Intelligence associated with Negativity?

[David Nelson]

I'm on my phone, but still wanted to reply shortly...

I think if an alien from the future was to judge us humans, we would perhaps get a B+ in mathematics, physics, engineering. We are pretty good at those.

Politics, economics, philosophy... Here is at best a wash. Probably a D+. Some good ideas, some terrible ones. Ideas from 2000 years ago are probably still the best, so we didn't make much progress.

World of ideas and opinions is a minefield. You can easily adopt a bad worldview which ruins your entire life. So it's better to keep it simple, in my opinion. Something that helps you move forward in life.

I realised that all this philosophy stuff... Not for me lol. It really does make a person confused and probably negative. Better study physics or something, it's gonna at least inspire awe and amazement.

Very INTP I think. They don't seem to like going deep on human issues. More technology focussed. It's like they see politics as beneath them, because they imagine it could/should all really be quite simple (Ti), so they avoid it. Plus demon Fe.

 

[philostam]

Very INTP I think. They don't seem to like going deep on human issues. More technology focussed. It's like they see politics as beneath them, because they imagine it could/should all really be quite simple (Ti), so they avoid it. Plus demon Fe.

Yes, but at least I am not depressed or negative lol.

And yes, politics is bellow me. Waste of my time.

 

[John K]

Sheep baa, cows moo, pigs grunt, frogs croak on the side of the ponds while the ducks quack. Farmer moans about the cost of winter feed. This is just the way things are- they all see the same thing differently. There’s no right or wrong way to see it, and they are all both right and wrong.

I’m standing in the window of my shack on Europa watching Saturn rise - there’s nothing to beat it. But then that’s just the way I talk …

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

I found it eloquently constructed and information-dense despite the occasional excess.

A wizard is never too brief, nor too excessive. He says precisely what he means to.

STUPID SENSORS

It can't actually be reduced to that and it's also counterproductive to my point. What is the first thing you do when faced with this information? You blame the sensors for being the cause of the circumstances (intuitives were just as culpable for the paradigm shift anyway). To an extent that may be true, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your well-being. If you can't do that, you're headed for a dark place for a long time.

The fact that there is a predominance of a certain cognitive approach that suppresses the opposite doesn't mean that the opposite has ceased to exist. You can always find an audience if you look hard enough. You can be vulnerable without the large scale social support you think you need. Of course it's easier when you have it, because when you blend in, the magnitude of the risk you take for revealing yourself is significantly lower. But in a way, it's beneficial to not have it as your individuation becomes that much more resolute. This is basically what happened with Jordan Peterson, and now he gets massive attendance at his events where everybody knows damn well to shut up and listen, even while he's constantly bombarded with allegations of nazism, wanting to tyrannize women, and all sorts of defamatory nonsense from people who can't read between the lines.

Speaking of JP, there's one extremely relevant speech to all of this, perhaps one of the most profound speeches that cuts right at the heart of this timeless problem. Whatever you think of him, at least give this one a listen (despite the clickbaity title).

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

I'm on my phone, but still wanted to reply shortly...

I think if an alien from the future was to judge us humans, we would perhaps get a B+ in mathematics, physics, engineering. We are pretty good at those.

Politics, economics, philosophy... Here is at best a wash. Probably a D+. Some good ideas, some terrible ones. Ideas from 2000 years ago are probably still the best, so we didn't make much progress.

World of ideas and opinions is a minefield. You can easily adopt a bad worldview which ruins your entire life. So it's better to keep it simple, in my opinion. Something that helps you move forward in life.

I realised that all this philosophy stuff... Not for me lol. It really does make a person confused and probably negative. Better study physics or something, it's gonna at least inspire awe and amazement.

As an answer to all the positivist reductions, Nietzsche asserted that all philosophy is essentially a projection of your nature on the entire cosmic ontology, and these days I would agree with that. What particular philosophy you agree or disagree with is heavily dependent on what dimension your cognitive orientation is aimed at and how that philosophy either confirms or denies it. But one thing where the absolute state of the universe is actually revealed is in the space between them, and it will always be something paradoxical.

 

[Enso]

A wizard is never too brief, nor too excessive. He says precisely what he means to.


It can't actually be reduced to that and it's also counterproductive to my point. What is the first thing you do when faced with this information? You blame the sensors for being the cause of the circumstances (intuitives were just as culpable for the paradigm shift anyway). To an extent that may be true, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your well-being. If you can't do that, you're headed for a dark place for a long time.

The fact that there is a predominance of a certain cognitive approach that suppresses the opposite doesn't mean that the opposite has ceased to exist. You can always find an audience if you look hard enough. You can be vulnerable without the large scale social support you think you need. Of course it's easier when you have it, because when you blend in, the magnitude of the risk you take for revealing yourself is significantly lower. But in a way, it's beneficial to not have it as your individuation becomes that much more resolute. This is basically what happened with Jordan Peterson, and now he gets massive attendance at his events where everybody knows damn well to shut up and listen, even while he's constantly bombarded with allegations of nazism, wanting to tyrannize women, and all sorts of defamatory nonsense from people who can't read between the lines.

Speaking of JP, there's one extremely relevant speech to all of this, perhaps one of the most profound speeches that cuts right at the heart of this timeless problem. Whatever you think of him, at least give this one a listen (despite the clickbaity title).

It's an interesting speech that one, I both agree and disagree with it. He's essentially putting western psychology and eastern psychology against each other - to be everything is to have no limitations but to simultaneously be nothing (I think that's what he said, don't directly quote me). The Dalai lama would say yes, you are absolutely nothing. To clarify I'm not arguing against it, I just see the philosophy as pure paradox. Anyway.

 

[philostam]

As an answer to all the positivist reductions, Nietzsche asserted that all philosophy is essentially a projection of your nature on the entire cosmic ontology, and these days I would agree with that. What particular philosophy you agree or disagree with is heavily dependent on what dimension your cognitive orientation is aimed at and how that philosophy either confirms or denies it. But one thing where the absolute state of the universe is actually revealed is in the space between them, and it will always be something paradoxical.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

I do like positivism (I'm not sure I even understand this term correctly) and pragmatism, stuff like that. Also Peterson or some more "philosophy of life" type of stuff. I did read some Nietzsche and Schopenhauer years back, it was good, although wouldn't say life changing. Asian philosophy is also good. But to go into nitty gritty of metaphysics - not really my thing.

Interesting, yeah. So it all comes down to our personality at the end of the day. So what would be your philosophy, Sidis? The TLDR version for a simple positivist like myself.

 

[philostam]

From my perspective, it feels like as if all of these metaphysical technical exploration are done by either people high on the spectrum (not saying its a bad thing) or enneagram type 4 folks that wanna be "unique" and wrap their personality and image around being deep and intellectual.

On the other hand, I understand curiosity and am relatively curious myself. I can totally understand people devoting themselves to mathematics, physics, science... I could see myself doing something similar.

I realise I'm just proving your/Nietzsche's point, and there must be some deeper itch that people fulfill by studying metaphysics... Just wonder what that is, because I have no clue. But I suspect it's got something to do with enneagram type 4 traits.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

It's an interesting speech that one, I both agree and disagree with it. He's essentially putting western psychology and eastern psychology against each other - to be everything is to have no limitations but to simultaneously be nothing (I think that's what he said, don't directly quote me). The Dalai lama would say yes, you are absolutely nothing. To clarify I'm not arguing against it, I just see the philosophy as pure paradox. Anyway.

Yes, but I think that's exactly why it works. The western mindset is always concerned with getting more of something—more freedom, more wealth, more pleasure, more happy feelings—and making the simple logical assumption that getting more of something good must be more good. The western Aristotelian logic doesn't know how to deal with paradoxes.

The orientals have discovered the problem with such approach much earlier, but their mistake was to react to this in the opposite excess—complete inaction and denial of all natural human desire or animalistic instinct, all in the name of "keeping the natural harmony". They wanted to be detached observers, but people are still actors in that natural balance as long as they want to have any personal story. I guess the consequence is the collectivist mentality of eastern societies that basically assumes that society is something which steers itself into a course where it's supposed to be and there's no reason to interfere.

I think there's a better way, but you have to stop being afraid of contradicting yourself; to live on the fringe of the paradox instead of forcing everything into a finite, consistent definition, or believing that you only belong to the infinite and therefore you're nothing. The only question is what should be defined and what should be left open, but that's a whole different topic.

 

[Wyote]

I believe I'm infinitely finite

 

[Enso]

I believe I'm infinitely finite

No truer wisdom has every been spoken good sir. Wyote, giver of wisdom.

 

[aeon]

Very INTP I think. They don't seem to like going deep on human issues. More technology focussed. It's like they see politics as beneath them, because they imagine it could/should all really be quite simple (Ti), so they avoid it. Plus demon Fe.

Politics, no, but not deep on human issues? In my experience, they absolutely do.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

So what would be your philosophy

The one I agree with the most at any given time lol. Right now, that would be perennialism.

a perspective in philosophy and spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.

