Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[sprinkles]

This is a trap isn't it?

No, I really meant it. I was all like "I think I made Orangey mad. Did I really do that?"

Then I left it for a bit, but then decide "What if I really just frustrated the hell out of Orangey? I feel kind of bad. I don't want to do that to anybody. Maybe I should apologize to Orangey" so I did.

 

[Pseudo]

[MENTION=4490]Orangey[/MENTION]

Translation:

It's impractical to expect people to be absolutely, syntactically correct at all times.

greenfairy is correct that when someone says "women love apples" they generally mean "some women love apples" or even "in general, women love apples"

Perhaps you expect that it should imply 'all' - and maybe it should - but rarely do people actually operate in the way you expect them to.

You may as well expect someone to mean 'this object has a low temperature' when they say something is 'cool'. And even if you do expect that, it doesn't mean anyone is going to, so get used to it.

I totally understand your point here however the statement "women love apples" was brought up specifically to refer to a situation where there were two conflicting absolute statements.

It was not the case that some one said "women love apples" when they meant "some women love apples".

What we are arguing over is not the generally use of language but actual meaning.

Greenfairy has argued that "women love apples"="some women love apples" in reality and non just as a result or verbal laziness. This is just totally illogical and mindboggling to me. my mind has been boggled.

 

[Pseudo]

Not necessarily, since it's taking a commonly interpreted statement and turning it into a logical one.

Your whole argument is built around interpreting the original statement "women love apples" differently than greenfairy interpreted it, and have kind of missed the point because of that.

You're asserting that there indeed exists a convention in formal logic for converting informal statements. I'd like to see the rule that says 'the all is implied' that you didn't just make up on the spot.


Yes, that much is true.

If you look at the original context of "women love apples" in post #313 i think there is very little room for misinterpretation.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION]

Ah, ok. I was trying to follow your context into greenfairy's response and got it wrong from your point. I'm glad you said something.

I can see where the trouble was, now.

 

[Totenkindly]

No, I really meant it. I was all like "I think I made Orangey mad. Did I really do that?"

Then I left it for a bit, but then decide "What if I really just frustrated the hell out of Orangey? I feel kind of bad. I don't want to do that to anybody. Maybe I should apologize to Orangey" so I did.

Note: For a T, it's more effective to apologize for specifically the issue that made them mad (i.e., "You were talking about the rules of formal logic, and I twisted your words to discuss something different"), not just say you are sorry for testing people's patience. I am not sure what point the latter serves, as it does not at all address the issue that was frustrating.

EDIT: Okay, looks like you and Pseudo figured things out together.

 

[Pseudo]

The original statement was not formal logic. We're going from colloquial to formal. What you're saying applies by assuming that the formal meaning must already be the one that was intended before the conversion - it may not be. Therefore this is hawking over syntax.

Yes it was. Or it was intended to be. #313

 

[Pseudo]

[MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION]

No problem, I was just frustrated because I had started to build a nice little house for us all in the logosphere ......and the greenfairy came along and said "NO! your house is actually a fish and I believe it has a soul!" we're moving to Fairy World!!!


Interesting side note logosphere can mean both the logical universe and the interpretation of words' meanings based on language and context. Connections

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION]

No problem, I was just frustrated because I had started to build a nice little house for us all in the logosphere ......and the greenfairy came along and said "NO! your house is actually a fish and I believe it has a soul!" we're moving to Fairy World!!!


Interesting side note logosphere can mean both the logical universe and the interpretation of words' meanings based on language and context. Connections

Yes.

It's also interesting to note that there can be many valued logic as opposed to binary logic, such that things can be true to differing degrees.

This can apply to things like valves, float switches, and analog gauges where things have a varying degree of trueness. For example you don't want a fuel tank that only notifies you that it's completely empty, and you also don't want one that notifies you as soon as it's slightly less than full. Or you don't want a pump that turns on as soon as it detects a drop of water, and you don't want one that turns off as soon as the level drops.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Umm..yeah.

Also, [MENTION=13402]Saturned[/MENTION], any WOT examples contained in this thread do not contribute to the INTP tally, K?

In the effort of being fair... yes, yes they do.

 

[Pseudo]

Yes.

It's also interesting to note that there can be many valued logic as opposed to binary logic, such that things can be true to differing degrees.

