Thread Derail: "I'm no different from a can of pineapple"

[Brontosaurie]

i don't think an INTP could write this

"interested in cinema (love andrei tarkovsky"

u sure u not ISFP?

yes i'm always a fucking douchebag, it's one of the features of the forum

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Thank you all for your replies
@Nick: I think I would try to do everything and, as a result, be good at nothing :/ hmm...

i don't think an INTP could write this

"interested in cinema (love andrei tarkovsky"

u sure u not ISFP?

yes i'm always a fucking douchebag, it's one of the features of the forum

Why? hey I can be intp and also appreciate good films!! Most of the obscure film blogs I follow on tumblr and mubi belong to intps too

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Why? hey I can be intp and also appreciate good films!! Most of the obscure film blogs I follow on tumblr and mubi belong to intps too

yes you can. it's just that calling it something like "cinema" is kind of un-INTP. it implies aristocratic presumptions about the dignity, sanctity and intrinsic value of a certain established cultural tradition. for an Fi-dom, that's a beautiful delicate sweetspot which facilitates the exercise of precise aesthetic judgments, and for an Fi-tert it's simply imperative. for an INTP it's suffocating and overly serious to the point of silliness.

cinemaah

cinema'rh

cinemer

uh'cine'uh'meuhr

i hope i am not offending you, just trying to twist your material into the most interesting discussion.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

yes you can. it's just that calling it something like "cinema" is kind of un-INTP. it implies aristocratic presumptions about the dignity, sanctity and intrinsic value of a certain established cultural tradition. for an Fi-dom, that's a beautiful delicate sweetspot which facilitates the exercise of precise aesthetic judgments, and for an Fi-tert it's simply imperative. for an INTP it's suffocating and overly serious to the point of silliness.

cinemaah

cinema'rh

cinemer

uh'cine'uh'meuhr

i hope i am not offending you, just trying to twist your material into the most interesting discussion.

oh I see what you mean. I'm not into ~noble~ art tho here's an interesting definition of the term "cinema" and how it differs from the terms "film" and "movie":

The term cinema is generally seen as a highbrow alternative to film or movies, with it being prominent in the foreign market and continuously referring to the medium as a closed art form, unavailable to something without thought, without premise, without stylistic approach. It is high-art because it is in relation to its aesthetic properties. Notice how we generally shift between the two terms of film and movie when talking about that really interesting piece we saw last week. To talk about seeing a piece of cinema is to talk about something that was intellectually stimulating, something that will often stray into the pretentious and deemed obnoxious by the masses.

when I say "cinema" I'm thinking of films like the ones in this ( https://mubi.com/lists/cinema-as-poetry ) list

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

i think your quoted definition highlights exactly was i was getting at.

"cinema" is movies whose audiences are so hellbent on being intellectually stimulated by important works that the creator doesn't have to do shit. it's a cynical view where anything that actually stimulates is dismissed as superficial and vulgar, and the only thing left is a test of patience and far-fetched interpretation. case in point: bela tarr, especially his last movie "the turin horse".

i'd argue that darren aronofsky represents the popularization of this mode of appreciation.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Didn't watch the turin horse but I saw werckmeister harmonies , Which is one of my favourite films. anyway, examples of what I consider -cinema-: works by directors like ingmar bergman, yasujiro ozu, Jonas mekas, Sergei Parajanov etc.
I understand why these films don't appeal to most people or why they're considered obnoxious. It is a different experience from reading a book or listening to music, and, in my opinion, that's the way films should be...they should convey or communicate something to the audience aesthetically. hmmm this is going to be a little difficult to explain...

in films I'm more interested in a visual/complex articulation of internal experiences that retains the complexity of the way they are -experienced-, rather than communicate things in the form of a clinical report of sorts...if that makes sense.
I like to see complex articulation of thoughts and feelings, i dont like it when theyre translated into words, that way much of the complexity and richness of an experience is lost.

Some examples:

The woman who powders herself(1974): "An evocation of concealment and unmasking, where the mundane act of a Victorian-era woman’s ritualistic application of cosmetic powder seemingly opens the window into underlying human anxieties of physical beauty, youth, desirability, and objectification."

the man who sleeps (1974)...this is one of my favourite films: "A hypnotic solo by its mute hero, a young man who decides to withdraw from the world and whose mental journal of his experience is confided to us by a girl’s voice off-screen"

Woman in the dunes (1964)...another favourite: "A haunting illustration of the futility of existence."

...I read lots of philosophy books and social criticism, which is why I expect a film deliver its philosophy or criticism or wtv the hell it wants to deliver, in a different way. It should be an experience that stands on its own and not parallel that of reading a book, otherwise I'm better off reading books than watching films. That's my opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but I'm explaining my point of view because you seem to believe this sort of interest does not harmonise with me being an intp/analyst...or sth...
[oh and my English sucks because it's not my first language ]

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

the corrolation of insanity...

the connervation of despair...

the congridation of existence...

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

@Brontosaurie I just remembered that im enneagram type 5w4...that should make things more clear

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

@Brontosaurie I just remembered that im enneagram type 5w4...that should make things more clear

not really. you're making no sense and just strengthening my point if anything... a woman putting on make-up is a profound metaphor for shallow society? oh wow. you got that in sex and the city too. only that show has some content beyond a single one-dimensional beard-stroking construed metaphor which subsumes the entire medium and its expressivity in vain pursuit of tangible intellectual prestige.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

not really. you're making no sense and just strengthening my point if anything... a woman putting on make-up is a profound metaphor for shallow society? oh wow. you got that in sex and the city too. only that show has some content beyond a single one-dimensional beard-stroking construed metaphor which subsumes the entire medium and its expressivity in vain pursuit of tangible intellectual prestige.

if you did any reading on 5w4 it would make sense, obviously. Type 5w4 are equally interested in both mental and aesthetic perspective. You come off as a very rigid thinking intp, I'm guessing type 5w6 (not implying that all type 5w6 are like you)

Did you even read What was written in the film's description? It says "victorian" woman. Go do some basic reading on victorian women on Wikipedia then come back here so we can discuss whether a victorian woman would symbolise objectification or not.
right from the beginning you were pushing your subjective opinion of what an intellectually stimulating film should be like on me. You obviously haven't seen any films by tarkovsky, parajanov, ozu etc coz if you did there is no way you would label them "one-dimensional" or psuedo intellectual. you have seen a few -artistic- films you didn't like and immediately assumed that the films I was referring to are equal in both cinematography and perspective.
Why do you have such a narrow perspective on ~cinema~??? go watch films by the directors I mentioned on this thread, only then will I agree to continue this discussion (in a pm) coz it feels like I'm arguing with a person who has no idea what I'm talking about yet has already formed a hostile attitude towards my argument.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

if you did any reading on 5w4 it would make sense, obviously. Type 5w4 are equally interested in both mental and aesthetic perspective. You come off as a very rigid thinking intp, I'm guessing type 5w6 (not implying that all type 5w6 are like you)

yeah if you're into bullshit wanker poser culture you can always pull the "more open minded than thou" card.

5w4 suggests one shouldn't be fooled by an elitist scheme and should be able to appreciate aesthetics regardless of distribution and institution. which would entail not stressing the importance of a term like "cinema".

me rigid thinking? i'm not the one subscribing to "cinema" like it means shit. rigid thinking is conformist, traditionalist thinking. that's you. me? i'm just convinced, sincere and impolite.

Did you even read What was written in the film's description? It says "victorian" woman. Go do some basic reading on victorian women on Wikipedia then come back here so we can discuss whether a victorian woman would symbolise objectification or not.

redundant inconsequential straw-clutching. the metaphor is the same and it doesn't get more profound just because you strip away everything else.

