The Tide of Humanity - Page 11

The Tide of Humanity

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 116
Thank Tree183Thanks

This is a discussion on The Tide of Humanity within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; A freeing of the spirit, or an awakening of the expressive, contemplative side of Americans (or people in general), doesn’t ...

  1. #101

    A freeing of the spirit, or an awakening of the expressive, contemplative side of Americans (or people in general), doesn’t require the destruction and reinvention of our ruling system. Internal civil destruction results in widespread death and anguish, which makes little psychological gestational sense for a shining rebirth. Further, decentralizing governmental power in the modern age would spell our immediate destruction and political enslavement by whichever external force decided to waltz in and take over our resources unchallenged amidst the chaos. Proponents of such activism are shortsighted.

    Artists (and a few other assorted visionary classes) are visionaries precisely because they are not performing their civil duty out of self interest, but rather, out of compassion, concern, and inspiration, which gives rise to sensible, non-reactionary, non-violent revolution – few are capable of expressing revolutionary ideas, or simple universal truths in ways that the average person will find easily applicable – in other words, the masses will never be superiorly expressive, contemplative, or inspired – only visionaries have that burden/opportunity, and seeking to radically reshape society around the notion that average people, who thrive on order, will somehow flourish with love and creativity in a completely deconstructed society is pure folly.

    The entirety of human effort is focused on achieving one general goal – easing the difficulties of life. From housing, to transportation, to education, medicine, and law, we strive to have peaceful communities, in which we can live long lives, unafraid of persecution or violence, where we are free to speak our minds, and express ourselves in any way we wish – in our modern world, this is still a luxury which few countries enjoy, and while our society is not perfect, it is without doubt among the most liberated societies in existence, and discounting the importance of that achievement is a mistake. As earlier stated, only visionaries have the burden of feeling compelled to exercise their right to expression, and to shape the world for the better – if visionaries can’t give the masses some direction and purpose, the masses will be content to simply enjoy the fruits of their contemporaries’ and ancestors’ labors, or in other words – for the less aspirational masses, living an easy life is a reward in itself, and it isn't difficult for power seekers to convince them that civil progress might threaten their comfortable way of life.

    Artists and visionaries are not directly opposed to government, nor to the masses, nor to organization in general, but to the misanthropic power seekers who wish to abuse the necessary precepts of a civilized society, in an attempt to bend the masses to their selfish will. Artists are capable of holding a mirror up to society and illuminating its faults with stunning clarity, thereby exposing such power seekers for the cancer they are. Sadly, modern artists are largely unable to perform this civil responsibility, simply because their field of expertise has become overcrowded by a mass of technically proficient, yet inspirationally challenged "artists" who are enamored with how well they fit into the reflection, and who are merely creating a labyrinthine collection of funhouse mirrors, all dedicated to hollow re-replicated commercial art with no purpose or message. Such self proclaimed and/or corporately approved artists are not necessarily passionate life-long artists with inborn talent and a desire to help the world through their expression, but rather, many are mere fans of media (aka – the ugly reflection) who actively decided to learn how to compose, design, and create in order to cultivate business skills, which they exercise as a rote commercial service, similar to an accountant completing forms for a client. In galleries, so called modern art is a mere commodity for the rich.

    The true artists are still there, in as small numbers as ever, telling us that this whole commercialized, money and status obsessed mess is a death knell – but the message is so directly opposed to the ugly reflection we’ve all come to love, that it’s easier for many to discount them as primitive lunatics, lest the masses admit their own deeply discomforting cognitive dissonance.

    Our sense of identity, from the cultural level, down to the personal level, has been supplanted by pure commercialism, and commercialism gives us no reason to live, no sense of purpose beyond feeding the ravenous machine of planned obsolescence. We’re in this situation because art is dead, and a ragtag group of reactionary activists, who to their credit realize something is wrong, are trying (and failing) to fill the shoes of our artists and visionaries.
    Last edited by transceiver; 09-11-2015 at 03:30 PM.
    El Woodchuck thanked this post.

  2. #102

    There is nothing we can do

  3. #103

    Quote Originally Posted by atarulum View Post
    There is nothing we can do
    What makes you think that?

