# Ne PoLR



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> As a Ti-base, the concept of things being both "right and wrong" at the same time is nonsense and contradictory.


o.o I will disagree with that. For example killing can be right or wrong depending on circumstance & subjective perspective (yeah even at the same time)...plus there is always more then one way to skin a cat and cross contextualizing is fun, multiple possibilities are usually thought of as being true at the same time until a definite correct one is revealed by circumstance.

Most things are relative, the absolute notion for example that murder is wrong is in my opinion as a Ne dom false. I'd even go as far as stating that good/bad or right/wrong does not exist objectively speaking. Something can be both good and bad or right and wrong depending on who sees it from what side.

There are some things that are constant and fundamental thou.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> o.o I will disagree with that. For example killing can be right or wrong depending on circumstance & subjective perspective (yeah even at the same time)...plus there is always more then one way to skin a cat and cross contextualizing is fun, multiple possibilities are usually thought of as being true at the same time until a definite correct one is revealed by circumstance.
> 
> Most things are relative, the absolute notion for example that murder is wrong is in my opinion as a Ne dom false. I'd even go as far as stating that good/bad or right/wrong does not exist objectively speaking. Something can be both good and bad or right and wrong depending on who sees it from what side.
> 
> There are some things that are constant and fundamental thou.


Everything you've said is true and I completely agree with it, but it's simply not what I was thinking about. There being multiple ways to skin a cat does not defy a fundamental axiom of logic. 

Ethics does not exist, however there being multiple subjective view points does not change the truth. If someone thinking 2+2=5, but I think it equals 4, that does not mean 2+2= 4 and 5. 

Multiple possibilities could be true from the perspective of the observer, but objectively, only one is right, assuming they're all exclusive of each other. 

It's simply a matter of what we care about more - logical correctness or possibilities. Ti or Ne


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

> Everything you've said is true and I completely agree with it, but it's simply not what I was thinking about. There being multiple ways to skin a cat does not defy a fundamental axiom of logic.


Ah, ok.



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Multiple possibilities could be true from the perspective of the observer, but objectively, only one is right, assuming they're all exclusive of each other.


o.o what about quantum superposition? Objectively speaking all possibilities are right, but only the observed event is correct from the observer's point of view...so its actually in reverse of what we think. The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is a good example of how Ne works, it just turns out that that is exactly how reality works as well ;\ (at least on a subatomic level), all possibilities exist and unfold, but we only see one of these: wave function collapse or the many worlds theory.



> Ethics does not exist, however there being multiple subjective view points does not change the truth. If someone thinking 2+2=5, but I think it equals 4, that does not mean 2+2= 4 and 5.


Yeah, wasn't talking about illogical possibilities, its why I went with ethics as a example. (Fi comfort zone)



> It's simply a matter of which we care about more - logical correctness or possibilities.


Hmm, I tend to see logical correctness as a requirement for perceiving a possibility or something's potential, otherwise its just random mental musing that isn't interesting at all. Remember delta quadra's preference for practicality & applicability applies to EIIs as well as IEEs (theoretically its the Te preference)


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Ah, ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How does quantum logic apply here at all? XD 

I didn't mean illogical possibilities in that analogy... My point is, only one possibility is correct, assuming they're all mutually exclusive of each other. Multiple subjective perceptions doesn't change the truth. If we're assuming ethics is real and objective, nothing can be both right and wrong at the same time. 

Again, it's simply a matter of which we care about more - logical framework, or possibilities. It's not completely binary, but obviously we value them differently, as what I'm telling you from a Ti-perspective is going completely over your head, and you're coming back at me with Ne, which I understand, but am telling you is not as important to me.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> How does quantum logic apply here at all? XD
> 
> I didn't mean illogical possibilities in that analogy... My point is, only one possibility is correct, assuming they're all mutually exclusive of each other. Multiple subjective perceptions doesn't change the truth. If we're assuming ethics is real and objective, nothing can be both right and wrong at the same time.
> 
> Again, it's simply a matter of which we care about more - logical framework, or possibilities. It's not completely binary, but obviously we value them differently, as what I'm telling you from a Ti-perspective is going completely over your head, and you're coming back at me with Ne, which I understand, but am telling you is not as important to me.


Hmm, well in that case yeah you are right. <.< goddamn Ti PoLR.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Ethics does not exist, however there being multiple subjective view points does not change the truth. If someone thinking 2+2=5, but I think it equals 4, that does not mean 2+2= 4 and 5.


If you've ever entered a social contract whether explicit or implied then you've entered an ethical contract. The contract being that you are obliged to uphold the contract and the other party upholds their end and that it is *unethical* to break said contract under penalty of law or finances. That's just one aspect of ethics as how it applies to society and to say that ethics doesn't exist is just dense.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> nothing can be both right and wrong at the same time.


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell....


