You obviously haven't seen any films by tarkovsky, parajanov, ozu etc coz if you did there is no way you would label them "one-dimensional" or psuedo intellectual. you have seen a few -artistic- films you didn't like and immediately assumed that the films I was referring to are equal in both cinematography and perspective.
Why do you have such a narrow perspective on ~cinema~??? go watch films by the directors I mentioned on this thread, only then will I agree to continue this discussion (in a pm) coz it feels like I'm arguing with a person who has no idea what I'm talking about yet has already formed a hostile attitude towards my argument.

missing the point yet again. i didn't call tarkovsky one-dimensional. i'm not hating on any of those filmmakers. i'm hating on perceiving the film medium from the ivory tower vantage point of "cinema". the comment about one-dimensionality was strictly referring to your specific example of a profound kind of symbolism that you claim is lacking in non-"cinema".

you have no argument. you have a lousy, arrogant opinion.

 

[Teffnology]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Is Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure part of cinema?
There is some pretty complex articulation of thoughts and feelings
Intellectually stimulating and possibly obnoxious to the masses?

Totally Dude!

 

[Fukyo]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Good thing we have the preference police here on the forum to straighten you out and put you in your place. Why are you so hell bent about policing her preference for film Bronto? Why does it even matter?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Good thing we have the preference police here on the forum to straighten you out and put you in your place. Why are you so hell bent about policing her preference for film Bronto? Why does it even matter?

yeah like anything worthwhile was going on here anyway.

heralding "cinema" is being a preference police... a smug, sly and normalized one, yes. but nonetheless.

you're pretty much telling rioting slaves not to be so violent.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

What do you think of Terrence Malick as a filmmaker? Just curious. (His films are actually pretty impossible to put into words, IMO -- it's all the subjective experience.) And I always thought imagery by directors like Gilliam or Fincher or Giger (his art design for films, at least) could say more about the culture / world manifesting than actual dialogue.

My film experience probably covers a lot of stuff in the middle / lower end. In some ways Titanic was a shoddy movie -- but probably the best image in the film for me was when Rose can't get her corset on and her mother invades her dressing room and brutally pulls the strings to strap her in, leaving her gasping for air. You really didn't even need dialogue; that one action/image encapsulated what the entire movie wasted so long to explain about Rose's actual experience in life to that point as a woman.

...I read lots of philosophy books and social criticism, which is why I expect a film deliver its philosophy or criticism or wtv the hell it wants to deliver, in a different way. It should be an experience that stands on its own and not parallel that of reading a book, otherwise I'm better off reading books than watching films. That's my opinion, you don't have to agree with it, but I'm explaining my point of view because you seem to believe this sort of interest does not harmonise with me being an intp/analyst...or sth...

Oh, I get it. And yes, it meshes with the architectural item of function determining form, for example, it's rather the integration of what something is (and what it does) with how something manifests.

Film and books have different strengths and dimensions. Films are even different than singular pieces of art (like paintings and drawings) -- paintings are a single image (bound by some kind of frame, perhaps) existing in one moment in time, they typically do not change over time. Film can capture motion to our eye by the ongoing expression of time. In any case, all these mediums are different, and it can be an issue when you translate a story from one book to film, for example; those who do it literally don't take advantage of the new medium / expression even if they appease some of the book purists, while veering from the literal can allow a film to capture the essence of a book even if you are essentially experiencing the story in a very new way suited to film (which includes spatial visual and audio data expressed over time as a dimension versus the linear visual data [usually] over time of a book or the spatial visual capture of a single moment with visual art).

Comic books are an interesting medium, as you have a melding of art and words + the dimension of time that paintings do not capture... it's somewhere between book and film. Again we can see issues in translation, since a few directors have tried to just "film each shot in the comic (a la Sin City); kind of scary how exact they ripped off frames of Miller's stories, but is that art and was it an effective use of medium? Or if you read Moore/Gibbons' Watchmen, you can see them working together to take advantage of the elements of page and and frame to introduce word and image (including color and angle) motifs that echoed off each other on the same page.

But interestingly the "form" of the art also shapes and defines the idea that is captured. The form of manifestation can impact the idea presented.

 

[Fukyo]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

yeah like anything worthwhile was going on here anyway.

heralding "cinema" is being a preference police... a smug, sly and normalized one, yes. but nonetheless.

you're pretty much telling rioting slaves not to be so violent.

u wot?

You got some rage probs Bronto? Bad day? Bad year? Shitty state of the world got you in the feels? I wasn't aware stating ones preference qualifies as being preference police. Or maybe you're just uh, over sensitive to implications or something?

It can be hard to make sense of your impassioned and hostile attitudes sometimes.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

yeah if you're into bullshit wanker poser culture you can always pull the "more open minded than thou" card.

5w4 suggests one shouldn't be fooled by an elitist scheme and should be able to appreciate aesthetics regardless of distribution and institution. which would entail not stressing the importance of a term like "cinema".

me rigid thinking? i'm not the one subscribing to "cinema" like it means shit. rigid thinking is conformist, traditionalist thinking. that's you. me? i'm just convinced, sincere and impolite.



redundant inconsequential straw-clutching. the metaphor is the same and it doesn't get more profound just because you strip away everything else.



missing the point yet again. i didn't call tarkovsky one-dimensional. i'm not hating on any of those filmmakers. i'm hating on perceiving the film medium from the ivory tower vantage point of "cinema". the comment about one-dimensionality was strictly referring to your specific example of a profound kind of symbolism that you claim is lacking in non-"cinema".

you have no argument. you have a lousy, arrogant opinion.

"rigid thinking is conformist, traditionalist thinking." that's what I meant when I said you think rigidly.
im not arrogant, it is you who got all defensive. In my original post I only said I'm interested in cinema, it is you who read way too much into it and even typed me according to your interpretation of what the term "cinema" means to you. You make it sound like I think I'm better than other people because I enjoy watching obscure films lol. Look I really love getting into arguments, it helps me reevaluate my opinions etc but I'm not getting anything out of this argument, it is empty and going nowhere so let's end it here. I still urge you to check out the directors and films on this thread tho (if you do check them out, feel free to pm me after realising how narrow minded and warped your current view of ~cinema~ [unpretentious, artistic,intellectually stimulating films like the ones mentioned in this thread] is)

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

u wot?

You got some rage probs Bronto? Bad day? Bad year? Shitty state of the world got you in the feels? I wasn't aware stating ones preference qualifies as being preference police. Or maybe you're just uh, over sensitive to implications or something?

It can be hard to make sense of your impassioned and hostile attitudes sometimes.

quite rage and bad everything, thank you.

you seem to be desensitized to the implications. i understand that it feels good to feel open minded and not judge people right away but honestly the correlation between professing fondness for cinema/serialism/warhol/etc and having some elitist complex and veiled arrogance toward "low culture" is pretty fool proof. it's about the underlying purpose, justifications and group identity.

true open mindedness does not lie in denying connections but in exploring the possibility of unexpected and taboo'd connections.

 

[Grayman]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

quite rage and bad everything, thank you.

you seem to be desensitized to the implications. i understand that it feels good to feel open minded and not judge people right away but honestly the correlation between professing fondness for cinema/serialism/warhol/etc and having some elitist complex and veiled arrogance toward "low culture" is pretty fool proof. it's about the underlying purpose, justifications and group identity.

true open mindedness does not lie in denying connections but in exploring the possibility of unexpected and taboo'd connections.

Watch out for those cinemaists who adhere to cinemaism bronto!

