"In a certain light, wouldn't nuclear war be exciting?"

[Thalassa]

You're giving him ammunition for his argument. Lol.

Well I thought I'd help him out since he talks about Ni versus Si all the time, he really should be better informed.

I think he's confused his own meaning of Ni, as he remembers it, with the Jungian definitions.

 

[Kalach]

Yes, Ne is what if and Ni is why.

Marm, NOOOOO>

How does Ni get to the why? Does it magically appear? Or does the person go through many iterations of what if, discarding the what ifs that produce no new idea? Do they do it in secret, as fantasy?

And when Ne people go what if, is that what they're doing too? Are they moving through permutations of background ideas or are they adding a layer to what's outside of them? Does their what if stay interesting to them if it produces no noticeable result in the environment?

Now stop it.

I could be using Se or Si.

Or Te for that matter.

Or theory.

Badly.


Say, what's in it for you to ruin my ideas this way? Why is it needed? I ruin your ideas because I think your totally misusing the concepts of a theory I like and making it harder for me to develop application of that theory. So I want to replace your version of Jung with mine in public. But what is it that you're holding on to?

 

[Kalach]

If you're trying to save us from nuclear war....


so ENFP.

 

[Thalassa]

Marm, NOOOOO>

How does Ni get to the why? Does it magically appear? Or does the person go through many iterations of what if, discarding the what ifs that produce no new idea? Do they do it in secret, as fantasy?

And when Ne people go what if, is that what they're doing too? Are they moving through permutations of background ideas or are they adding a layer to what's outside of them? Does their what if stay interesting to them if it produces no noticeable result in the environment?



Or theory.

Badly.


Say, what's in it for you to ruin my ideas this way? Why is it needed? I ruin your ideas because I think your totally misusing the concepts of a theory I like and making it harder for me to develop application of that theory. So I want to replace your version of Jung with mine in public. But what is it that you're holding on to?

Hey Kalach I know its really important for you to be right, but look here's Ni combined with a strong moral judging function (Fi or Fe, Jung didn't differentiate in his day):

It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance.

I'm looking for meaning and intrinsic significance.

In fact the more I read this you seem like someone stuck in your N function without using your F, so indeed you could be completely stuck in Ni.

I don't know, but overall, I think you're full of crap on this particular subject.

Ni comes from inside. Ni is also dependent on internal images, like Si.

I really don't care what you think my type is, but I'm not going to sit here and let you lie to people on this forum about Ni being "what if," because it isn't.

Another INTJ first brought this to my attention when I spoke about how when I read books I never really spent a lot of time asking what if the character did this or that, but always wanted to analyze the meaning of it, why they did what they did.

 

[Kalach]

I'm astounded that Ni can't be what if.

Oh wait, are we being rigidly logicistic here? "be" as identity statement? Even if "Ni" uses what ifs, it can't itself be an expression of what if because in the end it is too settled a vision?

They must get their future vision by looking to the past for models, eh? They don't say what if *this* changed, then we'd have what and what and what and that'd be good or bad or interesting or not so think or don't think further.

fuck's sake marm. if you want to keep using Ni you're going to have to give up claiming that the content of what I say includes only what was directly logically concrete in there. YOU GOING TO HAVE TO ALLOW THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN REFER TO DISEMBODIED CONCEPTS>

 

[Kalach]

If Ni is as nebulous as people say, then description of vision will generally be imprecise. It won't be that precision is not valued. It'll be rather that imagery has first to be translated back into concrete expression.

So if you hang on concrete expression, you're going to hear wrong. But if you aim to gather together the strands in what another person says the better to find the picture they are working from, then you are acting in sympathy with Ni style cognition. This will happen most often when you actually use such cognition.

And is that what;s happening here?

 

[Ginkgo]

I'm excited and surprised at the number of people who said "no".

Is it due to pure pressure? A lack of imagination?

Is there really any difference? Is peer pressure the stifling of creative imagination and constructive imagination, consequences be damned? We could talk about the very real consequences suffered in the wake of nuclear detonations all day, but all we can really rely on is our imagination as long as we're dicking around, bathing ourselves in the incandescence of our computer screens instead of the glow of an atom bomb. So who has the best control of their imagination? Or, rather, who has the best control over their misgivings about shredding away what they already know from the idea we discuss here?

I think nuclear war, in some respects, is exciting for the same reason a widespread power outage is exciting: you gotta break out the candles and spend some quality time with each other.

Who doesn't like quality time? And, for those of you who may comment about the ethical nature of my involuntary surge of emotion that is my excitement (lol), would you say that improving the quality of life in response to the threat of lethal nuclear rads is an ethical course of action - perhaps, an action equally susceptible to the impetus of peer pressure?

At this point I'm rambling, but what can really be taken away from this? I think there were some who thoughtfully responded to the poll option, and others who didn't. Those who would disagree with me are probably moralizers.

