Theorem of Feel

[Kalach]

But still, I have this idea of Fi as the system that goes with feeling. There's the affective part--the emotion of the moment--and there's the background judgment part that develops over time--"this X is good because I felt good about it before, and dang it, I feel good about it now too!" kinda thing.

Perhaps I'm mixing up Fi with Fi+(all the other functions processing).

 

[SolitaryWalker]

But still, I have this idea of Fi as the system that goes with feeling. There's the affective part--the emotion of the moment--and there's the background judgment part that develops over time--"this X is good because I felt good about it before, and dang it, I feel good about it now too!" kinda thing.

Perhaps I'm mixing up Fi with Fi+(all the other functions processing).

Yes, Fi is a system, but there is nothing about the way this function works that will make it a coherent system. In other words, there are reasons for why Fi does what it does, yet, you cannot use such reasons to construct a coherent system of reasoning. Unlike Thinking it does not pay much attention to consistency of thought, there is nothing stopping Fi from having a system reminiscent of this.

Theorem 1: If X then Y.
Theorem 2: It is not the case that (If X then Y)

I'd just like to stop you right there and let you know that it's a scientific fact that human beings don't have "instincts."

My gift, to you, as an F dom.

Are you telling us that humans do not have urges that compel them to eat or sleep? What are they, computers now? Fascinating scientific fact this is.

 

[Stanton Moore]

So what is the subtext here? What does SW hope to gain from all of this posturing? What is the seed of insecurity that drives such a person? Surely it is not truth, because he's already answered his 'query' in a different thread, so there must (logically) be a different reason for the existence of this one. That reason can only come from an emotional context, because that is at the base of all such self-aggrandizement.

I think he needs a good friend.

 

[redacted]

Yass, indeed. But the nifty thing about symbolic logic is it gives us the concept of "a rule of inference". In symbolic logic these devices are separable from the semantics of the system. Two actual systems that evaluate completely different things can still have the same form of inference at work. (Not that I'm saying Ti and Fi do have the same rule of inference, but it'd be freaky cool if in fact they did, huh!)

I don't think we really disagree. Thinking and Feeling DO have the same rule of inference at work, namely deduction.

 

[sculpting]

But still, I have this idea of Fi as the system that goes with feeling. There's the affective part--the emotion of the moment--and there's the background judgment part that develops over time--"this X is good because I felt good about it before, and dang it, I feel good about it now too!" kinda thing.

Perhaps I'm mixing up Fi with Fi+(all the other functions processing).

First-crap I forgot I am not Fi dom, soi I could totally have this all screwed up. (But I have lots of other letters if those help...)

Ah, okay, I get what you are saying. Fi develops general rules based upon past Fi systematic explorations to minimize unhappiness. The actual process of exploration could take time/energy, so it works off previously solved, historically productive solutions (rules) to identify the best solution for the problem at hand. Except they are fuzzy wuzzy.

For example, a rule- Killing is wrong. Based upon the interactions I have had with killing in the past it doesnt usually decrease unhappiness.

So for Ti Ti has rules that are concrete factual data points or logical rules like a + B=c and such? It isnt routine that A + B will suddenly equal something else like D. So Ti works really well for very concrete, discrete situations. But what happens when A +B suddenyl does equal D?

Then Ti has to go back through and reinvestigate and identify, test, and reevaulate the rule to identify the error.

However for my Fi derived rule of dont kill people, it is very flexible to change that rule on the fly given new fuzzier information, especiallly if it leads to unhappiness in the enviornment. Like an ax murderer at my door for example.

Is Fi a cognitive shortcut developed to deal with the fuzzy problems? (dumb fuzzy humans)

 

[Polaris]

Fi develops general rules based upon past Fi systematic explorations to minimize unhappiness.

Fi isn't necessarily Utilitarian. It's more like having an instinctive reaction about what is and isn't in accord with your true nature. It's hard to put into words, but basically that means being in tune with what is healthy, what is right, and what leads to personal growth. You can develop a conscious set of rules out of this mindset, but I think that most of us keep it at the level of an instinctive reaction or maybe adopt a ready-made framework like religion.

No, Modus Tollens is distinct from Modus Ponens.

