User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Duality

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Ah, you are trying to establish meaning to this concept. The quest for another label! Well there is a group called absurdists who believe that man has been cursed with an unquenchable thirst to understand a universe that is entirely unknowable. I tend to side with them. Objectivists attempt to standardize relative measurements in order to standardize objective observations. But ultimately what are these standardized objective observations? They are absolute within a certain set up of relative parameters, but what ultimate purpose do they serve? In essence, they are the attempt of man to conform to reality. Man wants to be in line with the universe so he can understand it. And man can succeed to an extant by limiting his perception of reality, but it is absurd to apply his limited objective understanding to the entirety of the universe.
    Certainly possible (nay probable) that there are parts of the universe we will never understand. But the quest continues despite knowing this. I suppose if you deny the existence of objective reality, the quest for more labels need not continue. But for some of us, that quest is our reason for being. As for the absurdity of applying objective understanding to the entirety of the universe, I'm glad to bring some laughs to some people. That, along with the foundations for new technologies, that even relativists make use of .


    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I disagree with that assessment, but if it makes you happy, then go with it.
    It's one of those things we can't prove one way or another. But so far, the new descriptions have been found (after immense effort, sure) and have been worthwhile for humanity as a whole, imo.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #12
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Certainly possible (nay probable) that there are parts of the universe we will never understand. But the quest continues despite knowing this. I suppose if you deny the existence of objective reality, the quest for more labels need not continue. But for some of us, that quest is our reason for being. As for the absurdity of applying objective understanding to the entirety of the universe, I'm glad to bring some laughs to some people. That, along with the foundations for new technologies, that even relativists make use of .
    I said that man can succeed to an extant. He can understand a part of reality. But only the part that pertains to his perceptions. In essence, we exist in only one plane of the universe, and all the other planes of the universe will forever escape our understanding because we are limited to our relative perceptions. Considering there are infinite planes to the universe, that is a lot of stuff that we can never know or understand. But as far as understanding our particular plane of reality, I think we are doing a pretty good job. And as I said in my thread, these views only come into conflict when human beings try to apply them to constructs such as morality and ethics.

    It's just another theory, but I believe that is because the perceptions of human beings don't perfectly coincide, so each individual is limited to their own spot within our plane of reality. Hence why objectivistic and relatavistic values are both necessary in order to grasp some understanding of our ultimate plane of reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #13
    mrs disregard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    7,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Don't worry, I know it must be frustrating... let me try again.

    Dualism is the idea that things we usually see as opposite are actually two aspects of the same thing... thus, that there really is no paradox. Dualism eliminates (or tries to eliminate) paradox, in a way. It's like the idea that things move towards balance...
    So.. it's like a continuum? Introversion and Extraversion? Seen to be opposites, but are really on one continuum?

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I said that man can succeed to an extant. He can understand a part of reality. But only the part that pertains to his perceptions. In essence, we exist in only one plane of the universe, and all the other planes of the universe will forever escape our understanding because we are limited to our relative perceptions. Considering there are infinite planes to the universe, that is a lot of stuff that we can never know or understand. But as far as understanding our particular plane of reality, I think we are doing a pretty good job. And as I said in my thread, these views only come into conflict when human beings try to apply them to constructs such as morality and ethics.

    It's just another theory, but I believe that is because the perceptions of human beings don't perfectly coincide, so each individual is limited to their own spot within our plane of reality. Hence why objectivistic and relatavistic values are both necessary in order to grasp some understanding of our ultimate plane of reality.
    Well said. I think I'll reinstate my iNtuition as second in command... If there are no objections.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  5. #15
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    So.. it's like a continuum? Introversion and Extraversion? Seen to be opposites, but are really on one continuum?
    That's one way of looking at it, I guess. Except that some continuums have more than two poles. In fact, they may have more than you can count. I'm not sure, but that sounds right to me...

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Well said. I think I'll reinstate my iNtuition as second in command... If there are no objections.
    Of course. Struggling with one abstraction shouldn't cause you to doubt your ability to understand abstraction in general.

  6. #16
    Senior Member durentu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    413

    Default some thoughts

    I'm writing this in the wee hours so I might have missed a few points.

    == to the point version ==
    What is duality? The prerequisites of duality requires a boundary to which one describe a binary-ness and a certain frame of reference. Like ying-yang, serial-parallel, digital-analog, male-female, etc Ask yourself what is the frame of reference, and what is the boundary of the item under consideration.

    If you think of male and female, as one boundary (that which main stream society accepts), it's true. If you expand that boundary, it'll include variations like the other sexes. Like men with female organs, and the reverse. Or if you expand some more, men with dual organs, female with one of each, etc. labels of male-female start to break down and requires another perception like perhaps, percent deviation from average genetic structure.

    so having beaten that horse... duality is just a term to point out that 2 different types are observed to have the least conflict and generally get along better than the other 15 permutations (or pairings). If you define the boundary of 2 types, and the frame of reference from socionics, then the definition of duality works. If you expand that boundary to holistic and encompassing idea of duality, well then we'll need much more reference books.

    But for the purists, there is no natural language to describe psychological processes. Logic has their math, circuits have their networks, human communication has language. Invent a whole new language with weird symbols to describe psychology or cognitive processes and you might have something. But until that time, we're stuck (at least in here) with English.

    == long winded version ==
    The opportunity cost of labels or the act of labeling is to draw boundaries. These boundaries are necessary because we are trying to understand something in which is a different frame of reference. How do you describe mass to a point particle? How do you describe the color red to a blind person?

    The boundaries can be strongly defined, weakly defined or relative or by means of some function, or whatever we need to help us to understand some part of it through our perceptions.

    For non-omnipotent or non-omni-conscious humans like us, we make approximations on the universe to the extent that it is humanly possibly to understand. For the case of understand something within its natural element, thus not requiring labels, becomes difficult but it does exist. Sharing this knowledge requires the limitation of (besides human understanding) language or in general communication (with all the verbs, nouns, syntax, constructs necessary).

    But were are experts in a few things that we generally assume. How do you explain what being human is to an alien who is considering a (genetic/surgical??) species change? What does it mean or feel like to be of a different sex? Through language and the perception of both parties, limitations exist, but it's better than nothing.

    While some paradoxes are temporary, and others permanent (due to limitations of humans or whatever), the word itself presents a vantage point or a certain derivative of the truth or holistic nature. Yes, labels are labels, and be it relative, I bet it would be helpful to tell you that a hot looking person is staring at you in the bar. Would you contest the relativity of the label and state that it's not in true form? or would you take a look and go say hello? In short, labels helps the ball rolling a bit more.

    Now for duality. To understand the relative label or term "duality" one must appreciate it's correct context. From MBTI or socionics, it's a theory, or an attempt to describe or emphasize (not define, although some would argue) a certain pairing of 2 types in the universe of MBTI. MBTI is an approximation of humans, not of animals, rocks or anything else (though it would be really fun to type your dog or other beasts)

    From what I've read, dualities are not to infer contestation or conflict, but rather a statement of something that exists or humanly observed. A few sites use the label duality to mean slightly differently things. I just know from socionics that duality just means a pairing of 2 types that is observed to be the most comfortable, or favorable (depending on who you ask).

    I being, INTP, and having met my dual ESFP, what is written is so far true. Does it mean that it is the correct description of that which exists. No, but it helps us from A to B.

  7. #17
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Let me take a crack at it.

    My understanding of duality on a conciousness level is that indeed we tend to think of things as having opposites. These opposites, however, are nothing more than an artifact of the mind. We are constantly trying to define and group things into categories, that's how our minds and ego work. Opposites, good and evil, work the same way. Though we may separate two things in our mind and consider them opposite, beyond our perception of it, they are actually just what they are, nothing more and nothing less.

    Lets consider light and darkness. Light is a form of electromagnetic energy that manifests in our brains as everything we see with brightness and color. Darkness is merely the absence of light. We can always definitively say there is light wherever there is a measurable amount of that electromagnetic energy. We cannot, however, define a state of darkness so concretely. What we may often call dark is not completely devoid of light. But to say darkness is the majority over light in a closet for instance, is simply to say the absence of light is greater than the presence of light in that given space. In reality, what we are merely talking about is the same thing, light.

    So what we see is from that example, there isn't a true opposite beyond our perception of an opposite in our own mind. What we are talking about with light and darkness, is merely light. There is no opposite force or entity of darkness, darkness only exists in relation to light. When there is less light WE CALL IT darkness. But all it is is less LIGHT.

    Duality in our minds seeks to compartmentalize everything, and give them our own form and definition in our own minds, as oppose to seeing things just for what they are at any moment in the present. It inserts conflict in the mind where it does not exist beyond the mind. Often what we may consider opposite is nothing more than two parts of one whole picture that we took out and separated in our own minds.

    Does this make sense to anyone?

Similar Threads

  1. Relationships of Duality
    By Into It in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-30-2010, 07:10 AM
  2. Projection & Duality : My current thinking...
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-22-2009, 02:53 AM
  3. Dieting & Ideology: Delusional Duality?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 12:37 PM
  4. [NT] xNTP/xNTJ duality, and an issue of degression and evolution
    By Cypocalypse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-05-2008, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO