Victor's thoughts on makeup

[Thalassa]

The Ni/Fi loop theory makes a lot of sense. I daresay it has a touch of 5w4, so I think he(?)'s INTJ. Of course, he'd roll his eyes at me typing him, but that never stopped me!

Naw, naw...not INTJ...ISFP. INTJ? No. I see glimmers of Se in his posts sometimes (he'll write descriptions of fun activities to do IRL, like paint our faces and hang out with clowns or something) but I really never see Te. So I think his aux that he's burying is Se, not Te.

 

[Salomé]

He self-typed as INTP then changed it to INFP, iirc.
It's Ne, not Ni.

 

[ICUP]

What if he's untypeable..... geniuses..... lol

Hey, Vic, I won't blow your cover, bro. hahaha......but even if I did, truly, what difference would it make?

Vic can blow his own cover over-and-over again, and the masses just don't see it...... amazing.

 

[amerellis]

lol Victor's going to have a lot to come back to when he next logs on.

 

[Thalassa]

He self-typed as INTP then changed it to INFP, iirc.
It's Ne, not Ni.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but lots of ISFPs mistype themselves as INFPs because of Ni development or because they think some of the ISFP descriptions sound too stupid or boring.

 

[Salomé]

Yes. You're such an expert on type.
Which one are you this week?

 

[Antimony]

Clearly this thread is beyond entertaining.

Victor: Loves to enter other threads and thread jack. In this scenario, he sashayed into the makeup thread and stated that makeup is about branding and masking true self.
This thread: Many have entered, threadjacking it to the four corners of the Earth. And Victor holds the ultimate trophy for branding (everyone knows it's Victor's post without seeing his username) and masking (metaphoric ambiguity).

Who doesn't love this thread!

The irony of it all is hilarious.

 

[Thalassa]

Yes. You're such an expert on type.
Which one are you this week?

A lot of people have noted this phenomenon, it's not something I just made up, and furthermore it's because of my endless study of type that I now know my type, and am not just guessing or picking one that sounds good.

Jung himself said we often need the insight of other people to see ourselves correctly.

 

[chickpea]

i don't think victor's trolling. i like his posts

 

[rav3n]

The irony of it all is hilarious.

Even better is that within the Karpman Drama Triangle model, Victor holds the most power as victim. In not posting, he allows his rescuers to defend him from the persecutors. Not one finger lifted. Fucking genius!

 

[Randomnity]

The Internet is a global tribe where each website is a village. Within the village are the tribal elders who chant their visions of the societal construct that all members of the village must live by. These visions include stories passed down from generation to generation from other wisdom collecting shaman.

Or some such!

Figure and Ground.

Whoa.....deep.

 

[rav3n]

What better song and group of Aussie singers to express Victor's words!

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHLMGBwAbhA&feature=related"]Words to take your heart away....[/YOUTUBE]

 

[King sns]

The assumption is that Victor's beliefs are the ultimate in authenticity, whereby authenticity can take many forms and our true selves don't necessarily align with Victor's concept of self-actualisation.

It's not as if we're solely spirit. Human beings are anchored to the earth by our corporal bodies. So why not accept this aspect and mesh spirit with body? I find most spirituality damaging in their concepts of good/evil, right/wrong since they reject the key element of our corporal humanity. They foster hatred towards our corporal needs. Why is this necessary?

I'm not sure if you're asking me or him. If you're asking me, I think excessive amounts of things in my life has brought along a lot of unhappiness and feeling trapped. I've observed others' with a lot of money and and things to take care of, I've seen some who don't handle it well, and others' who handle it with ease and appear to thrive in that environment. I'm the former. It's just not the way that I like to live. (I love creature comforts, but not excessive ones for the sake of having them, I only want to love them and use things that increase my happiness- not having money and things for the sake of having money and things.) It brings me away from joy. I'm definitely all about that, and have been thinking about it lately, so that's how I interpreted the OP. I also didn't mean to appear to say anything about other people's beliefs or make any assumptions about ultimate authenticity. I don't make any assumptions about ultimate anything.

 

[King sns]

I got that too (although I lack the skills to decipher most of his postulates). Reminds me of Adorno, Horkheimer and other Frankfurt School writers's thoughts on the culture industry and capitalism.

Yeah, Victor could say he is going to the post office and I would think it's a metaphor for something else.

 

[rav3n]

I'm not sure if you're asking me or him. If you're asking me, I think excessive amounts of things in my life has brought along a lot of unhappiness and feeling trapped. It's just not the way that I like to live. (I love creature comforts, but not excessive ones for the sake of having them, I only want to love them and use things that increase my happiness- not having money and things for the sake of having money and things.) It brings me away from joy. I'm definitely all about that, and have been thinking about it lately, so that's how I interpreted the OP. I also didn't mean to appear to say anything about other people's beliefs or make any assumptions about ultimate authenticity. I don't make any assumptions about ultimate anything.

Overall, isn't it a matter of balance? And aren't we each already a brand without trying?

