Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
"...Perhaps laughter will then have formed an alliance with wisdom; perhaps only 'gay science' will remain."
User ID: 342
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
21hr ago
I wonder what answer would run the highest probability of ick-induction in a manic pixie programming girl. Excel? SAS? SQL? An actual but boomer-coded programming language like COBOL?
What would be the likely reaction to Common Lisp?
(It has to be CL, none of that Scheme or Clojure shit.)
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
23hr ago
It's especially useful when you're writing reusable framework code, e.g. your UI library will probably have something like register_callback(Function f, Widget w) so you can perform action f whenever button w is clicked. But if you're just writing "app" code as opposed to "framework" code it may not come up as often.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
23hr ago
It blew my mind when I first learned about it too!
In some sense this is the same sort of mental gestalt shift that is at the basis of all scientific thought, and is therefore a useful experience for everyone to undergo.
What if a function were an object just like any other, and therefore subject to all the same sorts of operations, you can pass it around, access its properties, etc.
What if the human mind/body were an object just like any other, and therefore subject to all the same sorts of physical laws, etc.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
1d ago
It's interesting to ask why it should be bothersome when you feel that someone is "monopolizing" the site with posts you don't like. It certainly is bothersome, I won't deny that. But it's not clear why it should be. The site has an in principle unlimited amount of server space. It's not a zero sum game. One person posting a thread you don't like doesn't prevent you or other people from posting threads that are more to your liking.
There are certain popular genres of threads here that bore me to tears (mainly the policy wonk posts, and the posts that get into obsessive minutiae regarding current events). But I know that by the same token, there are people who hate the types of posts that I like to produce and read as well (borderline schizophrenic free associative rants about philosophy and psychology). If I start harping on people for writing posts I don't like, then I know that they can just turn that around and say "well we don't like what you're trying to turn themotte into either". So I generally just try to keep my mouth shut when there's a post I don't like and I just ignore it or collapse the thread.
I suppose that although the site in principal has space for an unlimited number of threads, it only really has space for one dominant culture, and in this sense it is more zero sum. The fear could be that threads you don't like will attract the types of posters that you don't like, which will over time shift the culture in a direction that makes the site less valuable to you.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
1d ago
Trying to tackle Of Grammatology for like... the 4th time in my life? Maybe this time I'll actually finish it. Gonna try to just plow through even if I feel like I don't have all the "prerequisites".
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
3d ago
Call me crazy, but I'm starting to see recurring themes in the cases you choose to present.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
3d ago
I'm curious how you'd distinguish this from desire-to-be-masculine.
I'm just going off of my general impressions from hearing FTMs talk over the years. There seems to be a much bigger focus on escaping the responsibilities and restrictions of femininity, and the actual positive desire for masculinity is secondary (but it certainly still does exist in at least some individuals, as your examples show).
It's noticeably different with MTFs because there's such an obvious strong fetishistic sexual component. Of course there's a confounding factor here that explains why we might not see that as much with FTMs, because women have fewer paraphilias overall than men, and the paraphilias they do have aren't felt as intensely. But FTMs could still desire masculine traits in a non-fetishistic way. My impression is that that part of it just isn't quite as important for them on average, but I freely admit I could be wrong on that point.
Of course, if it were the case that FTMs simply straightforwardly desired to be masculine in the way that MTFs desire to be feminine, then that would be fine, because it would still support my original claim that there's a symmetry between MTFism and FTMism. But enough people have pointed out that FTMism seems different on the surface that there should be some sort of explanation for this apparent difference.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
4d ago
Black Americans have been here for hundreds of years, I suppose we can throw out the term “black” too and just talk about the American race from now on?
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
4d ago
it seems pretty obvious that a lot of FtM types in particular are far less interested in becoming men than they are afraid of becoming women
Huh...
This makes me think that FtM transsexuality and MtF transsexuality are actually a lot more symmetrical than I previously realized.
Someone here once mentioned that FtM transsexuality was driven by an urge to "self annihilation", which I thought was great and accurate. Although it did make FtMism out to be a rather different phenomenon than MtFism, since MtFism is pretty clearly driven by positive desire.
But if we instead think that the key issue underlying all forms of transsexuality is the individual's relation to femininity. FtMism = rejection of and flight from femininity, MtFism = attraction to and desire to possess femininity. Then we can start to conceive of the two forms as being separate manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon.
I happen to agree with the radfems who claim that men are the "default" gender and women are a deviation from the default. Although I might disagree with them over the specifics. Rather than conceiving of femininity as a "lack" of masculinity, it's relatively clear to me that femininity is something that one possesses in addition to the "default" human state. And this is exactly what we see expressed in the two distinct forms of transsexuality.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
4d ago
If the term "white" is too contentious, we can start saying "ethnic Europeans" instead. That would probably be for the best. It's less ambiguous. (Romani are a mixture of European and non-European ancestry.)
Frequently when people try to frame Romani or MENA rapists as "white", the political angle is that they want to deprive European peoples of the language for distinguishing between themselves and ethnic outsiders (even though wokes have no trouble distinguishing between white and non-white people in contexts where it's more beneficial for them to do so). But these are attacks being perpetrated against Europeans by ethnic outsiders, and Europeans have a right, arguably a duty, to frame their self-understanding in this fashion.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
4d ago
What else is there to even say at this point?
Looks like the shooter went out of his way to piss off as many people as possible and make it hard to pin down his political orientation. Non-negligible chance of a psyop.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
5d ago
That moment of dawning realization when you understand that your enemies are humans just like you, and you're a human just like them.
Not to pick on you specifically of course. It's a difficult truth to realize, and it's an easy truth to forget. We all need constant reminders.
My only nitpick would be that I don't see it as a "vulnerability". I just see it as a constitutive part of being human.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
6d ago
The distinction starts to get blurry very quickly.
We can reasonably assume that there is a fact of the matter regarding which HBD claims are true. But the reason people take such strong stances on HBD, even in the face of inconclusive or insufficient empirical evidence, is because of their values. It’s hard to cleanly separate questions of value and questions of fact because our values influence what we think about the facts.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
6d ago
· Edited 6d ago
It essentially implies the difference between the right wing and left wing argument about things are about morals and not about the effectiveness of policy or economic ideas
"Effectiveness of policy" is the last thing that political disagreements are about. If you listed all the causes of political conflict in order of importance and relevance, "effectiveness of policy" would rank around... 67th place? Maybe?
Political conflicts arise because of clashes between incommensurate value systems, misalignment of tribal interests, the competing demands of heterogeneous subjectivities, emotional biases both conscious and unconscious... if political conflicts could be settled through rational argumentation then people would have done so already.
Of course people will still try to convince themselves that politics is really about "policy", for various reasons. It could be because they're classical liberals who recognize that liberalism needs to postulate a universal, expansive, and malleable blank slate core as part of human nature in order for liberalism to function at large scales over long periods of time. Or it could be because they find the idea of human subjectivity to be intrinsically uncomfortable, and a world of rational information-processing agents is more amenable to their tastes. Whatever the reason.
The sooner you adjust your frame of reference, the sooner things will start making sense.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
8d ago
You create a woman that women want to be, and men don't want her
Speak for yourself, I want a woman who can knock me unconscious.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
9d ago
like the heroine actually had the power to solve all the problems in her if only she realised her own worth
Evolutionarily speaking, a woman's worth is largely dependent on immutable physical characteristics (modulo things like plastic surgery), so these sorts of stories tend to psychologically resonate with women. They don't have to go wrest their value from the external world like men do.
I once asked my mother why so many Hallmark movies copy the "It's a Wonderful Life" plot where a woman makes a life-altering wish, gets transported to another timeline, and then realizes she doesn't like it and has to find a way back. She responded, "oh, the movie is telling you that actually everything is great for you already, and you're just too stupid to realize it!"
or there was a solution that involves using emotional intelligence and likeableness to dissuade the villain from his villainous ways instead of defeating him
That one strikes me as perfectly reasonable and not necessarily anticlimactic...
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
9d ago
Right, there's the classic "I don't know who the woman was, but I can tell you that she wasn't my mother!"
But my dreams (insofar as I can remember them anyway) are rarely even complex enough to have much of a "telling". I was walking down a street in my neighborhood. Bam that's it that's the dream. Rather uninteresting! (I suppose even that little bit is still a "telling" though.)
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
10d ago
You can probably endlessly subject all of this to Freudian psychoanalysis, but I don't care for it.
Funny enough, dream analysis has always been the least interesting aspect of psychoanalysis to me. Probably because I rarely have them, and when I do, their "meaning" is always quite manifest and apparent -- there's a clear causal relationship between what I'm dreaming about and something I was thinking about recently, or something I experienced at some point.
