Finding Purpose

[flow]

What do you think the INTPs societal purpose is? What are we here for? Are we really just knowledge-builders, or something more?

 

[Ermine]

Societal purpose is an individual thing. An INTP can be any number of things, in different societies, as can anyone. For example, my societal role can be one of several things depending on who you ask. Sometimes I'm the walking encyclopedia, the sage, the comedian, the counselor, the inventor, it depends.

 

[saffyangelis]

What do you think the INTPs societal purpose is? What are we here for? Are we really just knowledge-builders, or something more?

The problem is, how are we going to find our purpose in a society that we don't fit in?

 

[Sugarpop]

Skeptics/recluses/fuel.

 

[Jordan~]

I hope I don't have one.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

That single loose variable that somehow manages to bring the entire system crashing down.

Like cancer.

 

[Thaklaar]

First things first. What's the purpose of society?

 

[Mars]

^LAWL I soo want to hear that one

as for a purpose, Architects. helooo!! designing massive irrelevant edifices that will be built and managed by others.

Or maybe we're supposed to be members of a gestapo equivalent government agency, according to some at any rate.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

First things first. What's the purpose of society?

3 pounds of flax?

 

[Anthile]

3 pounds of flax?

And I always thought that was Buddha!



But anyway, the purpose of society is simply surviving and conservation of the human race. In my opinion every type has its own function in that fragile structure we call society. Then again, every human has its own purpose.

You don't know what yours is? Think. Go out. No one can tell you. You're on your own here.

 

[echoplex]

Technically, it's reproduction.

Existentially, it's whatever you want it to be.

Nihilistically, it's absolutely nothing.

Pick one....or whatever.

 

[Da Blob]

I hope I don't have one.

Why? You're not a lazy person....
Others might make that statement simply because they do not wish to invest the time and effort of finding a Cause to exist for....

Serving a Cause is a purpose...

 

[Artifice Orisit]

An old thought of mine,
"People spend their entire lives looking for a reason to die"

This implications depend upon your perspective.

 

[Concojones]

Purpose? Go out and try things, and pay attention to what activities make you feel passionate. INTPs contemplate too much and act too little.

 

[flow]

we certainly do think too much and act too little. But then again we could be ESFPs, who think too little and act too often.

 

[RobertJ]

Kind of like the bottomfeeders.... deal with all the refuse from the Extroverts who eat the candy bar and leave the wrappers lying around everywhere then build structures out of the garbage so people can come in and buy more candy bars.

 

[meshram.alok]

You might have enjoyed yourself while working on a computer, or while designing something, or coming up with some kind of system. I think that itself is purpose: Designing and watching it come to life.

 

[chocolate]

This is a very interesting question.

From my limited experience, what I find INTPs do very well is ask very good (and unobvious) questions. The importance of good questions can't be overstated!

 

[Kianara]

I'm no INTP, but I have to say that my purpose in life is to create and be creative.

 

[Thaklaar]

3 pounds of flax?

Naw, it's FIVE TONS OF FLAX!!

(Google my sig)

 

[Artifice Orisit]

You might have enjoyed yourself while working on a computer, or while designing something, or coming up with some kind of system. I think that itself is purpose: Designing and watching it come to life.

That's mad scientist complex, but yes I agree.

We may need to talk further...

 

[meshram.alok]

You're somewhat right, it is a form of complex. But then, I believe all purpose results from complex or conclusions.

When faced with a stressful and debilitating situation, young (or immature) people react to it by forming a complex or a conclusion.

Out of the complex or conclusion comes a meaning for life (or formation of an attitude) and this results in purpose.

I believe creativity stems from this itself.

 

[vash22]

The purpose of INTPs is to work in the background of humanity. Try to better the world and the lives of those who live on it. INTPs do not get credit for this work, but that is ok. The INTP works because....... that is unknown. It's funny how such a logical people could do something so illogical. Basicaly, we are the people who invented the bow and arrow and gave it to civilisation, and then went back into our hermit cave without waiting for, or asking for, a thank you.

 

[requiem]

Your purpose is whatever you decide it is.

An INTP could decide to be anything and probably succeed. But our problem is the motivation needed to go through with it. I could spend days doing something that entertained my brain, but I'm not so sure about channeling that energy to change the world.

I think INTPs tend to lean towards more personal or private "purposes" like all the ones stated above that involve creativity. We do things because they satisfy us, not someone else.

 

[Latro]

The problem is, how are we going to find our purpose in a society that we don't fit in?

How are we going to fit in in the first place with that attitude?

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Originally Posted by saffyangelis
The problem is, how are we going to find our purpose in a society that we don't fit in?

How are we going to fit in in the first place with that attitude?

The more fundamental question is: why does one persist in attempting to fit in to a society which one knows one does not fit into?

 

[Anthile]

Then why not change society? Seems like a good purpose to me.

 

[Beat Mango]

Well to change society you have to change other people and that's impossible. In any case, changing society just so you can fit in would be ridiculous. Better to start your own society, as has been done in the past with many alternative groups: bohemians, beatniks, hippies, grunge rockers...

Your purpose is whatever you decide it is.

See I am a big believer in fate. You can choose your external "purpose", but it won't be satisfying internally unless you actually care about it, and you can't force care. Your purpose, at any given moment, could be nothing else but what you care about most deeply. It's hard to find that niche though where the externals match the internals - I'm yet to find any real purpose, well, certainly not in my job/occupation.

 

[requiem]

See I am a big believer in fate. You can choose your external "purpose", but it won't be satisfying internally unless you actually care about it, and you can't force care. Your purpose, at any given moment, could be nothing else but what you care about most deeply. It's hard to find that niche though where the externals match the internals - I'm yet to find any real purpose, well, certainly not in my job/occupation.

I'm not sure I see how fate has anything to do with it. What you've described is still a choice. You could be passionate about something and have all the talent in the world for it, and still never go after it.

I guess I automatically see "purpose" as a path you put yourself on rather than something predetermined.

 

[Beat Mango]

Well your purpose is what you care about, and you can't choose what you care about. How could you? How could you choose what you value? The whole idea of values is that they underlie your choices.

 

[Latro]

The more fundamental question is: why does one persist in attempting to fit in to a society which one knows one does not fit into?

Basic drives, perhaps?

Plus, I don't think we "know we don't fit in." "Fitting in" per se is an absurdity at this point to begin with. You can't "fit in" in general in a society comprised of ~7 billion individuals. (In fact, you couldn't even meet every single one of them for more than about a third of a second in your entire lifetime). You can crawl into a niche, and that niche can be large or small. The only case where you absolutely don't "fit in" is when you can't find a niche to crawl into at all, and I don't think that's a fate that INTPs (or INTJs for that matter) are necessarily resigned to, if only because 1% of 7 billion people is still 70 million people worldwide for each of these types.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

This is true. The phrase "know we don't fit in" is a generality though, maybe not absurd. In view of wanting to fit into a certain society, say North American middle class 'Protestant work ethic' - as there are multiple 'societies' within larger societies, I question the reasons which one would want to 'fit in' or adapt oneself to a society whose values are contrary to one's own. I suppose I should have added the suggestion that one search for a 'society' which embodies one's personal values to a greater extent.

I think that there are those individuals, and I hesitate to categorise them as MBTI or any other, who are definitely introverted and whose personal collection of values are not founded on the basic values, such as accumulation of material possessions or hiearchial status, which drive many societies in the world today. The dilemma in the case of an individual described above is that certain advantages of these societies are attractive and perhaps even necessary, but the values upon which these advantages are acquired have little or no consequence to this individual.

