Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #101  
Old 22/01/2008, 07:53 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Of course I do, and I have already said that I understand that. You can enjoy to pouring cold wine over your body on a really hot day, or you could perhaps enjoy pouring it over somebody else's head just to see their reaction or as a revenge for something they did to you. You can enjoy the feeling of getting drunk, and you can enjoy talking to good friends while eating tasty food and drinking your favourite kind of wine, that perhaps is associated with a lot of pleasant memories for you. There are a lot of different ways to enjoy wine, but I am not talking about any of them. I am talking about how good a wine is, and even though it might be difficult to define exactly what we mean by that, it is a sense of "good" that has to do with the essential quality of the wine as a wine -- not as something to be used as a means to fulfill other purposes. How good is the wine in itself -- that's the question I am interested in.
Are you looking to produce the perfect wine ? Why would you want to do this (define the goodness of a wine like this ?) It's really an impossible procedure in reality. One can produce different wines, some better some worse, but eventually what you have is something for every palette.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
That is only a very likely hypothesis. It is fairly obvious that the chemical structure has something to do with it, but it might not be able to explain everything about the wine's objective quality. More research is certainly needed before we can answer such questions.
Some things cannot be analysed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
It is of course a good idea to try to understand why not every complex structure is good. Complexity is certainly not enough to obtain quality, but why isn't it? That's a good question to ask. I don't know the answer yet. What do you think?
Some things do not mix. If something becomes too complex it becomes cluttered. Variety is the key.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
What makes you think that I do? And what has that to do with the objective quality of wine and music?
The fact that this (what is it, a debate, a conversation, are you really being serious or do you not believe anything you type ? Is this whole thing your sense of humour ?) this whatever it is still continues makes me ask.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 22/01/2008, 10:12 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

I am serious abou what I say in this thread, Cyclops. I am not joking. And your last post contained nothing of interest.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 22/01/2008, 10:39 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
I am serious abou what I say in this thread, Cyclops. I am not joking. And your last post contained nothing of interest.
The thing is Prom (and I am serious here), when I actually answer you with a very valid point, you switch off. What I have typed is actually very profound, because if you perservered with the things that you dismiss, I honestly do think you might learn about some of the things I think you are looking for.

I do not know anything about your private life, but maybe a love interest could help you to consider the things I can only go on about with you while pressing a keyboard.

What do you think about this ..

Something you show me in your typing is how dominant Ni does not mix with Te. Te looks to try, among other things, to formulate logical outputs in a productive fashion. But when it tries to do it, it gets is information from this big gaping wound, it is like an overstretched piece of elastic which gets called dominant Ni. How can Te make sense from this slack and flabby input ? It can't. It results in the mess which is you, that everyone can see except you.

You've already acknowledged the possible validity of my thoughts that dominant Ni serves has the least use out of all the dominant functions (you cannot even explain Ni to me - it is so vague to you, despite it being the strongest of you ?)

With this in mind I really do suggest that you should question less and actually follow more. Infact there is a school of though that says that the INFp already does this sort of thing. This ties in with thoughts I've had that F can be more real than T..as apparently they can instinctively realise the very advice that I give you.

I don't even know if you will see some validity in this, but I do honestly believe I know people that would.

So, dare I ask .. Thoughts ?

Last edited by Cyclops; 22/01/2008 at 10:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 23/01/2008, 01:42 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
The thing is Prom (and I am serious here), when I actually answer you with a very valid point, you switch off.
I honestly have a hard time recalling that you have done that even once. When I try to make a point, you counter by talking about something that is not relevant to what I am saying, for example when you start to talk about enjoyment. Often you don't seem to see the logical distinctions between the central concepts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
What I have typed is actually very profound, because if you perservered with the things that you dismiss, I honestly do think you might learn about some of the things I think you are looking for.
Why do you change the subject then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I do not know anything about your private life, but maybe a love interest could help you to consider the things I can only go on about with you while pressing a keyboard.
You must be joking, or you are more naive and ignorant than I thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
What do you think about this ..

Something you show me in your typing is how dominant Ni does not mix with Te. Te looks to try, among other things, to formulate logical outputs in a productive fashion. But when it tries to do it, it gets is information from this big gaping wound, it is like an overstretched piece of elastic which gets called dominant Ni. How can Te make sense from this slack and flabby input ? It can't. It results in the mess which is you, that everyone can see except you.
A bunch of rubbish, to tell you the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
You've already acknowledged the possible validity of my thoughts that dominant Ni serves has the least use out of all the dominant functions (you cannot even explain Ni to me - it is so vague to you, despite it being the strongest of you ?)
I have not. Read again what I wrote in the post you are now referrring to. This is an example of your inability to grasp logical distinctions between different concepts. The conclusion you draw here does not follow logically from what I said about Jung and introverted intuitives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
So, dare I ask .. Thoughts ?
Thoughts ...? Well ... so far you have only proven how little you know about the things we are discussing. It's like having to explain even the most fundamental things to a little child. Every time I try to find a base of knowledge from which we can start a serious discussion, I find out that you lack the necessary previous knowledge.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 23/01/2008, 06:50 AM
chopin's Avatar
chopin chopin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
After now having heard both of those pieces, my first impression is that a paraphrase on a comment made by one of the characters in a film that we are probably both familiar with might in fact be appropriate in relation to Rach 3 (if I recall correctly): "Too many notes."
That statement is as vague and shallow as it first appears. Too many notes! Which ones? You wouldn't have a clue. That is a statement of your personal preference only - there's nothing objective about it. If you prefer Mozart's simplicity of style - great! - but don't go insinuating that it's some sort of objective analysis of the music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
I don't like the main theme very much
I'm not too fond of the style either.
I trust my own esthetic sense more than anyone else's in these matters, and my guess is that Rachmaninov's piece is at least slightly worse than Mozart's.
I definitely consider Mozart a generally better composer than Rachmaninov. .
- all subjective statements and completely irrelevant in an objective study of the musics' quality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
But I think that the main theme in Mozart's concerto is a better one than the main theme in the piece from Rach 3.
Uh ... are you able to elaborate on why you think it's 'a better one'?
__________________
If so many men, so many minds, certainly so many hearts, so many kinds of love. - Tolstoy

Last edited by chopin; 23/01/2008 at 06:50 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 23/01/2008, 07:05 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Prom, I think there is a good chance that you are autistic, or something.

Maybe there is a correlation between Ni and autism.

Everyone else can see that your typing has no basis in reality. Full of errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, blindness, stupidity, etc etc.

Autism is more common in men btw (but then are you granny)

If you just consider that you do not get what everyone else says. And that everyone else does not get what you say. Ever. You must realise that there must be some mentally illness within you. You are speaking to the wrong professionals here you need medical assistance.

Last edited by Cyclops; 23/01/2008 at 07:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 23/01/2008, 07:19 AM
chopin's Avatar
chopin chopin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
It doesn't have enough harmony, and it's foundation seems to be, as I have already indicated, questionable.
Saying that the Rach piece doesn't have enough harmony is a statement which showcases your ignorance. It in fact employs more sophisticated and complex harmonies than the Mozart. Again - only a reference to your own musical tastes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
I think that the fact that it is more "perfect" overtrumps the fact that it is more limited.
Another observation about as deep and clear as a mud puddle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
If you just consider that you do not get what everyone else says. And that everyone else does not get what you say. Ever.
Hear! Hear!
__________________
If so many men, so many minds, certainly so many hearts, so many kinds of love. - Tolstoy

Last edited by chopin; 23/01/2008 at 07:19 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 23/01/2008, 09:53 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chopin View Post
That statement is as vague and shallow as it first appears. Too many notes! Which ones? You wouldn't have a clue.
Correct. But it may be true anyway. You can for example often tell whether for example a piece of pop music has too many layers of diferent sounds, if the mixing is overdone, if it lacks in harmony. You may be able to tell that without being able to tell exactly what ought to be done to fix the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chopin View Post
That is a statement of your personal preference only - there's nothing objective about it. If you prefer Mozart's simplicity of style - great! - but don't go insinuating that it's some sort of objective analysis of the music.
I am not saying that my personal preferences here necessarily reflect the objective quality of the pieces -- but I have no reason to believe that they do not reflect something objective about the music, and it is at least theoretically possible that the style of Mozart is objectively superior to Rachmaninovs, regardless of whether I happen to believe it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chopin View Post
- all subjective statements and completely irrelevant in an objective study of the musics' quality
You didn't ask me to do an objective study of the music's quality. You asked me to for my personal opinion on which of the two pieces is the most objectively beautiful -- and that's exactly what I have done. I know that I can't prove which one is the most beautiful, I have only tried to describe my impressions and given some indications on where we could take a closer look if we want to dig deeply into the problem in an attempt to determine for sure which one of the two pieces of music is the most objectively beautiful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chopin View Post
Uh ... are you able to elaborate on why you think it's 'a better one'?
I think that I can hear that it is. Can't you?

And even if it often might be true that you can't prove that something is objectively better than something else, that gives you no reason to believe that personal preferences are subjective in the sense that they are all equally correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chopin View Post
Saying that the Rach piece doesn't have enough harmony is a statement which showcases your ignorance. It in fact employs more sophisticated and complex harmonies than the Mozart. Again - only a reference to your own musical tastes.
How do you know that? Can you prove it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chopin View Post
Another observation about as deep and clear as a mud puddle.
No. That is clearly not the case. What I say here is perfectly in line with what you just said about the Rach piece -- that it is more complex than Mozart's. Mozart's piece is more simple, we agree on that. The problem is to determine whether the complexity of the Rach piece makes it better than Mozart's, or whether the complexity, as I suspect in this particular case, makes it overloaded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Prom, I think there is a good chance that you are autistic, or something.
Why do you think that? And what does it have to do with anything we are discussing here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Maybe there is a correlation between Ni and autism.
Why do you think that? What are your arguments for such a suggestion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Everyone else can see that your typing has no basis in reality. Full of errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, blindness, stupidity, etc etc.
That is sheer nonsense. Anyone with enough brain can see that my arguments are vastly superior to yours both in logical consistency and in content. It is very clearly the case that my capacity for logical reasoning is superior to yours.

It is a very common phenomenon that people with lower IQ criticize those with higher IQ than theirs for being illogical, incorrect, stupid, etc. They simply don't understand that they are in fact less talanted in logical reasoning and that their arguments are inferior. We have a very clear example of that phenomenon in the thread about Chris Langan. If you are above average in intelligence yourself, you will probably realize that Langan has in fact a very high IQ, and if you are way above average in IQ you will not be in doubt about it. Those who don't see that are probably not very intelligent themselves.

You can of course, and probably will, take what I say here as an indication that I belong to the group of people who don't understand that they are illogical and unintelligent, and there is not much I can do about that. I cannot prove to you that I am better at logical reasoning than you are, but those with high IQ will see that what I claim here is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Autism is more common in men btw
Correct. Good that you have learned something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
If you just consider that you do not get what everyone else says. And that everyone else does not get what you say. Ever. You must realise that there must be some mentally illness within you. You are speaking to the wrong professionals here you need medical assistance.
If you suspect that I am autistic, you should know that autism is not a disease, and that it is not a mental illness. It cannot be "cured" by medicine, even though for example depression, which is more common among people on the autism spectrum, can be treated successfully by medicines. Autism is defined as a function disorder, which means that your brain is structured slightly differently than the average brain.

A lot of famous people have been autistic, for example Ludwig Wittgenstein, Albert Einstein, Bobby Fischer (who passed away very recently), Kurt Gödel (probably) etc. Maybe they could have benefited from medicine in some cases, but their genius was a direct consequence of their autism.

Last edited by Prometheus; 23/01/2008 at 09:53 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 23/01/2008, 12:28 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Hey Prom. Why are you still posting. Why are we still posting. CC was right you are like a brick wall. Here is what a conversation with you looks like to everyone else

Prometheus: That colour is blue, it really is blue.

Cyclops: I think it is blue, I agree.

Prometheus: I don't think you understand Cyclops, the colour you are describing is actually blue.

Cyclops: Thats what I said. I said it was blue. You said that as well.

Prometheus: I think you display a lack of understanding and intelligence here Cyclops. What I am saying is that it is blue, and if you care to read through my posts you will infact see that it is not blue, nor did I ever say that it could be anything remotely blue. Anyone with half a brain will see that it cannot be the colour you say it is, as they will see it can only be blue. I have clearly described it to be blue, so why Cyclops, why do you still say here that blue is its colour
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 23/01/2008, 01:07 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

I think you should all understand you. This called Prometheus is trying to convince you that he has INTp hidden agenda.
__________________
"To live happy, live hidden."
β ST, E6 autopreservation.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 23/01/2008, 01:31 PM
chopin's Avatar
chopin chopin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 68
Default

I'm inclined to agree with you CC. Surely he can't be real - he's like a caricature. I bet he's an ISTp or something having us on - seeing if he can pull off this genius act. He seemed to like the idea that he could be autistic.
__________________
If so many men, so many minds, certainly so many hearts, so many kinds of love. - Tolstoy
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 23/01/2008, 01:42 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default

I made a mistake, I meant he is trying to convince you that his profile fits the INTp unconvered one.
__________________
"To live happy, live hidden."
β ST, E6 autopreservation.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 23/01/2008, 01:50 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Hey Prom. Why are you still posting. Why are we still posting. CC was right you are like a brick wall. Here is what a conversation with you looks like to everyone else

Prometheus: That colour is blue, it really is blue.

Cyclops: I think it is blue, I agree.

Prometheus: I don't think you understand Cyclops, the colour you are describing is actually blue.

Cyclops: Thats what I said. I said it was blue. You said that as well.

Prometheus: I think you display a lack of understanding and intelligence here Cyclops. What I am saying is that it is blue, and if you care to read through my posts you will infact see that it is not blue, nor did I ever say that it could be anything remotely blue. Anyone with half a brain will see that it cannot be the colour you say it is, as they will see it can only be blue. I have clearly described it to be blue, so why Cyclops, why do you still say here that blue is its colour
Why are you misdescribing what has happened in this thread? Why are you lying about your role in this play? If you agree with my views, you could have said it at once, so we could have moved on to discuss even more interesting and important things instead of getting stuck at the beginning. You have not confirmed that you agree with my reasoning on the important issues. So, please stop spreading this bullshit of yours.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 23/01/2008, 01:56 PM
chopin's Avatar
chopin chopin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
If you agree with my views, you could have said it at once, so we could have moved on to discuss even more interesting and important things instead of getting stuck at the beginning.
Even MORE interesting and important?? Is that possible?
__________________
If so many men, so many minds, certainly so many hearts, so many kinds of love. - Tolstoy
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 23/01/2008, 03:02 PM
iannau iannau is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11
Default

Prometheus' consistent insistence that art can be qualified according to logical analysis reminds me of when I was reading Ouspensky about Gurdjieff.
At one point, I forget if it was from In Search of the Miraculous or The Fourth Way, G starts talking about how "true" art can always be interpreted in the same way by different people. How if two people look at the same work of art and come away from it with different impressions then there is either something lacking in the art or something deficient in one or both people experiencing the work.
I remember reading that passage and instantly reacting: "BULLSHIT!"
One of the most phenomenal things about art to me is that different people receive it differently. Along the lines of what Cyclops said, there will *always* be room for variety.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 23/01/2008, 04:15 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iannau View Post
I remember reading that passage and instantly reacting: "BULLSHIT!"
One of the most phenomenal things about art to me is that different people receive it differently. Along the lines of what Cyclops said, there will *always* be room for variety.
Of course different people perceive and interpret art differently. No one has ever questioned that, I think. But from that it doesn't follow that there isn't a correct or a better way of perceiving and interpreting it.

It would be interesting to discuss why so many people instinctively reject the idea that objective quality exists and that some interpretations might be more correct than others. Why do you think that you react that way? Why is that kind of attitude so common and so popular nowadays?
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 24/01/2008, 12:44 PM
chopin's Avatar
chopin chopin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Maybe there is a correlation between Ni and autism.
Do you think it's possible for ethical types to be autistic?
__________________
If so many men, so many minds, certainly so many hearts, so many kinds of love. - Tolstoy
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 24/01/2008, 04:31 PM
iannau iannau is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Of course different people perceive and interpret art differently. No one has ever questioned that, I think. But from that it doesn't follow that there isn't a correct or a better way of perceiving and interpreting it.

It would be interesting to discuss why so many people instinctively reject the idea that objective quality exists and that some interpretations might be more correct than others. Why do you think that you react that way? Why is that kind of attitude so common and so popular nowadays?
Instinctive - well, wouldn't this kinda support the whole theory that our brains process things differently? That's the idea that eventually produced socionics in the first place: we are hardwired to process inputs with different emphases. Thus two people getting the same input will produce different outputs, the output in this case being their interpretation of the work of art.
This doesn't preclude the possibility that *most* people will react to *most* art in *similar* ways, which can project the appearance of *that* way being better. Or that there aren't aspects of craftsmanship that require refinement of taste to recognize (such as in wine tasting or listening to complex music). But the very idea that two people can have different interpretations of the same experience is part of what makes art art to me.

... I'm going to have to dig up one of my favorite quotes, because if I tried to paraphrase it I know I'd just butcher it. But in the meantime, let me ask you this: even if you studied music theory inside & out, even if you researched the life and likely motivations of Mozart (or Bach or Rachmaninoff, etc), even if you practice composing similar pieces yourself to the point that other people well-versed in these matters compare your work to his ... could you possibly fool yourself into thinking that you experience the same things that the artist experienced in creating his work? Or to alter the question a bit, do you trust that your experience is exactly along the lines of what the artist intended you to experience? And how do you know?
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 24/01/2008, 05:59 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iannau View Post
But in the meantime, let me ask you this: even if you studied music theory inside & out, even if you researched the life and likely motivations of Mozart (or Bach or Rachmaninoff, etc), even if you practice composing similar pieces yourself to the point that other people well-versed in these matters compare your work to his ... could you possibly fool yourself into thinking that you experience the same things that the artist experienced in creating his work? Or to alter the question a bit, do you trust that your experience is exactly along the lines of what the artist intended you to experience? And how do you know?
I am not a proponent of the theory that says that the essence of art is to express yourself, your feelings, your thoughts, your ideas, your attitudes, your values, or whatever, and that the work of art is your means to do that, and that you have succeeded in creating a good work of art if the receiver (the reader, the viewer, the public ...) understands what you were trying to convey. That theory has traditionally been quite popular, or even been taken for granted, but I believe that it is a mistake.

I think that the best works of art has another purpose: they are beautiful (good) constructs that have certain effects on the receiver, for example producing feelings of well-being, or of awe, or of making them see the harmony, the structure, the form, or whatever, of the work. And I also believe that that is the real essence of what art should be. It is not at all necessary that the creator of the work of art had the same feelings when creating it as the ones that are produced in the public. Every person can have different experiences when "consuming" a work of art, and it is even possible that the artist didn't feel anything when he was working on it. And whether he or she in fact did or did not experience or feel anyting is totally irrelevant in relation to the quality of the work of art itself. One artist can have plenty of wonderful feelings when creating, whereas another may be totally indifferent, and yet it could be the latter that is the better artist of the two.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM