Actualized, a critique

[Reciprocality]

Many people in here, well most people in general anyway are confused about the difference between a category and a concept.

They are happy to say that something is such and such, to consider something in general, but this though it is a mental process is not conceptual for the simple reason that you are not thinking in the act itself, instead you are performing what is equivalent of memorization. You are merely experiencing the minimal association two things have to each other and giving them a name.

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.

The reason your head can be controlled like this is because of.. feelings, these guide your categories, these makes you presume to understand what you talk about just because you take it in your own power to put some element into some set. 

 

The easiest way, I have found, to be able to check whether categories points to an underlying understanding of something substantial, is to find whether you need or do not need to apply the category itself in some conversation in which the opponent disagrees with its applicability to reality/evidence/content of discussion.

If you think that you can define the understanding then you are blind, for nothing is understood which comprises the elements which retrospectively is associated with it, for anyone engaged in substantial meaningful dialogue, and are not merely interested in stories or visions, must actually synthesize information they think they knew ANEW and in new ways. That is, the very structure of the manifold of memories should change, requiring no addition to it.

 

I consider exposition as opposed to definition, to be what you do when instead of remembering something, you think something, in a continual effort of exposing the world and yourself of its peculiarities are you justified in considering the word you use to denote it meaningful and worthy a definition.

 

To be concrete, I will take the example of consciousness (a little ironic, ill admit it), it is established discourse in here that everything of reality is "consciousness" but here is maintained minimal effort at making it clear which of the 30 theories on consciousness (and their antitheses) the understanding of consciousness is based on, and so subject a and b may feel great in their mutual disjunctive relation to culture at large, forming a category of the relationship, have not therefore any mutual understanding at all.

What lurks wound the corner is a total incapacity to consider or pinpoint, such as based on the example above, the difference between peoples actual experience of living in the world, as well as what they are actually pointing towards.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Carl-Richard]

Are you saying we should stop using blanket terms and be more inventive in our speech?

[Reciprocality]

@Carl-Richard Statements, "x is y" has replaced "x is y if so and so", not primarily because of dogma, but often instead because of the opposite, that is; relativism.

Disagreements arise also when everything is just a perspective, only now it is far harder to spot it when you do not even speak of the same thing.

The antithetical nature of plurality of opinions that arise in say scientific communities grows into synthetic understanding, but here on this forum disagreements are not even antithetical to each other in relation to some objective standard of discourse, so it does not even become obvious what people are really thinking.

It would aid us in a better direction to exclude the most practical threads from this conversation, this problem is and should be less prevalent in those.

 

In trying to define words, though it is better than doing nothing, one assumes that the objective standard can be defined, understanding as I said is beyond definitions, and so one must establish a THEORY of sorts that is far beyond mere sum of words. I get that I am biased regarding the importance of theories, but that does not change the frequency of platitudes, assumptions, mere association, categorization and memorization that occur in this forum, none of these are bad on their own, I even engage in several of those in this very paragraph.

I would also maintain that everything is consciousness, but I would be suspicious to if that means anything at all, expose hypothetical exceptions to it, question both if there really is any difference between the actual perceptions on a day to day basis between for instance idealists and physicalists and the opposite: whether there actually is much convergence between the meaning of the previous statement to you and to me at all, this invites theorization far deeper than the blanket statement in italic itself.

[ZzzleepingBear]

@Reciprocality  I really like this critique. And there is a desperate need for certain statements that are casually thrown around in the spiritual part of the forum, to be dissected a bit.

It just seems like a far reach, to get peoples full attention and interest into this self inflicted critique.

 

This may be a bit ironic, but while I like to read your lengthy post personally. I do think that all that what you describe and express so well here.. Is simply flying over most peoples head in this forum.

So while your critique imo is desperately needed, it is probably not attention grabbing enough to be mentally digested by the majority on this forum. If you try to boil down your posts a bit, then I think there is a higher chance for a dialog to be unfolded. Questions tends to easily get lost, or being overlooked in long entry posts.

But that's just my inkling after have observed what kind of posts that easily fly or not. The majority here has probably a short attention span, and I don't say that as a implyed insult. But rather as something to be mindful of, in how this forum seem to opperate in a practical way, for there to be any exchange of words to be flowing at all. 

 

 

[Reciprocality]

@ZzzleepingBear Well I am glad you like it.

I could be vague and open ended as is the norm, but then I have do deconstruct all the assumptions that entails, all the pompous meaningless questions.

That takes effort, and pays small dividends, there is a thread in which me and some other guy argued back and forth 150 comments, or rather that I explained my every step indefinitely, though I enjoyed parts of it and it did teach me some lessons in rhetoric and possibly how to be vague at the right moment, though sacrificing meaning and even logic while at it, it did not expand my thinking much, in fact I got annoyed by the initial subject itself even though I were the one setting it's parameters.

To be attention grabbing is a skillset I lack, if the chances approaches zero that I will learn something from some initial statement and that I instead have to preach which I actually hate doing, then there is nothing in it for me, and rarely even for others.

 

I am at a point where I consider the very skillet of writing down precisely what one thinks or wonders about as more important than the curiosity itself, if not intelligence as well, I know how extreme that statement is, but I can not help it. Say you have person a and b, a is in the 5th percentile of curiosity and 95%tile of clarity, and b is opposite of that, after having spent a few too many hours reading statements on this forum, the former is option will be mine to my last day.

On 16.5.2022 at 1:41 PM, ZzzleepingBear said:

It just seems like a far reach, to get peoples full attention and interest into this self inflicted critique.