As example, one may enjoy the advantages of electricity, indoor plumbing, central heating, etc. which North American middle class society offers, but the values inherent in this society, which is within the greater whole of the North American society, conflict with the chosen values of this individual. This engenders three possibilities which I can see. One, alter one's personal values to correspond more to the values of the society one desires to live within. Two, reject this society and find a society whose values correspond more to one's own, even though this may result in not having some or all of the advantages inherent in the rejected society. Three, live on the 'fringes' of the society which offers the desired advantages though not truly being a member of this society.

Option one often results in producing psychological conflicts within the person because one is subverting one's values. These conflicts are labelled as problems by the society one has conformed to, designating one as needing 'treatment' or 'modification' in order to conform to the society's values. Thus the individual has not resolved the dilemma of the conflict of values and one is now designated as a 'non-conforming' individual within the society and therefore, still remains 'outside' it.

Option two may result in physical or material hardships or the inability to acquire those advantages one initially sought. From the p.o.v. of the society one rejected, one is now an 'outsider' and there is little or no social contact between the individual and people from the rejected society.

Option three results in the individual living in a 'value limbo' in that, even though one retains one's personal values, one has little or no social contact with the people of the society one is acquiring the advantages of nor any other society which may embody the individual's values. Also, one may have to subvert some of one's values in order to acquire those advatages of the society which one desires. This subversion feels 'inauthentic' to the individual and interaction with other people within the society is superficial and strained. This superficiality is apparent to others and results either in a rejection of the individual by others, in a 'labelling' of difference or avoidance of the individual by others, or a recognition of this difference coupled with a desire within others to conform the individual.

I think this is a prominent dilemma of introverted intuitives, though this is but an asumption. The collective values of this individual conflict with the collective values of the vast majority of the societies of humanity, past and present, resulting in a constant fluid dichotomy of desire/need to belong and desire/need to retain autonomy.

 

[requiem]

Well your purpose is what you care about, and you can't choose what you care about. How could you? How could you choose what you value? The whole idea of values is that they underlie your choices.

Do you then believe that you were born with values instilled in you? When we first enter the world the only desires we really have are physical ones like hunger. Our responses to stimuli are comparable to any other animal's since we simply don't have the same cognitive abilities that adults do. At that stage in our life we can't possess values, we're not complicated or developed enough.

You could say that older children (let's say between 5 and 10) possess values. They've probably learned that family is important, that it's wrong to hurt people important to them, and beliefs like that are partly instinctual and partly instilled by the society in which they are growing up in. But these are still only very basic values and beliefs that are developing at this point in time.

It seems to me that real, lasting values come into being later in life through our awareness of the world. They are a response. We take in our experiences, our observations, and either consciously or unconsciously form a system of beliefs. If what we care about is not a choice, how do you account for the differences in values adopted by people throughout the world, or why our values often change later in life?

 

[Beat Mango]

Do you then believe that you were born with values instilled in you? When we first enter the world the only desires we really have are physical ones like hunger. Our responses to stimuli are comparable to any other animal's since we simply don't have the same cognitive abilities that adults do. At that stage in our life we can't possess values, we're not complicated or developed enough.

You could say that older children (let's say between 5 and 10) possess values. They've probably learned that family is important, that it's wrong to hurt people important to them, and beliefs like that are partly instinctual and partly instilled by the society in which they are growing up in. But these are still only very basic values and beliefs that are developing at this point in time.

It seems to me that real, lasting values come into being later in life through our awareness of the world. They are a response. We take in our experiences, our observations, and either consciously or unconsciously form a system of beliefs. If what we care about is not a choice, how do you account for the differences in values adopted by people throughout the world, or why our values often change later in life?

I don't believe we're born with values, no, but we surely have innate tendencies and preferences which go on to become values. Abstract values develop in older children, but what about concrete preferences? One toddler, a boy, likes playing with toy trucks while another, a girl, likes grooming her barbie doll. They have preferences which they did not choose, but are related to something outside their control, ie, gender (one could argue that gender is a social construct but it would still remain outside the individual's control, and therefore not a choice). One boy in kindergarten likes playing catch and kiss with girls, another boy is not so interested. Preferences, again. Later on in development, these preferences start to become abstracted into values.

They are a response. We take in our experiences, our observations, and either consciously or unconsciously form a system of beliefs.

I agree with that. But our preferences for certain things and hence tendency towards certain beliefs were already laying dormant in things like DNA.

How values change across the world, or across a lifespan? I don't know. I know that me personally, there are some times when I absolutely adore music and am enthralled by it, whereas other times I don't care much for it and it doesn't do much for me. I assume there's something bodily going on there, it's certainly not conscious. At one time I value music, at another I don't.

In terms of moral values, well I think they work in just the same manner. They arise from experiences and preferences outside of our control, and hence are not chosen. We can rationally overrule our instincts I guess, and that's been at the heart of a lot of moral philosophy, but I don't find it very convincing. There is a big difference between someone who chases after a purpose from his gut, from his heart, and another who chases it from a rational choice.

 

[Da Blob]

At issue here is the concept of the verb, value and the noun, a value. Someone famous once said that "as soon as we notice a difference between two things formerly thought to be similar, we will 'value' one over the other.' This is true to a certain extent, some values are simply the result of differentiation of perceptions, no high cognitive functions involved at all. However, this action, this verbal valuing, is at the heart of our individuality. It is not the result of the environment or genetics, but rather a simple, arbitrary decision.
It becomes a noun, a value, when that initial decision is reinforced, basically by a lack of decision, perhaps characterized by the statement 'My mind is made up about that".
It is important to have a good set of values, otherwise we would be locked in a loop of constantly having to re-evaluate all decisions, becoming the epitome of indecision and one hesitant to take actions.
Even infants have value systems, but obviously these systems evolve with the maturation of the brain, to become more complex. As far as as Moral values and codes of ethics, these too evolve during childhood and adolescence. One of the more touted models of this is presented as Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development, but there are others.

However, there is the question of how a person's code of ethics or moral value system fits into the idea of finding purpose. It is difficult to ascribe purpose without involving Intentionality, an idea not well received by many on this forum. However, even without a "God-given' purpose, there is still a drive to find a cause to serve during one's life. That cause could be as banal as serving one's family or idealistic, like trying to reverse global warming or preventing social injustice.

 

[Tyria]

Great post EB; I always love reading them If you have enough money though, you can create your own society. I have heard of someone buying a decomissioned aircraft carrier and changing it into a hotel.

If you have enough money, there are a few options you can take. You could always buy an island, buy an oil rig in international waters, buy a boat, go into space, etc. Most of these ideas are not accessible to most people, but it might be possible if a large number of people pooled their resources together. One of the big considerations for any of these projects would be resources available to your society (once it is created). Unless you maintain contact with the mainland, you will have to find natural resources to sustain yourselves.

Finally, being recognized as a soverign power may also be an issue that a society faces (if it chooses to go that route).

 

[EloquentBohemian]

In terms of moral values, well I think they work in just the same manner. They arise from experiences and preferences outside of our control, and hence are not chosen.

I question this. Not implying that you're wrong, more to wondering about this.
If one experiences an event which prompts a moral decision, where does this decision arrive from 'outside of one's control'? One may have an immediate emotional or physical reaction to this event, but the morality of the event is an internal judgement upon one's conscious reflection concerning the event. One may immediately think 'That is evil', but where does this judgemental thought arise from? Values already consciously held? Is an act inherently good or evil, or is the morality of an event afixed consciously subsequent to the event on a subjective basis?

There is a big difference between someone who chases after a purpose from his gut, from his heart, and another who chases it from a rational choice.

If one 'feels' one should fight for animal rights or if one logically rationalises this choice, the choice is still made. What would be the difference and is one method better or worse than the other?

-----

On another note, taking a cue from Da Blob's post, I extrapolate four factors so far in this discussion: value, purpose, intention and meaning.
Purpose in life is what one is striving for. Is purpose dependant on meaning, or vice versa?
Meaning in life is what one is strivng for, as well. Are purpose and meaning intertwined?
Does the purpose of an act give it meaning or does the inherent meaning of an act supply its purpose?
Value implies quality, the activity in which one consciously decides that some people, things or actions are greater or lesser in quality than others.
Are value (quality), meaning and purpose intertwined?
Can one decide on a purpose without considering value or meaning?
And what of intentions?
Are one's intentions a priori to value, meaning and purpose or are all four of these factors an integral part of one equation?

 

[Beat Mango]

I question this. Not implying that you're wrong, more to wondering about this.
If one experiences an event which prompts a moral decision, where does this decision arrive from 'outside of one's control'? One may have an immediate emotional or physical reaction to this event, but the morality of the event is an internal judgement upon one's conscious reflection concerning the event. One may immediately think 'That is evil', but where does this judgemental thought arise from? Values already consciously held? Is an act inherently good or evil, or is the morality of an event afixed consciously subsequent to the event on a subjective basis?

Well before I start, I know how good you are at this EB, and I know you will roast me if I play you at your own game I believe what I wrote in my post because that's what all of my internal thinking has come to up to this point, through asking questions like the ones you've put forward above. So instead of answering them directly, I think I'm better off trying to paint a picture of what my thoughts are. I guess I can summarise them by saying that I have very little faith left in the conscious mind. I think we give it way too much credit.

As far as value, purpose, meaning and intention: yes, I believe that they are all part of the one equation. Dividing them up, separating them and defining them as separate entities won't result in any real clarity. But when you have intention, you know it, in your body. When you have purpose, you know it. When you find meaning, you know it. The fact that our conscious mind can't really define and pinpoint what's going on, but our body/intuition does, makes me think it is the wiser one.

If one 'feels' one should fight for animal rights or if one logically rationalises this choice, the choice is still made. What would be the difference and is one method better or worse than the other?

Ok, no difference in theory as an isolated incident. But in real life, you need to put sustained pressure on the world to make it work, you can't just make the odd good decision. A decision is only as good as the energy put into carrying it out. Put it this way: someone I know tried to rationalise himself into getting back into an old relationship, but you know what, it was obvious that his heart was not in it. And guess what? It didn't work, and I wasn't surprised. I think the "logical rationalising" you talk about is much less relevant to the logical mind than it is to the conscious mind. If someone fights for animal rights with their conscious mind but resists it in their unconscious, well, they're not going to be much of a fighter.

I think the conscious mind can make a difference, but only inasmuch as it can infliuence the unconscious, or convince the body of its truth.

 

[Hawkeye]

I see no true purpose to life. Does it really need one? I think adding a purpose/meaning to our existance de-values the gift. We exist because we exist and we do what we do.

I'm not saying that having goals is a bad thing, just that it is pointless in the long run. Once you die that's it (as far as we know). Life is a freak accident and we have yet to find any form of it off this planet.

Offer to the world what you must but remember to enjoy the ride. I began thinking about this when I was bored at work last night. Life is limited in its length and there I was wishing time would go faster so that my shift would end...

To put it another way:

Well, you can stake that claim
Good work is the key to good fortune
Winners take that praise
Losers seldom take that blame
If they don't take that game
And sometimes the winner takes nothing
We draw our own designs
But fortune has to make that frame

We go out in the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That's the way that lady luck dances
Roll the bones

Why are we here?
Because we're here
Roll the bones
Why does it happen?
Because it happens
Roll the bones

Faith is cold as ice
Why are little ones born only to suffer
For the want of immunity
Or a bowl of rice?
Well, who would hold a price
On the heads of the innocent children
If there's some immortal power
To control the dice?

We come into the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That's the way that lady luck dances
Roll the bones

Jack -- relax.
Get busy with the facts.
No zodiacs or almanacs,
No maniacs in polyester slacks.
Just the facts.
Gonna kick some gluteus max.
It's a parallax -- you dig?
You move around
The small gets big. It's a rig
It's action -- reaction
Random interaction.
So who's afraid
Of a little abstraction?
Can't get no satisfaction
From the facts?
You better run, homeboy
A fact's a fact
From Nome to Rome, boy.

What's the deal? Spin the wheel.
If the dice are hot -- take a shot.
Play your cards. Show us what you got
What you're holding.
If the cards are cold,
Don't go folding.
Lady Luck is golden;
She favours the bold. That's cold
Stop throwing stones
The night has a thousand saxophones. So get out there and rock,
And roll the bones.
Get busy!

Roll the bones

Why are we here?
Because we're here
Roll the bones
Why does it happen?
Because it happens
Roll the bones


Rush - Roll the Bones

 

[Beat Mango]

I see no true purpose to life. Does it really need one? I think adding a purpose/meaning to our existance de-values the gift. We exist because we exist and we do what we do.

I'm not saying that having goals is a bad thing, just that it is pointless in the long run. Once you die that's it (as far as we know). Life is a freak accident and we have yet to find any form of it off this planet.

Offer to the world what you must but remember to enjoy the ride. I began thinking about this when I was bored at work last night. Life is limited in its length and there I was wishing time would go faster so that my shift would end...

To put it another way:

I have had that same process of thought many times in my boring retail job career: getting very bored, then finding it odd that I am wishing time away, which is essentially wishing life away. But when you're having fun, time does go fast. And once again, I don't think you can consciously choose fun (unless you've got a pre-existing power to do so). If your job is boring, then its boring. And when you're bored, you're going to look at your watch.

 

[Da Blob]

Are one's intentions a priori to value, meaning and purpose or are all four of these factors an integral part of one equation?

These four concepts could be seen as four differing POVs of the process/equation of UTILITY. If one substitutes the word,'Tool' for the word.' Life' - in many of the previous statements and questions, a certain amount of resolution takes place. How does one fit (as a tool) into the greater society. What Purpose does a tool have? What is the Value of a tool? How is A Value a tool in itself? What goal or Intention is to be reached by the use of a particular tool? What differences denotes a tool's Meaning?
Again as with many concepts, it is difficult to determine the temporal boundaries of these four things, yet each does contain an 'element' of time as a factor... Perhaps the statement 'We had intentions, that our purposes of the past would result in valued meanings in the future" is valid, or in other words, has value. There is a relationship between the valid and the valued...

(LOL- I guess I could have just answered the question with a 'Yes!")

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Well before I start, I know how good you are at this EB, and I know you will roast me if I play you at your own game

Hehe... thanks for the compliment, but I'm just another poor lil' existentialist smuck banging his head against the brick wall of his own ego.
Sometimes I think that I think too much... I think.

I believe what I wrote in my post because that's what all of my internal thinking has come to up to this point, through asking questions like the ones you've put forward above. So instead of answering them directly, I think I'm better off trying to paint a picture of what my thoughts are. I guess I can summarise them by saying that I have very little faith left in the conscious mind. I think we give it way too much credit.

Then you would have more confidence in your own intuition than in your reasoning out of a question of morality?
If so, I could see this because I think that reasoning out a question of morality usually entails referring to an external source of 'authority' to justify one's reasoned decision, whereas if morality is subjective, which I think it is, then one would 'know' the moral answer to a question or event.

As far as value, purpose, meaning and intention: yes, I believe that they are all part of the one equation. Dividing them up, separating them and defining them as separate entities won't result in any real clarity.

I agree here. So the problem would lay in that one must 'define' each of these four factors in relation to each other. I can see how this then becomes an almost unsolvable equation.

