User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Distinctions

  1. #11
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    For those unable to make this distinction, it is natural to confuse the inner with the outer.
    I don't know exactly what you mean by "inner" and "outer", but it makes me think of Ken Wilber's philosophy. For Ken Wilber, everything has both an inner and an outer aspect. In humans, the inner aspect goes the deepest, but he thinks even rocks have an inner aspect. He defines the inner aspect as the range of stimuli a thing or being can respond to or be alive to. He thinks the inner aspect can't be known by science, since it does not have a physical location and since it is not measurable or quantifiable. For instance, science has a lot of trouble with human consciousness.

  2. #12
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelTao View Post
    I don't know exactly what you mean by "inner" and "outer", but it makes me think of Ken Wilber's philosophy. For Ken Wilber, everything has both an inner and an outer aspect. In humans, the inner aspect goes the deepest, but he thinks even rocks have an inner aspect. He defines the inner aspect as the range of stimuli a thing or being can respond to or be alive to. He thinks the inner aspect can't be known by science, since it does not have a physical location and since it is not measurable or quantifiable. For instance, science has a lot of trouble with human consciousness.
    Well Squirrel, inner and outer is a metaphor. And metaphors don't exist because they are comparisons of relationships.

    However metaphors are very important, for instance, language is largely metaphoric; and religions are largely metaphoric and of course poetry is metaphoric.

    And yes, metaphors are not measurable or quantifiable.

    And yes, you are right, we don't quite know what consciousness is, yet.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    To show them, they need to be able to see, they need to be able to perceive.
    Yes. There is no way to make a person understand if their mind isn't open. You can prove something with empirical evidence, but it's still going to be foreign to the person that isn't able to perceive.

  4. #14
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,546

    Default Amphibians

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Yes. There is no way to make a person understand if there mind isn't open. You can prove something with empirical evidence, but it's still going to be foreign to the person that isn't able to perceive.
    The distinction is not between an open mind and a closed mind, but between sight and blindness.

    It doesn't matter how open your mind is, if you are blind, you just can't see.

    So it is a question of perception, not a question of morality.

    And we perceive by making distinctions, so distinctions are our eyes.

    So if you don't make a particular distinction, you can't see through those eyes.

    Fish, for instance, didn't discover water because they didn't make the distinction between air and water.

    It was amphibians who discovered water because by moving between air and water, they learnt the distinction between air and water.

    So water became visible to them - they were able to perceive water because they could make the distinction between air and water.

    And it is the same for us, as we became 'amphibious' and moved between Earth and Space, we looked back, and for the first time discovered the Environment.

    So we generalise these two examples and say, we perceive by making distinctions.

  5. #15
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And of course our minds are linked to one another by our mirror neurons.

    In fact homo sapiens is the largest animal on the planet because as we mirror each other's minds we become one mind - one mind that covers the entire earth - and that one mind is called the noosphere.

    And it is only over the last 100 years with universal literacy in the West that the individual came into existence. Why, it is only in very recent history that private bedrooms have become the norm in the West - and we even take them for granted.

    But with the advent of the tele-phone, tele-vision and the net, our whole Western society is moving from the literate individual to the electronic village where we are all immediately emotionally in touch with one another.

    Hey, just like MBTI.
    I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. People are just as divided as ever. And people are not universally literate. Even if they were, what do we define as being literate? Being able to read signposts?
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  6. #16
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    I'm sorry, but that's not true at all. People are just as divided as ever. And people are not universally literate. Even if they were, what do we define as being literate? Being able to read signposts?
    With the invention of the printing press in 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg arose the dream of universal literacy. However universal literacy has only been realised quite recently in the West.

    But radios, for instance, are widespread across the globe among the literate and among spoken cultures. It is the voice of the radio that is heard by all.

    Other electronic media, such as the mobile phone, is also widespread among literate and spoken cultures. And the mobile phone is increasing its spread day by day.

    There is no need to be literate to us a mobile phone.

    There is no need to have a vast government system of compulsory schooling to learn to use the mobile phone, as is needed to teach literacy.

    So I think it is fair to say that the literate are moving into the noosphere together with those of a spoken culture.

    So in that sense we are all becoming part of one electronic culture, called the noosphere.

    So you might say we are becoming neo-tribal. And neo-tribes like tribes themselves are known for conflict. For instance the neo-tribe of Islamists have declared war on the neo-tribe they describe as the Great Satan.

  7. #17
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    ^ Well... you've indicated what my objection is, which is that the internet really provides us with only a more connected way of expressing dissent. Ultimately, the same arguments (or variations thereon) are being carried on at a faster clip, more voluminously... noosphere is a very fancy way of saying that we're a single mind, but if we are a single mind, we're an extremely divided one... I mean, most minds experience cognitive dissonance, but the noosphere is on the extreme end. What does that leave us with?
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  8. #18
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,546

    Default Original Sin

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    ^ Well... you've indicated what my objection is, which is that the internet really provides us with only a more connected way of expressing dissent. Ultimately, the same arguments (or variations thereon) are being carried on at a faster clip, more voluminously... noosphere is a very fancy way of saying that we're a single mind, but if we are a single mind, we're an extremely divided one... I mean, most minds experience cognitive dissonance, but the noosphere is on the extreme end. What does that leave us with?
    These are very good questions, Sammy, and pertinent.

    And I hope you don't think I am being trivial in my reply.

    Because the answer lies in a simple, well known slogan - the medium is the message.

    According to this slogan, what we say or see or hear on the internet doesn't matter. What matters is that we simply log in.

    According to this slogan, the internet is changing the way we see the world and how we relate to one another.

    However if we focus only on the content of the internet, the effect of the internet will be invisible.

    For instance, the printing press changed the way we see the world and how we relate.

    Print gave rise to Individualism and Nationalism - and in your great country in particular, both Individualism and Nationalism came from the printed Bible and newsprint.

    The Gutenberg Bible gave you Individual Salvation leading to your Bill of [Individual] Rights. And newspapers created your Manifest Destiny as well as making you a Light on the Hill to all humanity.

    However into your Garden of Eden, into your garden of individual freedom, came the telephone. It snaked across the whole country - into every home - into every ear - and into every individual soul.

    Yes, the telephone - the irrresistible telephone - who can resist answering the telephone - not your Pastor or Rabbi or even your President - not you nor I - "yes", we say to the insistent ringing of the telephone.

    The insistent ringing of the telephone divided our pure, our simple Puritan soul, in two - into sincere and authentic print, and the phoney telephone.

    And from henceforth we were cast out from the Garden of Individual Freedom and left with Original Sin - the sin of phoniness.

    And so we eke out our days fretting over sin - asking ourselves are we sincere or are we phoney?

    And the internet is merely an extension of the telephone - it is simply a computing device connected to the telephone lines.

    So what do you think, Sammy, do you think I am sincere or do you think I am phoney?

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI test S/N distinction
    By Ezra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 05:40 PM
  2. J vs P distinction
    By Llewellyn in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-06-2009, 03:46 PM
  3. What is the source of class distinction?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 11:04 AM
  4. [NF] INFJ/INFP: Distinctions?
    By Forever_Jung in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-01-2009, 02:07 AM
  5. S vs N Distinction ?
    By Totenkindly in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-19-2007, 02:36 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