Turning Back the Enlightenment

[Mole]

Well, you repeat your own version of what you believe is best and that's fine for you. But if a person from the USA voices any type of belief more than once they are an "ugly American." That's certainly an interesting viewpoint.

Because victor you have complained on here about the New Age movement making life where no one cares because nothing is seen as real. Okay, that's a valid point, though I don't think the entire Romantic movement can be distilled into the current New Age movement, it was a branch off New Thought.

What is the difference between people seeing nothing as being real and people communicating where nothing is real? Since you have this alleged cultural perspective where you can see all the flaws in the USA pattern of thinking explain the paradox where it is wrong to think nothing is real but it is right to speak and act where nothing is real in fact.

So I would like to hear from other people on here who post from all over the world. Do you value sincerity when other people deal with you? Or is it okay with you if they just spout nonsense and present a fake persona because being seen as witty is more important?

The people who share our sense of humour are first the Irish, then the Scots, then the English and Welsh. And surprisingly the Russians share our sense of humour, but the Russian sense of humour is much, much darker than ours, but essentially the same.

American are very nice - they are friendly and open and engaging, indeed sincere - but it is impossible to share our humour with them. Sometimes an ambitious American will try to imitate our sense of humour, but it is just embarrassing.

Thank heaven we are both fighting the Taliban so we have no need to fight one another.

However we are fighting for the Enlightenment and our internal enemies are the enemies of the Enlightenment such as the New Age, Evangelicals, the Left and Islam.

Both sides of our Parliament are committed to victory.

So not only do our soldiers go in harm's way but we support them with our words at home.

 

[Mole]

Is the OP a joke?

It is of course ironic. In other words, what it says is the exact opposite of what it means.

And it is embarrassing for me to have to say that.

My grandfather would always tell a joke with a straight face - in other words his face was the exact opposite of what he was saying.

I am surprised you didn't see the OP was ironic. Can you see it now?

 

[Mole]

Is the OP a joke?

I know I shouldn't be giving you advice, Murkow, but let me say that the way to reply to irony is with irony.

And forgive me for saying this, but you should never let on you know it is irony - it spoils the whole thing.

Another way of saying it is this - when someone is pulling your leg, you never let on, you just pull their's back.

 

[locke]

And it is the Enlightenment that is the embarrassment.

So true.

 

[substitute]

So I would like to hear from other people on here who post from all over the world. Do you value sincerity when other people deal with you? Or is it okay with you if they just spout nonsense and present a fake persona because being seen as witty is more important?

Just to add my tuppence-worth... the bolded part is, IMO, a question absolutely loaded with assumptions and value judgements that makes it difficult to answer without looking bad one way or another unless the person agrees with you, therefore making it rather rhetorical...

Why does 'spouting nonsense' automatically follow from being insincere? Why is being seen as witty automatically the assumed motivation for being insincere, regardless of what's 'spouted'?

I take people as I find them, and even if they're insincere, a big enough sample of even insincere behaviour is enough to give plenty of information as to what's real.

Quite often I play devil's advocate; I argue a position I don't personally agree with. Is this to appear witty? Is it to present a fake persona? Is it babbling nonsense? No, no and no. It's to counterbalance, to challenge a person to ensure that they take into account other possible ways of seeing things that they don't seem to have thought of, to expose inconsistencies. It's not necessarily 'nonsense' just because I don't personally identify with it - somebody does, and in itself the theory is quite consistent and logical, based on evidence, and even has just as much claim to being true as the position I actually do agree with. I expose and purify the sheer subjectivity of opinions, thereby bringing out other truths and awarenesses.

This is not a fake persona - it's a real part of my persona that i sometimes do this.

Are you saying that there's no insight or truth or indeed anything useful to be gained in trying to think and speak from a different perspective than your own?

I have often marked that there are some people who take non-truth-telling as a personal insult and believe it to be wrong in all cases, whilst others don't seem so bothered by it. A lot of people place it very high on their list of 'how to judge if a person is a good person - #1 they tell the truth all the time'.