If I take Jenaphor apart, she's got two eyes, a nose and a mouth. If we focus on Jenaphor's nose, do we see her? And yet, shortnsweet has two eyes, a nose and a mouth. Does this mean that Jenaphor and shortnsweet are the same? Or do we zoom in on details and notice that shortnsweet's got blue (?) eyes and Jenaphor has brown eyes?

The point of the above is that it really depends on how micro or macro you choose to view authenticity through a lens. Maybe materiality doesn't make you happy not because it's materiality but that human nature is rarely satisfied where we become slaves to the "more". The more we have, the more we want. Take a look at Victor. The more attention he gets, the more he craves. The more "spiritual", the more the need to inflict it on others.

 

[King sns]

Overall, isn't it a matter of balance? And aren't we each already a brand without trying?

If I take Jenaphor apart, she's got two eyes, a nose and a mouth. If we focus on Jenaphor's nose, do we see her? And yet, shortnsweet has two eyes, a nose and a mouth. Does this mean that Jenaphor and shortnsweet are the same? Or do we zoom in on details and notice that shortnsweet's got blue (?) eyes and Jenaphor has brown eyes?

The point of the above is that it really depends on how micro or macro you choose to view authenticity through a lens. Maybe materiality doesn't make you happy not because it's materiality but that human nature is rarely satisfied where we become slaves to the "more". The more we have, the more we want. Take a look at Victor. The more attention he gets, the more he craves. The more "spiritual", the more the need to inflict it on others.

It may be about balance for a lot of people, but for a lot of people it is just about what makes them true to themselves- perhaps that may appear extreme in some cases. My balance is going to be different from your balance. Also, I don't see Victor pressing spirituality on others and enjoying attention, (we are giving him attention regardless.) unless I missed something, I only read the first page. I'm not even positive about what he's saying yet. Are you implying that all or many spiritual people try to press it on others, or just Victor?

 

[rav3n]

It may be about balance for a lot of people, but for a lot of people it is just about what makes them true to themselves- perhaps that may appear extreme in some cases. My balance is going to be different from your balance. Also, I don't see Victor pressing spirituality on others and enjoying attention, (we are giving him attention regardless.) unless I missed something, I only read the first page. I'm not even positive about what he's saying yet. Are you implying that all or many spiritual people try to press it on others, or just Victor?

I don't disagree that we each will have different balances. But when it slants completely in the direction of purported spirituality, whereby messianic complex types feel they need to preach to save the world from the corruption of materiality, it gets old fast.

 

[onemoretime]

In the case that one is unable to internalize their sense of love, I would prefer that they find it by measuring up to an external standard if only briefly, until they find the means to grow in a different direction.

I disagree, but that's OK. I'd be concerned with codependency based on that approach.

Victor's always moralising. And you conveniently missed the depth of insight.

Is that so.

Have you never had fun in your life that spurts of quick pleasures like eating a piece of dark chocolate, hugging a loved one, reading a good book, all give you pleasure? It's like suggesting that life must be so serious all the time where a beautiful summer day like today should include wearing a hairshirt, to recant the pleasure of sunshine and warmth.

The joy comes from within, and spreads without. That's the point.

Wearing makeup isn't all that deep. Many women also enjoy wearing fuck-me shoes!

Yes, and you know why.

Sure, but it isn't very realistic to post an opinion on a forum and then feel bullied when people challenge that opinion. In fact, I'd say that strategy is destined for failure.

Who defines success and failure here?

Agreed. It IS technically, bullying. I suppose it's one thing to enforce the rules or disagree, another to bully, and to change one's behaviors towards a person because they are breaking the rules or disagreeing with me. Of course, I don't know the history, either. I can be just as prone to bully as the next guy, however, but generally it's because they did it first. I like to give people a taste of their own medicine. Alot of times, the ones prone to putting others down or creating a little clique can be the most vulnerable.

Yeah, it's nice to play Nemesis every once in a while, isn't it? Except, problem is, we're not gods.

I see this perspective. Who am I to determine who someone else should be? Am I one to decide that Victor would be happier if he were different? I think I make suggestions based on what I think would make someone happier, but I am not them. As long as he goes by the rules, I suppose he is free to believe what he wants and post as he wishes to.
---------------
It's just another instance of hypocrisy that I see here and abroad. People say they stand for something, but in evidence, they don't even know what it means to stand for what they say they do. People are generally followers socially, which is one thing I can say, Victor, is not.

Well said.

 

[Tallulah]

Even better is that within the Karpman Drama Triangle model, Victor holds the most power as victim. In not posting, he allows his rescuers to defend him from the persecutors. Not one finger lifted. Fucking genius!

This. Hence we see the same pattern with no deviation, every time he starts a thread. Playing the victim allows him to maintain the role of misunderstood underdog genius. I think he gets exactly the kind of reaction he wants. And it's effective. Probably 17 pages out of this 20 page thread are devoted to discussing the Victor Mystique rather than the old "makeup mimics arousal" chestnut. He doesn't even have to have new material to maintain rockstar status. Just the greatest hits. Love him or hate him, we still talk about him.

 

[ICUP]

Yeah, it's nice to play Nemesis every once in a while, isn't it? Except, problem is, we're not gods.

Nah, that's not the case with me.....

My doing so is more based on 1) taking care of myself, and 2) an eye for an eye.