  4. #104

    What makes me think that is because political leaders are not thinking of how they could effect there t people and it feels like the news are not telling us the honest truth

  5. #105

    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    The true artists are still there, in as small numbers as ever, telling us that this whole commercialized, money and status obsessed mess is a death knell – but the message is so directly opposed to the ugly reflection we’ve all come to love, that it’s easier for many to discount them as primitive lunatics, lest the masses admit their own deeply discomforting cognitive dissonance.
    Unfortunately, even artists-- who do deeply believe in their craft as an expression of that which can lead to change in others for the better-- are so entrenched in the extant systems, to the point where the solutions are invisible.

    These artists are just as inspiring and inspired as artists of previous eras, but the problems aren't so obvious to them. Artistic ability, and a love for the arts in general, does not automatically make someone possess a strength of cognitive functions that would lend itself to seeing as big of a picture as needs to be seen.

    Artists are not necessarily visionaries in that macroscopic of a sense. Some are focused on things as microscopic as small-group interactions, and exercise an altruistic artistic spirit by inspiring harmonisation efforts of small scale that will never take into account the criteria for a widespread movement.

    Art isn't dead. The industry is crowded-out by commercialism, yes. But, the artistry is still out there. Just as much as it always was. The structures of American society right now are extremely (and innovatively) deceptive and powerful.

    It's not a lack of inspiration. It's inspiration by the many being drowned-out by the multi-billion-dollar megaphones of a select few.

    Saying "art is dead" and "we need artists" is too reductive to address the actual problems of power-elitism and propagandized agendas entrenched into business, nepotistic politics and devisive (sexist, racist, classist, ableist, every-ist, anti-socialist) mass media..... all powered-up by a globalization agenda of our over-funded military powers.

    It also dismisses the many ways in which artistry and altruism can coalesce in earnest, in the many different personality types (and /because of/ the many different personality types).

    It also conveniently valorizes particular types of artists, thus valorizing particular personality types. For the (myopic) sake of the just the forums, this alone makes your assertions tenuous.

    It's too simple. We all want simpler answers, and this is one of those.

    Besides, without the types who can execute change far better stereotypically than some of the stereotypically-"artistic" types, nothing would get done either.

    We're all necessary. We're all just /also/ extremely over our heads. And a lot have either too many psychological stress from things beyond their control (like the horrible state of Work/Life balance in America, the rigged state of academia... and everything else which privilege makes elusive), or they're just flat-out Not That Intelligent.

    Type eugenics es no bueno, and this post is implicitly flavored as such.

  6. #106

    @Kerik_S - Ha! Slow down. I didn't say art is dead. I don't believe it is. I said that artists are currently largely unable to reach the masses with their messages, because they're opposed by a commercialized and heavily politically influenced system which has inhabited and commoditized their realm of expertise - basically, I suggested the exact concepts which you (paradoxically) stated are missing from my post. Nowhere did I say this was the one issue facing society - it isn't. Additionally, last I checked, artists come from all MBTI types, but then, you wouldn't know I believe that, because you didn't think to converse with me before attempting to deliver a scolding. Thanks! Further, I'm an INTP, which is not a "stereotypically- 'artistic' type." I have no typist agenda.

    I do, in fact, have a lot more to say on this subject, but you're right - I simplified the concepts I wished to share, mainly due to the fact that my original post is already a wall of text as it stands. Judging by your inaccurate, dismissive, accusatory, and grossly assumptive reply, you're not the partner in conversation I'm looking for.

    Edit: Ha! Synchronicity. Just saw this on facebook. Is Chopra being "typist?"
    https://youtu.be/-PN-lD2TvzM?t=58
    I'm not familiar with his work, but I obviously agree.
    Last edited by transceiver; 10-30-2015 at 06:17 AM.

  7. #107

    Backpedaling a bit

    @transceiver ,In the spoiler is my attempt to show I meant no harm. I considered sending it in a message; however, I'd rather also keep it here to (honestly) just show anyone else to whom my words were miscommunicated that I am not a cavalier asshat. I know my way of phrasing things can be skewed, as can anyone's... especially in intertype interactions (I don't know much about INFJ to INTP smoothness-of-communication, though).