This can apply to things like valves, float switches, and analog gauges where things have a varying degree of trueness. For example you don't want a fuel tank that only notifies you that it's completely empty, and you also don't want one that notifies you as soon as it's slightly less than full. Or you don't want a pump that turns on as soon as it detects a drop of water, and you don't want one that turns off as soon as the level drops.

Hmmm but that doesn't mean the truth is multiple things. The fuel gauge for instance is notifying you of a true quantity of gas that is less than full and more than empty. Yes our language refers to it as "empty" when actual it is just low but that doesn't change the truh of he matter.

 

[sprinkles]

Hmmm but that doesn't mean the truth is multiple things. The fuel gauge for instance is notifying you of a true quantity of gas that is less than full and more than empty. Yes our language refers to it as "empty" when actual it is just low but that doesn't change the truh of he matter.

Right, but if you hook that up to a pump that is automated, you have a problem because pumps are dumb. A pump just knows "on/off" so how do you tell it to not toggle constantly and burn itself out?

Say if you have a constant flow coming in, and as soon as the pump detects the level, it turns on. When the level drops, it turns off. It's going to flip back and forth wildly.

So, what you tell the switch via a float mechanism is "If it touches this value, turn on or stay on" and "If it touches this different value, turn off stay off" and the values actually overlap each other. There will be values that are both on and off values. Such as, if it turns on at 4 liters, but turns off at 2 liters, 3 liters can be either an 'on' or 'off' value depending on the last value of the switch itself. It will pass 3 when filling, and pass 3 again when emptying.

Edit: also, this type of logic allows you to store two or more pieces of information on a digital bit, such as detecting a low to high input that indicates one thing, and a specific voltage range that indicates something else.

 

[iwakar]

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.

You are a conscious living being with a will. You have agendas to promote, however mundane or grandiose. --Driving to your favorite cafe for breakfast or saving the rainforest or soliciting your coworkers for donations to the Coffee Fund or passing legislature to protect children because you believe they deserve it. These things are fueled by your wants, needs, preferences, aspirations. Coupled with your life experience and that of others, these shape your individual and group "values."

Due to the nature of the (historical) Native American lifestyle and the way of life they wished to maintain, that particular value had merit for them; it served a purpose. It doesn't mean it has no value or purpose to anyone else, but we are discussing that particular "proverb" espoused by that particular tribe. I think it is safe to say that their way of life is essentially defunct now in 2012. Social mores are constantly evolving because the societies they belong to are constantly evolving. Apart from "the value of living," I can't think of any single social more that hasn't had its day in the sun then slipped into the shadows of more relevant mores.

I also think that it is easy to romanticize an ideology that you are not on the wrong end of.

 

[Ginkgo]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but I found another version of this proverb:

“A woman’s highest calling is to lead a man to his soul, so as to unite him with Source. Her lowest calling is to seduce, separating man from his soul and leave him aimlessly wandering. A man’s highest calling is to protect woman, so she is free to walk the earth unharmed. Man’s lowest calling is to ambush and force his way into the life of a woman.”

I think this gives us a broader scope of the message here, as it implies that the unity of the individual soul isn't dependent on the souls of peers. Perhaps it also means that we may best respect each other in practicing self-respect, acknowledging our potential to be a damaging force and a healing force in the lives of ourselves and others. If we acknowledge this, then I think we will lead by example, and in doing so we may be liberated in cooperative charity, finding the "highest calling" by reflecting on both callings.

It's funny that, with all this yin yang being thrown about, the Original Post fixates on the gender/sexuality in yin yang and omits the rest. It may as well omit all of it.

 

[greenfairy]

And there is nothing boring or egocentric about this thread...
Like I said, why should I go to all that trouble to do you a favour? I'm not interested in your type, anyway.
I'm just (one of many) pointing out the untruthfulness of your claim to excel in logic.

My grades in logic courses suggest otherwise. Maybe my communication sucks.

I can't prove you're not an idiot, is that a good reason for me to believe you are?

If it makes your day better to believe I'm an idiot, by all means do it. I can't stop you anyway.

The burden of proof is always on the person making nonsensical claims.

Yes, if I was trying to prove something. Which I'm not.

Yes. It does.

