when talking about 'meaning' and what nihilism lacks"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2021 15:47:44 GMT -5
It sounds like "meaning" in a personal context. Well, yes, but that's exactly why Fx isn't simplicity. Judgement of values have their own problems, their own systems, their own dilemnas and their own hierarchies. And that's also why F and T are in axis together, they are not complete without each other.
Well, Tx have a quite easy ultimate benchmark: "does it work" for Te, and "is it derived axiomatically" for Ti. What would be the benchmark for Fx?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 3, 2021 15:50:42 GMT -5
"what Peterson describes when talking about 'meaning' and what nihilism lacks"
Ok, then yeah, it has a lot to do with the F domain indeed.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 3, 2021 16:01:53 GMT -5
Well, yes, but that's exactly why Fx isn't simplicity. Judgement of values have their own problems, their own systems, their own dilemnas and their own hierarchies. And that's also why F and T are in axis together, they are not complete without each other.
Well, Tx have a quite easy ultimate benchmark: "does it work" for Te, and "is it derived axiomatically" for Ti. What would be the benchmark for Fx?
Well, Fe is also an interfacing function, so has its own kind of "does it work".
Its benchmark is its results.
Fi is also a deliberating function, so it has its own kind of internal consistency.
Aesthetical and ethical principles and sensibility, for example, plays a role similar to axioms to establish judgement of values. The fact that those judgement are subjective doesn't make them arbitrary.
I'm not sure any of this is "ultimate" anyway. Not even with Tx.
You can derive complete bullshit from bogus axioms.
Things can work and still be a complete waste of time and energy.
"Ultimately" functions doesn't exist in isolation, they work in processes.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 3, 2021 16:22:38 GMT -5
I suppose that "fanatical tyrants" was the wrong term, since who they are is far less rigid. What would be perhaps more appropriate is "merciless plunderer of the unknown", or something like that.
Well, the thing is, most fanatics aren't exactly tyrants, and most tyrants aren't exactly fanatics.
It seems to me that your original formulation was conflating and squishing together the two ends of the FT axis.
Your new formulation seems to point out toward something that has more to do with Se than with anything else, actually.
What all the people you listed have in common is that they were pushing forward until they couldn't anymore. And that's Se.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2021 16:30:48 GMT -5
Well, Tx have a quite easy ultimate benchmark: "does it work" for Te, and "is it derived axiomatically" for Ti. What would be the benchmark for Fx? Well, Fe is also an interfacing function, so has its own kind of "does it work".
Its benchmark is its results.
Fi is also a deliberating function, so it has its own kind of internal consistency.
Aesthetical and ethical principles and sensibility, for example, plays a role similar to axioms to establish judgement of values. The fact that those judgement are subjective doesn't make them arbitrary.
I'm not sure any of this is "ultimate" anyway. Not even with Tx.
You can derive complete bullshit from bogus axioms.
Things can work and still be a complete waste of time and energy.
"Ultimately" functions doesn't exist in isolation, they work in processes. Ethical, perhaps, but aesthetical, how so? How is Fi in any way aesthetical? Did you instead mean "moralizing", as in manifesting such a world independent of deliberating choices at specific ethical aims, "cultivating" an environment? Of course you've got to watch out for your a priori, Kurt Gödel. Well yeah, sure, but that's what the F domain is for. Under the pretense of completely omitting that domain, it fulfills the benchmark and is correct/true/working. The same can be said for any other conceptual thing, including thermodynamics, classical mechanics, hydraulics, and chemistry. That doesn't mean it lacks a hyperform in a platonic world.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 3, 2021 16:30:51 GMT -5
Anyway it's getting late here, and i'm going to go to bed now.
I will get back to this topic tomorrow. But at this point, we are leaving the domain of the domains to enter the territory of specific function already.
So i think it might be better to give this thread some rest for now.
So tomorrow i'll probably start by asking you a few questions in this thread instead.
tbcd !
|
|