# 2-D Te and Fe



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

So...dimensionality. Te and Fe..collective norms of thinking and feeling. So how would a 2-d Te/Fe, which is informed at the level of norms, differ from Te/Fe at 4-D, informed at the level of situation and time-constraints?

Feel free to correct definitions or whatever you find at fault with this question. But this has just been bugging me. This isn't MBTI you fool! Stuff like that.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

I'll speak of normative Te, since that's the one that's easier to understand for myself.

Hmm, let's see... norms of Te would be like following the expected procedure in work, meaning they wouldn't be inclined to do something out of the ordinary. Likewise, it also means being able to criticize others for not following procedures without justification. And there's plenty of norms that are really basic like the fact that there's a correlation between the quality of an item and its price, even if it's not a linear correlation.

Because it is normative, the person can follow standard behaviour even when they are faulty. Random example: everyone you know takes the same route to work but you discovered an alternate route that seems like it could take you there quicker. In the end, because you don't trust your ability to judge if it's more efficient you decide to simply go with what everyone else does.

Here: «Features of IM functions». Summary | School of System Socionics it speaks of the mobilizing function desiring praise or positive feedback, which means that people with mobilizing/HA Te would do things that correspond to average functioning of the IE expecting some kind of validation of what they're doing, to know that they're doing fine. I think I've observed that in my SEE-Fi bf, for whom not spending his whole monthly wage before his next pay is a success lol. And he shares that with me, eager to show what he has achieved. Please don't take that as a representation of SEEs in general .

Btw, you can read this too: Dimensions of functions | School of System Socionics though I wouldn't take the examples very seriously.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I'll speak of normative Te, since that's the one that's easier to understand for myself.
> 
> Hmm, let's see... norms of Te would be like following the expected procedure in work, meaning they wouldn't be inclined to do something out of the ordinary. Likewise, it also means being able to criticize others for not following procedures without justification. And there's plenty of norms that are really basic like the fact that there's a correlation between the quality of an item and its price, even if it's not a linear correlation.
> 
> ...


So, follow-up question. A person with only the norms of Te cannot properly evaluate the efficiency of the route(side-note:seems like that would be easy, are there people that really can't do that?). So in fact, Te in itself has nothing to do with following collective norms, but following the norms of Te is more or less the norms of the specific attributes of Te. 

And would a 4-d or 3-d Te user bother with following the norms themselves? How flexibly would they deal with this? Say they want to change procedure?

I see little mentions of Te always being extraverted thinking type collective knowledge and such, but given that a lot of definitions do not describe it in this way, thought I should get it clarified. Perhaps that is due to how much of these sorts of methods are communicated through schooling.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

In theory 2D would be competent only at the level of norms and wouldn't know when it's OK to step beyond their boundaries (even if these are Te/Fe, which are norms in itself, they still can be utilized in a different way). While 4D would easily understand when it's OK to ignore directives of all previous dimensions.

In practice, hmm... I can remember this example with rake, yet it's obviously simplification. 1D function, being guided by experience, wouldn't know that it is potentially dangerous to step on a rake until it did step on it and got hit in forehead. Afterwards it probably wouldn't understand why it happened and would stay away from everything that even vaguely resembles a rake. 2D already knows what the consequences of stepping on the rake are, but it can't extrapolate this knowledge on different situations and predict, for example, when stepping on a rake would be safe (e.g. when it is leaning against a vertical wall), this is what 3D does. 3D can ignore norms depending on the situation at hand, but can't see it in time perspective. 4D in it's turn, simply by looking at a rake would know why, in what situations and when it's OK to step or not to step on it, and see all possible consequences of such action, even if it never experienced similar situation before. It can ignore settings of all previous dimensions and act proactively in advance.


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

... so, I'm not always the most practical of people. I often struggle with what is practical when there are conflicting opinions of what practical is. When I'm left to my own devices I will always conceive of a way of doing something. It will work but it's not something that will be efficient. I'm not good at managing time or resources, so when I read of @Pancreatic Pandora's bf, I saw a little of myself in his description and well ... had a good laugh. However I'm sure he can talk your ear off about the ethical value of money, and how choosing where and how you spend it reflects on you as a person and that every financial transaction is an act of affirmation to different social causes, companies and the values that they stand for, and how they enact and communicate said values. Or maybe that's just me.


