If You Could?

[Forever_Jung]

I think I'd travel to the past and take an invisible vantage point of 'a week in the life' of my ancestors- both to get a sense of what they were like, but also get a sense of what the time period was really like. Historical accounts can only do so much, and I think ultimately movies/fiction about past time periods somewhat makes us lose touch with how we'll never really know. I'd have a really hard time narrowing down which ancestor I'd visit though, if I could only pick one. I know the ancestor from whom my last name comes (I'm sure there's a correct term, don't know what it is- beyond 9th great paternal grandfather) came to the US around 1645, and was among the first to move into a settlement near Plymouth- that might be the one I'd choose.

This is the most INFJ answer possible. Well done!

 

[Z Buck McFate]

This is the most INFJ answer possible. Well done!

How do you figure, hoss?

 

[Watchtower]

I'd do both. The past is like watching a movie or visiting a theme park. As long as I can't mess anything up for the future, it'd be fun to experience things first hand or be a spectator. The past is entertainment.

The future would be more interesting. Because I'd have a chance to create my own place in it as time goes by. The future is an adventure.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

I'd go back to various points in the past and abduct historical figures and then take them on a tour of a So Cal mall.

Or maybe travel into the past with these historical figures

 

[Kanra Jest]

I would rather not mess with timelines. But in the off chance I did... I would only do so if I knew I wouldn't alter or effect anything. To observe. Too paranoid about the ripples. Especially after playing Life is Strange.

 

[Cowardly]

Rather than flying under the false colours of an avatar, we could fly under our own colours: our name, our address, and our phone number.

Unfortunately this would mean our fantasies could be checked against reality, and it would mean we would have to take responsibility for our own psyche and our own reputation.

It would turn this website into another version of Facebook. Honesty would disappear and phoniness would escalate.

The act of hiding our public selves allows us to share our private selves more freely.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

It would turn this website into another version of Facebook. Honesty would disappear and phoniness would escalate.

The act of hiding our public selves allows us to share our private selves more freely.

Hmmm, VERY interesting. I hadn't thought of that...

 

[Cowardly]

Hmmm, VERY interesting. I hadn't thought of that...

It's one of the reasons for my new avatar. It represents my psychological nakedness here in this forum, among other things.

 

[Mole]

It would turn this website into another version of Facebook. Honesty would disappear and phoniness would escalate.

The act of hiding our public selves allows us to share our private selves more freely.

C'mon, the internet, and typology central, lend themselves to the construction of a false self.

This false self is so popular we all have an avatar.

The false self is so popular because it allows us to hide our neurosis rather than seeking to heal the damage.

And the false self is so popular because it enables us to flatter our ego.

We are a society of mutual flattery, and look what a kerfuffle is created by critical thinking.

Mutual flattery and critical thinking are mutually exclusive, but critical thinking is an acquired taste, while mutual flattery has all the sickening sweetness of sugar, without any nourishment.

 

[Cowardly]

C'mon, the internet, and typology central, lend themselves to the construction of a false self.

This false self is so popular we all have an avatar.

The false self is so popular because it allows us to hide our neurosis rather than seeking to heal the damage.

And the false self is so popular because it enables us to flatter our ego.

We are a society of mutual flattery, and look what a kerfuffle is created by critical thinking.

Mutual flattery and critical thinking are mutually exclusive, but critical thinking is an acquired taste, while mutual flattery has all the sickening sweetness of sugar, without any nourishment.

You are into Buddhism, aren't you?

 

[Mole]

The Mensch and the Shlemiel

It's one of the reasons for my new avatar. It represents my psychological nakedness here in this forum, among other things.

Openness of the psyche is beautiful, while pictures of nakedness create a false self.

Pictures of nakedness hide a neurotic psyche.

Pictures of nakedness are meant to deceive and mislead us, to take our attention away from the damaged psyche.

But most of all pictures of nakedness flatter our ego.

Pictures of nakedness shock our senses and shock us away from critical thinking.

It is very easy to post naked pictures and flatter the ego, but much more difficult to practise critical thinking every day.

A mensch thinks critically, while a shlemiel practises self flattery.

 

[Cowardly]

Openness of the psyche is beautiful, while pictures of nakedness create a false self.

Pictures of nakedness hide a neurotic psyche.

Pictures of nakedness are meant to deceive and mislead us, to take our attention away from the damaged psyche.

But most of all pictures of nakedness flatter our ego.

Pictures of nakedness shock our senses and shock us away from critical thinking.

It is very easy to post naked pictures and flatter the ego, but much more difficult to practise critical thinking every day.

A mensch thinks critically, while a shlemiel practises self flattery.

That's a pretty quick diagnosis of my psyche, that's for sure.

 

[Mole]

You are into Buddhism, aren't you?

For more than a quarter of a century the Buddhists of Sri Lanka, led by their monks, tortured and murdered their fellow Sri Lankans. All of this was entirely unnecessary as Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, inherited a global lingua franca, English, acceptable to both the Buddhist and the Tamil Sri Lankans, but the peace loving Buddhists insisted on imposing Sinhalese, leaving the Tamils out of Government and disadvantaging them socially, and leading to a catastrophic Buddhist civil war.

 

[Cowardly]

For more than a quarter of a century the Buddhists of Sri Lanka, led by their monks, tortured and murdered their fellow Sri Lankans. All of this was entirely unnecessary as Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, inherited a global lingua franca, English, acceptable to both the Buddhist and the Tamil Sri Lankans, but the peace loving Buddhists insisted on imposing Sinhalese, leaving the Tamils out of Government and disadvantaging them socially, and leading to a catastrophic Buddhist civil war.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

[Cowardly]

Well I believe Buddhist philosophy says that the self is an illusion.

 

[Mole]

Well I believe Buddhist philosophy says that the self is an illusion.

The Buddhist doctrine of the Self leads to fatalism. And fatalism leads away from liberal democracy and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And fatalism leads away from social and moral progress.

 

[Cowardly]

The Buddhist doctrine of the Self leads to fatalism. And fatalism leads away from liberal democracy and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And fatalism leads away from social and moral progress.

How so?

 

[Mole]

How so?

Social and moral progress depend on widespread hope, widespread fatalism leads to the acceptance of the status quo.

 

[Cowardly]

Social and moral progress depend on widespread hope, widespread fatalism leads to the acceptance of the status quo.

I meant how it leads to fatalism in the first place.

 

[Mole]

I meant how it leads to fatalism in the first place.

Hope requires a strong self to mediate between our ideals and our desires. So if Buddhism says the self is an illusion, it can only lead to the acceptance, even the valorisation, of fate.

If we give up our self, we are left without agency, we know we are left without control, and left to fate.