|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2021 15:42:46 GMT -5
Oh...fish... Duh.  (Though fwiw weighing scales and staircases aren't abstract either.  ) So I'll assume that's the only one I misconstrued and post again here asap. --roshan working in admin mode |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 17:28:16 GMT -5
Oh...fish... Duh. (Though fwiw weighing scales and staircases aren't abstract either. ) So I'll assume that's the only one I misconstrued and post again here asap. --roshan working in admin mode Yeah because avatar fits. |
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 30, 2021 17:36:04 GMT -5
Well just because I forget to switch back. But it does fit FIshy and the Diver, and also the Jung theme that's hovering 'around', since the picture's one of his.
|
|
anthony
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 1,537
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by anthony on Apr 9, 2021 1:20:26 GMT -5
Due to controversy, I won't disclose my vibes about TxF, as I am still anticipating an elucidation from vincent (But if Fx is indeed "people" then thank god my stack hasn't invested in such a solipsistic, redundant endeavor of playing mr. big shot whilst mother nature is clearly the passionate opponent, not some random self-proclaimed Mary Sue or Gary Stu) Good luck fighting her. She's been around a bit longer than you have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2021 3:14:46 GMT -5
Due to controversy, I won't disclose my vibes about TxF, as I am still anticipating an elucidation from vincent (But if Fx is indeed "people" then thank god my stack hasn't invested in such a solipsistic, redundant endeavor of playing mr. big shot whilst mother nature is clearly the passionate opponent, not some random self-proclaimed Mary Sue or Gary Stu) Good luck fighting her. She's been around a bit longer than you have. Well, precisely, I'm making the stance for fighting real things, and it's more of a passionate dance than anything. |
|
anthony
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 1,537
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by anthony on Apr 9, 2021 3:26:26 GMT -5
What are real things? And what do you mean by passionate dance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2021 8:15:01 GMT -5
What are real things? And what do you mean by passionate dance? People often see nature as dry, and attempt to dry rape it, but I think discovering and understanding nature in its purest sense is a wet dance of seduction, of masochism and sadism, of teasing, of poking and being poked. And of course, people are far inferior to nature. But I don't see how any such discussion is relevant, since Vincent already answered with what Fx is. |
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Apr 9, 2021 9:27:29 GMT -5
Well, that's the thing, @ash . You can't assess how a discussion is relevant until you have it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 11:40:15 GMT -5
Well, that's the thing, @ash . You can't assess how a discussion is relevant until you have it. I personally felt satiated by Vincent's response and intended to move the focus to something else. Anthony's response is to my jab at Vincent to clarify Fx, and as he managed to do so, it makes my jab dissipate into obscurity. But what I meant by it, is that in the grand scheme of things, we're at the mercy of god(s), nature, whatever, and all the games we play with ourselves must always feel at grace of the real gods that control us. Therefore, if there were any tendencies of constructionism that weren't constructionist out of humility of perception, then they are deluded, for everything is already present in the occulted garden of platonic reality. All we can do is perceive and discover it. And even if it requires us to construct, we are merely constructing in mirror of the ideal form, or group of correct solutions, most likely with error. |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 11, 2021 14:25:22 GMT -5
I personally felt satiated by Vincent's response and intended to move the focus to something else. Anthony's response is to my jab at Vincent to clarify Fx, and as he managed to do so, it makes my jab dissipate into obscurity.
Well, i'm not fully satiated with my own response yet.
I'm a bit sick right now, but i'm also in holidays, so i'll try to get back to this (F vs T but also N vs S) soon.
So, let me see if i understand this correctly. You were saying that if T were "things" and F were "people", then F would be "games we play", and "tendencies of constructionism", necessarily inferior to T platonism.
And that asymetry was bothering you.
Right ?
|
|
anthony
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 1,537
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by anthony on Apr 11, 2021 15:20:07 GMT -5
I personally felt satiated by Vincent's response and intended to move the focus to something else. Anthony's response is to my jab at Vincent to clarify Fx, and as he managed to do so, it makes my jab dissipate into obscurity. But what I meant by it, is that in the grand scheme of things, we're at the mercy of god(s), nature, whatever, and all the games we play with ourselves must always feel at grace of the real gods that control us. Therefore, if there were any tendencies of constructionism that weren't constructionist out of humility of perception, then they are deluded, for everything is already present in the occulted garden of platonic reality. All we can do is perceive and discover it. And even if it requires us to construct, we are merely constructing in mirror of the ideal form, or group of correct solutions, most likely with error. I see. I didn't think that's what you meant at all by "mother nature is the passionate opponent," and I should've asked for clarification before contesting it. But thank you for this clarification, sir! As vincent stated, if I'm understanding this correctly, Fx would be "tendencies of constructionism," correct? And due to the presence of the platonic reality, or rather, the fact that the platonic reality instantiates, or is the stage upon which "the games we play" evolve, then any constructionist tendencies would therefore be deluded and wrong, and this is why Fx would be inferior(and that this asymmetry, as vincent said, is bothersome)? If that is indeed what you mean, then the first thing I need to ask is, do you mean "constructivism" not "constructionism?" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 16:11:16 GMT -5
I personally felt satiated by Vincent's response and intended to move the focus to something else. Anthony's response is to my jab at Vincent to clarify Fx, and as he managed to do so, it makes my jab dissipate into obscurity.
Well, i'm not fully satiated with my own response yet.
I'm a bit sick right now, but i'm also in holidays, so i'll try to get back to this (F vs T but also N vs S) soon.
So, let me see if i understand this correctly. You were saying that if T were "things" and F were "people", then F would be "games we play", and "tendencies of constructionism", necessarily inferior to T platonism.
And that asymetry was bothering you.
Right ?
Precisely! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 16:13:52 GMT -5
I personally felt satiated by Vincent's response and intended to move the focus to something else. Anthony's response is to my jab at Vincent to clarify Fx, and as he managed to do so, it makes my jab dissipate into obscurity. But what I meant by it, is that in the grand scheme of things, we're at the mercy of god(s), nature, whatever, and all the games we play with ourselves must always feel at grace of the real gods that control us. Therefore, if there were any tendencies of constructionism that weren't constructionist out of humility of perception, then they are deluded, for everything is already present in the occulted garden of platonic reality. All we can do is perceive and discover it. And even if it requires us to construct, we are merely constructing in mirror of the ideal form, or group of correct solutions, most likely with error. I see. I didn't think that's what you meant at all by "mother nature is the passionate opponent," and I should've asked for clarification before contesting it. But thank you for this clarification, sir! As vincent stated, if I'm understanding this correctly, Fx would be "tendencies of constructionism," correct? And due to the presence of the platonic reality, or rather, the fact that the platonic reality instantiates, or is the stage upon which "the games we play" evolve, then any constructionist tendencies would therefore be deluded and wrong, and this is why Fx would be inferior(and that this asymmetry, as vincent said, is bothersome)? If that is indeed what you mean, then the first thing I need to ask is, do you mean "constructivism" not "constructionism?" Yes, constructivism not constructionism. And not inferior, rather, it was the asymmetry. |
|
anthony
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 1,537
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by anthony on Apr 11, 2021 16:45:06 GMT -5
Right. The second question I was going to ask was, isn't Tx also necessarily a constructivist process? And I was also going to ask, is the difference between Tx and Fx that Fx lacks the 'humility of perception?'
However, you seem to be implying that Fx is a response, or even action of sorts("people," "games we play") to what's been cognized/modeled/segregated/categorized about nature. So, it follows, that since what we engage in on a quotidian basis("the material world") is itself unreliable, as it's only an imprecise mimicry of the ideal form, then this nature of Fx is asymmetrical with Tx.
Would this, or wouldn't it, extend to any other process or function of "responding" or "engaging" based on a learned model? Is Tx the only exception?
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 11, 2021 17:44:53 GMT -5
Ok.
Then i agree with you about the asymmetry.
Fx really can't be JUST about "people".
Roshan and i were recently discussing this off site btw and i will come back to it pretty soon.
That being said, i would disagree with your constructivism/platonic realism correlations here.
I don't think it's a FT axis thing at all to begin with.
If anything, i think it's a NS one.
This is a fundamental difference in worldview, not one of value-making or decision-making.
ie : it's epistemology, not axiology.
And epistemology, humble or not, is NS rather than FT.
As far as i can tell (as in "from what i've seen so far") most proponents of platonic realism seems to be beta/gamma : Ni-Se axis users.
and most proponents of constructivism (and relativism) seems to be alpha and delta : Ne-Si axis users.
Roughly speaking and as a general rule. Of course, it can get a lot more complicated than that.
Anyway, before i even attempt to explain why it is the case, we have to talk a bit more about N vs S.
So tbcd.
|
|
)