... on to 4D Fe. I'm always unconsciously aware of social dynamics. Even when I meet with people I'm usually the one who brings in the big picture on how said values reflect on a local, national and global scale. I hate politics because I think it's just ... well, really filthy and worse than selling your body, but it's something I understand intuitively. Mind you, this is coupled with an amplified 4D Ne. That said, I'm not always respectful of cultural norm, because many are quite barbaric, but I'm aware of my position in culture and how culture influences others and where things are headed given certain attitudes, habits, etc. That said, my judgement is not always correct given to personal prejudices and biases and I don't always trust the information I'm working with to be correct.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> So, follow-up question. A person with only the norms of Te cannot properly evaluate the efficiency of the route(side-note:seems like that would be easy, are there people that really can't do that?).


I think there are but the point of my example is not to read it and think "Hm can I decide what route to take to work?" because the manifestation of a function/IE is a concrete and individual act, which means it varies. Just throwing that as a general warning for anyone reading.



> So in fact, Te in itself has nothing to do with following collective norms, but following the norms of Te is more or less the norms of the specific attributes of Te.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean. In the previous example I was speaking of something that would be considered normative, though it is by no means a _rule_.



> And would a 4-d or 3-d Te user bother with following the norms themselves? How flexibly would they deal with this? Say they want to change procedure?


They would be aware of norms and it is up to them if they feel things can be done better or in different ways. They (well, we) don't feel bound by norms in that area.



> I see little mentions of Te always being extraverted thinking type collective knowledge and such, but given that a lot of definitions do not describe it in this way, thought I should get it clarified. Perhaps that is due to how much of these sorts of methods are communicated through schooling.


I'm honestly not sure where you are going with your questions haha. My reading comprehension must be failing me or something.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I think there are but the point of my example is not to read it and think "Hm can I decide what route to take to work?" because the manifestation of a function/IE is a concrete and individual act, which means it varies. Just throwing that as a general warning for anyone reading.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean. In the previous example I was speaking of something that would be considered normative, though it is by no means a _rule_.
> ...


You may later on. Thanks for your input.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Well at the moment I have my type narrowed down to LII (which has 3D Te) and EII (which has 1D Te). 3D Te makes sense for me in that I can see when exceptions to the norms should be made. I also have a good sense of cause and effect. If you do A, then B will happen. Yet at the same time, there are situations where I didn't follow some norm because I never even knew one existed in the first place and there was no good reason for me to think otherwise. I'm thinking about all the policies there are at the workplace. It's difficult to keep track of them all and there are some things I never imagined there would be a policy for but sure enough there is!


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

Example*: There is a nail that must be driven into something, there are no formal tools at this location.

2-D Te - Knowing that a hammer drives in a nail. Conclusion: Go find a hammer.
3-D Te - Knowing that you don't always need a hammer to drive in a nail. Conclusion: Look for something that could work like a hammer.

From the Golihov description of the xLI's 3-D Te -


> "At times, they may use an object not for the purpose that it was intended (e.g. using a microscope to drive nails)."


Reasonably, not all people who have 2-D Te will be that helpless in a situation without a hammer, but this example demonstrates the ability to use society's methods that dictate how to do things while not necessarily being inclined or _confident_ enough to go beyond society's methods to achieve something (or not paying enough attention to Te to realize the situational perspective). 3-D Te types will be much more comfortable with using their own method, as Te is a source of confidence and expertise (whether valued or not). 

Likewise, with Fe:

Example: You are introduced to a new person and the introducer leaves you two alone together.

2-D Fe - Realize that when acting with strangers or new people, you should be cordial and kind, and should not directly engage someone immediately with a false sense of familiarity or unity, as that will make the other person uncomfortable. Do not 'open up' until they know you better.

3-D Fe - Engage the person warmly and appeal to him or her, be playful and open to make sure this person will enjoy your company immensely and have a good time overall. It's alright to act familiar as long as you gauge how comfortable the person is with it.

Here, the 2-D Fe follows the natural social rules related to meeting new people: be nice, present yourself respectfully, etc. (shows the valuing of Fi in Western culture, thus Fe must adjust accordingly), while the 3-D Fe type's expertise in the area of people's emotions and the emotional atmosphere will allow them to expertly craft situations where they don't necessarily have to follow these rules to build a sense of unity or familiarity.

_Something to Note:_ Due to the nature of the Mobilizing function, the IM Element situated in that slot will be 2-dimensional, but will try to inflate to be something more than it is not. One would easily conjecture that this inflation is taking a stab at using the Mobilizing Function 3-Dimensionally (through the perspective of situation), but due to its subsequent weakness in the psyche, often failing miserably. A prime example of this would be through ILEs using Fe in a way that tries to make them look as socially confident as Fe Egos but ends up making them look somewhat tactless and unskilled at actually doing well in the social arena of Fe. They may look like they are "trying too hard" while the Fe egos will tend to be the "naturals" able to control and influence any situation emotionally, something ILE's and other weak valuing Fe types wish they could do. 

_*Due to the subjectivity of defining what type of problem is under which umbrella of information elements, one could see this specific example as indicative to Se as well._


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> 3-D Te - Knowing that you don't always need a hammer to drive in a nail. Conclusion: Look for something that could work like a hammer.


Um no, that sounds ghetto and not indicative of Te at all. If it were to be 3D anything it sounds like it would be 3D Te-ignoring from an xLE. Any kind of a Te ego would never do such a thing because they'd know it were a precision instrument and hitting a nail with it would damage it. An Se type wouldn't do it because microscopes are $$$.

I could see an ILE doing something like that if it got laughs out of his/her colleagues. Otherwise it is more than likely an example of 3D Ignoring > 3D Creative.


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Um no, that sounds ghetto and not indicative of Te at all. If it were to be 3D anything it sounds like it would be 3D Te-ignoring from an xLE.


The example itself could be indicative of several information elements (there are fairly reasonable arguments for a mixture of Se, Te, Ne, and Ti of varying levels of dimensionality). The point of the example was to illustrate the concept, not to serve as a real world basis for the element in action.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> The example itself could be indicative of several information elements (there are fairly reasonable arguments for a mixture of Se, Te, Ne, and Ti of varying levels of dimensionality). The point of the example was to illustrate the concept, not to serve as a real world basis for the element in action.


If it were to be an example of 3D Te then it would be an example of 3D Te Ignoring of an xLE, not 3D Te Creative so it's not even then it's not a good example of 3D Te from an xLI.

At any rate, I think To_August has a good example of PoLR/Mobilizing vs Role/Suggestive with her rake example, IMO.


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

MNiS said:


> If it were to be an example of 3D Te then it would be an example of 3D Te Ignoring of an xLE, not 3D Te Creative so it's not even then it's not a good example of 3D Te from an xLI.
> 
> At any rate, I think To_August has a good example of PoLR vs Role with her rake example, IMO.


As stated, the entire purpose of the example was merely for the concept describing the parameter of situation. Secondly, the Golihov quote was a side note from a text that was specifically recurring to xLI Te. Thirdly, the example above that was not specifically denoted xLI Te, it was simply "3-D Te", so it was inclusive of the xLE.

I do agree that you would not see a 3-D Te type using a microscope to drive in nails, but you might see 3-D :Te: types using less valuable objects that will get the job done just as fine if they are lying around (again, the example itself could be a mixture of IM Elements). The 3-D and 4-D Te type is the person who finds more efficient or productive ways to accomplish things than the procedural way of society allows, but also knows when they have to follow the procedures and steps laid out. There is always an easier way to do things.


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

... more on Fe.

I imagine that EIE/ESE who are Fe dominant would identify themselves as a part of culture and work culture to their advantage. It occurred to me that I identify myself as an individual against culture. I would never subscribe to part of any nation, religion or anything that would restrict my sense of being and perception. Yet it is something I understand well.

I often mistook myself as ENTP/ILE because of my linguistic dexterity and love for the absurd. One thing I have observed in the ENTP forum is the comradely many feel towards their type. I've seen discussions about the essence of ENTP: trying to define what it means to be their type. Most of my life I felt myself to be an outlier. We moved often and I never really had a home. I was always adapting and learning new languages. The thought of a communal identity is something foreign to me and therefore understood this to be a difference of experience and not type. My point is: there is a difference between a 2D function in the valued and unvalued position. ENTPs have their natural charm. Yet the charm is often confined to what they feel is correct for the situation. However they can be strangely pragmatic when they put their mind to it.

Weird thing. Regardless of how much I blaspheme against any social institution I will spoil you rotten if you and I are close. Also it takes time to reach this stage considering that I take betrayal as something very personal. Nothing is ever business with me nor can I ever think of myself as a product, company or enterprise as they teach you in marketing and business. I could never accept myself as a brand. Yet I'm very aware of how this phenomenon works. I note that EIE and IEE has identical functions with identical strength in terms of dimensionality. What is different is that we value the opposite things and I'm curious to their perspective on the case.

... and a little on Te. I don't particularly care for management and organization and structure. As long as things get done and they work and are of good quality I'm happy. I can and often do improvise new solutions to everyday problems but I don't particularly care to optimize the means or the results. I have a good understanding of cause and effect and well ... screw everything else. I much rather read a book, or write, or mess around on the keys, or go out. 

edit: but I will play with the wording of a post if I feel compelled to do so.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Not sure exactly what is being asked. But Fe and Te have to work together. Fe is ethics. Truth to ideas. Te is results. Truth to methods. You need to be true to ideas, to test them truly. So basically Fe is the supreme value judgement everyone backs, and Te carries it out. Both are fairness. Fe is fairness to substance, Te is fairness to form. 

Clear mind, see what works. Basically. Fe wipes out the will of all. Fairness. Blank slate. Te makes sure fairness is enforced. It's like a separation of powers. Checks and balances.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> As stated, the entire purpose of the example was merely for the concept describing the parameter of situation. Secondly, the Golihov quote was a side note from a text that was specifically recurring to xLI Te. Thirdly, the example above that was not specifically denoted xLI Te, it was simply "3-D Te", so it was inclusive of the xLE.
> 
> I do agree that you would not see a 3-D Te type using a microscope to drive in nails, but you might see 3-D :Te: types using less valuable objects that will get the job done just as fine if they are lying around (again, the example itself could be a mixture of IM Elements). The 3-D and 4-D Te type is the person who finds more efficient or productive ways to accomplish things than the procedural way of society allows, but also knows when they have to follow the procedures and steps laid out. There is always an easier way to do things.


I'm saying it's an example of Te-ignoring and not Te-creative whatsoever. A Te-ignoring type might go ahead and use a lab object to hammer in a nail and consider that to be a creative use of a non-hammer object. Whereas a Te-creative type would exhaust all other options like asking someone else in the lab or seeking maintenance personnel or finding something reasonably hammer-like before resorting to bashing a nail in place with a lab object and even then the xLI might put it off until they could procure an actual hammer before proceeding. The exception being if the person were so disgruntled that they simply didn't care about using valuable property in a stupid way (Fi) which would still make it a bad example of Te-creative.

I suppose it's a subtle distinction but the dimensionality of the conscious functions aren't really the same as the unconscious ones. They may be of the same breadth but differ completely in orientation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> So, follow-up question. A person with only the norms of Te cannot properly evaluate the efficiency of the route(side-note:seems like that would be easy, are there people that really can't do that?). So in fact, Te in itself has nothing to do with following collective norms, but following the norms of Te is more or less the norms of the specific attributes of Te.
> 
> And would a 4-d or 3-d Te user bother with following the norms themselves? How flexibly would they deal with this? Say they want to change procedure?
> 
> I see little mentions of Te always being extraverted thinking type collective knowledge and such, but given that a lot of definitions do not describe it in this way, thought I should get it clarified. Perhaps that is due to how much of these sorts of methods are communicated through schooling.


I would say 3D and 4D Te are very flexible. I partially spot people's sophistication by observing the flexibility of use of a specific function (or element). This video clip here is a good example of extremely inflexible Te (1D) and the expectations that come when it is being valued and reinforced upon the environment:






Specifically when talking about Te, not sure about Fe, Jung calls it tyrannic and he does so for a reason because when Te is inferior or of 1D quality and is valued in the Fi base/dom, there is a desire for the Fi dom to enforce their inferior Te through Fi idealism onto the environment as you see Daenarys doing here. It lacks the flexibility of dominant Te and you see the difference between Daenarys and the man she speaks to at the gates who is most likely an LSE. He understands that such customs and norms like how one should behave towards people depending on people's titles are relative to time and context. In Quarth, noble titles are not seen as relevant because the social context is different. Daenarys doesn't understand that. Low dimensionality of Te.



FearAndTrembling said:


> Not sure exactly what is being asked. But Fe and Te have to work together. Fe is ethics. Truth to ideas. Te is results. Truth to methods. You need to be true to ideas, to test them truly. So basically Fe is the supreme value judgement everyone backs, and Te carries it out. Both are fairness. Fe is fairness to substance, Te is fairness to form.
> 
> Clear mind, see what works. Basically. Fe wipes out the will of all. Fairness. Blank slate. Te makes sure fairness is enforced. It's like a separation of powers. Checks and balances.


And of course you don't know what is being asked since you don't know the subject that's being discussed lol. The rest is just empty psychobabble.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I would say 3D and 4D Te are very flexible. I partially spot people's sophistication by observing the flexibility of use of a specific function (or element). This video clip here is a good example of extremely inflexible Te (1D) and the expectations that come when it is being valued and reinforced upon the environment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't get trapped in a system. I am after truth, not after system. You don't even know what Fe is, so how can you know any of its levels? I don't care about your epicycles. The whole thing has to be brought together by Fe. It is rigged that way. As are all ideas that appeal to so many. And that is why they are so dangerous, because nobody understands them.

I figured it out though. Fi is guilt. It is the greatest cultural victory over freedom of humanity. A "garrison in a conquered city" as Freud said. A person always carries it with him, no matter where he is. I have none of it. It is action at a distance. It isn't even real. It is will, and freedom, which is false. Which is what any system is based on. Internal control. 

Fe is wrath. Fe wants to control the will of others. It wants to control the environment, and remove the will of others. It will do so fiercely. I know the environment is wrong, so I am going to take it over. Knock out every false virtue in the way, mainly freedom and will. That is why it is so extreme. That's what Lee did. Grew up in a culture that tried to control him with action at a distance. Guilt. Shame. He broke out of that. He knows the environment decides things. Beat him there. Fight him there. You don't control him on the inside.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Yesterday I was sitting there, I have a job where I interact with people, it sucks, but a middle aged woman came in with her daughter...I said hi. And she does this Fe guilt shit at me like "are you having a good morning or a bad one?" I knew what she was doing but I didn't know how to resolve it, so I just kept saying what? Or facetiously answering her question like I was just naive. Eventually she spits it out:"_Usually_ people say good morning if it's in the morning!" She was pretty angry about it too. I said hi and I showed no ill will, is that not good enough? I just stood there blank-faced, waiting for a good moment to get on with it, luckily I did and she changed her tune. Now... this could be something like constructivist vs emotivist but if there's a sign of Fe devaluation, methinks that's it. Pointing this out because I think this is a good example of an Fe norm. "It's what people say to each other! They just do!" I got a very normative vibe from it. Strange to have that sort of thing so obviously in front of you for you to deal with.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I like this issue. I think there is truth in this system btw, there is truth in them all. 

But Lee is the perfect guy to figure this out. He proved his methods are the best. Because all ideologies are a fight. Life is a fight. But they are never fair. Lee made them fair, and his style won. One dimensional, single discipline specialists have vanished from the UFC, and will never return. One dimensional people still rule the world, and call it a fair fight. The proof is in the results. The environment decides things. Lee took it on, and won. The best style is no style. No single system will ever be true to you, so don't be true to any system. Cause somebody else is trying to control you in there somehow. In details btw. Devil is in the details. I recently realized that was true. Like the message of Jesus has been buried in the details, of the hate of others, it is absurd. Same with any system. They are the greatest evil in the world.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't get trapped in a system. I am after truth, not after system. You don't even know what Fe is, so how can you know any of its levels?


lol, instead of saying I don't know without any evidence to support it, support how I don't know what Fe is with some actual evidence to back your claims. Hint: I grew up with an Fe dominant grandmother. I'm pretty sure I know what Fe is. 

Furthermore, despite claiming you won't be trapped by a system, yet here you are, using and referring to terminology used by a system and you accuse me that I do not know the systematic definition of one element that is explained by this particular system. No of course not, you are all for freedom of thought. I smell hypocrisy. You aren't free. You are very much bound by your thoughts and your worldviews even if you keep claiming that you are not. You are expressing them right here, right now so how are you going to capture this elusive freedom? How is your mind more free than the minds of everyone else? How are you not a slave to the system? How is your idea of freedom simply not just another idea generated by the system created as an illusion to make you think that you are actually free? 



> I don't care about your epicycles. The whole thing has to be brought together by Fe. It is rigged that way. As are all ideas that appeal to so many. And that is why they are so dangerous, because nobody understands them.


I don't think you do either. I am not speaking about Fe btw. 



> I figured it out though. Fi is guilt. It is the greatest cultural victory over freedom of humanity. A "garrison in a conquered city" as Freud said. A person always carries it with him, no matter where he is. I have none of it. It is action at a distance. It isn't even real. It is will, and freedom, which is false. Which is what any system is based on. Internal control.


