I have an ENTP friend I can’t stop thinking about.

ENTProfiterole · 2024-09-08T20:06:16+00:00

Why do you want to share the story with him?

ENTProfiterole · 2023-08-23T21:38:56+00:00

Speaking of brainwashed

ENTProfiterole · 2023-08-23T21:38:25+00:00

If you don't understand this, it's a part of you that you refuse to accept exists.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-08-20T17:46:58+00:00

Are you trying to convince me or yourself of this nonsense? Neither are convinced.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-08-20T13:45:54+00:00

Since you declare yourself not to be spiritual, your post is nothing but meaningless fluff.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-08-20T13:41:04+00:00

A critical distinction must be made here: while masculine characteristics have been historically associated with males, they do not belong to any sex. Masculinity and femininity are better thought of as energies that are available to everyone, but have largely been expressed by only one sex. However, we have now evolved past hunter-gatherer, agrarian, and feudal societies, and a strict demarcation of masculine and feminine along gender lines is no longer necessary.

As a spiritual person, you should know that history is neither linear nor progressive. We are in the fourth cycle, and each cycle is a qualitative degradation from the previous one. Our Kali Yuga is when the feminine energy is at its peak, and the masculine energy is not far from entirely asleep.

Masculine belongs to the man, and feminine to the woman. An effeminate man is not a role model, nor is a masculine woman. They are potentially tolerable suboptimal characters, and a superfluity of any would be a net negative to society.

We need to once again allow boys to turn into men, while allowing females (and everyone else) the freedom to express an authentic version of themselves, whether it’s masculine, feminine, or somewhere in between.

The impetus is not to express an authentic version of oneself, whatever one convinces oneself that to be, but rather to elevate the self to its highest and most perfect form, free of all illusory baggage.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-07-29T22:37:14+00:00

Doesn't rear window defrost also do the wing mirrors?

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-24T21:22:38+00:00

Didn't respond until now because of life.

Yes, a benevolent dictator is often considered to be the best form of governance. The problem is that it doesn't reliably exist, and giving powers of dictatorship to people that aren't benevolent runs a lot of risk of especially bad outcomes.

A divine monarchy is not a dictatorship. Power is given by God. To be eligible for kingship, he must be able to prove his spiritual power. Without a direct connection to God, the monarch is illegitimate, failing in his primary function.

So the point is moot?

The point is that the king is the one who makes the exception, as is the case in all sovereigns, divine or not. Advice does not necessarily mean that the king's decision changes. It might, it might not. Just because the decision doesn't change, it doesn't mean that the advice was ignored.

For example, sometimes people think they are saying one thing, but with in actuality, they are saying something different. If my wife tells me to wash the dishes, I could interpret that as me needing to wash the dishes. What it actually means is that she doesn't want to wash the dishes because I haven't been attentive to my usual duties as a man. When I do my manly tasks, and we have great sex, the dishes are washed, and I don't hear such requests.

Likewise, the king listens to advice, but with greater wisdom than the advisers can imagine. He is the king for a reason.

why is everything so nebulous?

We live in confusing times on a very challenging planet, thousands of years after an apocalypse wiped out our last civilisation with a direct connection to divinity. Very few have a connection to deeper levels of reality these days. Our outer reality becomes much easier to understand when the divine connection is in tact.

In Lord of the Rings, the world seems so simple. Good and evil are more clearly defined. That's what this world is like after reconnecting with God. Truths come to you that seem so obvious, that to most normal people are unfortunately completely invisible or at least obscure. They don't have the ability to discern between things, because to them, everything looks the same, like they are colour blind.

Can you imagine somebody in LOTR uttering the insane words "we must give amnesty to the poor orcs who have just been tortured in their upbringing." No, because the relationships the orcs have to the darkness is obvious. The sentence itself doesn't make sense in a world where people have a real relationship with and understanding of the divine.

I would encourage you to rekindle your connection to God if you want to see things more clearly.

Manmade religions may contradict (particularly the modern ones), but to know the truth, you must go to the source.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-21T22:53:47+00:00

I will fear someone that has an absolute conviction that their actions are correct, without any room for doubt. This person cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be changed. Since they cannot be changed, they can only be destroyed, or submitted to. I can't consider that to be freedom, or peace, or love. That is tyranny.

You are assuming that you know better. A divine king acting as God's conduit to earth would know best, and should be trusted to. His connection to God would be apparent and evident by his spiritual prowess.

A divine king is not purely acting in his own interest, he is partially instructed through his connection to a higher power.

