Not so sure about the Summer Glau forehead though, some people find big eyes off putting because they look too childlike (as if the body hasn't grown properly), that's what I think about the forehead, I don't mind a large forehead if there's some shape to it (like mine) y'know with a the skull thickening where horns ought to be, but a large eggish forehead makes the girls pictured look almost like they have Down's syndrome.
oh? Full time now eh? Are you still doing the medical nursing thing (At least I think that's what it was). And what the craps lol, "Mundane monotony" isn't the words I was expecting you to use to describe it, you made it sounds like a school class now. But ahhs well, i'm gonna look at those after a nap...a very strong and worthy nap
I did post some more in the Thalamus thread that I made earlier (last post about 3.5 wks ago or something) but to be honest I felt like there was just so much I wanted to post that I got worn out and sort of gave up, plus nobody really seems interested in entertaining/discussing the idea - so double for giving up.
It was hard for me to keep everything together and organized as interpretable ideas. However, if you truly are curious to see the brain how I do then you could look through the latest post in that thread again ...
Particularly, the part I think you'll find most useful is that the thalamus does indeed receive information back from the brain (two way street here), and can send direction to other regions besides the cortex (i.e. amygdala for emotional responding and cranial nerve nuclei for facial movements). Optic nerve is but 1 of the cranial nerves, and it is sensory only at that).
I wish I did. I have some undergrad textbooks from some courses I took years ago, and other than that I've been just google searching the topics, usually the tertiary-source websites have a good network of links, and there's always ol' faithful (W.)
Your discussion (if it can be called a discussion ) with Ink makes me think of what seems, to me, the key problem with visual reading, which I've brought up before, but I don't think with you. Rather than validity, it's the more ethical question of how one tells someone they're someone they might not necessarily identify with.
Assuming cognitive configuration is true, and your method is reliable. Do you feel there is anything problematic about looking at someone and knowing them before they've spoken to you? Can a dialogue go much further than the point when they say "no", i.e., is it just a matter of telling them your read and letting them do what they want with it?
My problem with the ethics of it might have just been due to how dogmatic PL's presentation is. Though I do suspect those most antagonistic are those who feel their identity is being threatened in some way. I wondered if you'd thought of any means around it.
Interesting. I won't dispute it. I wonder what you mean by "traditional" in relation to ethics? I don't like a bully and I don't like to see the small get stepped on by the large...but I'm not conservative by our country's definition....I will wait for your answer.
I've had much the same experience with becoming a masochist for truth, except that I had (foolishly) intended to proverbially pick the pieces back up and create a philosophy for the ages from whatever was left. But since emotions are ultimately alogical reactions to thoughts, you must have changed your thoughts on these truths instead. So how did you change your view of them?
You've somehow taken the agony and despair out of fundamental epistemeological questions, and for me, someone for whom these questions cut like knives upon the emotions, reading your descriptions of them is as refreshing as drinking a tall, cold glass of water after being in an oven. How did you do it?
I forgive you. Those ninja kittens can be murder. Congrates on fighting them off. Hey, that's awesome about California! I have a friend that just got a job at Apple and he's off living the high light in Cali as well. He seems happy there. He's around the San Francisco area.
I'm glad you are doing well Auburn. Sometimes when I'm in the Powell's in Portland I think about how you and I almost met there. That somehow seems appropriate. Our lifelines dance around each other never quite touching....or something. I'm getting to metaphysical now.
*big, warm smile* Awwww, that's adorable! I wish you two the best of luck in your endeavors. My curiosity was the result of my ever present doubt: I never heard you say the words, "I love Auburn" or "We've been dating," etc., so I didn't quite close the book on whether you two were lovers or not. To find out, I employed cunning subterfuge (cue ridiculous spy music): since another poster had been rebuffed after asking one of you directly, I asked you how long you and PhoenixRising had been lovers instead. Your reply answered my question-- and warmed my heart to boot.
If my doing so has been reprehensible, I apologize and regret having pursued my curiosity to such unkind extremes.
Yes, the chance of someone giving you a well-thought-out critique would increase a lot if they knew it would be read by you and others interested in the content you put out, which isn't really the case on a not directly related forum or a youtube comment section
I'm guessing Jung, and subsequent typology theorists, are holding dissimilar definitions about "repression" and "unconscious." You can't possibly say someone has two function pairs in their functional stack, as Celebrity Types does, and simultaneously contend the inferior function is repressed, right?
Perhaps in the same way one is either male or female, and the other "potential" gender didn't happen -- so with the psyche; and its selectivity to exclusive processes.
That's how Jung has it, and such un/conscious demarcation accords with my experience.
What benefit would even come from scrutinizing the unconscious? Or attempting to entirely move the unconscious to consciousness? Jung was quite clear that such an abrupt transition was the hallmark of psychosis.
Then again, doesn't Jung call Se for the Ni-dom unconscious here:
The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character.
I agree there are four functions in the functional stack, but Celebrity Types calls the inferior function "repressed." Confusingly, that site upholds the concept of function pairs.
In this way I do somewhat disagree with Jung believing the 3 remaining processes were of opposite orientation than the dominant. So essentially the functions of, say, an INTP would be: Ti-Fe, Ne-Si. This does not mean Fe is "secondary".
Jung did argue that the three remaining processes were opposite orientation. He did also, however, talk about intuitive and sensing, and thinking and feeling, being highly separated, which would preclude a Ti-Fe one-two scenario.
You may have addressed this somewhere, but what is your feeling on the functional stack? Three or four functions? What is repressed? Do the functions predictably interact beyond function pairs? Also, do you feel people basically have eight functions going a la Beebe's model? If so, what influence do the "shadow" functions have in your mind? Good? Bad? Ugly?