Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[Mole]

Most of us come here hoping to gain personal advantage under mbti, but we can be tripped up by not asking what is mbti?

This is normal as most of the time we take our context for granted, and seek advantage under the rules of our context. Our context is usually our family, our religion, our State, in fact any institution will do. And we are surprisingly blind to our institutions. But recently we have been discovering how our institutions have been betraying us. This is emotionally painful to discover, so we prefer not to know.

[Lark]

Most of us come here hoping to gain personal advantage under mbti, but we can be tripped up by not asking what is mbti?

This is normal as most of the time we take our context for granted, and seek advantage under the rules of our context. Our context is usually our family, our religion, our State, in fact any institution will do. And we are surprisingly blind to our institutions. But recently we have been discovering how our institutions have been betraying us. This is emotionally painful to discover, so we prefer not to know.

Mole, on what basis do you make these generalisations and consider them valid? When you say "we", who do you mean?

For instance, what if it is not the institutions which are faulty but the individuals and the idea that reforming, abolishing or undermining the institutional will provide a fix proves faulty?

I'll give you some contrasting reading, if you'd like to explore this topic further, in Chinese (or Asian, as the Japanese are indebted to the Chinese for some of their philosophy, so say some of the earliest Japanese writers) philosophy there are two distinct schools of thought.

Taoism which suggests that mankind is naturally good, that nature too is good and the best life is one which harmonises the most with nature/natural settings, institutions in to this school have arise usually from corruption and straying from harmonious nature.

In contrast Confucian thinking suggests that mankind is corrupt by nature or at least corruptible, that institutions have arisen not as a consequence of straying from the a naturally good conduct but in order to ensure right conduct and correct misconduct.

Personally, I think this is a good example of the one side, the other side and the truth is another matter or lies somewhere in between. That's a rude summary and not meant to be comprehensive in any shape or form but its just a signpost to something you might want to check out. I think as it stands your perspective could be incomplete.

[Mole]

Mole, on what basis do you make these generalisations and consider them valid? When you say "we", who do you mean? For instance, what if it is not the institutions which are faulty but the individuals and the idea that reforming, abolishing or undermining the institutional will provide a fix proves faulty? I'll give you some contrasting reading, if you'd like to explore this topic further, in Chinese (or Asian, as the Japanese are indebted to the Chinese for some of their philosophy, so say some of the earliest Japanese writers) philosophy there are two distinct schools of thought. Taoism which suggests that mankind is naturally good, that nature too is good and the best life is one which harmonises the most with nature/natural settings, institutions in to this school have arise usually from corruption and straying from harmonious nature. In contrast Confucian thinking suggests that mankind is corrupt by nature or at least corruptible, that institutions have arisen not as a consequence of straying from the a naturally good conduct but in order to ensure right conduct and correct misconduct. Personally, I think this is a good example of the one side, the other side and the truth is another matter or lies somewhere in between. That's a rude summary and not meant to be comprehensive in any shape or form but its just a signpost to something you might want to check out. I think as it stands your perspective could be incomplete.

Yes, my perspective is incomplete and I rely on your excellent and thoughtful post above to help complete my perspective.

Also your Marxism does provide a good critique of the context called Capitalism.