Nah. Not going to be an asshole. :mellow: Rationality-irrationality is an interesting dichotomy though.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

HFGE said:


> If you've ever entered a social contract whether explicit or implied then you've entered an ethical contract. The contract being that you are obliged to uphold the contract and the other party upholds their end and that it is *unethical* to break said contract under penalty of law or finances. That's just one aspect of ethics as how it applies to society and to say that ethics doesn't exist is just dense.


Sir thou maketh no sense....what contract?

?_? just whut are thou talking about?

Even so one society's ethical point of view may be the opposite of the other etc..(bah...Fe)


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> Sir thou maketh no sense....what contract?
> 
> ?_? just whut are thou talking about?


Any type of contract. As a hypothetical lets say your friend has a broken computer and you agree to fix it for him for a six pack of beer. That's a contract where you agree to repair someone's computer in exchange for some brews and if one of you were to not follow through would be unethical for failing to abide by the original deal. The person who was cheated might tell his/her friends about how unscrupulous the other were as punishment to try to ruin their reputation slightly.

There are entire systems of laws built upon such an ethical (or moral if you prefer) arrangement to make sure that all parties involved don't try to cheat one another.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

HFGE said:


> Any type of contract. As a hypothetical lets say your friend has a broken computer and you agree to fix it for him for a six pack of beer. That's a contract where you agree to repair someone's computer in exchange for some brews and if one of you were to not follow through would be unethical for failing to abide by the original deal. The person who was cheated might tell his/her friends about how unscrupulous the other were as punishment to try to ruin their reputation slightly.
> 
> There are entire systems of laws built upon such an ethical (or moral if you prefer) arrangement to make sure that all parties involved don't try to cheat one another.


o.o yeah, but ethics still only exists till both parties exist. Objectively speaking from a detached position I could chase you down the street with a chainsaw and the only thing that would be happening is a bunch of matter and energy swirling around changing shape. It would have absolutely no ethical value outside of us giving it one. If one becomes incapable of giving value to events and things ethics ceases to exist subjectively.

Its just stuff happening. Does ethics still exist if there is nobody there to judge it one way or another? It doesn't. The value exists only in subjective or collective consciousness, yours, mine and the third parties.

Its like time & space or the experience of the color brown, it exists in our minds only. You can't touch ethics....*its a mental construct*.

A rock exists, ethics does not, it only exists for us :3


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> o.o yeah, but ethics still only exists till both parties exist. Objectively speaking from a detached position I could chase you down the street with a chainsaw and the only thing that would be happening is a bunch of matter and energy swirling around changing shape. It would have absolutely no ethical value outside of us giving it one.
> 
> Its just stuff happening. Does ethics still exist if there is nobody there to judge it one way or another? It doesn't. The value exists only in subjective or collective consciousness, yours, mine and the third parties.
> 
> ...


Replace every time you mentioned "ethics" with "logic" and see if your argument changes in the slightest.  We're not talking about tangibility. If so, then by your definition logic and concepts don't exist either. If you were to say ethics doesn't exist then how do you explain society which is taking that same basic social contract and expanding on it until people can live among one another without fear of one another. I think you'd be surprised to know that logic dictates that only the strong survive until they're no longer strong enough to survive. Where's the logic in that?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

HFGE said:


> Replace every time you mentioned "ethics" with "logic" and see if your argument changes in the slightest.  We're not talking about tangibility. If so, then by your definition logic and concepts don't exist either. If you were to say ethics doesn't exist then how do you explain society which is taking that same basic social contract and expanding on it until people can live among one another without fear of one another. I think you'd be surprised to know that logic dictates that only the strong survive until they're no longer strong enough to survive. Where's the logic in that?


 no mental construct exists outside of consciousness, but the fabric of the universe is still there in a quantum state of probability...with everything unfolding without time and space all at once. Objectively speaking it is the only thing that is there, as far as we know...

<.<...there is a serious problem with knowing much beyond the phantasm. (subjective and collective consciousness).

This is why we talk about most things in relative terms. Ethics is relative, relative to the observer. Time and space is relative....

In your example ethics was determined by the observers taking part in the event.

o.o we must always specify the circumstances and from what point of view aka relative to what...


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> no mental construct exists outside of consciousness, but the fabric of the universe is still there in a quantum state of probability...with everything unfolding without time and space all at once. Objectively speaking it is the only thing that is there, as far as we know...
> 
> <.<...there is a serious problem with knowing much beyond the phantasm.
> 
> ...


*Notes the Socionics forum we're having this conversation in*

Isn't that the point? Introverted functions are subjective by nature and the introverted judging functions are particular to the person making the judgment. Come on, this is socionics 101 stuff.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

HFGE said:


> *Notes the Socionics forum we're having this conversation in*
> 
> Isn't that the point? Introverted functions are subjective by nature and the introverted judging functions are particular to the person making the judgment. Come on, this is socionics 101 stuff.


This applies even to something like Fe. Objective ethics is relative to the collective consensus of observers.

