Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[Salomé]

You have asked for feedback on your type, have you not? Or was that thread also a disingenuous attempt to pimp your own theories? Why should anyone run around trying to find your intro thread just to do YOU a favour?

It's impossible for any thinking person to do what you ask, i.e. trust that you know yourself based on your ideas.

I can't fathom andante's patience in continuing to engage you when you are so resistant to reason. Assume it's just because she enjoys cat and mouse games.

 

[iwakar]

interesting, as an Fi user, the concept of ideologies "serving a purpose" is kinda foreign to me.

Functions aren't relevant. You don't think values serve a purpose?

 

[Elfboy]

Functions aren't relevant. You don't think values serve a purpose?

functions are relevant here. Fi users hold functions as an ends in and of themselves. I think my values serve a purpose, but I'd still believe them even if they didn't.

 

[rav3n]

functions are relevant here. Fi users hold functions as an ends in and of themselves. I think my values serve a purpose, but I'd still believe them even if they didn't.

Not all Fi users are as self-involved as you, Elfboy.

 

[Elfboy]

Not all Fi users are as self-involved as you, Elfboy.

I'm well aware of that, but I don't see how that's relevant to anything I said.

 

[rav3n]

I'm well aware of that, but I don't see how that's relevant to anything I said.

Because Fi users are not all the same so they'll use their functions in different ways.

 

[Elfboy]

Because Fi users are not all the same so they'll use their functions in different ways.

where did I say they wouldn't? I just think that the idea of temporary values (values that, as [MENTION=179]iwakar[/MENTION] put it, have "served there purpose" but are no longer relevant) is a foreign concept to Fi users.

 

[rav3n]

where did I say they wouldn't? I just think that the idea of temporary values (values that, as [MENTION=179]iwakar[/MENTION] put it, have "served there purpose" but are no longer relevant) is a foreign concept to Fi users.

Inaccurate synthesis of what Iwakar actually said. She said 'serves a purpose'. This doesn't necessarily mean they serve the greater good purpose. It can mean that they serve the individual AND those within their inner circle or environment.

As an example, I'm a Fi-inferior user. When I vote, I view compassion as an important element to voting strategy. This is my Fi value.

 

[Elfboy]

Inaccurate synthesis of what Iwakar actually said. She said 'serves a purpose'. This doesn't necessarily mean they serve the greater good purpose. It can mean that they serve the individual AND those within their inner circle or environment.
As an example, I'm a Fi-inferior user. When I vote, I view compassion as an important element to voting strategy. This is my Fi value.

so you mean she was saying "that ideology had positive side effects/benefits for that culture" as opposed to "that ideology was right for that culture but now expired"?
if so, that makes sense

 

[rav3n]

so you mean she was saying "that ideology had positive side effects/benefits for that culture" as opposed to "that ideology was right for that culture but now expired"?
if so, that makes sense

Eh? I wasn't commenting on her perspective, only on your perspective that values don't serve a purpose.

 

[Lark]

Both Freud and Jung thought there were masculine and feminine traits in the one psyche, be it a man or a woman, and that one is stronger or weaker depending upon the individual's sex, as a consequence the opposite sex would have an attraction consequently and permit the sort of growth the saying indicates.

 

[Ism]

Those Cherokee models are really attractive.

/irrelevant comment

 

[Orangey]

Both Freud and Jung thought there were masculine and feminine traits in the one psyche, be it a man or a woman, and that one is stronger or weaker depending upon the individual's sex, as a consequence the opposite sex would have an attraction consequently and permit the sort of growth the saying indicates.

I don't like to put too much stock in orthodox psychoanalytic theory.

 

[Elfboy]

Eh? I wasn't commenting on her perspective, only on your perspective that values don't serve a purpose.

oh, I never said they didn't serve a purpose, I was saying that they are an ends in and of themselves (at least, for FPs, I think the nature of Fi is a little different for TJs). it's similar to how Ti cares about logical consistency for it's own sake while for Te logic serves the purpose of achieving some sort of external result

 

[sprinkles]

I feel in the framework of the scientific method you've determined your hypothesis and then not bothered to go through with the experiment. Which is strange to me because them you aren't really arriving at any truth. I also think extremes are necessary to determine truth because generalizations just breed all kinds of problems by overlooking outliers which are legitimate realities.

Could you even begin to describe the trends you've noticed so we can have some kind of understanding of what you are getting at? There might be a legitimate idea in there somewhere but we'll never get at it if we don't have a jumping off point.

And to be honest I understand the whole InTP/INFP debacle now. I'm not suggest your thoughts are invalid but you approach this from a much different angle than i think most INTPs do. I think
Most INTPs assume that their is an underlying universal truth which can be found by stripping away personal and subject influences. You seem to believe that our personal and subject experiences are truth itself and that by stripping this away we move into a classified, codified system that is actually farther from reality which in my opinion is very "feelery".

If I say "When I drop this rock off this building, it will hit the ground" and you're reasonable, you'll agree that it will hit the ground, right?

But if you're smart, you might realize that I've attached a string to the rock and neglected to mention it.

If you're clever you might realize that I'm actually going to use the string to lower the rock into a missile and launch it into space.

If you're me you'll say "What? Why are we doing this?"

 

[sprinkles]

Also I don't put much stock in height differences because we have ladders.
And platform shoes!

How do we deal with obesity??
Make everyone wear a portable tent that is the size of the largest person, therefore we all appear the same!

How do we make everyone become a chess master??
Simple new rule - If you've won against an opponent, you automatically lose your next game with them.

FFS. Compensated differences are not erased differences.

 

[greenfairy]

I feel in the framework of the scientific method you've determined your hypothesis and then not bothered to go through with the experiment. Which is strange to me because them you aren't really arriving at any truth. I also think extremes are necessary to determine truth because generalizations just breed all kinds of problems by overlooking outliers which are legitimate realities.

Could you even begin to describe the trends you've noticed so we can have some kind of understanding of what you are getting at? There might be a legitimate idea in there somewhere but we'll never get at it if we don't have a jumping off point.

Eh. I don't care enough to put in the effort. It's my opinion and I can't give specific scientific data to back it up. So if you disagree you're certainly justified in doing so.

And to be honest I understand the whole InTP/INFP debacle now. I'm not suggest your thoughts are invalid but you approach this from a much different angle than i think most INTPs do. I think
Most INTPs assume that their is an underlying universal truth which can be found by stripping away personal and subject influences. You seem to believe that our personal and subject experiences are truth itself and that by stripping this away we move into a classified, codified system that is actually farther from reality which in my opinion is very "feelery".

I believe reality is composed of both subjective and objective; the underlying truth I base my thoughts on is balance. Which doesn't have to be a feely concept. It's a concept that underlies pretty much everything in chemistry.

It's true, I go about it in a different way than a lot of INTP's, or at least a lot of the ones on this particular forum. But I think the internal process is the same, and combines itself with other functions. In this particular thread yes, I am emphasizing feelings and personal experience, because it's relevant to the topic. Relationships and spirituality generally aren't conducive to rigorous logical analysis, or objectivism. My personal philosophy and spirituality tends to be a lot more objectively based than a lot of NF's though. It might not seem that way to a few people, if you were to objectively examine the differences they would be very significant.

Thanks for actually providing reasoning for your NF claim. I can see how it has merit from a certain perspective.

Ok, end of type discussion on here. Any further discussion on the subject will be moved to my other thread, or ignored, as I see fit.

 

[greenfairy]

I'm still interested in your responses to the beginning of post #211 and pot #216. They aren't type related.

Oh ok. Will look at those. Sry.

Edit: Ok, answered 211 already.

?????

I agree that the idea of sexual intercourse ( two different but complimentary being coming together to create something more than themselves) is a useful analogy for the integration of all sorts of different people. But that isn't the meaning of this proverb. The proverb clearly states that there is a gender binary and distinct gender roles. If the proverb is supposed to mean something different why is it written in this specific way? I don't think it's a case of people only seeing the surface meaning, but just disagreeing with the actual meaning (which in my opinion isn't all that complex to begin with).

Could you explain what the more complex meaning is?

I would say that it is meant to be understood non-literally, as most things of this nature are. So people who like to take things literally and focus on gender roles associated with the binary would not find it useful. Things said in symbolic ways held a lot more significance in tribal cultures. In modern American culture at least, we either tend to say things completely literally and rationally, or are completely fluffy and sentimental. In my opinion the OP was meant to lie somewhere in the middle, if you take the culture into account. So examining it with logic and literalism alone isn't going to give you the true meaning.

 

[greenfairy]

Can't speak for others but when your rationales aren't rational, where they're all fluff and stuff coming from someone who has no idea who they are and how to express themselves in ways that might enlighten or convince others, it's impossible to take the snake oil salesman seriously.

Fi. Get with authenticity. Delusion is annoying.

Alright. I can see we're going nowhere. I have no obligation to prove myself to you, and I'm not going to bother continuing to try since you aren't interested in hearing my point of view. If it pisses you and a couple of other people off, so be it.

 

[greenfairy]

You have asked for feedback on your type, have you not? Or was that thread also a disingenuous attempt to pimp your own theories? Why should anyone run around trying to find your intro thread just to do YOU a favour?

It's impossible for any thinking person to do what you ask, i.e. trust that you know yourself based on your ideas.

I can't fathom andante's patience in continuing to engage you when you are so resistant to reason. Assume it's just because she enjoys cat and mouse games.

I didn't ask for it in this thread. It's easy, just go to my profile, click on started threads, and you'll find the relevant ones near the top. I don't want to bring feedback on my type into every discussion because that would be selfish and egocentric, and would bore everyone. But here you 2 have done it for me. And really, when I started the type threads, I did it from the point of view of telling people what my type was and why, not asking for them to tell me I'm wrong. Unless they had convincing evidence, which few people have. I've stated this I don't know how many times.

Don't trust me based on my ideas, just trust me based on the fact that I know myself much better than any of you. You can't really believe you know the full picture of what goes on inside my head.