User Tag List

First 13212223242533 Last

Results 221 to 230 of 395

  1. #221
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Not necessarily. For instance, in order to accept someone's admiration (which is something most of us would consider a complement), you have to become an object for that person; only insofar as you allow them to ascribe an objective state to you (i.e. the qualities that designate you as admirable) can that person endow you with that honor. If someone on the other hand were to behold you in your pure essence as a "soul," you would escape definition altogether; you would be nothing more than an empty eye, without body or substance. In practice, such a thing can never exist, for we always need a material sign, typically a human body, to alert us to another's presence. If someone were to appear to us as a naked self, we would be totally reified before them, since another person is a perspective on us that thus designates us as a thing, and only to the extent that we, in turn, can designate them as a thing can we preserve our subjectivity before theirs. (This is demonstrated by the fact that when you objectify a person who stands in your presence, suddenly your awareness of yourself before them--in other words, your existence as a thing in the world--all but vanishes.)

    All of this is to say that the thing you criticize the MBTI for is not only intrinsic to human interaction but something that many of us strive for in one form or another (the only alternative to at least accepting your condition as a thing is to wish for the death of other people).

    You yourself are no exception to this rule. Since you clearly don't wish to kill us all, everything you do on this website is a kind of act, a role that you've taken on and come to wear like a costume with nothing underneath it.
    If I understand you, the only recourse open to an objectified woman is to objectify the man.

    This is plainly objectionable.

  2. #222
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    ^ If I understand Nunki, it seems that you, Victor, are looking at the surface defintion of his/her use of word 'objectified', as you are stuck in the colloquial definition of it and missed their point.

    While he/she is talking of objectification at a much deeper, abstract, and dare I say, metaphysical level. I.e., human perception inherently makes the the target of our perception an 'object', a form, as the alternative, would be formless which is beyond the realm of most humans' mind/perception, with regards to the world around them. A thing is a thing is a thing. There's boundaries to its containment, that identifies it as a separate entity from another thing (for humans, it's our physical body, I'm not you simply because I live in my self-contained body and you in yours, this is what makes me, me, you, you).....unless you have a vision to see the world as one, seamless. But, we humans have this thing called the discontinuous mind, categorization, there's an end to a thing, and the beginning of another thing. And so it goes...

    We all need a point of focus/reference for our perception, and as soon as it becomes a point of focus/a 'thing' of reference, a form, it's in that way, thus, an 'object'. Hence, objectified.

    Nunki was speaking pure Ni, Victor missed it.

  3. #223
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor
    If I understand you, the only recourse open to an objectified woman is to objectify the man.

    This is plainly objectionable.
    Objectifying one another is the only option available to us under any circumstances. The important distinction does not lie between this act and its opposite, recognizing another person as a soul, but rather between the various labels that we ascribe to people. Some of these labels dignify and uplift. For instance, I consider you intelligent and creative, both of which traits we'll agree are positive. On the other hand, there are people I would call abrasive and immature, and to the extent that I harbor this attitude in my relations with them, I not only support their condition (however subtly and indirectly I do so), but I also, therefore, risk causing them a certain amount of pain, since no one can wish to be those things.

    EDIT: Qre:us is basically on the right track with what I was getting at.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  4. #224
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    ^ If I understand Nunki, it seems that you, Victor, are looking at the surface defintion of his/her use of word 'objectified', as you are stuck in the colloquial definition of it and missed their point.

    While he/she is talking of objectification at a much deeper, abstract, and dare I say, metaphysical level. I.e., human perception inherently makes the the target of our perception an 'object', a form, as the alternative, would be formless which is beyond the realm of most humans' mind/perception, with regards to the world around them. A thing is a thing is a thing. There's boundaries to its containment, that identifies it as a separate entity from another thing (for humans, it's our physical body, I'm not you simply because I live in my self-contained body and you in yours, this is what makes me, me, you, you).....unless you have a vision to see the world as one, seamless. But, we humans have this thing called the discontinuous mind, categorization, there's an end to a thing, and the beginning of another thing. And so it goes...

    We all need a point of focus/reference for our perception, and as soon as it becomes a point of focus/a 'thing' of reference, a form, it's in that way, thus, an 'object'. Hence, objectified.

    Nunki was speaking pure Ni, Victor missed it.
    Please Q, I am the master of abstraction and I would never get stuck in the colloquial.

  5. #225
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    You know, it is starting to occur to me that not relating to me as a person, but typing me, is an insult.

    If that is true, then typing anyone, rather than relating directly to them as a person, is also an insult.

    And if this is true, it is quite extraordinary as it means MBTI is inherently insulting to a person.


    We got there in the end.

  6. #226
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Thumbs down To Enslave, to Commodify and to Personify

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Objectifying one another is the only option available to us under any circumstances.
    This is true in a society that commodifies us; in a society that turns us into commodities to be bought and sold; in a society that reifies us and turns us into things.

    Sure, the House of Commons abolished institutional slavery for the first time in 1833, but with the discreet charm of the bourgeoise, they turned us into commodities. They turned us against ourselves.

    So we graduated from being slaves to being commodities. This is a step in the right direction. And all we have to do is take the next step to personify.

  7. #227
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    So we graduated from being slaves to being commodities. This is a step in the right direction. And all we have to do is take the next step to personify.
    Practically and philosophically speaking, how do you propose we do this?
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  8. #228
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Objectifying one another is the only option available to us under any circumstances. The important distinction does not lie between this act and its opposite, recognizing another person as a soul, but rather between the various labels that we ascribe to people. Some of these labels dignify and uplift. For instance, I consider you intelligent and creative, both of which traits we'll agree are positive. On the other hand, there are people I would call abrasive and immature, and to the extent that I harbor this attitude in my relations with them, I not only support their condition (however subtly and indirectly I do so), but I also, therefore, risk causing them a certain amount of pain, since no one can wish to be those things.

    EDIT: Qre:us is basically on the right track with what I was getting at.
    Victor is stuck in seeing a negative connotation to the word 'objectified', which in this post, you point out, is not the case you're making, as the way you're using objectified is neutral. Can be either, or. Or, neither.

    Good luck clearing that up with him. I have a feeling he gets it, but wants to stick with his own interpretation of the word to serve the aim of his most recent rhetoric. meh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Please Q, I am the master of abstraction and I would never get stuck in the colloquial.
    Of course, my apologies.

  9. #229
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Victor is stuck in seeing a negative connotation to the word 'objectified', which in this post, you point out, is not the case you're making, as the way you're using objectified is neutral. Can be either, or. Or, neither.
    Yes, exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us
    Good luck clearing that up with him.
    I think that Victor understands this but that he's so intent on making a point that he can only see my words as a springboard. That's perfectly fine. I'm just curious to learn what exactly Victor is objecting to and what it is he wants to see us do as an alternative. I'm sure it's very clear to him, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to the rest of us.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  10. #230
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Victor is stuck in seeing a negative connotation to the word 'objectified'...

    Good luck clearing that up with him.
    There is nothing to clear up.

    I full understand that the words, 'objectify' and 'objectionable', are pejorative.

    And indeed they are a play on words.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 155
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 12:41 PM
  2. What is truth (split from post poll)
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 09:47 AM
  3. Forums Scariest Members
    By prplchknz in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: 01-13-2010, 07:27 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 10:50 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-24-2008, 12:53 AM

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