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
  #21  
Old 13/01/2008, 11:36 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
Why hate an old man with the beard and halo?
You don't have a halo in your picture
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 13/01/2008, 01:21 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

It's cos I'm not an old man
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 13/01/2008, 04:03 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
It's cos I'm not an old man
Wish I knew the feeling
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15/01/2008, 09:58 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ValerieUGA View Post
"the nature of absolute reality"

Hahaha! Did you hear that Prom?

Been thinking. I think you have Se as leader or second. Se is real and you cant question it without being a fool. Maybe thats what he meant... I mean "the five senses ... there is nothing else..." let me add: the rest is N (N being the connection between the dots, -the dots are real and the connections are unreal, the stars are there but the pictures drawn in the sky exist only in our imagination).

Is it not likely that an S person is dogmatic in a real sense. (Sorry I realize I have used the wrong word all the time...). Do you have scientific glasses when you read this? I do not think so. You see reality. You claim you see reality. I think you are right. Because S knows as much as anyone can know.

You are SeTi or TiSe. Because what you see is what you know and what you know is what is what you believe. Everyone believes but some people believe more right than others. Those people have Se as a "leader". Se in the first or second.

Which one of those two is an iceberg in the ocean...? The ultimate INVENTOR of course. Inventors invent real things, -things that can be of REAL benefit to others.

Do you want to get to the "bottom" (**** I did it again again) of this? Well I am Titanic.

Why did I love London and most of all London? Can you answer that?

Am I "Wolfie"? Really?

Do you understand me? Just say yes if you do!!!

I wrote before that the sum of the 16 types understanding describes the objective reality.

I take that back. It is ****ed up.

S rules objectively (not saying S describes objectively but S KNOWS objectively). That knowing could cause other people to believe you are a preacher.

You are not a preacher though.

What type is Ayn Rand? Hehehe...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Hahaha! Did you hear that Prom?

Been thinking. I think you have Se as leader or second. Se is real and you cant question it without being a fool. Maybe thats what he meant... I mean "the five senses ... there is nothing else..." let me add: the rest is N (N being the connection between the dots, -the dots are real and the connections are unreal, the stars are there but the pictures drawn in the sky exist only in our imagination).

Is it not likely that an S person is dogmatic in a real sense. (Sorry I realize I have used the wrong word all the time...). Do you have scientific glasses when you read this? I do not think so. You see reality. You claim you see reality. I think you are right. Because S knows as much as anyone can know.

You are SeTi or TiSe. Because what you see is what you know and what you know is what is what you believe. Everyone believes but some people believe more right than others. Those people have Se as a "leader". Se in the first or second.

Which one of those two is an iceberg in the ocean...? The ultimate INVENTOR of course. Inventors invent real things, -things that can be of REAL benefit to others.

Do you want to get to the "bottom" (**** I did it again again) of this? Well I am Titanic.

Why did I love London and most of all London? Can you answer that?

Am I "Wolfie"? Really?

Do you understand me? Just say yes if you do!!!

I wrote before that the sum of the 16 types understanding describes the objective reality.

I take that back. It is ****ed up.

S rules objectively (not saying S describes objectively but S KNOWS objectively). That knowing could cause other people to believe you are a preacher.

You are not a preacher though.

What type is Ayn Rand? Hehehe...
Basically... who is preaching?

Last edited by Vibration; 15/01/2008 at 09:58 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 16/01/2008, 12:18 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Hahaha! Did you hear that Prom?
Yeah ... I seem to be hearing the strangest things these days ... Where do all the voices come from? And the nature of absolute reality ... I have known it for some time ... but there is really nothing special about it. It's overrated.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 16/01/2008, 12:48 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Yeah ... I seem to be hearing the strangest things these days ... Where do all the voices come from? And the nature of absolute reality ... I have known it for some time ... but there is really nothing special about it. It's overrated.
What strange things? Dont care about the destructive blokes. There are so many. Just filter the crap! What about the objectivity ladder I proposed? The strongest function determines the objectivity? Is it crap? I am not the right person to ask. I have realized I am just drawing unreal pictures all the time. Pictures of the future pictures of what may be possible. I guess anyone can train the weaker functions in order to achieve any goal at hand!? So any type can be as objective/artistic/whatever as it wants!?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 18/01/2008, 09:04 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
What strange things? Dont care about the destructive blokes. There are so many. Just filter the crap! What about the objectivity ladder I proposed? The strongest function determines the objectivity? Is it crap? I am not the right person to ask. I have realized I am just drawing unreal pictures all the time. Pictures of the future pictures of what may be possible. I guess anyone can train the weaker functions in order to achieve any goal at hand!? So any type can be as objective/artistic/whatever as it wants!?

Socionics is always evolving. Ne's always gonna be useful !

I don't think the weak functions can be trained to be as strong as the dominant ones, but they can be developed nonetheless in their own ways.

Any type can be objective, artistic etc. For so many more reasons other than what is their stronger functions, but yet from so many other perspectives relating to their stronger functions !
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 12:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM