5 replies to this topic

[Galen]

Quote is by poet Wallace Stevens.

I was shown this quote by a friend recently, and it seems relevant to socionics. As such, I want to know what everybody thinks of it. Specifically, I want to see what meaning(s) people interpret from it (not necessarily in a socionics light, more like to paraphrase what he's saying in your own words), and I want to know what people's reactions are to it: whether you agree or connect with it, or not.

[k0rp]

My immediate response was to think of the immaterialist idealism of Berkeley, who held that objects, while truly existing only within minds, remain extant when unperceived by mortals by being ever kept in the omniscient thoughts of God.

Secondly, I recalled the panpsychism of Spinoza, who held that material existence was merely emergent extension of an immanent, transcendent Deity's universal, supervening Mind. (I've yet to finish reading his "Ethics" --- obviously it's best appreciated as a whole, but since it requires so much flipping back and forth between pages, taking it in piece by piece is a fucking drudge.)

My third thought was that this echoes the latter-day nerdwank of those who bonghittedly ponder whether we're all within the Matrix maaaaaan, and if all of what appears concrete and real is actually just a vast and tricksy computer simulation.

Fourth and last, since it was suggested that Wallace was given to solipsism, this paean could be an instance of the writer laying lips upon his own ass.

Regarding its relevance to socionics: who cares.

[typhon]

Seems like a mockery of gamma NTs and their take on "reality is what it is" attitude. And objectivists too.

[Ashton]

typhon, on 22 March 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

Seems like a mockery of gamma NTs and their take on "reality is what it is" attitude.

"Reality is what it is"? What Gammas have utter this remark and what does it mean?

Quote

And objectivists too.

Ayn Rand's one of your kin, you know.

[typhon]

Ashton, on 22 March 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

"Reality is what it is"? What Gammas have utter this remark and what does it mean?

Its admitidetly mainly Te gamma nts that have done this, namely my dad and this guy named Vinny on another forum. And this Te ENTj guy on my space who called himself "gm". And this other Te ENTj guy on similar minds.

Quote

Ayn Rand's one of your kin, you know.

lol I know. I guess my point is that I've encountered gammma nts who think that reality is what it is, and that subjectivity is "bullshit". Heres the conversation usually goes:

Me: Yeah, but do how do you know that senses are not an illusion, i mean im not saying they are, but can you say they aerent?
Gm(or Vinny): Go out on the street and get hit by a truck. Thatll show you reality.
Me:*scratches head*

The point is, Ayn Rand was self aware of being objecvist in her views on reality, whereas these guys aerent. Shes aware she could be a subjectvist. Vinny or gm dont even consider that viewpoint as a possibility.

[EyeSeeCold]

typhon, on 26 March 2011 - 07:57 AM, said:

Ashton, on 22 March 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

"Reality is what it is"? What Gammas have utter this remark and what does it mean?

Its admitidetly mainly Te gamma nts that have done this, namely my dad and this guy named Vinny on another forum. And this Te ENTj guy on my space who called himself "gm". And this other Te ENTj guy on similar minds.

Quote

Ayn Rand's one of your kin, you know.

lol I know. I guess my point is that I've encountered gammma nts who think that reality is what it is, and that subjectivity is "bullshit". Heres the conversation usually goes:

Me: Yeah, but do how do you know that senses are not an illusion, i mean im not saying they are, but can you say they aerent?
Gm(or Vinny): Go out on the street and get hit by a truck. Thatll show you reality.
Me:*scratches head*

The point is, Ayn Rand was self aware of being objecvist in her views on reality, whereas these guys aerent. Shes aware she could be a subjectvist. Vinny or gm dont even consider that viewpoint as a possibility.

Cause you guys are arguing different points. You said your senses could be an illusion, that's true! But the impact your senses receive are not subjective. A blue may really be green, but you are looking at a color. A truck may really be a convertible, but you did get run over. You may be living as a brain in a vat, so? You're still receiving signals, to YOU the simulation is REAL. So what's the point of dwelling on that topic? It's a waste of time if you can never know, being the brain in a vat that you are.

The point of Gamma realism is not to get bogged down and argue over stupid things that are obvious. However saying Gammas are realists who have no sense of imagination is just biased, ignorant bullshit.