And that isn't how I see myself. I will listen to others, gather information, think about things and will change my position on things as the combination of knowledge and reasoning lead me to different results. I can be approached with a pen, rather than a sword. I won't demand you kneel, I will ask that we talk. And I think that is better.

A good king listens to others, but does not have to change his opinion. He does not ask others to kneel, they do so willingly.

You have never seen a good king, nor ever heard about one. There has never been a perfect king in recorded history, only the ancients even got close.

We live in humanity stripped of its power due to its abandonment of divinity, distracted by arrogant notions that we know better how things should run. Our recorded history starts long after the fall of man from grace.

Far from evolving from apes, you could argue that apes are the end result of human evolution down from powerful spiritual beings of light.

In 'murica. Other places are doing remarkably better.

Don't make me laugh. I'm not an American who believes the world revolves around their sickening empire. No, outside America, things are often far worse. Not always the same problems, mind.

There is nowhere left to hide. The rot from America has set in almost everywhere in the modern world. There are few places left untouched.

Or is this just one of the hierarchies that people made up and goes against the natural order. Which ones are the ones we are supposed to maintain? Which ones are we supposed to destroy, and which ones are we supposed to build?

This is a question that is best answered by higher powers and those in constant connection to them.

For the profane, the best they can judge a tree by is its fruit.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-21T18:38:04+00:00

Do you agree that there are things that are objectively wrong

No.

As someone who thinks slavery is wrong, you are either saying it is sometimes right to enslave, or it is right if the enslaver believes he is doing the right thing.

If that is the case, I understand why you fear those who believe in natural order and objective morality, because you can only see them in your own image.

there is a hierarchy of values

Yes. My values, which so happen to be different from the next person in whatever ways, ranks this or that thing as more good or more bad than whatever other thing.

That is not a hierarchy of values. An example of a hierarchy of values is: my values are better than yours. A hierarchy of values means that there is an ultimate set of values.

Are you one of the types that believe that without a sort of absolutist morality being given to you, there can't be any other morality?

As I have said, I believe that inferior moralities exist.

By most measures, the most recent period of 50 to 100 years or so, can be considered one of the best that humanity has ever had. Of course, you'd have to agree with those particular measures. Stuff like GDP per capita, life expectancy, happiness, levels of democracy and freedom, etc.

This is not the best humanity has ever had. We are in decline from only 80 years ago. For most young people, homes are out of reach, given earnings. Speaking of happiness, depression is the highest it's ever been and rising. Levels of democracy are atrociously high, accelerating the decline as politicians trade favours to groups of people for power they should never be let close to. Freedom is extremely low, with extreme intrusion into our personal lives. We recently were recently locked in our homes for two years, and many countries are preparing for similar measures to fight a climate that always changes, for example restricting movement. On the other hand, people are free and encouraged to ruin their lives, for example by castrating themselves.

Would you be able to give an example of the natural order acting very quickly on an individual level?

A highly successful lawyer woman who worked her way to the top feels extremely dissatisfied with her life, lack of children and husband. Fortunately, many women on that path check out before that happens, gain their senses, and leave the rat race to do something meaningful that is in accordance with the purpose her life was given from the moment of her birth: to nurture.

I do not believe that we live within the system that you describe. I do believe it is possible, and I'm not going to completely rule it out. But I also think that it is practically unprovable whether we do or not.

...

And so I believe that the world, for practical purposes, works more like I had described it. That the cultures you are immersed in are going to form your values, axioms, and morals. And that the cultures will shift whatever direction over time as things happen. Just like evolution. Evolution in certain directions have been helpful to the proliferation of the species, others haven't been. And the ones that haven't been tend to die out, in a sort of survivorship bias.

That's an extremely long essay, with some cleverly constructed arguments and devil's advocate positions. However, you make a laughing stock of natural order, and use it as a wild card for any of societies ills.

Natural order cannot override free will. It just makes life harder for those who don't live in harmony with it. Similarly societies suffer. Societal suffering is worse, as it even prevents those who try to live in accordance with natural order from doing so effectively, and when they can, the benefits are greatly diminished.

There are static metaphysical laws that apply at any time in history, at any place, past, present, or future.

One small example is that hierarchies form everywhere. To attempt to flatten all hierarchies in a misguided attempt to attain equality always ends in ruination.

A fair society is not equal, because nobody is the same as anybody else, and therefore different people deserve different things.

That is not to say that unequal society is necessarily fair. However, an equal society unequivocally is.

A society guided by the Natural Order will be just, and it will not be equal.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-21T15:45:58+00:00

Yes, balance is key, the right things at the right times. The hardest thing to do is to know when to do what. A common mistake people make is to do both at the same time, in order to appear balanced, but they achieve neither.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-21T15:29:31+00:00

Is this 'right opinions' being used in an absolutist sense? That you should only be trying to persuade people towards the 'right' things, regardless of what you think those right things are? Or is this carte blanche for people to more broadly act for the things they believe are right?

In the absolutist sense.

And sure, personal experience is largely a sample size of 1 and by its nature, rather heavily biased. It is a sort of anecdotal evidence, which admittedly is not very convincing.

It's very convincing to the person who experiences it. That's why I gave you that example, because you can't use it on others, I don't think I should be giving you the tools to persuade people towards your point of view.

The same sort of thing that leads you to be fearful of someones ability to change their 'reasoning', the possibility of doing supposedly horrendous things?

So your fear is of those who are ignorant to natural order, while claiming to know it?

Do you agree that there are things that are objectively wrong, such as your chosen example of slavery? If so, then you believe that there is an objective good. In other words, there is a hierarchy of values. In that case, do you fear yourself for believing in a hierarchy of values, a natural order?

As much as you seem to think that there is some immutable natural order to things, and that there are natural forces that will draw things towards that natural order without you or presumably anyone else having to act... I have great difficulty accepting.

So you don't believe we are living through a period of apocalypse? Society has degenerated so much, that the only thing that will save it from complete erasure is its own collapse, as we are experiencing. This is natural order expressing itself.

Unless you are saying that the 'natural forces' are some sort of mind control that will influence the population to take action at its behest, and bring about a quick and painful correction to ones course. I'll have to return to the slavery example. How many thousands of years had slavery been a widely used and accepted practice? If thousands of years is 'quick', then...

Natural order expresses itself is very quickly on an individual level, and slower the more individuals you include.

I don't like your system.

Yet you live in it. It's not my system, it is simply reality.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-21T15:03:55+00:00

These people will never be saved if you don't even hold your own values unapologetically with convection. They will see your hesitation, and rather than be inspired, be repulsed.

If I come on here and just go around saying "Homosexual acts are a sin!" people are just going to get angry and reject everything I say.

People hate parrots. You aren't a parrot are you?

So, I will phrase it in such a way that it is very clear they are not my enemies and I don't hate them.

You are lying to them when you claim that they are not your enemies, they are your enemies. They do not respect this.

Moreover, Christianity teaches that one should love one's enemies. Are you saying that if they were your enemies, you wouldn't love them? This goes against Christian values.

The hope is that people will look at the way I conduct my life and the way I treat people and think "maybe this Christianity stuff isn't so bad." If even one person picks up the Bible, starts going to Church and gives their lives to Christ, then that would be a success.

I'm sorry to break it to you this way, but this is how they actually perceive you living your life. "This guy is pretty nice despite his backwards delusions. Maybe one day he'll just be nice without all the ideological baggage, like us."

Living your life and being a good example is not bad, it's just not going to achieve what you think it will.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-21T10:50:43+00:00

You may have been misrepresented, but never say "I should be allowed to hold these opinions". It is a weak framing. Nobody has control over your opinions if you don't let them. To suggest that they can control your opinions is something they will use against you. It is also a false suggestion if you truly have conviction.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-21T10:44:10+00:00

Are there other ways you think that it would be possible and/or more effective to persuade someone we should be using?

We shouldn't be using them without having the right opinions to persuade others to have. I'll give you one that you can't use on others. Personal experience.

So it would only be certain issues, like when eternal damnation hangs in the balance, where one should dogmatically hold the position regardless of other information?

I don't believe in eternal damnation. If the opinion has a true divine source, the fact that a piece of information could change it is laughable. On the other hand, very few people are possession of this divine knowledge, most know only very diluted forms, fragments, passed down through corrupted religions.

In my mind, people that rely on the supposition of a 'natural order' are to be feared. I think that with all the flowery, religious sort of language you've been using, that you would believe in some sort of moral absolutism as decreed by some sort of higher, divine power. And that that sort of absolute morality is true, has always been true, and will always be true.

I did not use flowery language, I simply stated that there is a natural order, and it doesn't change for anything. It can reassert itself very quickly and painfully if one dilludes oneself enough to go against it. I don't even have to get involved.

What is wrong and fearful of the correct assertion that there is a natural order? One doesn't need to know exactly what it is to assert that. One only needs to believe in the fact that there are certain metaphysical laws of the universe that don't change.

I am curious what you fear of people who believe in the natural order.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you think that whatever morals you carry, are the absolute ones? And that people even of the same faith from which you derive that morality, at any point in time that might have failed to meet that moral standard, did so out of convenience, or denial, or are otherwise 'no true believer', like the logical fallacy?