     

    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    @Kerik_S - Ha! Slow down. I didn't say art is dead. I don't believe it is.
    Before I address what is likely a miscommunication from the get-go... because I wasn't leveraging a scolding against you, rather that your post could have been interpreted as typist; thus—whether intentional or not (apparently, in light of your last post, a solid Not)—it could perpetuate a pervasive mentality on here. ... Before that, I'll point out one instance in which a miscommunication on my part makes sense in light of what you did say:

    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    We’re in this situation because art is dead, and a ragtag group of reactionary activists, who to their credit realize something is wrong, are trying (and failing) to fill the shoes of our artists and visionaries.




     

    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    I said that artists are currently largely unable to reach the masses with their messages, because they're opposed by a commercialized and heavily politically influenced system which has inhabited and commoditized their realm of expertise - basically, I suggested the exact concepts which you (paradoxically) stated are missing from my post. Nowhere did I say this was the one issue facing society - it isn't.
    In hopes that you realize I wasn't making any attempts to tell you where you were or weren't remiss in your posting... (because I really, really don't want to eliminate the chance of furthering the conversation with you, as I have no problem with you as a poster-of-content—I simply wanted to address the implications of your content in context of how [naïve] PerC users could interpret it as fuel for their agendized stereotyping)....

    In that vein of maintaining an olive branch, I will try and cite instances that may illustrate that I do, in fact, realize that you addressed the commoditization of art-as-product (as opposed to art-as-process):



    Quote Originally Posted by Kerik_S View Post
    [A]rtists-- who do deeply believe in their craft as an expression of that which can lead to change in others for the better-- are so entrenched in the extant systems, to the point where the solutions are invisible.
    The extant systems I was speaking of are the systems of commodization (for one, among others) that you believe I found lacking in your post. I really, honestly, did not say you weren't aware of this, or else I wouldn't have opened my response with that very sentence about extant systems.





    Quote Originally Posted by Kerik_S View Post
    Art isn't dead. The industry is crowded-out by commercialism, yes. But, the artistry is still out there. Just as much as it always was. The structures of American society right now are extremely (and innovatively) deceptive and powerful.
    Semantically, I typed yes to show that I was indeed in agreement with you—that my statement “The industry is crowded-out by commercialism [commoditization]” was predicated on the belief that you yourself believe as much and had stated as much. I'm really trying to show you that I didn't intend to come across as dismissive or myopic. I clearly made a concession that I agreed with you.

    Please allow me the grace to remain a neutral party in your eyes. It serves neither of us to let a miscommunication stand with finality, precluding future amiable interaction on here.

    I was very thrown-off by your response to your reception of my words, because I don't like to come on here to pick fights and it confused me that my words would be taken that way.







    Quote Originally Posted by Kerik_S View Post
    It's not a lack of inspiration. It's inspiration by the many being drowned-out by the multi-billion-dollar megaphones of a select few.
    Again, a concession to my agreement with you—therefore, an indication that I did in fact see you express that other problems were at play, not “just one”.

    Really trying here. I honestly believe I know where I did slip up and could easily have been interpreted as directing a scolding at you. The last sentence I typed:


    Quote Originally Posted by Kerik_S View Post
    Type eugenics es no bueno, and this post is implicitly flavored as such.





     
    That last sentence was imprudent on my part. Though the bulk of what I've presented, I would hope you'd see as a treatise on how I meant no harm or personal attack, I know my last words were the most likely to be misinterpreted. I spent the bulk of my post referring to an “it” that was meant to show that I wasn't talking about you, but rather how your words—when viewed by the prejudiced members of this forum—could be interpreted in an objectionable way.

    Not so much that you were being a “type eugenist”, but rather that your post was “flavored as such”: meaning, that people can infer, in err, that type-valorizing is okay.

    I was trying, rather cavalier, to make sure the impact of your words wasn't skewed toward the pervasive and annoying-as-frigg stereotyping that occurs on here. And I was also considering that you might have fallen for such stereotyping. I wanted to nip it in the bud, because I saw a bud. I believe, now, that you possess no such “budding belief” that certain types are better than others.