 

[Kalach]

Or, to put it another way, profanity excised, the number of persons of good character who're finding me to have a disjointed and poorly formed concrete view of the world are looking for concrete views and finding them disjointed and poorly formed.

You did it yourself.



Said the vicar to the bomb maker.

 

[Ginkgo]

Dogfarts remind me that I'm alive.

 

[Kalach]

*sigh*

if the OP comment is a prompt to consider aspects of sudden upheaval and massive destruction in terms of *any* possible positive aspect that could arise, then yes, in a certain light, why not ask such a question and ponder on it.

If it were meant rather as a prompt to investigate just how devastating destruction can be, then likely all sorts of talk of horror and moral indignation should ensue.

But it says "a certain light". It's outright demanding you talk about what excitement really is. NOT WHAT NUCLEAR WAR REALLY IS. It asked you to discuss excitement in conceptual terms with reference to one aspect of excitement, that it includes danger and potentially very dangerous action with significant negative consequence.

And so many went for the moral indignation instead. Who wouldn't try suggesting there is some failure to meet on a perceptual plane here?



Your not welcome.

 

[Ginkgo]

But it says "a certain light". It's outright demanding you talk about what excitement really is. NOT WHAT NUCLEAR WAR REALLY IS. It asked you to discuss excitement in conceptual terms with reference to one aspect of excitement, that it includes danger and potentially very dangerous action with significant negative consequence.

Yeah, but if it is exciting to you then you're discussing at least one aspect of nuclear war, so it's natural that we'd arrive at this juncture so long as they be crazies like me here.

 

[Kalach]

It was OKC.

"Oh, so nuclear war gets you hard?!"
"Well, no. But if something's, y'know, like if you have to struggle and, y'know, be heroic n shit..."
"So, you like dead babies?"
"GAwd, lady, what are you talking about? it's just like IF, for fuck's sake, *if*, there was a nuclear war--"
"We could see dead babies."
"NO!"
"And you'd get hard!"
"What is happening here?"
"Wanna cyber?"

 

[Faceless Beauty]

As immoral and very destructive to the future as it seems, I will admit that it will be interesting to watch several things happen:

1. Which alliances come into play and what we get to learn about the "enemy" that we didn't know before. Also, we'd get confirmation of weapons that certain people claim to have. Seeing how many other countries get involved in the fray would be interesting to think about.
2. Observing the changes in the nature of warfare itself brought upon by actually employing more nuclear weapons in combat.
3. Observing the impact of manmade creations on nature at a larger scale.
4. Will the UN stay together or become more centralized and stronger than ever before? How would they go about doling out punishments for war crimes?
5. What happens when all is said and done, and how long will it last?

The list goes on but these are some general ideas that I had.

 

[Nicodemus]

It was OKC.

"Oh, so nuclear war gets you hard?!"
"Well, no. But if something's, y'know, like if you have to struggle and, y'know, be heroic n shit..."
"So, you like dead babies?"
"GAwd, lady, what are you talking about? it's just like IF, for fuck's sake, *if*, there was a nuclear war--"
"We could see dead babies."
"NO!"
"And you'd get hard!"
"What is happening here?"
"Wanna cyber?"

That's it. The need to assign the 'bad person' label is stronger than that for understanding.

 

[Ivy]

Seems like one of the issues here is whether the horrific reality of nuclear war on Earth cancels out anything interesting/redeeming that could follow it, or if the interesting/redeeming stuff can be added to the horror or considered separately. And I honestly don't see how the former can be seriously argued. If an atrocity of a certain magnitude cancels out anything positive that could be associated with it, what of Anne Frank and Elie Weisel?

 

[Ivy]

Oh, and another thing I just thought of- I think people sort of had a version of this debate the year Life Is Beautiful won so many Oscars. It was lighthearted in some ways and some people found that horrific way to treat the Holocaust. My opinion was that those people missed the point.

 

[Nicodemus]

If an atrocity of a certain magnitude cancels out anything positive that could be associated with it, what of Anne Frank and Elie Weisel?

I heard Anne Frank might have been a Belieber. That is evil!

 

[Ivy]

Oh my god. My daughter came home angry about that Onion article. We had a long talk about critical thinking that day.

 

[unnamed]

Yes.

The question is a absolutely F question.
I bet if the question is"the nuclear weapon targeted a group you dislike",the answer would be "Yes" in the majority.
Whatever Fe or Fi.
That's why I don't love human,so,my answer is "yes".

 

[Ivy]

Yes.

The question is a absolutely F question.
I bet if the question is"the nuclear weapon targeted a group you dislike",the answer would be "Yes" in the majority.
Whatever Fe or Fi.
That's why I don't love human,so,my answer is "yes".

I think you'd lose that bet. People who are against nuclear war (which should be all of us, when considering this issue in a concrete sense) are typically against it no matter who the target is.