I differentiate between subjective, collective consensus (commonly called objective) and truly absolute reality that exists without the observer.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> This applies even to something like Fe. Objective ethics is relative to the collective consensus of observers.


You could say the same for the Cartesian coordinate system. It's all based on consensus as there's nothing from stopping someone from coming up with their own coordinate system like say... the logarithmic scale.  Anyway, I think the world works on probability and not axioms which never hold true except in rare cases... and math.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

If an example of how ESI Ne PoLR works live, read the OP to this thread. There is a lot of dwelling on Ni and Fi, ethical analysis of past actions, without considering the positive future potential: Moving on from a Socionics-'induced' identity crisis...

ESI (Ne PoLR): This is what has happened, this is my past. It was full of mistakes and personal failings. This is where I am now. What will happen from this point on makes me feel fearful and apprehensive (it will disturb my present stable state).
ILE (lead Ne): Don't get stuck on the past - instead think about all the positive potential that your present holds! Think about things that could happen and how your situation could change.
ESI: [feels awkward because he/she cannot lucidly conceptualize it, and edges towards the exit]

I think Ne PoLR is best described as an inability to visualize and describe all the "could be's" and "might be's" and a deep running insecurity when the ESI/LSI gets pulled out into this zone.

The difference between LSI and ESI Ne PoLRs is that ESI doesn't consider positive future potential while the LSI doesn't consider negative potential. Thus ESI runs him/herself into a corner and begins complaining about not seeing a positive future, while the LSI keeps running around making mistakes and getting bruises from life, and also complains about how life is bringing him down. 

Good example of the later, of LSI's Ne PoLR, is Stalin's reaction to an attack by Nazi Germany that broke their nonviolence pact. He blanked it out and denied that his country could be getting attacked by the Germans. The Red Army did nothing for weeks, people weren't evacuated leading to higher military and general population loses. Stalin could not entertain the "negative" possibility that Hitler would turn against him. This attack completely blindsided him.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

HFGE said:


> If you've ever entered a social contract whether explicit or implied then you've entered an ethical contract. The contract being that you are obliged to uphold the contract and the other party upholds their end and that it is *unethical* to break said contract under penalty of law or finances. That's just one aspect of ethics as how it applies to society and to say that ethics doesn't exist is just dense.


Ethics only exists as a subjective concept. Ethical laws do not govern the universe or tell us how we should think about the universe (relative to the goal of truth), like physical, mathematical, and logical laws. 

That does not necessarily mean a morally nihilistic conclusion.



HFGE said:


> You could say the same for the Cartesian coordinate system. It's all based on consensus as there's nothing from stopping someone from coming up with their own coordinate system like say... the logarithmic scale.  Anyway, I think the world works on probability and not axioms which never hold true except in rare cases... and math.


>says world doesn't work on axioms

>says world works on a deductive science


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Ethics only exists as a subjective concept. Ethical laws do not govern the universe or tell us how we should think about the universe (relative to the goal of truth), like physical, mathematical, and logical laws.
> 
> That does not necessarily mean a morally nihilistic conclusion.


Did you know that physics (the paragon of logic) has two fundamentally opposing systems to explain the universe and even the brightest minds have been unable to make sense of both together?

At any rate, my point is that logic is subjective to the point where only a small sliver of what humans can observe can be explained logically. How would you logically explain a quasar? Or the smallest constituent component of an atom then after that, what's the next smallest? There are limitations that you aren't fathoming and blindly saying that ethics doesn't exist while arrogantly saying that logic is the only construct that does. I guess I'm saying, you don't even see your own partiality on the matter.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

HFGE said:


> At any rate, my point is that logic is subjective to the point where only a small sliver of what humans can observe can be explained logically. How would you logically explain a quasar? Or the smallest constituent component of an atom then after that, what's the next smallest? There are limitations that you aren't fathoming and blindly saying that ethics doesn't exist while arrogantly saying that logic is the only construct that does. I guess I'm saying, you don't even see your own partiality on the matter.


Our perception and reasoning capabilities are limited. That does not contradict what I said. 



HFGE said:


> Did you know that physics (the paragon of logic) has two fundamentally opposing systems to explain the universe and even the brightest minds have been unable to make sense of both together?


This is completely irrelevant. It still describes the physical world. Again, our reasoning capabilities and perception are limited. So what? 


I just realized you're the same person who thinks Ni is black magic. Not interested anymore.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Our perception and reasoning capabilities are limited. That does not contradict what I said.


Logic deals with the impersonal relations between objects. Ethics deals with the personal relations between objects. For you to say that one exists and the other doesn't means you must struggle with the question of existence.



> This is completely irrelevant. It still describes the physical world. Again, our reasoning capabilities and perception are limited. So what?
> 
> I just realized you're the same person who thinks Ni is black magic. Not interested anymore.


Why? Because you might be wrong?


----------



## MightyLizardKing (Jun 7, 2014)

HFGE said:


> Why? Because you might be wrong?


Why do so many Ti POLRS say shit like thIS?


----------