     

     
    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    Additionally, last I checked, artists come from all MBTI types, but then, you wouldn't know I believe that, because you didn't think to converse with me before attempting to deliver a scolding. Thanks! Further, I'm an INTP, which is not a "stereotypically- 'artistic' type." I have no typist agenda.
    I've said as much: That I had no intention to scold, and that my aims were more in response to the “it” that was your content, and that content's possible interpretations by others.

    I used terms like “stereotypically” (in reference to “artistic types”), decisively so, in order to highlight that I don't actually believe that only certain types are artistic. The fact that you put stereotypically in quotes demonstrates that you read the several instances in which I used that word.

    So, please know that I used it specifically because I don't believe the stereotypes. I just know that people on PerC are divisive enough to use stereotypes. (Particularly the NF's-as-Artists-who-can-revolutionize-the-world Sterotype, which I have to deal with a lot as an NF... because I have no intention of revolutionizing anything, and am not a Bad NF for trying to find happiness within the system rather than attempting to buck it completely).

     

    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    I do, in fact, have a lot more to say on this subject, but you're right - I simplified the concepts I wished to share, mainly due to the fact that my original post is already a wall of text as it stands.
    Yes, and it was this simplification that impelled me to elucidate on the subject and try my best to fill in the gaps so that stupid people don't use it to further entrench their divisive and discordant stereotypes. Again, I leveraged all objections or illuminations on this “it” I've spoken of. Specifically, IT was used to show that I wasn't talking about you. Just your content.

     
    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    Judging by your inaccurate, dismissive, accusatory, and grossly assumptive reply, you're not the partner in conversation I'm looking for.
    This is part that bugs me the most, and was the catalyst for my efforts thusfar to clear up miscommunication.

    To indicate my many instances of critique of content, rather than your inferred critique-of-you (which, again was not intended):

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerik_S View Post
    Saying "art is dead" and "we need artists" is too reductive. . . .

    It also dismisses. . . .


    Not to be pedantic, rather to highlight the connection of “it” to content, above, Saying "art is dead" [blah blah] is the antecedent to which It later refers to. I did not mean YOU saying. I meant saying to be a gerund, a noun constructed of the -ing ending of a verb, "The act of saying"

    I meant that the content in saying "art is dead" and "we need artists" is reductive. Meaning it runs the risk of being interpreted myopically by others. Which is the last thing PerC needs.





     
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerik_S View Post
    It also conveniently valorizes particular types of artists, thus valorizing particular personality types. For the (myopic) sake of the just the forums, this alone makes your assertions tenuous.

    It's too simple. We all want simpler answers, and this is one of those.
    Again, “it” and “It's” and “This alone” refers to the words you said and the possible problematic inferences people on these forums are likely to make, given the fact that many see stereotyping and type-degrading as so prevalent that it warrants actually being listed as worthy of infraction in the PerC rules by the moderators.

    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    Edit: Ha! Synchronicity. Just saw this on facebook. Is Chopra being "typist?"
    https://youtu.be/-PN-lD2TvzM?t=58
    No, he's not.

    And you weren't being typist either. Your words could have been skewed that way, because—by your own admission—your words were but truncated versions of the full thoughts you had on the situation. Truncated because your “original post is already a wall of text as it stands.”

     
    I truly meant no offense. The last thing I want is to be seen as a preclusion of any further discussion on this thread and PerC as a whole. I completely understand where my words were lacking, and I understand why they were easily interpreted as sniping.

    All I can say is I'm sorry. And hope it can be water of a duck's back :/
    transceiver thanked this post.