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

quite rage and bad everything, thank you.

you seem to be desensitized to the implications. i understand that it feels good to feel open minded and not judge people right away but honestly the correlation between professing fondness for cinema/serialism/warhol/etc and having some elitist complex and veiled arrogance toward "low culture" is pretty fool proof. it's about the underlying purpose, justifications and group identity.

true open mindedness does not lie in denying connections but in exploring the possibility of unexpected and taboo'd connections.

I find it funny how even though there is no scale or standard of what is high culture or low culture with regard to films, even though it is purely a matter of preference, you keep insisting on putting me on the high culture end and putting yourself on the low culture end lol

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Watch out for those cinemaists who adhere to cinemaism bronto!

LOL

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

I find it funny how even though there is no scale or standard of what is high culture or low culture with regards to films, even though it is purely a matter of preference, you keep insisting on putting me on the high culture end and putting yourself on the low culture end lol

it might be because all the films you mentioned were 40 years old + sounded like their titles were translated from French or German. [I felt kind of bad about bringing up more commercial-styled films, but hey, I've watched what I've watched.]

 

[redbaron]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Argument about cinematic preferences is now comparable to rioting slaves.

true open mindedness does not lie in denying connections but in exploring the possibility of unexpected and taboo'd connections.

Trying to assert that there's a "true" way of being open-minded (or being anything) is kind of the antithesis of being open-minded in the first place.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

@Jennywocky
Ive never seen anything by Terrence Malick...badlands look good tho. His last film, tree of life, was based on tarkovsky's zerkalo btw...which is why I'm a bit hesitant about watching it. I love the idea of showing a person's childhood memories the way they were experienced, and not the way they actually happened

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

@Jennywocky
Ive never seen anything by Terrence Malick...badlands look good tho. His last film, tree of life, was based on tarkovsky's zerkalo btw...which is why I'm a bit hesitant about watching it.

Ah, thanks... I didn't realize that. So yes, the differences might be positive for you, might be negative. I can understand being wary.

I love the idea of showing a person's childhood memories the way they were experienced, and not the way they actually happened

Well, I'm not sure how it matches up with the original; I can just say I have no way of even talking about that movie. I open my mouth and words do not form -- I see images in my mind and remember broad half-realized feelings from watching it, but... nothing I can translate. The entire movie seemed to be watching and recalling things through water, like the ebb and fall of internalized breathing; you experience it, you can't really talk about it, it's one of the subjective pictures I've seen ever in that sense.

 

[Grayman]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Is that the movie where it switches between dinosaurs and a babies foot? I like how all the connection made sense only intuitively... maybe my silence was just stunned confusion...

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Is that the movie where it switches between dinosaurs and a babies foot? I like how all the connection made sense only intuitively... maybe my silence was just stunned confusion...

I think so, but yes, it's all intuitive. Frustratingly beautiful, I want to describe it and can't.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

Trying to assert that there's a "true" way of being open-minded (or being anything) is kind of the antithesis of being open-minded in the first place.

"kind of". in a philosophically and psychologically naive interpretation of the concept perhaps.

open mindedness is an attitude, not an absence of conclusions.

to assume no correlations is to retain baseline level, letting no information in. openmindedness, by contrast, means being open to retract assumptions but also open to possibilities that some information might be a factor despite prevailing belief that ignores it, either the input value or the very parameter itself. this means perceiving and accepting input that isn't acknowledged by the prevailing model, whether that be nullstate baseline level or social authority.

openmindedness cannot be coherently understood in an isolated individual sense. it is necesserily a question of source evaluation and independence in a social context. for if we count personal worldview as one variant of these prevailing beliefs that open mindedness should defy in order to deserve its name, open mindedness becomes impossible other than as behavioral and cerebral noise. instead, again and more precisely, it should be a matter of personal worldview as opposed to consensus or majority and if anything in favor of fringe elements.

furthermore, our habits are socially enforced and open mindedness by a more common, broader and more concrete definition means readiness to break habits.

it is my belief that open mindedness can only be meaningfully defined as a mental phenomenon and that mental activity is social proactivity. to have an opinion of what constitutes open mindedness is not contrary to open mindedness, no more than having an opinion about the stylistic origins of black sabbath.

 

[Grayman]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

"kind of". in a philosophically and psychologically naive interpretation of the concept perhaps.

open mindedness is an attitude, not an absence of conclusions.

to assume no correlations is to retain baseline level, letting no information in. openmindedness, by contrast, means being open to possibilities that some information might be true despite prevailing belief. this means accepting input that isn't acknowledged by the prevailing model, be it baseline level or authority.

openmindedness cannot be coherently understood in a solipsist sense. it is necesserily a question of source evaluation and independence in a social context. if we count personal worldview as one variant of these prevailing beliefs that open mindedness should defy in order to deserve its name, open mindedness becomes impossible other than as behavioral and cerebral noise.

furthermore, our habits are socially enforced and open mindedness by a more common, broader and more concrete definition means readiness to break habits.

A red pill for better neuroplasticity makes the mad hatter even madder. In truth there will eventually be a pill that makes everyone have better brain plasticity thus allowing the world to enjoy openmindedness.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

A red pill for better neuroplasticity makes the mad hatter even madder. In truth there will eventually be a pill that makes everyone have better brain plasticity thus allowing the world to enjoy openmindedness.

lol i'm not open minded enough to understand if you're being witty/sarcastic/neither

 

[redbaron]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

to have an opinion of what constitutes open mindedness is not contrary to open mindedness, no more than having an opinion about the stylistic origins of black sabbath.

It is if you start insisting that there's a "true" stylistic origin of Black Sabbath.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

It is if you start insisting that there's a "true" stylistic origin of Black Sabbath.

why is that word so heavy to you? it was used to indicate a true as opposed to a false but common notion, all according to my opinion - which is no less open minded in constitution when stated explicitly in direct opposition to another norm, than when kept to myself. open mindedness is not a way of speaking, it is neither shunning nor concealing opinion. it's a general mental attitude prevalent in all instances of perception/ideation/cogitation, and by extension a way of forming ones opinions.

 

[Grayman]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

why is that word so heavy to you? it was used to indicate a true as opposed to a false but common notion, all according to my opinion - which is no less open minded in constitution when stated explicitly in direct opposition to another norm, than when kept to myself. open mindedness is not a way of speaking, it is neither shunning nor concealing opinion. it's a general mental attitude prevalent in all instances of perception/ideation/cogitation, and by extension a way of forming ones opinions.

It is confusing when you use open-minded open-mindedness. I have thought that open-mindedness is a concept people use to feel like they are more civilized and intelligent people when really they are just another close minded person who won't accept your opinion unless you make it fit within their own mental structure in a some logical way. The people who seem open-minded are just people who have similar structures of thought that you do making it easier to transfer ideas across mental systems.

This is just one of the possibilities I have considered on open-mindedness.

 

[Absurdity]

Derails are not okay, but they happen.

Derailing a new and seemingly interesting person's intro thread by arguing with them over trivial shit is not okay, and will not be tolerated.

 

[redbaron]

it was used to indicate a true as opposed to a false but common notion, all according to my opinion - which is no less open minded in constitution when stated explicitly in direct opposition to another norm, than when kept to myself. open mindedness is not a way of speaking, it is neither shunning nor concealing opinion. it's a general mental attitude prevalent in all instances of perception/ideation/cogitation, and by extension a way of forming ones opinions.

I just found it curious that you'd chalk up a difference in opinion with a new member, to being the result of their lack of open-mindedness. It's a pretty bold assumption that presupposes not only that your own interpretation of open-mindedness is correct and that your own ability to ascertain whether or not other people meet those standards is reliable.

Now you're practically doing all but going fetal and retreating into the realm of pure subjectivism. Your comments can't be less open-minded because they're just your opinions and we can't judge whether or not you're being open-minded because "true" open-mindedness exists in a practically unquantifiable realm.