But when you have intention, you know it, in your body. When you have purpose, you know it. When you find meaning, you know it. The fact that our conscious mind can't really define and pinpoint what's going on, but our body/intuition does, makes me think it is the wiser one.

Again, intuition. Yes, I can agree here as well. I have experienced times where I just 'knew' that a decision was the right one for me even though I could not ascertain any logical or reasonable justification for the choice.

Ok, no difference in theory as an isolated incident. But in real life, you need to put sustained pressure on the world to make it work, you can't just make the odd good decision. A decision is only as good as the energy put into carrying it out. Put it this way: someone I know tried to rationalise himself into getting back into an old relationship, but you know what, it was obvious that his heart was not in it. And guess what? It didn't work, and I wasn't surprised. I think the "logical rationalising" you talk about is much less relevant to the logical mind than it is to the conscious mind. If someone fights for animal rights with their conscious mind but resists it in their unconscious, well, they're not going to be much of a fighter.

Heart. Good point, and one which did not occur to me.
It seems then, that this would complicate the factors even more if one attempted to reason out each decision, for besides value, intention, purpose and meaning, one would have to include one's 'heart' (commitment?) into the decision process.

I think the conscious mind can make a difference, but only inasmuch as it can infliuence the unconscious, or convince the body of its truth.

Hmmm... interesting point, but will have to ponder it.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

These four concepts could be seen as four differing POVs of the process/equation of UTILITY. If one substitutes the word,'Tool' for the word.' Life' - in many of the previous statements and questions, a certain amount of resolution takes place. How does one fit (as a tool) into the greater society. What Purpose does a tool have? What is the Value of a tool? How is A Value a tool in itself? What goal or Intention is to be reached by the use of a particular tool? What differences denotes a tool's Meaning?

Though the four factors (and now the fifth one, heart) can be used for a decision makng process, the difference here is that a tool is something that one uses, whereas a life is something that one is.
The value or meaning of a tool is relatively easy to discern as it is an object external to who one is, but one's life is not external to one's self. A claw hammer has a different meaning and value to a carpenter than a surgeon. The question of life would more pertain to why someone would choose carpenter or surgeon in regards to the five factors.

Again as with many concepts, it is difficult to determine the temporal boundaries of these four things, yet each does contain an 'element' of time as a factor... Perhaps the statement 'We had intentions, that our purposes of the past would result in valued meanings in the future" is valid, or in other words, has value. There is a relationship between the valid and the valued...

I agree with the inclusion of temporality, though for something to be 'valid', it must have value and meaning to one's self. The relationship between validity and value is that validity is determined in part by what one values.
With 'validity', we enter the realm of subjective truth and subjective truth is determined in part by what one subjectively values, by what one considers as important to one's self - the subjective amount of quality some person, thing, concept or event adds to one 's life.

 

[Da Blob]

Though the four factors (and now the fifth one, heart) can be used for a decision makng process, the difference here is that a tool is something that one uses, whereas a life is something that one is.
The value or meaning of a tool is relatively easy to discern as it is an object external to who one is, but one's life is not external to one's self. A claw hammer has a different meaning and value to a carpenter than a surgeon. The question of life would more pertain to why someone would choose carpenter or surgeon in regards to the five factors.

Truth, however, is not this discussion an example of trying to externalize and objectify that internal subjective turmoil that may result in the statement, "Oh! What's the Use...?"? Also, is not our self-esteem determined, to a certain extent,by how much utility Others derive from relationships with us? To me the statement "I have absolutely no Use for that person" is quite an insult...

I agree with the inclusion of temporality, though for something to be 'valid', it must have value and meaning to one's self. The relationship between validity and value is that validity is determined in part by what one values.
With 'validity', we enter the realm of subjective truth and subjective truth is determined in part by what one subjectively values, by what one considers as important to one's self - the subjective amount of quality some person, thing, concept or event adds to one 's life.

