"In a certain light, wouldn't nuclear war be exciting?"

[Thalassa]

Yeah I don't think that's it at all. I believe it's called immaturity, or maybe in some cases nihilism.

You also don't believe it will really happen. That's part of it too.

 

[Kalach]

You know, by calling them fantasy and reality, you kinda prove the point. With those as the only two choices, the option to disengage from concrete reality and thereby see more clearly doesn't exist. Ni, if it works anything like Jung described it, no longer has value.

Unless fantasy has value. Does it?

 

[Kalach]

Or to put it another way, choosing the certain lights under which you will fantasize, this has or hasn't value?

 

[Thalassa]

Of course fantasy has value. I just do not think that nuclear war has any good qualities for fantasy, since it destroys everything I hold dear, including my life and the life of other humans I love, humans I am indifferent to who are innocent, and also the existence of other living things such as plants and animals.

The nuclear war scenario is not fun or funny to me in any way. There would be so much suffering, human and animal, that I can't justify it.

I HATE DYSTOPIAS.

Even when I watch horror movies, I like movies about killers with interesting psychological profiles, where there are specific victims, or people can get away, or there's just a supernatural element.

Nuclear war is too random, too wide-spread, and too destructive to the undeserving. It is effectively the end of the world, and even in cases when it is not the end of the world, the suffering is too on-going and distributed too long-range.

This is called Fi. Deal with it.

 

[Kalach]

I notice you don't say what the value of fantasy is.

And instead there's that focus again on imaginary suffering drawn over supposed concrete details.


yer killing me here marm.

 

[Thalassa]

I notice you don't say what the value of fantasy is.

And instead there's the focus on imaginary suffering drawn over supposed concrete details.


yer killing me here marm.

But people do suffer in the event of nuclear bombs or nuclear fall-out. This isn't imaginary. It's safe to say that when people conceive, there will probably be a baby. It's also safe to say that when there's a nuclear war, there will be mass suffering.

Fi tends to empathize (sometimes over-empathize) with suffering, and Fi types can be very particular about who or what they empathize with; that's why you'll see the INFP vegan who cares more about animals than people, or the ENFP who seems like a real selfish jerk start crying over a particular person's pain, and suddenly turn into the most considerate, nurturing person.

You're trying to justify something that isn't even true. The difference here is with values.

Nihilism versus intensely caring about the world, which is a life-long disease I have had, and I care more in some cases about the innocent animals than the innocent people, but yes the innocent people too, even the ones I don't like, I just don't squirm as much.

That's Fi. That has NOTHING to do with Si.

I think that a lot of people here simply don't see the scenario as being realistic, like they're of a young age where they don't see the scenario as realistically ever happening.

Jesus christ it's like you've never known an FP before.

 

[Kalach]

But people do suffer in the event of nuclear bombs or nuclear fall-out. This isn't imaginary. It's safe to say that when people conceive, there will probably be a baby. It's also safe to say that when there's a nuclear war, there will be mass suffering.

What if it happens in space?



See. You people have no imagination at all. You hear "nuclear war" and it's all earthside armageddon, all in black and white film, with trees and houses suddenly blowing flat. How about if they just blow up Canada? Let's say Al-Q in a last ditch effort gets a suitcase bomb onto a beach in Ontario and boom. Canada complains to the US. The US blows up everything in Waziristan and everyone shuts down immigration for a while. Was that nuclear war enough for ya? Or did it have to be an exchange of ballistic missiles?

But here I am fantasizing again, no offence Canada. I'm a little excited.

 

[Thalassa]

What if it happens in space?



See. You people have no imagination at all. You hear "nuclear war" and it's all earthside armageddon, all in black and white film, with trees and houses suddenly blowing flat. How about if they just blow up Canada? Let's say Al-Q in a last ditch effort gets a suitcase bomb onto a beach in Ontario and boom. Canada complains to the US. The US blows up everything in Waziristan and everyone shuts down immigration for a while. Was that nuclear war enough for ya? Or did it have to be an exchange of ballistic missiles?

But here I am fantasizing again, no offence Canada. I'm a little excited.

Are you sure you're not an Ne type?

What if? What if this, what if that.

I still don't think suffering in Canada is good, what havoc that would take on the environment, and some of the fall-out would inevitably come to the U.S. anyway.

I don't think you understand me at all.

 

[Kalach]

That's Fi. That has NOTHING to do with Si.

While we're here, what do you suppose Fi works with? It's a judgment that uses feeling as reason, but we've all heard again and again how feeling is fleeting. So what is it that Fi stews upon to create that judgment?

 

[Kalach]

Are you sure you're not an Ne type?

What if? What if this, what if that.

I still don't think suffering in Canada is good, what havoc that would take on the environment, and some of the fall-out would inevitably come to the U.S. anyway.

I don't think you understand me at all.

Was it you who liked the French language?

Traitor.

 

[Thalassa]

While we're here, what do you suppose Fi works with? It's a judgment that uses feeling as reason, but we've all heard again and again how feeling is fleeting. So what is it that Fi stews upon to create that judgment?

In my case, facts, in your case, what if scenarios.

Maybe you've been an ENTP all along.

 

[Kalach]

In my case, facts, in your case, what if scenarios.

THINK HARD BEFORE YOU COMMIT!!!

FACTS IS SI, WHAT IFS IS NI.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PHONE A FRIEND

 

[Thalassa]

Was it you who liked the French language?

Traitor.

I think about the eco-system, and I don't like the idea of large groups of innocent people suffering. I learned to stop watching the news because it bothered me so much, and the only other option is to become desensitized to the point of some of the unfortunate members of this thread.

 

[Thalassa]

THINK HARD BEFORE YOU COMMIT!!!

FACTS IS SI, WHAT IFS IS NI.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PHONE A FRIEND

What ifs is actually Ne.

You have issues, Kalach.

But I do find you very entertaining all the same.

 

[Kalach]

In context, no, what if isn't Ne.


But, what facts are these you speak of? Remembered facts? With details? Rooted in time and place? Collated with and from factual imagery and compared to other memories? Established from books and detailed concrete presentations?

DO THEY INVOLVE ANY ABSTRACTION? IS IT OKAY TO REMOVE SOME PHYSICAL DETAIL OR DO THE FACTS LOSE COHERENCE IF YOU DO?

IN WHAT WAY DO THESE FACTS HAVE MEANING?

 

[WALMART]

Exciting does not equate to joyful. Exciting is a state of elevated interest and action. I would argue that to not be excited during the aftermath of a nuclear war would be apathetic and counter-productive to both your survival and the reclaimation of mankind.

 

[Ginkgo]

Meanwhile, off the coast of Osaka, Godzilla rolls in his crater-like grave next to the oxygen destroyer.

He tried so hard to excite you all.

And you BLEW it!

--------------------

What does a duck smoke?

QUACK!!

lolololololol

 

[Thalassa]

In context, no, what if isn't Ne.


But, what facts are these you speak of? Remembered facts? With details? Rooted in time and place? Collated with and from factual imagery and compared to other memories?

Yes, Ne is what if and Ni is why.

Now stop it.

I could be using Se or Si.

Or Te for that matter.

 

[Thalassa]

In fact, according to Jung, I am the one using Ni:

The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world?

But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality.

His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.

Nothing about "what if."

 

[Ginkgo]

In fact, according to Jung, I am the one using Ni:







Nothing about "what if."

You're giving him ammunition for his argument. Lol.