Wrong. Andante said I was using an appeal to authority, which I was not, because I was not arguing anything. Fallacies are only relevant to persuasion or argumentation, or asserting some sort of fact. I was not even coming to a conclusion. I was just seeing if I could apply logical rules to a paragraph, and didn't do it exactly right. So I misremembered. That's not a fallacy. Then I asked what she was referring to, which is not a fallacy.

 

[greenfairy]

Regardless of whether you can prove that trees have spirits, they either do or do not.

All i could derive from this post is that you define spirit as the electrical activity of matter. Which we can prove exists. I don't see the point of thinking symbolically in regards to explaining your concept of the world. It literature or poems sure. But "utilitarian beliefs" seem to simply be "saying what you don't actually mean because it sounds more poetic and mystical than the truth".

I'm saying we don't know all of objective reality, so we need to make a reliable guess that works for us. And the truth of something doesn't have to be binary. If a claim depends on language, it depends on semantics, which are created and understood by humans; so it will depend on definition. So it can be true and untrue at the same time. If this is describing a natural phenomenon, like int he case of trees having spirits, what I'm saying is that the natural phenomenon we are attempting to describe in words may be so far removed from the original claim that it's truth value is kind of irrelevant. If we believe in something called a spirit, and the truth is that it's just electrical interaction, that's not the same thing- but it might behave the same way in many instances and fool us. So believing in one produces much the same result as believing in the other.

 

[greenfairy]

[MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION]

No problem, I was just frustrated because I had started to build a nice little house for us all in the logosphere ......and the greenfairy came along and said "NO! your house is actually a fish and I believe it has a soul!" we're moving to Fairy World!!!


Interesting side note logosphere can mean both the logical universe and the interpretation of words' meanings based on language and context. Connections

Well I'm going to Fairy World and you guys don't have to come. Maybe I'll make friends with some XNFP's. I'll come visit and have you all educate me.

 

[greenfairy]

In the effort of being fair... yes, yes they do.

What is this mystical INTP tally you speak of? And why must I be included?

 

[Ginkgo]

I'm saying we don't know all of objective reality, so we need to make a reliable guess that works for us. And the truth of something doesn't have to be binary. If a claim depends on language, it depends on semantics, which are created and understood by humans; so it will depend on definition. So it can be true and untrue at the same time. If this is describing a natural phenomenon, like int he case of trees having spirits, what I'm saying is that the natural phenomenon we are attempting to describe in words may be so far removed from the original claim that it's truth value is kind of irrelevant. If we believe in something called a spirit, and the truth is that it's just electrical interaction, that's not the same thing- but it might behave the same way in many instances and fool us. So believing on one produces much the same result as believing in the other.

That doesn't mean that either claim is untrue, as the truth depends directly on objective reality and an impression of it. Truth does not depend on logos. We may have two non-contradictory explanations of the same thing-in-itself. Though the metaphysical and the physical are mutually exclusive, neither nullifies the existence of the other.

 

[Pseudo]

Right, but if you hook that up to a pump that is automated, you have a problem because pumps are dumb. A pump just knows "on/off" so how do you tell it to not toggle constantly and burn itself out?

Say if you have a constant flow coming in, and as soon as the pump detects the level, it turns on. When the level drops, it turns off. It's going to flip back and forth wildly.

So, what you tell the switch via a float mechanism is "If it touches this value, turn on or stay on" and "If it touches this different value, turn off stay off" and the values actually overlap each other. There will be values that are both on and off values. Such as, if it turns on at 4 liters, but turns off at 2 liters, 3 liters can be either an 'on' or 'off' value depending on the last value of the switch itself. It will pass 3 when filling, and pass 3 again when emptying.

I still don't see how this explains a valued truth. I'm thinking that by valued truth you mean that something can be "partially true" or "mostly true". Basically the idea that you can qualify the statement "women like apples" with the word "some" and it becomes true.

I don't think that that makes the original statement "partially true". It makes it entirely untrue, hence the need for a new statement describing reality.

In regards to your mechanical system I would argue that that is a more complex truth but it still functions in one objective way. There are not two overlapping truths but a single complex truth that 3 has been designed to function as both an on and off value

 

[digesthisickness]

I feel so sorry for any guy expecting me to guide him to a street I've been to fifty times, much less his soul.