Although, I am curious on a meta-level if this says anything about me...
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
10d ago
Ah, I was asking more about the symbolic meaning of the narrative -- the coming technological dystopia, the alienation from our humanity, a sense of impending irrevocable loss, etc. How often do you consciously ruminate on those sorts of things?
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
10d ago
Everything I feel towards my wife feels somehow muted, or turned down.
We can certainly say that this is one of the general effects of AI integration, yes.
How well does this dream correspond to conscious, waking thoughts that you've experienced previously? Is the narrative of this dream a familiar line of thought to you, or did you experience it as something new?
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
11d ago
It appears that enough people have already reported your comments here that they’ve ended up in the report queue, which is very unfortunate. Those are clearly ideologically motivated reports; nothing you’ve said here is in violation of the rules.
Your presence here is highly valued, so I do hope that you feel encouraged to post here more often. You’re not the only Trump-critical poster here, so your arguments would find some support.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
11d ago
If we grant that the cultural right is "winning" right now
They’re not. All you’re seeing is a “10 steps forward, 2 steps back” kind of situation.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
11d ago
· Edited 11d ago
I don't really know where you're then getting this notion that we can draw any conclusion from what she says to how theoretical objects are thought up for use in scientific scenarios.
It was the idea that occurred to me while reading the text, so I just went with it!
I fully admit I'm engaged in a "motivated" reading. I'm more concerned with trying to extract a coherent philosophical idea from the text rather than with reconstructing Irigaray's exact mental state. But I don't think my interpretation is baseless either.
Backing up to give more context:
What is left uninterpreted in the economy of fluids—the resistances brought to bear upon solids, for example—is in the end given over to God. Overlooking the properties of real fluids—internal frictions, pressures, movements, and so on, that is, their specific dynamics—leads to giving the real back to God, as only the idealizable characteristics of fluids are included in their mathematicization.
Or again: considerations of pure mathematics have precluded the analysis of fluids except in terms of laminated planes, solenoid movements (of a current privileging the relation to an axis), spring-points, well-points, whirlwind-points, which have only an approximate relation to reality. Leaving some remainder. Up to infinity: the center of these “movements” corresponding to zero supposes in them an infinite speed, which is physically unacceptable. Certainly these “theoretical” fluids have enabled the technical—also mathematical—form of analysis to progress, while losing a certain relationship to the reality of bodies in the process.
What consequences does this have for “science” and psychoanalytic practice?
Roughly: Science can't just give a direct description of every single microdetail of reality. It has to "symbolize" things -- create simplified and idealized theoretical models. These models are inevitably attached to linguistic imagery.
And if anyone objects that the question, put this way, relies too heavily on metaphors, it is easy to reply that the question in fact impugns the privilege granted to metaphor (a quasi solid) over metonymy (which is much more closely allied to fluids).
Honestly not entirely sure what this part means. I assume that she's saying that solid imagery is more metaphorical, and fluid imagery is more metonymic, and her questioning here is impugning the privilege that the current imagery of physics grants to solids over fluids.
Or—suspending the status of truth accorded to these essentially metalinguistic “categories” and “dichotomous oppositions” — to reply that in any event all language is (also) metaphorical,+ and that, by denying this, language fails to recognize the “‘subject” of the unconscious and precludes inquiry into the subjection, still in force, of that subject to a symbolization that grants precedence to solids.
They key part is really the line at the end, "the subjection, still in force, of that subject to a symbolization that grants precedence to solids". The current "symbolization" of physics grants precedence to solids. But she's implying that that could change. We could imagine an alternative symbolization that grants precedence to fluids instead (without changing the content of the underlying physics).
it's likely because it is a simpler concept to do math with, than fluid cows.
Again the suggestion is that the imagery could change without changing the math.
Solid objects are already a lot more "fluid" than they might initially appear. See for example The Problem of the Many. It's not too hard to imagine an alternative conceptual landscape where we view the world of macro objects as being fundamentally populated by fluids, with "solids" being an exotic deviation from the fluid norm, if they even exist at all.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
12d ago
I am not a “Rationalist” and my habits are very much my own.
I approach every text with the level of respect it deserves. Nothing more, nothing less.
The other side scares us. Our own side doesn't.
More options
Context Copy link