If you're going to get your panties in a wad over this,
What are you talking about? Is this just some substitute for making a real point?
Then disagree with Linda.
I do on that point.
Just like I disagree with the fear mongering of Lenore. Lenore is afraid of her own shadow. Literally.
Again; what are you talking about? Do you even know?
But you are sounding a bit like a parrot when you keep squawking about "perspectives" thread after thread.
You're the one who's "squawking" now. Just look at these last few statements.
We both have the book, Eric.
You are taking her too literally. She first defines a process in that book which I already posted. The "philosophies," are merely an additional way of looking at the processes.
And that's all I'm presenting it as. An alternative way (which I believe is better).
What if in lieu of the word, "philosophies" she chose the word "instruments" and used a symphony orchestra analogy. Then what - would you run around the forum telling people to use the word, "instrument"? Let's hope not.
Again; you're not making any sense. What good is "what ifs" now? You sound like you're complaining just to complain.
I agree with all of them, depending on the situation.
I can't even imagine saying only ONE of those is my "Philosophy of Life." Like I said, I think you are taking her a bit too literally. She already defined a process and she even wrote:
No single process operates in isolation.
Which also implies no "Life Philosophy" operates in isolation, either.
She's just giving the reader one more way to look at Ne, Se, or any of the other processes.
Well, who ever said anything about "operating in isolation"?
Precisely my premise, concepts liks "philosophy" or "perspective" make it easier to see how they can be used simultaneously. This in contrast to thinking of them as gears or opposing "skills", which is what makes them sound like they are used in "isolation".
Hence, as you said; it's all about simply giving more ways to look at things. I simply think some are better than others. I don't see what the problem is.
You're really arguing over nothing, here.
The operative word is processes, Eric. Processes. Don't play games. We both know Lenore's Beam-Me-Up-Scotty book is not about the processes, per se. It is about Personality TYPE, and all her incessant babbling about Captain Kirk. If someone wishes to buy a book to learn the processes, that sure isn't one to buy.
She doesn't call them "processes", but she still discusses the function-attitudes there.
Again, I don't see any point here.
And she uses fictional characters, because they are often archetypal models of functions, archetypes and types.
It's merely the redundancy of it all, Eric. You and I end up in many of the same threads, so I see how many times you tell people to use "perspectives." The same can be said of Victor who repeatedly uses the same words "trance" or God help us all, "Cognitive Dissonance." It's the repetitive nature that is annoying. Kind of like when you would start your posts with, "Lenore says."
Then you don't know his style.
It's the same style; and you are just as repetitive. Maybe not with particular words, but in just heckling the theories and not making much of any point.
I'm repetitive, because there is a lot of confusion over these concepts, and I believe a different way of looking at things might be the solution.
(Just look at Berens' third "philosophy", about Ne; and also both her and Beebe's concept of the auxiliary as "parent" archetype).
Sometimes, it takes some redundancy for an idea to be understood, and for more people to begin to get the hang of it.
It's confusing to you, perhaps. Or you just don't like it. You might also one day realize that not all people fit cleanly into a given type. Even the MBTI handbook remarks not everyone is a clear type.
Who ever said they did/were? Again, you do not seem to be understanding what you are criticizing.
That is Fi.
)