Well, one can be telling and exposing truths whilst in the very act of dissembling. And people can be trusted to most of the time, be 'sincerely' acting according to their knowledge and understanding; most of the time, most people aren't just being an asshole for the hell of it. There's a method to the madness, whether right or wrong, most people act in a way they personally feel is 'okay', even if they might not understand why another might disagree.

IOW, the loadedness of your question blocks contemplation on any of these subtleties.

 

[Mole]

So true.

So untrue.

Read, "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History", by Keith Windschuttle and weep.

Read the doyen of historians Claudio Veliz at -
History as an Alibi - Claudio Veliz - Quadrant Magazine

Or read the New Criterion of New York -

“Keith Windschuttle’s first volume on the fabrication of Aboriginal history is a scholarly masterpiece. It is destined to become an historical classic, changing forever the way we all look at the opening chapters of Australian history.” — Roger Kimball, The New Criterion, New York

Or read, "The Little Children are Sacred" report, then see if you have the stomach to keep spreading the poisonous Romantic propaganda started by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

It is this Romantic propaganda of Rousseau that has led to the murder of Aboriginal women and the rape of their children by Aboriginal men. And led to its cover up.

But on receiving the, "Little Children are Sacred", report, both side of Parliament fully rejected your Romantic propaganda and initiated a full scale intervention involving the Army, the Police, Social Workers and medical teams, backed by billions of dollars.

And although we have had a change of government, the intervention continues.

We have had a gutfull of your Romantic Movement.

 

[heart]

IOW, the loadedness of your question blocks contemplation on any of these subtleties.

victor picked the dialetic. Sincerity verses wittiness.

The people who share our sense of humour are first the Irish, then the Scots, then the English and Welsh. And surprisingly the Russians share our sense of humour, but the Russian sense of humour is much, much darker than ours, but essentially the same.

American are very nice - they are friendly and open and engaging, indeed sincere - but it is impossible to share our humour with them. Sometimes an ambitious American will try to imitate our sense of humour, but it is just embarrassing.

Thank heaven we are both fighting the Taliban so we have no need to fight one another.

However we are fighting for the Enlightenment and our internal enemies are the enemies of the Enlightenment such as the New Age, Evangelicals, the Left and Islam.

Both sides of our Parliament are committed to victory.

So not only do our soldiers go in harm's way but we support them with our words at home.

Yeah, victor I totally understand your viewpoint. Every USA person is Hank Hill and every person in Great Britian, Australia and Canada is David Niven.

I also understood the sarcasm in your OP, that wasn't what I took issue with:

The first step is to teach Creationism or even Intelligent Design in Biology class.

The next step is to teach Alchemy in the Chemistry class.

And then we teach Astrology in the Astronomy class.

And not forgetting to teach MBTI in the Psychology class.

And before long the monstrous wave of Reason is beaten back to sea.

But what shall we do with the Goddess of Reason, called the Statue of Liberty, washed up on our shores?

She is plainly an embarrassment until you realise she is Our Lady of the New World - the patron saint of Creationism, Alchemy, Astrology and MBTI. And it is the Enlightenment that is the embarrassment.

What I don't understand is why you chose the words "Our Lady of the New World", the only new world agenda I see is the one you've championed before on here where privacy is taken away and we're all totally politically correct, watered down to where blanda is the only way to be.

I suspect you'd even like for there to be a chip every head so everyone can feel totally safe 100 percent of the time and there are no stray thought crimes going on out there.

 

[murkrow]

Victor...

You big F.

 

[redacted]

And not forgetting to teach MBTI in the Psychology class.

you keep confirmation bias-ing yourself about MBTI. yes, 90% of the people out there misuse it. but if you just use the terms as verbal shortcuts (for example, using the letter F instead of saying "making a conscious judgment about whether something is good"), you're doing nothing wrong.

if i say -- that person is an Fe user, what i'm actually saying is that they use tangible ideas/evidence to ground their conclusions about if something is good or bad most of the time.

you wouldn't jump all over me if i said something like "person x tends to consciously relate ideas to tangible objects". but if i said "x is a Te user", you'd dismiss me completely.

open your mind.

