[PAX] - DozenValues – Ideology Matcher Test | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

[PAX] DozenValues – Ideology Matcher Test

No, but I read on the Three Lights blog where you typed you identified with a Trickster/Joker archetype among others while more a Trickster and less a Joker like an INTP in a conversation with Asa which is what I was referring to and why I typed this to Asa and not someone else. Trust me I would say the same to you, but I don't really feel such statement is necessary on the internet on a platform where you can openly refer to what people type if that makes sense. It's more about the opinion you express of your avatar rather than your person I guess.

I was making a half joke, but also from my perspective I find it healthier to try to think of the person on the other end as a human and not a type/avatar/abstraction.
But I understand your point in a practical sense and appreciate the elaboration.
 
I was making a half joke, but also from my perspective I find it healthier to try to think of the person on the other end as a human and not a type/avatar/abstraction.
But I understand your point in a practical sense and appreciate the elaboration.

I see, I know you're a human being and have feelings, thoughts, motivations, and beliefs, but I don't know who you are. At least, no more than I know who someone I regularly speak to in a coffee shop is. I feel there's more to knowing a person than pure interactions in a controlled environment. I suspect you feel the same as I doubt that you'll be divulging to me your darkest secrets or having me over for dinner anytime soon.

Good and you're welcome.
 
I see, I know you're a human being and have feelings, thoughts, motivations, and beliefs, but I don't know who you are. At least, no more than I know who someone I regularly speak to in a coffee shop is. I feel there's more to knowing a person than pure interactions in a controlled environment. I suspect you feel the same as I doubt that you'll be divulging to me your darkest secrets or having me over for dinner anytime soon.

Good and you're welcome.

I don't know if this is supposed to be an argument against treating people across the internet more humanely, but if it is I still disagree on that point
 
Well, pragmaticism is the school of thought


I didn't mean the question that way. I mean it in the 'general sense of the definition' way, but thank you.
 
wjS8DTr.png


Next Matches:
  • Anarcho-Frontierism
  • Anarcho-Transhumanism
  • Individualist Anarchism
  • Geosyndicalism
Ideology of Johann Kaspar Schmidt

Cheers,
Ian
 
I didn't mean the question that way. I mean it in the 'general sense of the definition' way, but thank you.

I understand. I was trying to implicitly make the point that I don't think you can have a sound general definition of practical, because it's a contingent matter. To me nothing is inherently or generally practical. Things make things practical.

Yet, from this perspective, the best definition of practical in a general sense is whatever is practical makes some goal, purpose, or aim most effectively achievable.

I stress perspective because practicality isn't like say courage where it's generally the same thing across a multitude of situations, peoples, cultures, or perspectives.
 
@Yoh Asakura – My question was philosophical. The answer isn't obvious or text book. What we assume is pragmatic may not be.

What do you mean by your question was philosophical?

I think, I agree, which is why I'm for pragmaticism which emphasizes experimentation, approach, engagement, and an ad hoc way of concluding over principal based and theoretical approaches. Yes, there is a contingency to what is pragmatic, so what we assume is pragmatic may not be, because the actual conditions, state of affairs, configurations, factors, objects, and actors do not afford for said thing to result in being pragmatic as opposed to the ones we imagine, expect, or have in mind by pure logical calculus. This to me, means that pragmatic isn't an essential thing, but instead a result or consequence of things which makes the analysis of state of affairs, conditions, and properties more paramount than what could generally be the case. If there is no cases where pragmatic essentially is or a thing is essentially pragmatic, then there isn't a general definition of pragmatic since there aren't a multitude of cases of pragmatic being to abstract or extract some essential nature.

My answer to what is pragmatic not being obvious is pragmaticism which was developed by William James, C.S Peirce, and John Dewey well before I ever started doing philosophy, because pragmatism is specifically dealing with the fact that what is pragmatic is not what we might assume or isn't necessarily obvious and depends on what you're dealing with. Often simple philosophical questions don't have a sentence long answer, because they're based on non-linear things that even material science hasn't fully or clearly worked out or understands well or is only deducible by a certain kind of complex logical calculus.
 
Last edited:
Hmm yes, a pragmatic discussion on the pragmatic definitions of pragmatism.
 
Ideology of Johann Kaspar Schmidt
I’m intrigued Ian. Are you in favour of the idea that anyone should possess whatever they want from other people as long as they have the power to do so and to hold onto it? It sounds very Voldemort but I’m maybe misunderstanding something essential.
 
I’m intrigued Ian. Are you in favour of the idea that anyone should possess whatever they want from other people as long as they have the power to do so and to hold onto it? It sounds very Voldemort but I’m maybe misunderstanding something essential.

That's what we have now, so absolutely not.

Cheers,
Ian
 
That's what we have now, so absolutely not.

Cheers,
Ian
But Schmidt seems to favour this idea of possession and make it central to his ideation as long as it's overt rather than disguised in spooky mythological social masks. But I've only looked at internet summaries of his ideology and maybe they oversimplify what he was getting at?
 
Results
Closest Match: Liberal Corporatism

Next Matches: Social Democracy, Nordic Model, Syncretic Liberalism, Social Corporatism
Description in progress

DozenValues.png

I have no idea why some things are on one axis, as I see those as two different things, but *shrug*