Analyze Victor/split from Forum's Scariest Members

[Mole]

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.

 

[Qre:us]

^ 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.

 

[Polaris]

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.

 

[Mole]

^ 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.

 

[matmos]

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.

 

[Mole]

To Enslave, to Commodify and to Personify

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.

 

[Polaris]

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?

 

[Qre:us]

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.

Please Q, I am the master of abstraction and I would never get stuck in the colloquial.

Of course, my apologies.

 

[Polaris]

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.

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.

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[Qre:us]

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.

Yeah, sorry, I went back and edited to add a bit more....

....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.

So, we're in agreement. He gets it.

His aim is the play of rhetoric, to "persuade" us to leave behind mundane thoughts, and binding, cold, clinical logic and as he says, 'play in abstraction'...to persuade us to have some kind of (emotional?) reaction to his words rather than just a literal response. Which he finds.....boring. Not imaginative, fun, I'm sure.

Yet, I don't think he fully knows what it is he's persuading us towards. What his global aim is, beyond persuasion, beyond another way of looking. He's got the process down, but not what the process is finally hoping to achieve. In that, I think he's as aimless as his words sometimes leaves his audience.

I think this is why he gets upset when someone doesn't 'get' him and criticizes, because (1) they're not engaging in the play with him, (2) without a final aim, he, himself, doesn't know how to defend against the criticism as all he's left holding is the process of rhetoric, without much fleshed out global idea of what exactly he's trying to achieve. (beyond giving us another way of looking, hence, when the content gets criticized [not the process], he takes it that much more personally)


He could take his process getting criticized like a champ, I'll predict, because he'll see it as a "compliment".... 'they don't get me because I'm beyond their scope of understanding. So unique, so radical.'

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.

So I wonder, is English your first language?

It's my 89th language, and look how good I'm at it, regardless.

PS - Victor, you bully, you were trying to insult me!

 

[Mole]

how do you propose we do this?

Good question.

So we look back on our trajectory from slave to commodity and we imagine how we might follow this trajectory from commodity to person.

 

[Mole]

PS - Victor, you bully, you were trying to insult me!

Q, it's true and I am sorry. And look, to show I am sorry I have removed the insult entirely from my post.

 

[Qre:us]

Q, it's true and I am sorry. And look, to show I am sorry I have removed the insult entirely from my post.

Thank you. I don't hold a grudge.

 

[Polaris]

Good question.

So we look back on our trajectory from slave to commodity and we imagine how we might follow this trajectory from commodity to person.

In light of this, I suspect that what you mean by "objectification" is not objectification per se, but rather the act of claiming ownership over another person. A slave is someone who is considered nothing more than another's property. A commodity has a little more freedom than a slave, in the sense that it may travel between owners. Then you have a prostitute, which is someone whose freedom is fully recognized, only for him to sell it to another person (see the job market). To these, all of which exist in various forms within every society, you offer the "person" as an alternative. What is a person, and what would a society of persons look like? Wouldn't it amount to pure chaos, with no one able to compel anyone else to do anything and no person willing to work in exchange for goods?

 

[Mole]

Personal Therapy and the Helping Form of Child Rearing

In light of this, I suspect that what you mean by "objectification" is not objectification per se, but rather the act of claiming ownership over another person. A slave is someone who is considered nothing more than another's property. A commodity has a little more freedom than a slave, in the sense that it may travel between owners. Then you have a prostitute, which is someone whose freedom is fully recognized, only for him to sell it to another person (see the job market). To these, all of which exist in various forms within every society, you offer the "person" as an alternative. What is a person, and what would a society of persons look like? Wouldn't it amount to pure chaos, with no one able to compel anyone else to do anything and no person willing to work in exchange for goods?

Again with the good questions.

Yes, the problem is how to move from commodity to person.

So on a practical level, you might ask, how can I become a person?

And fortunately, in rich advanced societies, we have two options.

You may have noticed that prosperous societies have now turned into therapeutic societies, and that is, psychologically therapeutic societies. And indeed this site is a perfect example of a part of the therapeutic society.

So the first option is personal therapy.

And the second option is child rearing practice.

For as we move from slavery to commodity to person, we move from the sacrificial form of child rearing, to the abusive form of child rearing, to the authoritarian form of child rearing, to the helping form of child rearing.

Each form of child rearing is an improvement on the one before. And each particular form of child rearing creates its own form of personality.

So if you wish to move from a commodity to a person in a prosperous, advanced society, you have the option of taking part in therapy.

And for your children, you have the option of raising them in the helping mode.

 

[Laurie]

If you are trying to avoid being objectified you should probably not use a name to identify yourself.

 

[simulatedworld]

If you are trying to avoid being objectified you should probably not use a name to identify yourself.

lol fair

 

[Polaris]

Victor, those burning red thumbs very endearing.

Again with the good questions.

Yes, the problem is how to move from commodity to person.

So on a practical level, you might ask, how can I become a person?

And fortunately, in rich advanced societies, we have two options.

You may have noticed that prosperous societies have now turned into therapeutic societies, and that is, psychologically therapeutic societies. And indeed this site is a perfect example of a part of the therapeutic society.

So the first option is personal therapy.

And the second option is child rearing practice.

For as we move from slavery to commodity to person, we move from the sacrificial form of child rearing, to the abusive form of child rearing, to the authoritarian form of child rearing, to the helping form of child rearing.

Each form of child rearing is an improvement on the one before. And each particular form of child rearing creates its own form of personality.

So if you wish to move from a commodity to a person in a prosperous, advanced society, you have the option of taking part in therapy.

And for your children, you have the option of raising them in the helping mode.

In what way does therapy free a person from ownership by others? If you force a criminal to undergo psychoanalysis, for instance, you've given him an option that he'll prefer to imprisonment, but you've also pressured him to give up his autonomy in favor of yours. You could let criminals decide for themselves whether they would like to turn up for therapy, of course, but then you're left with a society that may have a law in words but which certainly doesn't have one in practice. In such a society, all sorts of struggles would break out among the populous--there would be nothing to stop it from happening--and in response to these struggles, the various factions would seek ways to bend their enemies to their will, and then we'd end up at slaves, commodities, and prostitutes, all over again.

Perhaps your answer lies in child rearing in the helping mode, but in this case you're treating human beings like mathematical formulas; you're assuming that each person will have a predictable response to a set of life experiences, which, ironically, requires you to objectify people and deny their autonomy. Either everyone stands at a distance from their past, in which case we can only guess how they'll act in the future, or each person is just a piece of clockwork waiting to click into its fated place. In that case, freedom vanishes altogether and it becomes very easy--unavoidable, really--for one person to take ownership over another simply by pressing the buttons.

 

[Qre:us]

A few additional thoughts to typing Victor:

With regards to his game of rhetorics, to follow up with my previous post
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/993272-post231.html

This is why I believe him to be FiNe......I've never seen a discourse between him and someone come to a conclusion (unless they're supporting his viewpoint), ever. Because he doesn't have a point he's holding stead-fast to, some vanishing point he's moving towards, something he's trying to really prove. It's all just a play of rhetoric, pick a single thought from someone's response to him, and go off on another thought tangent with it. And, repeat.
All to spur an emotional reaction, his, and hopefully (his aim), the other.
Bouncing from thought to thought (Ne), no investment in a conclusive thought (or building on it, going to the depths of that singular thought - like Ni) as much as the presentation of the thought. Until the next thought, and so on. Hence, no build-up, no discourse leading to a conclusion. Just the art of rhetoric. He doesn't want an audience as much as he wants fans.
INFP.