True again, I would add though that the 'universe' of subjectivity is where we exist and that existence is defined on a dimension of social identity, as well as dimensions of individual personality. The five concepts on the table also have definitions in the plural, the "We' of our subjectivity. This means that our subjective values have added value when they are shared concepts - shared values, shared morals, shared ethics, shared intentions, shared meaning, shared....

(BTW the article "Perception of Time and Causation Through the Kinesthesia of Intentional Action" by Walter J. Freeman might be of interest in regards to this topic)

 

[Enne]

Great post EB; I always love reading them If you have enough money though, you can create your own society. I have heard of someone buying a decomissioned aircraft carrier and changing it into a hotel.

If you have enough money, there are a few options you can take. You could always buy an island, buy an oil rig in international waters, buy a boat, go into space, etc. Most of these ideas are not accessible to most people, but it might be possible if a large number of people pooled their resources together. One of the big considerations for any of these projects would be resources available to your society (once it is created). Unless you maintain contact with the mainland, you will have to find natural resources to sustain yourselves.

Finally, being recognized as a soverign power may also be an issue that a society faces (if it chooses to go that route).

There's an idea. Take all 70 million of us and create a new, expansive world! Or, alternatively, we could set up a space colony on the moon.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Truth, however, is not this discussion an example of trying to externalize and objectify that internal subjective turmoil that may result in the statement, "Oh! What's the Use...?"?

True, but the question still remains subjective. If one chooses an external reason for one's individual purpose, then if that reason alters or ends, then where is the person left?
Hmmm... let me ruminate and postulate here for a bit...
Purpose, reason and meaning for living one's life should be derived from subjective criteria. Then one searches for those external mediums which reflect one's subjective criteria. Granted, one is exposed to criteria such as truth, love, beauty, good, evil, etc. from external sources, but these are abstract ideals which are internalised by an individual as judgement criteria. One 'subjects' external people, things, and events to these abstract ideals in order to create subjective parameters of purpose and meaning.
What I'm attempting to express is that one should create one's own value structure of purpose and meaning and then align one's self with external structures which reflect one's subjective value structure. This subjective value structure would originate from one's inherent predispositions such as desire for solitude or desire for knowledge. One's values regarding people, things and events are determined from the value structure initiated from one's inherent predispositions such as, one inherently values solitude highly and therefore social interaction with people is valued less. Consequently, a thing such as computer is valued higher than socialising because the computer allows one to interact with choice and allows one to acquire knowledge without social interaction.

So, perhaps: purpose/meaning <= subjective value structure <= inherent predisposition factors

[hmmm... I seem to have lost my train of thought somewhere, as this lacks some coherency of a logical or reasonable path. I am having difficulty in expressing the conceptual structure I 'see'. Must contemplate.]

Also, is not our self-esteem determined, to a certain extent,by how much utility Others derive from relationships with us? To me the statement "I have absolutely no Use for that person" is quite an insult...

I question whether one's self-esteem should be in any way founded on the opinions of others. Though it maybe the case in practise, I am of the opinion that the subjective opinions of others should be of no consequence to one's purpose or meaning in life, not that they are in present social relationships.

True again, I would add though that the 'universe' of subjectivity is where we exist and that existence is defined on a dimension of social identity, as well as dimensions of individual personality. The five concepts on the table also have definitions in the plural, the "We' of our subjectivity. This means that our subjective values have added value when they are shared concepts - shared values, shared morals, shared ethics, shared intentions, shared meaning, shared....

No contest here, I see the connections and agree to a point, though I still consider initial values to be chosen and validated individually and then expressed in the social world. Not saying that one's values will not change, merely that one should create a fundamental structure of value to assess the social world by, some of which is the natural inherent attitudes one is as an individual such as desiring solitude or needing companionship.

(BTW the article "Perception of Time and Causation Through the Kinesthesia of Intentional Action" by Walter J. Freeman might be of interest in regards to this topic)

Thanks. I will see if I can find it.

[...great discussion, btw, making my thinking head hurt ]