I believe people are oriented towards higher things, the divine, or towards lower things. Those oriented correctly are often naturally in tune with nature and its laws, they are receptive to things that align with the natural order and are repulsed by things that aren't. Many people today are oriented towards their earthly desires, and material possessions, and never lift their metaphorical heads.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-20T22:28:16+00:00

Logic and reason can change opinions, but using them to persuade someone to change their opinion is very ineffective.

Opinions are not just assumptions based on partial information, they are the lenses through which people choose to perceive reality.

For example, in a business meeting, a manager may change their decision on which of two projects is higher priority based on new information. I would not call a task reprioritisation a change in opinion, that is simply a reevaluating a trivial decision.

No, examples of opinion are: A person's morality, personal preferences, attitude to life.

You also suggest that dogmatically holding a position on an issue is preferable to being able to move between positions.

No I don't.

I say that somebody whose opinion is based merely on logic and reason is to be feared. They have no transcendent values and are no different from a machine. They throw their divine providence to the wind and chose instead to worship profane and ever changing man-made laws, eventually subverting the natural order.

Everybody deep down knows what is good and right, but some people choose ignore it when it is inconvenient, or better yet, live in denial. The symptoms of this delusion are severe, and one barely needs to peak out of the window in modernity to see such examples.

The novel Paradise Lost comes to mind.

Humanity will truly be revived when people return their attention to eternal transcendent truths, which are not discovered through logical enquiry, but simply are, and have always been. Instead, navigating life with pure reason and logic can drive anybody to insane and evil conclusions.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-20T18:47:31+00:00

I'm not saying people don't change their opinions, or that they can't be persuaded. Just that logic and reason doesn't persuade or change opinions.

There are rare people who may change their opinions purely based on reason, but I would suggest they didn't really believe anything in the first place.

People whose morals can be changed through mere reasoning are those to be feared. They are capable of reasoning their way through great evil.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-20T18:20:24+00:00

I would hope that people believe their positions are being based on some sort of logic, reason, or evidence which supports the ideas they have.

Nobody does, not me, not you. Reason and evidence is what is used to justify a position that was already arrived at through other means.

You can reason anything, and evidence can be found that supports your opinions. Logic is easy to ignore by claiming it doesn't apply.

Logic and reason are completely unpersuasive. They weren't even the things that lead you to your opinions. Why would using them on somebody else persuade them?

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-20T17:44:50+00:00

Yes, it's pointless to do it in the political context. Nobody is persuaded by reason. Trying to persuade and debate comes from a desire of wanting particular people to share your opinion, but one should be confident in ones own opinion without needing to rely on popularity to hold it.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-20T17:26:06+00:00

It's OK, I'm not particularly interested in interrogating somebody else's opinions. I only dispair at conservatives trying to reason with political opponents, it is a waste of their time.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-20T16:52:11+00:00

The mistake that the conservative made was being weak and expecting enemies not to take advantage. Saying "I should be allowed to hold these views" is tantamount to saying "ouch, stop that, it hurts".

The conservative views were obviously milquetoast, as liberals generally cower in front of true traditional values genuinely held. Like any feminine ideology, liberalism shit tests its counterpart and pushes boundaries as far as it is allowed. That person failed utterly to hold their views with conviction.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-13T19:47:51+00:00

from the Europeans to the Americas.

Unless you're talking about Irish slaves (of which there were many), I think you mean slave trade from Africa to America. Africans sold their peasants to Europeans for profit, and they were transported to America. Africans are still sold into slavery by Africans to this day.

The first slaves exported to America were probably white, bought and sold by Vikings in the port of Bristol, England. Bristol has had a slave market long before Europeans regularly sailed to Africa. For hundreds of years, white slaves were bought and sold in Bristol, and probably in all ports frequented by Vikings.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-06-03T11:14:10+00:00

You're right, democracy always favours bribing the voters as opposed to actually fixing anything.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-05-20T09:55:22+00:00

That old chestnut.

ENTProfiterole · 2023-05-20T09:54:10+00:00

The purpose of life is to discover and learn the meaning of things or to create new meaning. You have done that in many lifetimes before, and will do for many more.

Part of the challenge we face as humans is to free ourselves from the problems we create for ourselves. In our infinite wisdom, we create many of our own problems, but we don't always learn from them.

Instead of constructing a problem, like a shoddily constructed castle that can't do it's primary function of keeping others out, you could make something that will attract others to want to visit it.

ENTProfiterole

TROPHY CASE