 

[philostam]

The one I agree with the most at any given time lol. Right now, that would be perennialism.

OK but why is that important? Or is it just pure curiosity/play for you to explore such questions?

 

[David Nelson]

Politics, no, but not deep on human issues? In my experience, they absolutely do.

Cheers,
Ian

Yes, I could have put that better. They think deeply about the human condition.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

OK but why is that important? Or is it just pure curiosity/play for you to explore such questions?

That can be answered in two ways. The first reason is that I'm just playing the game. One interesting thing about Fi is that it's probably the only function which possesses something resembling a priori knowledge that is revealed aesthetically. If I'm reading something and it resonates strongly, I already know that it has something personally meaningful and therefore true. I don't need to reason about why it's attractive to me, which is precisely the opposite approach that Ti users take.

The second reason is that being tied to some kind of system is necessary to have a sense of direction, and if it's necessary, then it might as well be the one that feels the most fulfilling. How do you identify mistakes or their correction if there's no blueprint with assumed validity that you're trying to follow? Or to paraphrase the video, how do you do anything if the defining parameters of the game have not been set?

Maybe you could ask why people care about finding the truth rather than untruth, but that's beyond the scope of my understanding.

 

[philostam]

That can be answered in two ways. The first reason is that I'm just playing the game. One interesting thing about Fi is that it's probably the only function which possesses something resembling a priori knowledge that is revealed aesthetically. If I'm reading something and it resonates strongly, I already know that it has something personally meaningful and therefore true. I don't need to reason about why it's attractive to me, which is precisely the opposite approach that Ti users take.

The second reason is that being tied to some kind of system is necessary to have a sense of direction, and if it's necessary, then it might as well be the one that feels the most fulfilling. How do you identify mistakes or their correction if there's no blueprint with assumed validity that you're trying to follow? Or to paraphrase the video, how do you do anything if the defining parameters of the game have not been set?

Maybe you could ask why people care about finding the truth rather than untruth, but that's beyond the scope of my understanding.

I completely understand the need to be tied to some sort of system, but from my perspective, this sort of metaphysical nuances/open questions more often than not don't provide that. But I understand everyone is different. For example your point on Fi vs Ti difference is a good one, so that might be one of the reasons. You are just searching for something different.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

A wizard is never too brief, nor too excessive. He says precisely what he means to.

Yay you're a wizard!
It explains a lot.

to be everything is to have no limitations but to simultaneously be nothing

It's an interesting take on it. I like it. Though it makes me ask, how one defines nothing or everything? and why should being one or the other be desirable?
Like for some, material things have little value to them because they're temporal or not otherwise constructive to an individual. On the other some have no interest in the intangible because it serves little practical use in day to day life. And those two groups (in themselves) aren't mutually exclusive.

but you have to stop being afraid of contradicting yourself; to live on the fringe of the paradox instead of forcing everything into a finite, consistent definition

Your wizardly might is showing ^_^
I really love how you phrased this and personally relate with it.

 

[David Nelson]

That can be answered in two ways. The first reason is that I'm just playing the game. One interesting thing about Fi is that it's probably the only function which possesses something resembling a priori knowledge that is revealed aesthetically. If I'm reading something and it resonates strongly, I already know that it has something personally meaningful and therefore true. I don't need to reason about why it's attractive to me, which is precisely the opposite approach that Ti users take.

The second reason is that being tied to some kind of system is necessary to have a sense of direction, and if it's necessary, then it might as well be the one that feels the most fulfilling. How do you identify mistakes or their correction if there's no blueprint with assumed validity that you're trying to follow? Or to paraphrase the video, how do you do anything if the defining parameters of the game have not been set?

Maybe you could ask why people care about finding the truth rather than untruth, but that's beyond the scope of my understanding.

You say that Fi guides you to the truth, but it doesn’t necessarily. It guides you to what pleases you only. It may be true or untrue. All that is true is that it pleases you.

A blueprint with assumed validity is not how I process or see things. I work out myself using objective logic and Fe whether I think it is right or not. It’s the assumption of validity in systems which causes so many problems. You’re talking about Te. You’re an INTJ right?

Finding truth and untruth are different sides of the same coin.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

The best stuff of growth, creativity and intelligence seems to come from negativity, so are smarter people inherently more negative.

I’d say that the best opportunities to learn and adapt come from encountering adversity. I don’t see how creativity and intelligence spring from negativity.

Thinking smarter people are inherently more negative reminds me of how “woke” I thought I was as a teen in comparison to my parents because I discovered counterculture.