 

[Mole]

you keep confirmation bias-ing yourself about MBTI. yes, 90% of the people out there misuse it. but if you just use the terms as verbal shortcuts (for example, using the letter F instead of saying "making a conscious judgment about whether something is good"), you're doing nothing wrong.

if i say -- that person is an Fe user, what i'm actually saying is that they use tangible ideas/evidence to ground their conclusions about if something is good or bad most of the time.

you wouldn't jump all over me if i said something like "person x tends to consciously relate ideas to tangible objects". but if i said "x is a Te user", you'd dismiss me completely.

open your mind.

The problem is not at this level.

It is that MBTI is an invalid and unreliable personality test.

So the interesting question is why do so many take the test?

And the answer is exactly the same to the question, why do so many read their horoscopes?

If you have the answer to one question, you have the answer to the other.

I am sure you are a good person, so I invite you to ask yourself, why do no astronomers believe in astrology and why do no psychometricians believe in MBTI?

If MBTI is a valid and reliable personality test, why is it not taught in any psychology class in the world?

And you might also ask yourself why Creationism or Intelligent Design is not taught in any biology class?

Because the answer is exactly the same.

No, the question is why do people believe in Creationism, Intelligent Design, Astrology and MBTI in such large numbers?

Are they gullible or are they desperate or are they deluded?

Or are there other reasons?

You open your mind by asking questions.

 

[heart]

I study it because John Milton told me it was the key to the kingdom of hell.

Yeah folks...I gave up...

 

[GZA]

The only thing I've agreed with Victor about is that MBTI, Creationism, ect are not science and should not be taught in classes.

MBTI is better than creationism for science, but I still wouldn't want to devote more than a passing reference to it in an academic setting.

Regardless of any sarcasm or joke or whatever this thread seems completely useless. Every thread like this ends up being a discussion about soemthing unrelated in Australia, or about some technicality in writing that makes anything too vague to discuss in any serious or worthwhile way.

roffles

 

[heart]

MBTI is better than creationism for science, but I still wouldn't want to devote more than a passing reference to it in an academic setting.

I wouldn't really want to see it used other than a tool for a person to understand themselves better and use in their personal life. I am disturbed that workplaces and schools want to type people and use the information in any way other than for that person's own personal use on their own time.

In that way I can agree with victor that it is sort of comparable to astrology.

I wouldn't like to go to work and be told "Hey you're a leo, be a saleman!"

 

[redacted]

The problem is not at this level.

It is that MBTI is an invalid and unreliable personality test.

So the interesting question is why do so many take the test?

don't care. i'm not them. and i put zero weight in the test.

And the answer is exactly the same to the question, why do so many read their horoscopes?

true.

I am sure you are a good person, so I invite you to ask yourself, why do no astronomers believe in astrology and why do no psychometricians believe in MBTI?

well, first of all, i don't believe you that no psychometricians use MBTI. secondly, you're failing to understand that i reject 95% of the information floating around about MBTI. i've thought out my own system and figured out how applicable it is. and it's not very applicable, i'll agree. but it DOES have uses, and for you to dismiss that is just being needlessly closedminded.

astrology is an entirely different story, too. type is arbitrarily assigned to a person in astrology... with MBTI, you FIGURE OUT type. a giant difference, and one that shouldn't be glossed over.

If MBTI is a valid and reliable personality test, why is it not taught in any psychology class in the world?

it's not valid or reliable.

And you might also ask yourself why Creationism or Intelligent Design is not taught in any biology class?

Because the answer is exactly the same.

No, the question is why do people believe in Creationism, Intelligent Design, Astrology and MBTI in such large numbers?