And how is Ti not the same kind of supposed false control? Similarly, Ti isn't real, nor is Fe. In fact, none that we discuss now, is actually real. So how can you prove it? Is it simply just an illusion propagated by Jung? Then why are you here discussing his thoughts, his ideas? Does it mean you too are under the spell of typology? 



> Fe is wrath. Fe wants to control the will of others. It wants to control the environment, and remove the will of others. It will do so fiercely. I know the environment is wrong, so I am going to take it over. Knock out every false virtue in the way, mainly freedom and will. That is why it is so extreme. That's what Lee did. Grew up in a culture that tried to control him with action at a distance. Guilt. Shame. He broke out of that. He knows the environment decides things. Beat him there. Fight him there. You don't control him on the inside.


And Te does not you say? Or for the matter, Se? Can't say your empty paranoid threats are particularly impressive. You are the perfect example of the person who are so stuck up thinking they are free that they cannot see how blinded they truly are because the illuminating light of freedom itself is what blinds them. They see the light and think they have it, without regards of its actual source. You see the bright room that is so bright you can't see its walls and corners. You think it's fathomless. No. You just haven't observed its actual limitations. You can replace one box by another. You can claim it'd have different colors, different shapes. Does not change the fact it remains just that - a box. Stepping outside of it does not mean pulling down the walls - it means to recognize that there are walls you can actually pull down.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Ok, so basically, systems within systems defines the world, you cannot escape all systems, but you should know which hammer to use for which nail. Just stahp your nonsense. Premises, axioms, work with them.

Some threads call for meta-judgements, this is not one of them.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Ok, so basically, systems within systems defines the world, you cannot escape all systems, but you should know which hammer to use for which nail. Just stahp your nonsense. Premises, axioms, work with them.
> 
> Some threads call for meta-judgements, this is not one of them.


I think someone said you could use a microscope instead of a hammer too. But you definitely shouldn't use a nail for a microscope or you'll end up with a bloody eye!


On a more serious note, @Entropic @FearAndTrembling guys, you can take your discussion to a different place .


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I think someone said you could use a microscope instead of a hammer too. But you definitely shouldn't use a nail for a microscope or you'll end up with a bloody eye!
> 
> 
> On a more serious note, @_Entropic_ @_FearAndTrembling_ guys, you can take your discussion to a different place .


Yeah my analogy had nothing to do with that! I do not advocate driving a nail into your eye, unless, as always, you put it on youtube.

This thread is making me want to get opinions on demonstrative as well.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Yeah my analogy had nothing to do with that! I do not advocate driving a nail into your eye, unless, as always, you put it on youtube.


Yeah, that was my own idea haha. Regarding youtube-ing that event, I predict a few "nail" puns. And people sharing it on facebook with text in capital letters and exclamation marks.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> lol, instead of saying I don't know without any evidence to support it, support how I don't know what Fe is with some actual evidence to back your claims. Hint: I grew up with an Fe dominant grandmother. I'm pretty sure I know what Fe is.
> 
> Furthermore, despite claiming you won't be trapped by a system, yet here you are, using and referring to terminology used by a system and you accuse me that I do not know the systematic definition of one element that is explained by this particular system. No of course not, you are all for freedom of thought. I smell hypocrisy. You aren't free. You are very much bound by your thoughts and your worldviews even if you keep claiming that you are not. You are expressing them right here, right now so how are you going to capture this elusive freedom? How is your mind more free than the minds of everyone else? How are you not a slave to the system? How is your idea of freedom simply not just another idea generated by the system created as an illusion to make you think that you are actually free?
> 
> ...


I see you go got your usual reinforcement mechanisms. I don't need any. Saying shit doesn't mean anything. That was Lee's point. People have to back it up at some point. So, where can yours be backed up? In a fair arena? I don't have a fighter, I will let the styles of everybody else, go against yours. And I will bet everything I have on it. Water always beats form. 

You are using action at a distance. What Lee does when he makes you get physical, is the same thing Kant did. Expose "freedom" as a fraud. Because when Kant won't do anything when a person demands it, the only thing they can do is get physical, and then it exposes "freedom" as control, and part of that machinery and not his. As the false mechanism, like Newton. Fe corrected Fi there too. There is no freedom, or form. There is only water. Three is truth in every bottle. But I will never get trapped in one. The fact that you would even say this stuff, says you still don't get it. I'll use every bottle there is against you. You can have your one.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I just figured out the whole thing. This is why Fe controls everything. Nobody knows what it is. What is it? Objective values. How do you kill objective values, what are they? Where do you attack? It's like hitting water. It is all things.