 

You are not wrong, as much is evident.

 

Edit: If this seems pedantic, dismissive etc, then I can happily whitewash myself and say that this forum is magnitudes beyond average in consciousness, obviously, so it has that going for it. Elevated consciousness and highfalutin going hand in hand.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Razard86]

......I am so confused.....ummmm sigh.....

Every single word, every thought of the discriminatory mind that we use as humans...is a concept. Literally everything. We construct concepts to map our experience in this reality we live in. 

So the word category is itself a concept. Because all symbols that we use to communicate is concept. The End. That's it. There is nothing to complicate at all here. Everything is concept. 

[Reciprocality]

@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?

Edited May 19, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Razard86]

21 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@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?

No that is not my confusion....something I have noticed about you.....you are addicted to using your logic to chop things up. You chop and chop and chop....but you do not realize that all logic is good for is chopping. The more you chop....the less you know. Logic has limits....because everything has an infinite possibility...so there isn't enough logic to really get to bottom of everything. 

Its like you are addicted to long passages of pontification....which creates mazes of logic. Wisdom is found in simplification. 

The point of communication is to transmit information and be understood. With the way you communicate you can't teach that way, and you will only confuse. I doubt I can find anyone who can really make sense of all that you wrote. Its like a different language.  But hey....to each his own.

[Carl-Richard]

@Razard86 Finally somebody else than me who thinks that Reciprocality has a case of word-itis.

I watched this earlier today, and it's somewhat related to the predicament which adheres to the current progression of the situational state or the localization of the unfolding of current events :

 

[thisintegrated]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Razard86 Finally somebody else than me who thinks that Reciprocality has a case of word-itis.

I've noticed this too.  Many of the NTJs on this forum seem to have this problem.  I think it's just what happens when overactive TeSe wants to stand out.

[Reciprocality]

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.

[Reciprocality]

11 hours ago, Razard86 said:

No that is not my confusion....something I have noticed about you.....you are addicted to using your logic to chop things up. You chop and chop and chop....but you do not realize that all logic is good for is chopping. The more you chop....the less you know. Logic has limits....because everything has an infinite possibility...so there isn't enough logic to really get to bottom of everything. 

Its like you are addicted to long passages of pontification....which creates mazes of logic. Wisdom is found in simplification. 

The point of communication is to transmit information and be understood. With the way you communicate you can't teach that way, and you will only confuse. I doubt I can find anyone who can really make sense of all that you wrote. Its like a different language.  But hey....to each his own.

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.

[Carl-Richard]

37 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I recontextualize 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.

Well, maybe it's a larger problem of communication itself. It's inherently ambigious and imperfect. We each carry different internal dictionaries, different contextual interpretations, generally different ways of thinking, which is why good communication is dialectical rather than an exchange of monologues. We need to piece it together bit by bit, tease out the points, approximate etc. Being overly abstract and wordy and wanting everything to be delivered in a neat package can be detrimental to this process. If I were to use the forbidden MBTI: you need to work on your Fe and Ne blindspots ?

[Reciprocality]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, maybe it's a larger problem of communication itself. It's inherently ambigious and imperfect. We each carry different internal dictionaries, different contextual interpretations, generally different ways of thinking, which is why good communication is dialectical rather than an exchange of monologues. We need to piece it out bit by bit, tease out the points, approximate etc. Being overly abstract and wordy and wanting everything to be delivered in a neat package can be detrimental to this process. If I were to use the forbidden MBTI: you need to work on your Fe and Ne blindspots ?

@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.

[Carl-Richard]

41 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I am rather certain that the precision of the post would actually shrink the amount of comments we would require back and forth

Maybe, but when that entails using whatever hyper-abstract formulation you desire, you also risk people falling off completely and not engaging at all. You're just generally very hard to follow. I've noticed this in myself, that over the years as I've started assessing clarity of communication through the lens of simplicity (concreteness, conciseness) rather than complexity (abstractness, detailedness), people generally engage with me more, and the discussion is able to flow for perpetuity (and a lot of good can come out of that).

 

41 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

but surely not as in the instance when I become more interesting than it.

True  

[thisintegrated]

8 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

 

@thisintegrated And bless you with your myers briggs model.

Would you prefer if I copy and pasted the descriptions of NTJs and the TeSe functions?  It would only be like 20 pages for you to read through.

Edited May 20, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Reciprocality]

@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.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

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

[thisintegrated]

5 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@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.

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.

Categorization is the core of language/communication.

This is why I pointed out the ridiculousness of me giving you pages of function descriptions.  If we can compress complex ideas into just "Te" then we must.

 

Quote

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.

How does it confuse convergences?  If you and someone else are the same type, you easily identify the similarities.  And if there any any differences, the model makes those apparent too, and you add on other models to account for those differences.

 

Quote

I am very much tested as INxP, verging on the F with about 55% T.

You seem to assume MBTI is just the 4 letters, and that "P is perceiving" and "J is judging"..  If this is the case then you're more than likely mistyped.

[Reciprocality]

5 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

How does it confuse convergences?  If you and someone else are the same type, you easily identify the similarities.  And if there any any differences, the model makes those apparent too, and you add on other models to account for those differences.

@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.

 

13 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

You seem to assume MBTI is just the 4 letters, and that "P is perceiving" and "J is judging"..  If this is the case then you're more than likely mistyped.

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.

 

15 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Categorization is the core of language/communication.

This is why I pointed out the ridiculousness of me giving you pages of function descriptions.  If we can compress complex ideas into just "Te" then we must.

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.