Reciprocality

?

amazing

not bad, I will redirect you to my post another faulty assumption, Ive taken a few tests

It is one thing to be wrong in ones conclusions, or ones theory, but totally another to misrepresent the possibility space of theories. The reason it is not implied that there must be an intelligent designer on the evidence of fine tuning is that the opposite (non fine tuning) does not imply the opposite (unintelligent design non intelligent design), you have merely associated things with each other. Consider this, It is very possible that the universe has no beginning and cycles, or that there is instead a million million million of them, both these scenarios undermines the intelligence behind our unlikely universe.

You have no idea what you talk about.

@thisintegrated No, instead one call it similar when it is identified as the same type, which is rather different and also fine. But that does not mean there is any convergence going on, that you believe so is a curious assumption that you project into the model for it to feel valid. It is precisely that two people can think they converge by means of categories that they are confused and which makes the work required to deconstruct the confusion exponential than without it. Personality is not an intellectual construction (though it representation is), therefore it is impossible for the meaning of the 16 to be different from ones own manifold of potential, out of this manifold are everyone else created, and in disjunctive relation to others will some inner potential be carved from the manifold. The 16 are a fine metaphor for this manifold, but no two 16 converges, not in personality and I would argue even in theory. It is impossible for two say INTPs to converge in personality, though they can seem similar based on coinciding references in a finite/scarce world, giving rise to under determined categories, for they are carved out of infinitely different potentials. No I don't seem that way, and the P is correct, I even put it in thick so you would not bring about faulty assumptions, that you did so kind of implies my whole point. It is not, but is is one of the most important relations between thoughts, it is just far from adequate on its own, and a pure logic, which also is meaningless on its own. "The core" is also ambiguous, and itself a mere category that reveals little thought, though that is not the main point.

I literally said the opposite. That is correct, as I said, it is fine tuned. And again, nothing beyond it is required. Fine tuning does not imply intelligent design, you are projecting yourself into your own ideas and then you make a distinction between the self you project and the self you do not, but this is a dogmatic distinction. Most atheists would not call me atheist, I do not consider the dichotomy useful in categorizing my understanding of existence. You have to be far more particular, and give an intelligible theory on something, to which I may be atheistic, but prior to this we are putting the cart in front of the horse.

The universe may be fine tuned for life, but give existence 1000 000 000 000 cycles to run trough and there you have it, humans. Fine tuning does not imply intelligent design, instead you are the designer of a system that happens to be precisely such that you could design it, the extra dimensional god is an absurd notion. A projection of oneself into sub systems in oneself. We are made by brute force, we are the result of infinite possibilities, we are inevitable, the designer is a hoax unless it is intelligence itself as it renders time by intuition/synthesis.

I would only confront my equal or someone close, if you have high standards it does not matter if they beneath it ridicule you. You do not have to be like that, if you want to give stupidity your time of the day, and this actually affects you, then confront them with their monkey business, what you may find is that they can not compute your confrontation, why would they behave like they did if a mere confrontation could make them introspect on the spot? In my weird mind it would actually make me question my confrontation if they had the character to do that.

It is a good thing that there are disabled, they are instrumental to a deeper capacity for non-disabled to nurture. As it is good that there are maniacs, fat people, stupid people, slutty people, dishonest people, accidents, Kardashians and hurricanes, we feed off of them, we live in the best of all possible worlds, do we not? Happiness is made for the average Joe, the average Joe were the teleological cause for us all to become, for something rather than nothing. Let us do like god, let the downs syndrome's live, or put in the blank.

@Preety_India I have practiced writing to myself extensively for over three years, I could never dream of understanding my own thinking as well as now, by means of reading it say 2 months after writing it. My feelings is a whole different conundrum, the best I can do in this domain are analogies, x is during anxiety what a canoe is on sea. Authenticity during a social gatherings are like sand castles under tides. Good ambiance and traffic rarely combines well. I do not know if this is gonna fly, but I hope you get the point, for feelings to be expressed well there are totally different rules to follow, it may involve logic as in my analogies, though it is a complex form of logic that requires one to relate experientally as well.

Then we would be the last generation, so yes.

Will the quality of your writing be directly proportional to income? If not then you have freedom to be more original, is it the absurdity or originality of your thinking which makes you feel inadequate to writing as a career? Perhaps it is rhetoric that you struggle with, how much of your self are you willing to chime of in order to meet standardized norms? When I make myself understood then all the substance of my thinking is gone, would you be happy regurgitating the bare minimum for others pleasure, or would that be too shallow? There are millions of various classes of audiences, is it possible that the struggle you have with writing reflects of the very people you interact with more than the writing itself? I am not diagnosed autistic, but if I assume the meaning of such a spectrum then I am definitely on there, and will only say that you have to know your audience, the quality of your writing has nothing to do with the closest people nearby, unless we speak grammar and syntax issues.

You say you are honest, but you identify with the part of you which says lofty words and not the part which fails on actualizing them? Perhaps I am wrong in this characterization, but then what you really want is not what you think, but instead mediocrity, or indeed whatever you already are. I say to myself that I want to go running, but then I don't go running, I realize that I don't actually want to go running, given the evidence. We think in this time and age that we can be what we say we are, this relates to how we think in terms of social identity, if we can fool someone else then we have become in their mind who we want to be without effort. Why else would we end up fooling ourself on our inner motivations?

Imagination is required for reality to appear, sanity is required to differentiate the state of imagined reality and fantasy. Funny thing is, when you in your sanity bring about reality, you do not have to understand that you are imagining it. Reality is there whether you in your imagination of it are aware that you do imagine it, imagination must therefore be differentiated from its faculty, as only then can two people of differing views hope to say something meaningful in relation to the other on this topic. The faculty of imagination is imposed on the empirical world of senses, as well as in the inner mind. When this distinction collapses, then and only then will it be true by revelation that reality is imagined, even the most viscous defender of material dualism can comprehend the distinction phrased like this. The utmost absurd thing is having lived a life in which the reality seemed totally different from imagination, and yet impose ones own revelation of that not being the case onto the very character of other peoples state of consciousness and the logical structure of language itself as others use it.

Then you are just armchair hypothesizing, then you are just engaging the predicament of being a better man, then you engage in fantasy so that you do not have to put in the effort. You don't know what you want, chances are higher you one day will if you accept your naivete, as is mine. I don't think I want to be nicer for instance, for I put no effort in it. What I want can NOT be whatever I am supposed to, nor wherever my thoughts take me in some moment. Honesty presents to us what our motivations are, our deepest motivations require us also to honestly fail.

JP has been eaten by a world he does not understand, I consider him heroic, for he battles it even though he knows so well he won't win. He knows there are deep reasons humans materialize into what he now consider his arch nemesis, he does not compare against their weaponry and he has a kink for this fact.

Your motivations are who you are, if you won then you become who you are. If you do not want to be motivated by what you are motivated by then you want to be someone your are not. But because also the wanting to not be motivated by x is its own motivation y, you are therefore becoming who your are regardless. I would choose the path of becoming the winner of the initial motivation, it is unlikely to escape you anytime soon.

It is an unbearably monstrous irony that I am the one depicted as too "logical".

@thisintegrated That is the problem, you see something, then this something which is seen is mistaken for how it serves as symptoms for something else, so to at last become instrumental only to a certain model. You justify doing this because of how well you felt it once described you and/or how statistically significant it is in relation to populations, and how much mental effort it pardons you from with regard to people in particular. Although I agree that the myers briggs is useful for pinpointing differences in people in general, it is almost insignificant in understanding the convergence of particular people, categories aids you with the former, but confuses the substance of the latter, going back to the post. I am very much tested as INxP, verging on the F with about 55% T. Two things can be compared, but never three, unless the third is defined by the relation of the two prior, but then it is not its own thing, and only dogmatically fit into a structure it does not belong in. There is nothing in life which requires thinking that this 'rule' does not apply to. This is the reason why Daseinsanalysis is the only valid psycho-logy, and how everything else is hypothetical, by going deep into who you are, even why you are, it is impossible not to laugh at the metaphors of MBTI. Other people are rendered by your own potential personality, the disjunctive relation between you and them is absurd. There is no such thing as disintegration, all the 16 personalities are there in you already, you are not one of them in relation to other people you are them all in relation to yourself as other people, perpetually in new ways. No two people are even close to having the same idea of what this model means, but you won't even get to the part where this disagreement multiplies on itself because you are so obsessed with categories.

@Carl-Richard That in italic does not follow, nor is implied by what preceded. It is even a false dichotomy, good conversations are inherently dialectic, but because of the ambiguity which does not inhere linerarly to the precision of language such as in my post, then what you project as being a monologue here can be precisely what makes comprehension possible, if anything that post should serve as something concrete to go back on within the very confines of the dialogues that could follow it, but did not partially due to an obsession of people and their "blindspots". At the same time, as a general heuristics, the method of dialectics as you foreshadow do serve a higher purpose in this forum, than my methods. And this will not change however valid my critique is. In this sense one are wise to just let things flow with its own current, as I am not. "We need to piece it out bit by bit, tease out the points, approximate etc" Seemingly, but that would entail me deconstructing every absurdity until the days of oblivion with every single one of you, chances are I would sit here with you for fifty posts without you seeing the difference between a faculty for categorization and understanding. And the way this relates to the problem of other minds, under determination and how social cohesion instead of meaningful thinking and insight is its typical conclusion. I am rather certain that the precision of the post would actually shrink the amount of comments we would require back and forth, but surely not as in the instance when I become more interesting than it.

Logic has no limits, logic is a limit. You are limited by your logic, which you just used in an attempt to think, as am I in my. There is a realm that logic does not limit, and has nothing to do with any conversation ever had.

That this is a symptom of sophistry humors me, if it were that simple then honesty and authenticity would actually resolve this whole complication. Not only do I not want to stand out in self indulgence, but this very forum has facilitated the urge to stand less out. I am rather obsessed about the content itself, that you are not asking questions about precisely where you lose me in it, or where it seemingly brings nothing to the table, that kind of undermines the validity of your accusations, if it is so strange that a literal question can not help enlighten your misapprehension, and simple english were used, and someone did at all understand it, then however many you are, could try a little better. It is a given, that I could write it better, so I will spare you your confusion of me neglecting responsibility. I contextualize my thoughts such that when they are actually understood there entails minimal ambiguity, which goes right back to the critique in itself, it is not by accident (yet less so intention) that you do not understand me, but rather built into the means by which people on the forum understands and thinks in general. A meta problem, the latter statement is representative of the post. @thisintegrated And bless you with your myers briggs model.

@Razard86 Categories in absolute general are a concept, concepts are related and can even be structured in categories, but are in themselves rather different, as in indivisible. If you thought that this negated any of my assertions then that is also your confusion. Memories are imposed on you like the most mundane object, and do not in their imposition require for you an act of thought, but some reflection ,some consideration, some synthesis of these memories, those require concepts, this is a threshold you can only help yourself over. What this means, it would be tough to reduce further. I am sure you can find a dictionary defining concept as also outside the realm of computation and higher order from bare minimal cohesion in a given moment, or calculation, but then something must differentiate between all such and what I speak of, and whether or not we can agree to such a word we can non the less be in agreement on the difference itself, going back to my critique of how precisely this ought be possible. "You presume to be thinking when instead you put things beside each other, and accept naively that here is where they belong. Then you engage in some conversation presuming to actually learn something new when instead you have just left every category back from where you found it, and at best arbitrarily given it an obscure new element." Does this not encapsulate you? I would not know, I am not trying to essentiallize anyone in particular, but pinpoint a general trend, perhaps you'll find yourself in agreement with it once you've understood it, as I hoped to have been in aid with. There are things, and then there are their relation to each other, the most brute of humans can classify things without also considering their relation consciously while at it, it is conceptual whatever aids you in your thinking, your computation, your calculations, categories of things are not essential to this end. Edit: You may then consider a category a relation between things, the ultimate relation even, but it in itself requires minimal effort precisely because all things can as identities be divided such to be given numbers and constitutes thereby their own category, so effortlessly as this is done and so removed from the critique it is it hardly suffices consideration, though I am sure given the nature of this critique you may be inclined to.. categorize it as a concept?

They scheming together a plan to make the yet to be cockblocked girl seem more interesting, hard to get, and test the confidence/workrate of the guy. Either that or this is their literal operating system doing all their work for them, I would actually bet on the likelihood of the latter, the cause can not be pinpointed, it simply is a spontaneous "oh well lets go over here for a while, how bout that, heh", not to speak of "now I am gonna do deliberate bad job making it seem like I don't have you in my thought while being over here". They are gonna tease you, and as little as they notice what they are themselves doing are you noticing how much you love what they are doing, or she is is literally walking away from you to get away from you, there is also that. She is likely cockblocking herself more so than her friends, and you even more so, well not you in particular but. When it actually is the friend though, that is when there will be some games one simply does not win.