That's why nobody can destroy fe, and it controls all things. Because nobody knows what it is, but everyone is supposed abide by it, like God. We know what logic, science, etc.. What are objective values? It's the greatest cover in the world. Because it controls things, but can't show its work. Like water. Skinner figued this out too, and was run out of town. He wasn't like water though. 


That is why Fe is god. It is the only missing piece of humanity. And anything that gets in that gap is destoyed. Like God is now. And Skinner, and a bunch of other guys. Guys who want to solve problems. I said God was like Skinner, I was right. He did try to play God though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> Ok, so basically, systems within systems defines the world, you cannot escape all systems, but you should know which hammer to use for which nail. Just stahp your nonsense. Premises, axioms, work with them.
> 
> Some threads call for meta-judgements, this is not one of them.


Actually, I would say this thread just showcased how different Ni dimensions appear as very well 

@FearAndTrembling really your scope is so narrow. You keep speaking about how water shapes itself according to the form, yet you don't understand how one can manipulate the flow of water. Perhaps one day you will be able to momentarily step outside the narrow hole you've created for yourself and you'll see the actual implications of what you speak of and what it truly means. Perhaps not. I've pointed towards the direction where you need to go but it is entirely up to you to actually realize what it is I am pointing at and go capture it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Actually, I would say this thread just showcased how different Ni dimensions appear as very well
> 
> @_FearAndTrembling_ really your scope is so narrow. You keep speaking about how water shapes itself according to the form, yet you don't understand how one can dodge the form of water.



It is very narrow, and gets narrower all the time. We all have the same limitations. That is my point. We need the best of others. Like Star Trek DS9, The Great Link. The individual goes out, and collects stuff, and then returns to the link. Each is unique. Not everyone has the same plan. But they somehow come together at the end. But remain unique. 

But somebody asked for axioms. That is just my point. Logic is one bottle. I can say anything. That is Fe. What Fe shows us, is what our God is. I figured this out with my father very young. I know what decides things. Lee does too. 

What happens when US aircraft carriers show up on your doorstep? How will logic help you then? It ain't magic.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is very narrow, and gets narrower all the time. We all have the same limitations. That is my point. We need the best of others. Like Star Trek DS9, The Great Link. The individual goes out, and collects stuff, and then returns to the link. Each is unique. Not everyone has the same plan. But they somehow come together at the end. But remain unique.
> 
> But somebody asked for axioms. That is just my point. Logic is one bottle. I can say anything. That is Fe. What Fe shows us, is what our God is. I figured this out with my father very young. I know what decides things. Lee does too.
> 
> *What happens when US aircraft carriers show up on your doorstep?* How will logic help you then? It ain't magic.



Well I guess I will be dead because of the region-destroying tsunami that just hit me. 
@Entropic If this is Ni, then I guess I don't want to do anything to do with it, because Ni seems to not know what the fuck it's talking about.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Well I guess I will be dead because of the region-destroying tsunami that just hit me.
> @_Entropic_ If this is Ni, then I guess I don't want to do anything to do with it, because Ni seems to not know what the fuck it's talking about.


 I get that all the time. This is my own thing. 

It is just such a recurring theme to me. It is supposed to be this way. 

'Error is the force that welds men together; truth is communicated to men only by deeds of truth.'

Violence is error. Tolstoy will never do it. His deed will always be truth. Doesn't matter how many people others kill, and blame on him. It's not his will, so it isn't him. Violence exposes that. It goes back to Freud too. Everybody figured this out. The God as father figure. Same story as Freud. Kant saw the same error. As did Skinner. As did Dostoevsky. As did Job. That error is freedom. 

God only gave us freedom. The only thing he allowed. He looks at the world, and says, "This is freedom? Here is my wrath." That is Fe. Bin Laden did the same thing. You call this place freedom? Here is my wrath. Wrath exposes everything. Only guys like Tolstoy, Kant, Jung, etc. did it right. So they won't be destroyed in the wave of wrath. It isn't really wrath. It is just the destruction of everything you believe in. Which was what SKinner was trying to do. lol.


----------