Are they gullible or are they desperate or are they deluded?

they are gullible and desperate for answers. it's easier to take someone else's answers than to think them out yourself. and that's why we see so much misuse of the system.

listen. i'm not talking about the test, dude. the test sucks. forget the test. the FRAMEWORK can be useful. i already explained my point about verbal shortcuts. it's also a starting point for other connections to be made (it's a METAPHOR).

if you don't misapply the system, there's nothing wrong with it. seems like an obvious statement, but you're somehow completely missing it.

 

[Mole]

Squealing

Victor...

You big F.

It's called cognitive dissonance - sure it's painful but there is no need to squeal.

There is no need to squeal 'cause cognitive dissonance means you are learning something new.

No one told you it would be easy.

And squealing will only distract you from learning.

We can all hear you when you squeal, and it puts us off.

There is no need to be a squealer when it is only cognitive dissonance.

 

[Mole]

How'm I doin'?

if you don't misapply the system, there's nothing wrong with it. seems like an obvious statement, but you're somehow completely missing it.

OK, I think you are right - I am missing something.

Let me try and get it - and you tell me how I am going.

What you are saying is that MBTI can be used for good purposes - it all depends on how you use it - is that right?

You are saying MBTI is a framework from which to make other connections. And you are further saying MBTI can be used metaphorically. Is that right?

And you feel I am dissing you and MBTI - is that right?

How'm I doin'?

 

[redacted]

OK, I think you are right - I am missing something.

Let me try and get it - and you tell me how I am going.

What you are saying is that MBTI can be used for good purposes - it all depends on how you use it - is that right?

You are saying MBTI is a framework from which to make other connections. And you are further saying MBTI can be used metaphorically. Is that right?

And you feel I am dissing you and MBTI - is that right?

How'm I doin'?

you're pretty much spot on, except that i don't feel personally dissed. i'm just uncomfortable because you completely dismiss the system based on some people's misuse of it.

i just want you to admit that it's possible to use the system in a positive way.

and this is different from astrology because there is no correct way to use it.

 

[Mole]

MBTI is Fun, Social and Free

i just want you to admit that it's possible to use the system in a positive way.

OK, I'll admit it is possible to use MBTI in a positive way.

It is possible to use it to understand personality.

It is possible to use it to socialise - and it is possible to use it to make friends.

MBTI is commonly understood across the world and is hugely popular.

MBTI is now part of the global village - MBTI is now part of the internet.

And MBTI can help us discover our own personality and even identity.

MBTI is fun - it is social - and it is free.

How's that? Is that right?

 

[redacted]

OK, I'll admit it is possible to use MBTI in a positive way.

cool!

It is possible to use it to understand personality.

to better understand personality, definitely not a full understanding. nowhere close

MBTI is commonly understood across the world and is hugely popular.

i would definitely say MBTI is NOT commonly understood. most people that think they understand are actually missing some information or misapplying certain ideas. for those people, it would be better if they didn't even use it until they understood it better.

MBTI is now part of the global village - MBTI is now part of the internet.

hmm. i actually know very few people that know MBTI. i wish it was a bigger part of global language, though.

And MBTI can help us discover our own personality and even identity.

MBTI is fun - it is social - and it is free.

yes.

How's that? Is that right?

yeah. thank you for being openminded about this. i didn't expect you to take me seriously for some reason.

thanks.

 

[Mole]

An Advertising Jingle or a Cri de Coeur?

Do you prefer an advertising jingle, such as -

"MBTI is fun - it is social - and it is free".

which is sincere and without a trace of irony?


Or do you prefer a cri de coeur, such as -

"Turning Back the Enlightenment -

The first step is to teach Creationism or even Intelligent Design in Biology class.

The next step is to teach Alchemy in the Chemistry class.

And then we teach Astrology in the Astronomy class.

And not forgetting to teach MBTI in the Psychology class.

And before long the monstrous wave of Reason is beaten back to sea.

But what shall we do with the Goddess of Reason, called the Statue of Liberty, washed up on our shores?

She is plainly an embarrassment until you realise she is Our Lady of the New World - the patron saint of Creationism, Alchemy, Astrology and MBTI. And it is the Enlightenment that is the embarrassment"

- a cry that is replete with irony?