Right, in the sense that one method starts with B to get to A and the other works in the reverse direction. They operate on the same underlying principle, though, which is that a certain cause necessitates a certain effect, and vice versa.

So your suggestion is that Modus Feel inheres within all theorems of Logic, even Modus Ponens.

For instance, If A then B. A, therefore B. I have a feeling or a conviction that this is a true conclusion, therefore I am using Modus Feel. No, this is not what Modus Feel is. Modus Feel does not consist in merely involving feelings in your reasoning process, as this is what we all as human beings do inevitably. Modus Feel uses Feeling as not just one criterion for justification, but the only. Modus Ponens does not include Modus Feel because it consistently obeys the rules of its system of derivation and does not rely exclusively on Feelings to support the conclusion it propounds.

No, you missed my point. My point is that your choice to adopt a certain framework is arbitrary. You follow your convictions when you choose that framework, not any set of impersonal rules; and that's what Modus Feel is.

Exactly, contradictions are put in a separate category. The fact that they are put in a separate category shows that these contradictions are NOT part of our logic system, in other words they are in a category OTHER than the category of our logic system.

When you sort out a contradiction, what happens? You take the negative and positive values that tried to co-exist, so to speak, and then you put one of those values in the negative (false) category that coexists with and defines the positive (true) category. It's not as if you throw the error into some kind of black hole and forget it ever existed: the error becomes the dark that defines the light, just as the light defines the dark.

A system is merely a combination of rules. All rules must be consistent with each other, if they are not, the system is self-contradictory.

Not really. Any true contradiction within a system's rules constitutes the formation of two separate systems. For example, if you try to create a system where there is a rule A and a rule not A, what you really have is a pair of slightly different systems that you're shuffling between.

Namely, his feelings are indicative of the truth and the feelings of those who disagree with him do not.

How is that a problem? His feelings are a separate entity from the feelings of other people. It's only when the same entity is said to hold two opposing values that a contradiction exists.

The bottom line is, if you have contradictory rules, you will fall short of the truth as your system of logic will not allow you to deduce anything successfully. However, as you say, it may still be good despite this. It may help you grow as a person. That is the main question of my discussion, is Modus Feel, or a contradictory system of logic useful to us even if it is completely useless in the regard of acquisition of the truth.

Your "mystic" (code word for Feeler) doesn't even truly use Modus Feel. It's obvious that what he gives weight to is his own feelings, not feelings in general. If not that, he likely believes that those who disagree with him are being disingenuous and ignoring their true convictions. In either case, no contradiction is involved. And that brings me to the point: the point is that your portrait is a ridiculous caricature that few if any people actually practice. If someone believes that what everyone feels is true is in fact true, then that person either believes that everyone has the same feelings--unlikely--or that person doesn't exist since contradictory beliefs are by definition beliefs that you can't harbor at the same time.

They don't have to be non-arbitrary, they just have to be consistent.

Why? All of this talk about how things have to be and what is "desirable" smacks of the very Modus you condemn. You seem to be saying that the only lines of reasoning that should be allowed are the ones that you happen to like.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Right, in the sense that one method starts with B to get to A and the other works in the reverse direction. They operate on the same underlying principle, though, which is that a certain cause necessitates a certain effect, and vice versa..

The reversal of the process is not possible in all cases.

Consider this.

Modus Ponens

If A then B,

A

Therefore B.

The reversal of this is the following if A then B.

B.

Therefore A.

This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

No, you missed my point. My point is that your choice to adopt a certain framework is arbitrary. You follow your convictions when you choose that framework, not any set of impersonal rules; and that's what Modus Feel is...

That is true, but this is not what Modus Feel is. Modus Feel is an arbitrary use of whatever rules are adopted.

Not really. Any true contradiction within a system's rules constitutes the formation of two separate systems. For example, if you try to create a system where there is a rule A and a rule not A, what you really have is a pair of slightly different systems that you're shuffling between. ...

When we are making a system of Logic we are concerned only with one system. If you are doing Classical Logic, you are not going to be concerned with anything that is used in the Non-Standard logic that is used to build computers.

How is that a problem? His feelings are a separate entity from the feelings of other people. It's only when the same entity is said to hold two opposing values that a contradiction exists. ...

The entity is the same, namely feeling. He doesn't say that only his feelings lead to the truth, he says that Feeling is what leads to the truth, hence a feeling of anyone. The entity holds opposite values because in one case Feeling does lead to the truth and in the other it does not.

Your "mystic" (code word for Feeler) doesn't even truly use Modus Feel....

I never said that the mystic and the Feeler have an identical definition.

It's obvious that what he gives weight to is his own feelings, not feelings in general.....

That is not true, some political or religious leaders maintain that others can become their disciples if they do as they do. For example, many religious leaders had a very detailed discussion about what one must do to become a prophet of theirs. They mentioned that they must experience a certain feeling in order to legitimately claim that they are prophets. Very often when they do claim to have the exact same feeling as their leaders their leaders deny that they are prophets.

For the very least this is how the Mystic in my OP behaves. However, if he maintains that only his own feelings lead to the truth then there is no contradiction involved.

If not that, he likely believes that those who disagree with him are being disingenuous and ignoring their true convictions. In either case, no contradiction is involved.

Only if he maintains that it is not the case that feelings in general lead to the truth.

And that brings me to the point: the point is that your portrait is a ridiculous caricature that few if any people actually practice. If someone believes that what everyone feels is true is in fact true, then that person either believes that everyone has the same feelings--unlikely--or that person doesn't exist since contradictory beliefs are by definition beliefs that you can't harbor at the same time. .

The point is the mystic in question says that you must have a certain kind of a feeling to claim to be a prophet or to have knowledge. When others claim to have this feeling, he denies that they are knowledgeable. Thats one thing he does in my story. The other thing he does is simply refuse to explain his views and just says he has a feeling that he has knowledge. In that case he inadvertently makes a claim that a 'feeling' in general leads to the truth.

In any case, whether this persona describes many people or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it describes the concept of modus feel.

Why? All of this talk about how things have to be and what is "desirable" smacks of the very Modus you condemn. You seem to be saying that the only lines of reasoning that should be allowed are the ones that you happen to like.

I did not condemn modus Feel. I only maintained that it is an unreliable guide to the truth. Whether it is desirable in other regards is what I am trying to figure out now. That is the whole point of this thread.

 

[sculpting]

It may be and it may not be. It is true that Evolution conditioned us to develop certain instincts to adjust to our environment and ultimately survive. However, we must keep in mind that the instincts that we have now were those that our ancestors needed in order to survive in their environment, they may not serve us well in ours.

In one sentence, I impugn the claim that just because we have certain instincts, it is necessarily the case that they serve us well because evolution led us to have them.

totally true. However. all of us evolved under the same pressure more or less. So to work alongside of the rest of society, to change them, interact with them, convince them and so on, you must recogize those instincts and recognize how each will work with and against you in the projects/tasks that wish to accomplish.

During evolution we have to assume they were beneficial. The argument has be taken for each instinct/behavior-is it still beneficial? It's a line by line evaluation. In spite or our airplanes, vaccines, and space ships we are but a step away from our ancestors 20,000 years ago cognitively and socially. Unitl we change dramatically as a species, those establish rules likely still work quite well.

I never mentioned that there is a problem with all instinctual thought, just with instincts being the sole item of justification for our conclusion. Using logic properly by virtue of instincts is not the same as using instincts in a whimsical fashion. Bottom line is, as long as your reasoning remains consistent it can be justified by a non-Feel theorem, whether such reasoning derived from instincts or not is irrelevant.

We cannot control our unconscious thought easily. My suggestion is that we separate the Modus Feel from other rules of logical derivation.

I think I have confused two issues. The concept of Modus feel-the conclusion is correct in spite of having no premises. The other concept would be a feel/fuzzy approach to the problem-the conclusion is right and here are some really intuitive, fuzzy, ill defined premises based upon Fi/Fe style rules.

From your perspective as the two the same? Do you have to be able to cognitively follow/understand my premises in order to recognize the validity of the conclusion?

Perhaps this is where Modus Feel is useful. Very few people who have made the decision to devote their lives to making others happy have done so by logical reasoning. They have arrived there by following their instincts. Such instincts likely were deceiving these people into believing that they are good by nature, or that they can really be helped and so on.

ohh that stings a bit. It says empathy and caring are pure instinctual responses like eating. Yet that reduces Fi/Fe then from being judging functions. Rather than making judgements, rationally, they are just responding to stimuli? So they are not built to solve a problem step by step with defined premises like Ti?

Yet I'd say depending upon the nature of the problem they will do a much better, quicker job of solving it then a slower Ti which has to connect the dots in a logical fashion. They are not pure dot to dot logic on the surface, but are they still based upon a system of rules-rules, premises which may not be understandable/observable to you... ? That would make them not instincts but rather different ways of rationlizing.

The neatest thing to watch about a Ti dominant, is how slow the thought process can actually be at times. I work with two brilliant INTPs who will sit for several seconds before speaking the next sentance. I would argue Ti is energetically inefficient for many problems encountered in society due first to the speed and energy involved in the solution and second the fact that it may not cope well with the fuzzies. However every answer they ever give me will be exact and accurate, well thought out. They are utterly brilliant.

That is true and this was the point you made in your first paragraph. My question is, is it desirable for us to persuade people to go against their nature and try to reason in a deductively valid fashion as much as possible?

We certainly could inspire people to make choices this way as frequently as possible, but is it worth it?

Does it provide the best solution for the problem at hand? That is the question I think that has to be answered. I think it is problem dependent.

 

[sculpting]

I did not condemn modus Feel. I only maintained that it is an unreliable guide to the truth. Whether it is desirable in other regards is what I am trying to figure out now. That is the whole point of this thread.

How do you define truth in the context of fuzzy, messy, people laden problems?

 

[Owl]

Bro, you need to lay off Schopenhauer.

I'll echo what I said in your earlier thread that dealt with this topic. This type of thinking ought not to be encouraged.

My thesis is that humans are essentially rational, with the capacity for meaning.

If something is clear to reason, then the only way to fail to believe that which is clear to reason is to fail to use reason, but if a rational being fails to use reason, then that being is acting in a manner that is contrary to its nature, and for a being to act contrary to its nature is to say that that being is harming itself.

 

[Polaris]

The reversal of the process is not possible in all cases.

I misunderstood you, then. I assumed you meant a conclusion that can be explained only by a particular premise (and vice versa): for example, most people who believe in them hold that miracles can only be explained by the will of God. If a miracle occurs, therefore, it can be concluded that God performed it; and furthermore, since God's will necessitates a miracle, the same connection must be made if you use God's will as the starting point.

That is true, but this is not what Modus Feel is. Modus Feel is an arbitrary use of whatever rules are adopted.

How is that a problem? You're bound to have changed the rules you go by several times in your life. I know you're not still laboring under the convictions of an infant.

When we are making a system of Logic we are concerned only with one system. If you are doing Classical Logic, you are not going to be concerned with anything that is used in the Non-Standard logic that is used to build computers.

That's kind of beside the point, though. A contradiction in a system's rules constitutes two separate systems, whether you intend it to or not.

He doesn't say that only his feelings lead to the truth, he says that Feeling is what leads to the truth, hence a feeling of anyone.

Then what did you mean by this:

Namely, his feelings are indicative of the truth and the feelings of those who disagree with him do not.

I never said that the mystic and the Feeler have an identical definition.

Do you deny that a "mystic" is a Feeler?

some political or religious leaders maintain that others can become their disciples if they do as they do. For example, many religious leaders had a very detailed discussion about what one must do to become a prophet of theirs. They mentioned that they must experience a certain feeling in order to legitimately claim that they are prophets. Very often when they do claim to have the exact same feeling as their leaders their leaders deny that they are prophets.

It's not as if the leaders can read minds and know for sure that a claimant really feels the same as them. It comes down to the leaders' judgment, and apparently the leaders didn't believe the claimants in those cases.

Only if he maintains that it is not the case that feelings in general lead to the truth.

A disingenuous feeling is automatically misleading since disingenuity is by its nature a mask over the truth. So one could very well believe that all feelings are true--true in their pretenses, even--and still accept disengenuity as the explanation for apparent disagreements.

The other thing he does is simply refuse to explain his views and just says he has a feeling that he has knowledge. In that case he inadvertently makes a claim that a 'feeling' in general leads to the truth.

That doesn't follow at all. For me to claim that my feelings lead to truth is an entirely different thing than to claim that yours lead to truth. I have all kinds of convictions that hold true for me simply because they're convictions; that doesn't mean I also support the views of rapists and murderers.

In any case, whether this persona describes many people or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it describes the concept of modus feel.

The concept of Modus Feel is either impossible or used only in rare, extremely peculiar circumstances. What you take for Modus Feel is more commonly people being inconsistent or saying things that they don't literally mean.

I did not condemn modus Feel. I only maintained that it is an unreliable guide to the truth.

That's only your opinion, though. For someone else, Modus Feel might be the only reliable guide in all the universe.

 

[Kalach]

Fi isn't necessarily Utilitarian. It's more like having an instinctive reaction about what is and isn't in accord with your true nature. It's hard to put into words, but basically that means being in tune with what is healthy, what is right, and what leads to personal growth. You can develop a conscious set of rules out of this mindset, but I think that most of us keep it at the level of an instinctive reaction or maybe adopt a ready-made framework like religion.

Ti users... there's a paragraph getting close to what is inference in an Fi system (maybe)...

if you switch out the value words and categories, putting your value words and categories in their place, do you get a paragraph that sounds like what you do?



(I dunno, I'm just asking. And it's a weird question. I don't know what Ti does.)

 

[Polaris]

Ti users... there's a paragraph getting close to what is inference in an Fi system (I think, maybe, seems like)...

if you switch out the value words and categories, putting your value words and categories in their place, do you get a paragraph that sounds like what you do?



(I dunno, I'm just asking. And it's a weird question. I don't know what Ti does.)

I don't know if this what you're asking for exactly, but Ti and Fi are quite similar--they're both like having an internal set of scales. The main difference is what gets weighed. Ti weighs according to whether things are in tune with the logical order; Fi weighs things according to whether they mesh with a sense of what is right, for lack of better word; and both check for consistency in their respective domains (ethical and logical).

 

[SolitaryWalker]

totally true. However. all of us evolved under the same pressure more or less. So to work alongside of the rest of society, to change them, interact with them, convince them and so on, you must recogize those instincts and recognize how each will work with and against you in the projects/tasks that wish to accomplish.

I agree that it is important to carefully evaluate our instincts and our circumstances in order to see how they may serve us. The instincts that we discover are useful to us should be encouraged. Those that are not, we should make an effort to repudiate.

During evolution we have to assume they were beneficial. The argument has be taken for each instinct/behavior-is it still beneficial? It's a line by line evaluation. In spite or our airplanes, vaccines, and space ships we are but a step away from our ancestors 20,000 years ago cognitively and socially. Unitl we change dramatically as a species, those establish rules likely still work quite well.

It is not the case that we have changed dramatically, but our environment has. The fact that we have not changed much is attested by your claim, as you have aptly noted that we have many of the same instincts that our ancestors did. However, our ancestors needed those instincts to fend off wild beasts for example, we no longer need to do this, hence the instinct that they needed is not useful to us.

I think I have confused two issues. The concept of Modus feel-the conclusion is correct in spite of having no premises.

I should have been more clear. Modus Feel is the Theorem that the conclusion is always true, but any premise could be used to derive the conclusion. This means that the intrinsic essence of the premises is not relevant as they all give the same results. However, by the definition of logic, there is always a reasoning process, arguably that is how logic can be defined, simply a reasoning process. This presupposes that there are premises of some kind.

From your perspective as the two the same? Do you have to be able to cognitively follow/understand my premises in order to recognize the validity of the conclusion? .

Your argument is unsupported unless it is shown that it follows from premises. In the case of Modus Feel, the conclusion is asserted to follow from the premises in all cases.

ohh that stings a bit. It says empathy and caring are pure instinctual responses like eating. Yet that reduces Fi/Fe then from being judging functions. Rather than making judgements, rationally, they are just responding to stimuli? So they are not built to solve a problem step by step with defined premises like Ti? .

No, but very often Feeling and Thinking work together. For example, a counselor may have an instinct to help his patients and he will then use Thinking to figure out exactly how he should go about doing so.

Yet I'd say depending upon the nature of the problem they will do a much better, quicker job of solving it then a slower Ti which has to connect the dots in a logical fashion. They are not pure dot to dot logic on the surface, but are they still based upon a system of rules-rules, premises which may not be understandable/observable to you... ? That would make them not instincts but rather different ways of rationlizing..

I would say that what you are describing is a partnership between Feeling and Thinking, though clearly with Feeling being more influential. We were conditioned by evolution to think in a certain way, as this is what we needed to survive. Such ways of thinking are ingrained in our unconscious and as a result manifest when we make value judgments. (Use Feeling) I would agree that many things are easier to do this way, or by simply following our instincts as opposed to evaluating our circumstances.

The neatest thing to watch about a Ti dominant, is how slow the thought process can actually be at times. I work with two brilliant INTPs who will sit for several seconds before speaking the next sentance. I would argue Ti is energetically inefficient for many problems encountered in society due first to the speed and energy involved in the solution and second the fact that it may not cope well with the fuzzies. However every answer they ever give me will be exact and accurate, well thought out. They are utterly brilliant. ..

That is true, the Ti approach to problem solving is very methodical, if not punctilious. Tasks that require an immediate response would be performed by methods other than this. How does Modus Feel tie into this? When doing such tasks, you may be tempted to find out if you truly know what you are doing, to do this you'd want to carefully work out the problem. (Ti)

You just can't be confident in yourself unless you believe you know the truth. But you do not have time to figure out what is true in an intellectually honest way as it just takes too long to get from the premise to the conclusion. Modus Feel is basically your express way to any conclusion you desire. This gives you the belief, mistaken or not that you have the truth which may be empowering enoug to compell you to finish the task in a short notice.

Does it provide the best solution for the problem at hand? That is the question I think that has to be answered. I think it is problem dependent.

I would agree with that.

Bro, you need to lay off Schopenhauer.

I'll echo what I said in your earlier thread that dealt with this topic. This type of thinking ought not to be encouraged.

My thesis is that humans are essentially rational, with the capacity for meaning.

If something is clear to reason, then the only way to fail to believe that which is clear to reason is to fail to use reason, but if a rational being fails to use reason, then that being is acting in a manner that is contrary to its nature, and for a being to act contrary to its nature is to say that that being is harming itself.

Please provide an argument to support the thesis that man is a rational animal. I am certainly deeply interested in how this view could be supported. Although I do not think it is a defensible position, I find it charming and ambitious to say the very least.

So please be brief or thorough, whichever serves you better.

Even if you do prove that man is a rational animal, you need a separate argument to show that acting like a rational animal or pursuing the truth is good. It is a mistake to equate what is good with what is natural, I believe that is now known as the naturalistic fallacy.

Do you deny that a "mystic" is a Feeler?.

The Mystic is a feeler in a very restricted sense, nearly neologistic. He is a feeler strictly in the regard that he uses Modus Feel. I do deny that he has to be a Feeler in a pedestrian sense of the word, or in the typological. With regard to the typological, there were many Feelers, especially those who became scientists, mathematicians or philosophers who tend not to use Modus Feel consistently. Remember, a type is merely a solidified unconscious disposition, it can entail a variety of personalities, some akin to that of the mystic I introduced you to, some otherwise.

It's not as if the leaders can read minds and know for sure that a claimant really feels the same as them. It comes down to the leaders' judgment, and apparently the leaders didn't believe the claimants in those cases.?.

In my story the mystic acknowledges that the other person has that exact feeling he claimed is a hallmark of prophethood, but denies that the person in question is a prophet.

A disingenuous feeling is automatically misleading since disingenuity is by its nature a mask over the truth. So one could very well believe that all feelings are true--true in their pretenses, even--and still accept disengenuity as the explanation for apparent disagreements..?.

Simply the person is confusing a deductively invalid argument for a valid one, and Modus Feel comes in when he establishes the Theorem that all arguments whether valid or not entail true conclusions, granted that the premises are true.

That doesn't follow at all. For me to claim that my feelings lead to truth is an entirely different thing than to claim that yours lead to truth. I have all kinds of convictions that hold true for me simply because they're convictions; that doesn't mean I also support the views of rapists and murderers. ..?.

Truth is absolute and universal. If you say something is true, it is true for all. If you say you know something is true because you have a feeling that it is, I could say that I have a feeling that the exact opposite of what you said is true, thereby refuting the claim to knowledge you're making. By doing so I would merely show that your conclusion does not follow from your premises, not necessarily that it is false.

The concept of Modus Feel is either impossible or used only in rare, extremely peculiar circumstances. What you take for Modus Feel is more commonly people being inconsistent or saying things that they don't literally mean...?.

It is much more common than you think. Devious politicians and theologians make use of it to simply dismiss the criticisms of their dissenters. This is how they justify their hypocrisy. For instance, they could say that you should not sleep around under the circumstances of the Blue Moon, yet they somehow are allowed to do so under the same circumstances. Of course though, they would not state this in such terms, they would cover the true meaning of their statements using sophisms.

A benevolent counselor could use Modus Feel to convince his seemingly hopeless patients to believe in themselves. If he adopts Modus Feel as a theorem and gets his patients to accept it he could get them to believe in a lot of things he otherwise would not be able to. Of course, just like the devious politician, he would not be open and direct about what exactly he is doing.

That's only your opinion, though. For someone else, Modus Feel might be the only reliable guide in all the universe.

Modus Feel can't be a reliable guide to the truth because we cannot use it to prove anything because it engenders contradictions.

 

[Polaris]

I've already addressed everything you just said, Solitary. At this point I would be repeating myself, so if you have nothing to add, I must take leave of you.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Was a pleasure discussing with you, I appreciated your thoroughness and persistence. I wish to thank many others involved in this thread too, as quite a few of you made an honest effort to answer the questions posed in the OP as well as explore issues that are at least tangentially relevant.

 

[Kalach]

*Ahem* Is this thing on? Okay...


And we were so close to getting it too. Assholes. But anyway.

There is a Modus Feel. It does work on what it's supposed to work on. It is an inference system and it does produce valid results. That a given Fi user may be, say, conflict avoidant, or immature, or willing to take detours on the path to value, is neither here nor there. It's about the same as saying Ti users are idiosyncratic in what they choose to think about and they hate falsehood.

Technically speaking, and I like making up technical domains, but whatever, there are four broad areas for inference, and they might as well be classified by the names of the functions that deal with them: Fi, Fe, Ti, and Te.

So suck it up, people! You're all doing the same thing in different domains.

Now, if there were just some way to prove it...


And, but wait, there's more... the different modes of inferences... wait for it... they can operate on domains other than their own! :horor:

How? Well, lets suppose the F domains can relatively easily interact, as can the T domains. Now, F logic at work on a T domain, and vice versa... that's a little more difficult to make sense of, but... what the hell, why not? Dunno. But if they don't, how is "the whole picture" discoverable?

Or... something.


For example, "it's my feeling that quarks aren't really our friends, so you scientist guys had better look into your hearts for happier explanations of our physical universe."

It sounds dumb, but is it? It amounts to providing direction for thinking. The thinking then finds out if it's "true" according to thinking lights. Or the thinker says, "I think you're being a retard, get a different feeling, for this reason and this reason and this reason quarks totally are our buddies, and don't you forget it!"

Or am I mistaking something for something else.

 

[sculpting]

Kalach that quark thing sounds totally nuts but I think your general Ni derived theme is correct.

Quit calling ma an asshole asshole.

Thanks SW for making me use Ti, you should post these sorts of things more often..

 

[RaptorWizard]

RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Theorem of Feel thread:

SolitaryWalker wonders how desirable it is for people to believe in things that are not supported by an argument. He begins by describing the process of logic, saying it deals with chains of reasoning. The formalities behind logic seem like mathematical operations, a much more abstract and theoretical discipline than the dynamic and transformative discipline of cosmology, in which case I support the latter discipline while SolitaryWalker seems to prefer the former. One thing that both disciplines have in common though is that when they show us our short-comings, few are able to do so without simultaneously losing self-respect. However, even the most disciplined among us will wish for a brighter future, perhaps putting too much faith in beliefs like karma. This feel method has been historically a consistent craft of manipulation of others to their delusion and detriment, even in service of altruistic causes.

 

[Sinmara]

Why don't you just be honest about what is going on here: Instead of trying to get Solitary Walker's attention by resurrecting all his threads, just write him a gooey love letter about how much you adore him and send it with a box of chocolates and thong underwear.