  8. #108

    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    I said that artists are currently largely unable to reach the masses with their messages, because they're opposed by a commercialized and heavily politically influenced system which has inhabited and commoditized their realm of expertise....
    Indeed. The world of contemporary art has quite a narrow focus due to pressures from the politically left-leaning academic side of art and from an atheist dominated collector base. If your work doesn't fit their definition of "contemporary art" you're left out of the game. The problem with this is that they're applying a form of censorship. Any voices different from theirs aren't heard, at least in the galleries and art fairs where it counts. To add to this censorship of artists, curators now choose the theme of exhibits. Artists are required to make art in keeping with that theme. If they want to express a different idea they're out of luck. This has essentially destroyed the avante garde because artists don't have the freedom to express whatever they want and have it seen by the public in galleries or exhibits.
    transceiver thanked this post.

  9. #109

    @Kerik_S - My apologies. I believe I have an insight on the root of the miscommunication. It’s a failing among INTPs to omit entire tracts of logical explanation which we perceive as containing concepts which are given – this appears to the reader as sudden leap in logic. You're correct - those who don't immediately "get it" can infer unintentional, and occasionally dangerous connections.

    When I first read your statements, I said, “Yeah, I thought I already said all of that quite well, and what I didn’t was implied.” You’re correct in identifying your closing sentence as the portion of your post which led to my misunderstanding – without it, I would’ve taken your earlier statements at face value, and not reread them in an altered tone. As it was, it appeared you wished to call my altruism into question, which, being a firmly held personal value, makes me prickly. Unfortunately, INTPs generally have little patience for stalling their cognitive momentum to explain what they believe to be self evident. This makes us appear arrogant and condescending, as we’ll then over explain the previously skipped steps in an effort not to omit what may prove important, thereby insulting the intelligence of our audience. But I digress! Thanks for taking the time to write a calm, thoughtful reply. I think we're on the same page, more or less.

  10. #110

    Quote Originally Posted by transceiver View Post
    @Kerik_S - My apologies. I believe I have an insight on the root of the miscommunication. It’s a failing among INTPs to omit entire tracts of logical explanation which we perceive as containing concepts which are given – this appears to the reader as sudden leap in logic. You're correct - those who don't immediately "get it" can infer unintentional, and occasionally dangerous connections.

    When I first read your statements, I said, “Yeah, I thought I already said all of that quite well, and what I didn’t was implied.” You’re correct in identifying your closing sentence as the portion of your post which led to my misunderstanding – without it, I would’ve taken your earlier statements at face value, and not reread them in an altered tone. As it was, it appeared you wished to call my altruism into question, which, being a firmly held personal value, makes me prickly. Unfortunately, INTPs generally have little patience for stalling their cognitive momentum to explain what they believe to be self evident. This makes us appear arrogant and condescending, as we’ll then over explain the previously skipped steps in an effort not to omit what may prove important, thereby insulting the intelligence of our audience. But I digress! Thanks for taking the time to write a calm, thoughtful reply. I think we're on the same page, more or less.
    I just went on a first date with an INTP, so it's definitely good for me to know how Ti-Ne-Si-Fe manifests in communication. I'm not sure if it's anything inherent about INTP, or just the combination of Ti-Ne-Si and Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, that leads to miscommunication. I would think since I have a Mobilizing (socionics) Ti function (I seek Ti-users to help me understand my own, so I tend to understand its usage in context—so, I'd be unlikely to miss any logical line you were drawing),... that the miscommunication has more to due with my Ne being a function I only understand in terms of how I use it to take in information rather than how it's used to produce communications. And my Si is just completely erratic, so in combination, I'd miss the implications that you'd see as easy-to-spot (Ne), and I'd miss the overall motivations for your entire thesis (Si?).

    I'm new to this, but I can see how it would lead to misreading from my end. There may be some difficulties you had understanding my "it" vs. "you" thing. It might have struck the nerve with you because of your weak Fe and your erratic Se. Making sense of the "blueprint" of the entirety of my post (Se) and the reasons why I'd play certain things to you as my audience (Fe).

    Postulation, but it's fun.

    Any tips for dating an INTP?


     
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [ESTP] Natural Killers —Turning the Tide of Battle
    By asewland in forum ESTP Forum - The Doers
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 10:43 PM
  2. [INFP] Humanity
    By lothweneriniel in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-02-2011, 05:19 PM
  3. Map of Humanity
    By Marino in forum Critical Thinking & Philosophy
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-25-2009, 10:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0