 

[TheManBeyond]

marry guys

 

[redbaron]

I would but it's still illegal where I live. We'll have to elope first.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: I'm no different from a can of pineapple

It is confusing when you use open-minded open-mindedness. I have thought that open-mindedness is a concept people use to feel like they are more civilized and intelligent people when really they are just another close minded person who won't accept your opinion unless you make it fit within their own mental structure in a some logical way. The people who seem open-minded are just people who have similar structures of thought that you do making it easier to transfer ideas across mental systems.

This is just one of the possibilities I have considered on open-mindedness.

that's a thing yes

would be a shame to reject the existence of real openness just because of that though.

 

[Grayman]

Your comments can't be less open-minded because they're just your opinions and we can't judge whether or not you're being open-minded because "true" open-mindedness exists in a practically unquantifiable realm.

Do I have to give you some Albert Einstein quotes on intuition?

 

[Brontosaurie]

I just found it curious that you'd chalk up a difference in opinion with a new member, to being the result of their lack of open-mindedness. It's a pretty bold assumption that presupposes not only that your own interpretation of open-mindedness is correct and that your own ability to ascertain whether or not other people meet those standards is reliable.

Now you're practically doing all but going fetal and retreating into the realm of pure subjectivism. Your comments can't be less open-minded because they're just your opinions and we can't judge whether or not you're being open-minded because "true" open-mindedness exists in a practically unquantifiable realm.

yeah frame it that way... i didn't even bring the factor of openness into play. i just gave it a name and started discussing it with arguments and analysis because i find the normal ideas of openness as either appreciation of the acknowledged "difficult" culture (zerkalo) or as situational polite ignorance (Fukyo) to be quite flawed.

now you're doing all but going fetal and screaming "b-b-but that's not scientifically proved" - guess what i know that already. you don't have to agree with my opinion but disagreeing with my opinion on the basis that it is an opinion is formidable contradiction.

i suspect your core proposition would be something like "you're not being nice". that may be true. i still think i was just going off a tangent to spark some discussion.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Brontosaurie don't you suppose you're included in your own definition of lack of open mindedness? you are unable to accept another person's preferences because of your subjective evaluation of the material being discussed, then you somehow translate the disharmony of my preferences with yours as me looking down on you and everyone else who doesn't share my preferences. ironically though, it is you who is looking down on me and claiming im unable to exercise open mindedness towards different media

 

[Brontosaurie]

Brontosaurie don't you suppose you're included in your own definition of lack of open mindedness? you are unable to accept another person's preferences because of your subjective evaluation of the material being discussed, then you somehow translate the disharmony of my preferences with yours as me looking down on you and everyone else who doesn't share my preferences. ironically though, it is you who is looking down on me and claiming im unable to exercise open mindedness towards different media

i'm perfectly capable of accepting your existence and your various attributes.

you are in no way condemned.

 

[nanook]

the correlation between professing fondness for cinema/serialism/warhol/etc and having some elitist complex and veiled arrogance toward "low culture" is pretty fool proof.

i think throwing around with Si references like "cinema" (which are, i insist, unrelated to Fi) is typically motivated by Fe, perhaps inferior Fe. so exactly the kind of thing intp would do and disown, thinking of it as being un intp-ish. the purpose of having these peals in your persona and showing them is unrelated to the value that peals have upon the subject (if it were related, it would demonstrate Fi concern) but entirely related to the effect that featuring these perls is having on your whole lifestyle, in general. if you appreciate glamorous classic stars or the like, you are practically one of them. Fe logic. status-smart. it's not technically conformist (a stage of development), but i see why you associate it with conformism.

do we know some Fe user who is snobby about his artistic preferences? i think we know someone like that.

don't say it's me. i love to share and promote my preferences, i am not snobby in the sense that i am degrading artistic things that are unrelated to my preferences.

 

[TheManBeyond]

I know the answer that's cherry cola :P

:P

:P

 

[Cherry Cola]

I am not snobby just because I don't listen to anime intro songs and other crap, the trve snob is Redbaron who is stuck in a perpetual narrative in which he must win and be holier than thou at the same time. He begins by simply disallowing the grounds of discourse by saying openmindedness can't and shouldn't be discussed. Something which this thread disproved. Then he joins in anyway. Again there's a narrative cause this ain't the first time this shit plays out. Not that it's the only narrative going about. This shit be interwoven. I think it's a little bit because both Redbaron and Bronto are kind of forum warriors but Redbaron is more neutral while Bronto is chaotic. And that's why there's this need for Redbaron to shut Bronto down, cause they occupy the same social space in this respect.

 

[redbaron]

yeah frame it that way... i didn't even bring the factor of openness into play. i just gave it a name and started discussing it with arguments and analysis because i find the normal ideas of openness as either appreciation of the acknowledged "difficult" culture (zerkalo) or as situational polite ignorance (Fukyo) to be quite flawed.

That's a pretty absurd interpretation of Fukyo/zerkalo.

now you're doing all but going fetal and screaming "b-b-but that's not scientifically proved" - guess what i know that already. you don't have to agree with my opinion but disagreeing with my opinion on the basis that it is an opinion is formidable contradiction.

My point is more along the lines that the way you've defined and defended your definition of open-mindedness is pretty much the same way people wield the term, "art". You've just turned it into something completely subjective and then hide your opinions behind it.

Where's Kuu when I need someone to rant about this stuff?

I am not snobby just because I don't listen to anime intro songs and other crap, the trve snob is Redbaron who is stuck in a perpetual narrative in which he must win and be holier than thou at the same time. He begins by simply disallowing the grounds of discourse by saying openmindedness can't and shouldn't be discussed. Something which this thread disproved. Then he joins in anyway. Again there's a narrative cause this ain't the first time this shit plays out. Not that it's the only narrative going about. This shit be interwoven. I think it's a little bit because both Redbaron and Bronto are kind of forum warriors but Redbaron is more neutral while Bronto is chaotic. And that's why there's this need for Redbaron to shut Bronto down, cause they occupy the same social space in this respect.

Aw someone doesn't agree with your precious little Brontosaurie. Time to respond the only way you know how CC!

Spoiler

 

[Cherry Cola]

And yet you managed to trump my predictability with that remark.

Red Baron so alpha boss he not need bother reply to content of others post only disqualify it at face value

 

[redbaron]

Red Baron so alpha boss he not need bother reply to content of others post only disqualify it at face value

See spoiler if you're being sarcastic...

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p23mA2VV0A

If not I'm glad you think I'm so alpha boss.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

I am not snobby just because I don't listen to anime intro songs and other crap, the trve snob is Redbaron who is stuck in a perpetual narrative in which he must win and be holier than thou at the same time. He begins by simply disallowing the grounds of discourse by saying openmindedness can't and shouldn't be discussed. Something which this thread disproved. Then he joins in anyway. Again there's a narrative cause this ain't the first time this shit plays out. Not that it's the only narrative going about. This shit be interwoven. I think it's a little bit because both Redbaron and Bronto are kind of forum warriors but Redbaron is more neutral while Bronto is chaotic. And that's why there's this need for Redbaron to shut Bronto down, cause they occupy the same social space in this respect.

I think people on this thread werent disallowing discussion. rather, they were pointing out that the argument itself did not stem from something i actually said...it stemmed from bronto's interpretation which is guilty of strawman fallacy

 

[Grayman]

I think people on this thread werent disallowing discussion. rather, they were pointing out that the argument itself did not stem from something i actually said...it stemmed from bronto's interpretation which is guilty of strawman fallacy

Ah, another forumite in our midst.