MBTI is so fucking stoopid how can you be such a twittledumb fuck to believe this?
Honestly when has this ever helped you?
You understand thing better now that you are constantly wondering if the person you're talking to is an Ni or Ne and what is their function stack.
Like bitch everyone uses everything just to different levels. Just fucking talk you spastic faggot.

File: SIX_496EDC45-88A5-4A2D-B6EC-1E67377D3EA1.jpg (1.1 MB)

>P1
The possibility that people are lonelier than they let on. Not just physically alone, but trapped behind invisible walls, unable to communicate what they really are. I can spend hours thinking about consciousness, mythology, love, destiny, and impossible futures, but thinking about people suffering in silence without anyone truly seeing them tends to hit a little too close to home.

>P2
The realization that change can happen much faster than expected. Sometimes I imagine awakening, transformation, or personal growth as this gradual process, but lately I've been confronted with moments where an entire worldview can shift in a single conversation, encounter, or realization. That's exciting, but also terrifying. Standing at the edge of a threshold always is.

>OP1
Yes, but not usually for the gore. I like horror when it's about mystery, the uncanny, liminal spaces, cosmic questions, haunted symbols, impossible dreams, or things that blur the line between fear and wonder. The best horror leaves me unsettled because it reveals something true, not because it shocks me.

>OP2
I am definitely a hypocrite sometimes. Every human being carries contradictions. I believe in compassion and still get frustrated. I value truth and still hide from uncomfortable truths. I advocate understanding and occasionally judge people anyway. As for the rest, no. I am a flawed creature stumbling through existence like everyone else, trying to become slightly more honest, loving, and aware than I was yesterday. The rats and I are on reasonably good terms. The cardguy made me sane with a kiss of death, consensually. Some jacks and jesters under my closet's floorboards, Montresor.

File: mbti rises (after noon).png (1.0 MB)

>>84707279
>Was getting caught part of your plan?
>Have you every done something stupid irl because of an online meme? What did you do?
>Do you feel in charge?

>>84707570
oh im banned

oh nevermind
>>84707570
YOOOOOOOOOO IS THAT TURBULAUR?! I FUCKING LOVE TURBIE X CENTAUR IM DIAMONDS RM bruh

File: A Centaur's Life Volume 26 Chapter 207 page 2 panel 2.jpg (118.0 KB)

>>84707279
>Your MBTI
An introvert perhaps, but not a narcissist. I've heard I'm a feeler, but also distant and heartless.
>What is something you don't like thinking about?
I actually almost passed out in my first aid training during a description of head injuries. Luckily they still passed me but I had to spend the rest of the course lying down. A youtube video on lobotomies gave me a panic attack once too. I don't like thinking about my brain as an organ that can be damaged.
>What's something that scared you recently?
Aaa! Spooky bee.
>(Optional) Do you like Horror?
Sometimes I wonder why I pollute my brain with it. Or anything disgusting. I've heard arguments that engaging with horror makes you a better person and allows you to manage trauma or something, but I remain unconvinced.
>(Optional) Are you a hypocrite? Are you scum not worthy of being crushed under the bottom of my shoe? You are a rat. You disgust me.
But what is there to be done?

File: 1366471500686.jpg (114.6 KB)

>>84707279
>Your MBTI
Yes.
>What is something you don't like thinking about?
Nothing. And by that I don't mean that I dislike thinking about nothing. But there is nothing I don't like thinking about.
I enjoy thinking about everything, even stupid things.
Especially stupid things.
>What's something that scared you recently?
My dog barked. Gave a spook to my sensation. Did not enjoy.
>(Optional) Do you like Horror?
Sure do.
>(Optional) Are you a hypocrite?
Everyone is a hyposhit.
>Are you scum not worthy of being crushed under the bottom of my shoe?
I'm better than your dirty ass shoes, yes.
>You are a rat. You disgust me.
That's not a question IDIOT.

>>84707696
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Q2djOnNSE

>>84707544
>MBTI is so fucking stoopid how can you be such a twittledumb fuck to believe this?
Believe what? Introverts and extraverts are easy to observe.
Thinking/Feeling/Sensation/Intuition are basic principles.
>Honestly when has this ever helped you?
All the time. Once I read Jung, that is
Gained a lot of personal, psychological and dare I say even philosophical insight? To be fair I'm natural enough at relativity and perspectives because that's my shit as an intuitive thinking extravert but still.
>You understand thing better now that you are constantly wondering if the person you're talking to is an Ni or Ne and what is their function stack.
I used to wonder that, but it's ok we all fell for that at some point
>Like bitch everyone uses everything just to different levels. Just fucking talk you spastic faggot.
Indeed. But what's differentiated in consciousness? And what's largely unconscious and/or repressed? What's individual and what's collective? What's the ego and the shadow?
We are here to gain a perspective, not merely to establish presence.

>>84707721
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzsY4RfNnBs

>>84707760
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBxkAzA-14

File: 1*gXuL2tWpHrRHMz39yXQkhQ.jpg (50.0 KB)

>>84707142
Now let me do this, against my better judgement...(but I'm not guided by judgement!)

>Intuition is involved in every psychological process.
Nyo. That directly contradicts the definition of what's a psychological function. It's an unique and consistent activity in itself, which cannot be reduced to any of the other functions, as well as fully abstracted from them.

>intuition was involved in that process of thinking.
On a conscious level, only if the thinker in question needs to fish for an unconscious image to become aware of a possibility.
On the level of intuitive contents still existing somewhere, yeah sure.

>speculation is a means of rational thought to draw connections between evidence to come to a conclusion.
Nyo. That's "reasoning". Most likely deduction in this context.
Speculation is specific to the attempt to establish possibilities where there is no direct/empirical proof, only circumstantial evidence at best that is not enough to decisively prove a specific outcome.

>But, so is sensation.
Speculation is called for when it's not possibile to formulate a conclusion that only accords to empirical data and logical principles alone.

>Unless you want to change the meaning of speculation to mean something entirely different, in which case, who even cares at that point?
Quite ironic. Jung's definition supports itself(no shit?) on Thinking+Intuition, and pic rel also does. You know what "beyond the present moment" is code for, right? Intuition becomes involved quite quickly.

Someone got lucky and recognized me. It's scary when someone recognizes you. No one was supposed to see me.

[27] We see here how, in the Christian process, the original type has actually become reversed: Tertullian, the acute thinker, becomes the man of feeling, while Origen becomes the scholar and loses himself in intellectuality. Logically, of course, it is quite easy to put it the other way round and say that Tertullian had always been the man of feeling and Origen the intellectual. Apart from the fact that the difference of type is not thereby done away with but exists as before, the reversal does not explain how it comes that Tertullian saw his most dangerous enemy in the intellect, and Origen in sexuality. One could say they were both deceived, adducing as evidence the fatal outcome of both lives by way of argument. If that were the case, one would have to assume that they both sacrificed the less important thing, and that both of them made a crooked bargain with fate. That is certainly a point of view whose validity should be recognized in principle. Are there not just such slyboots among primitives who approach their fetish with a black hen under the arm, saying; "See, here is thy sacrifice, a beautiful black pig." I am, however, of the opinion that the depreciatory method of explanation, notwithstanding the unmistakable relief which the ordinary mortal feels in dragging down something great, is not under all circumstances the correct one, even though it may appear to be very "biological." From what we can personally know of these two great figures in the realm of the spirit, we must say that their whole nature was so sincere that their conversion to Christianity was neither an underhand trick nor a fraud, but had both reality and truthfulness.

Now it would make sense if both these guys sacrificed something that wasn't the most important thing in the world to them, but I prefer to choose that them giving up their most valued posession makes a better story!

>From what we can personally know of these two great figures in the realm of the spirit,
uhh, excuse me?

File: the FUCKED.jpg (2.7 MB)

>>84706545
I can probably do some more pokemon-ing at some point. As early as this week even if you're up for it. But you did kinda stand me up on that for months. My old computer I was doing it on is kill but I might be able to dig out the save files if I put the effort in at least. We were going to play Emerald, remember?

File: schrodinger.png (91.7 KB)

>>84708022
>the original type has actually become reversed
Vgh type inversion...

>but I prefer to choose that them giving up their most valued posession makes a better story!
As it should be. Always pick what makes for a better narrative. Reality is relative anyways, especially in the world of >typology
But seriously, I see the point there. Though is Jung just implying that Tertullian and Origen are now living off entirely by their undifferentiated function? Guess they can support themselves with the auxiliaries, but still.

>>84708027
>he isn't connected to the spiritual realm
What are we reading Jung for again? Should I remind you that we already established intuition is ESP but with a more scienc-y name?

>>84708072
>What are we reading Jung for again?
I am trying to categorize people into different types. Jung is the most popular way of doing that. I am not here for woo shit. My ears pricked up at him saying the word "fate" and I was assured that it wasn't woo.
>Should I remind you that we already established intuition is ESP but with a more scienc-y name?
Please do, I do not recall this ever being established. Not least yet in Psychological Types.

File: IMG_6069.jpg (308.9 KB)

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8sentJG/
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8seGmbE/
Xie xie, INFJaegerbombAs

Need some labradorite baodingies in my hand. Trascendental tulpa mediations n shiiiiip

>>84707826
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwltCgkB6Pk
>>84707907
>That directly contradicts the definition of what's a psychological function.
Incorrect. Every function is happening always within your psyche, whether or not you're aware of these processes is a different story. So long as you're alive and your brain is active, these functions are always happening.
You cannot have a psychological process without the involvement of all functions. It's impossible by definition.

But, as usual, you've misunderstood my claim. I'm not saying one function is equal to or reducible to another function. Thinking cannot be reduced to intuition. I'm merely saying any and all psychological processes contain all functions, regardless of ones awareness of those functions.
>On a conscious level,
I'm not speaking on a conscious level, I'm speaking on the level of the psyche as a unified totality. No function can be eliminated from the psyche. Just because you are unconscious and unaware of a functions presence, does not mean it isn't there.
>Nyo. That's "reasoning".
Speculation *IS* reasoning. If you remove intuition from thinking, leaving only the intuition, you're not left with "speculation". You only get speculation when a rational, reasoning function is present. Which is to say the speculation comes from the thinking. Does intuition play a role in that speculation? Sure, obviously. But so does SENSATION.
>Speculation is called for
It's never possible to draw conclusions on these alone. You're operating on such a massive fundamental flaw.

Speculation is drawing a conclusion that [something] might/could/should/is [some way] based on [some evidence]. Speculation is a CONCLUSION. Speculation is *ALWAYS* a conclusion.
>Intuition becomes involved quite quickly.
Except I'm not excluding intuition. You're trying to exclude sensation.

File: IMG_3064.jpg (495.8 KB)

>>84708129
https://open.spotify.com/track/4atVY9J8pYpnOA28ExwUQN

Watching muted

>>84708129
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwltCgkB6Pk
aa, well that sucked me up into a different time, a different world, a different place, a meloncholy loss

File: 1750976194983829.png (259.2 KB)

>>84708114
>Please do, I do not recall this ever being established. Not least yet in Psychological Types.
On purpose even! Canon in the letters though.

>>84708129
>You cannot have a psychological process without the involvement of all functions.
If by "psychological process" you mean "the splitting of a (previously) unconscious content into conscious awareness", then yes.
But otherwise the 4 functions are separate processes, and only the ones involved in this specific operation since there are more, such as memory.

>I'm not speaking on a conscious level, I'm speaking on the level of the psyche as a unified totality
Ogey, but I don't find this to be particularly useful to discuss about it. We are here to do the hair splitting.

>Speculation *IS* reasoning.
Yes but "reasoning" is an umbrella term for many different kinds of reasoning, including the speculative one.
>If you remove intuition from thinking, leaving only the intuition, you're not left with "speculation". You only get speculation when a rational, reasoning function is present.
And no one has claimed otherwise. It's specifically Thinking+Intuition. If Thinking is alone, then it becomes basically formal or abstract thinking, if Sensation is also involved, then it is Empirical Thinking. And Feeling is not thinking simply put, though it deals with its own rational basis.
>But so does SENSATION.
No because the second you are involving Sensation, you are forcing yourself to look at da faxs, with your eyes, not to activate extra-sens-- ahem "perception by the way of the unconscious".

>It's never possible to draw conclusions on these alone.
Speculative ones, yes.
>You're operating on such a massive fundamental flaw.
Holy sensoid.................

File: 1579027376808.gif (145.3 KB)

>>84708167
That reminds me of those pre-covid rappers that blew up and then all died (literally).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjPm0YuMTGo
>>84708167
>If by "psychological process"
I mean by psychological process anything that happens within your own psyche.
>But otherwise the 4 functions are separate processes
I never said otherwise. Just because they are all separate processes themselves, does not mean they're not all always happening simultaneously. Every moment of your existence every function is always happening, until your death.
>Yes but "reasoning" is an umbrella term for many different kinds of reasoning, including the speculative one.
But all reasoning includes all other reasoning. It's not exclusive. Any time you're using one type of reasoning, all other reasonings are present.
You keep trying to exclude things as if it's somehow mutually exclusive. When in reality it's the exact opposite.
>And no one has claimed otherwise.
You did. You're the one trying to make intuition "speculuh".
>If Thinking is alone, then it becomes basically formal or abstract thinking
Or speculation.
>if Sensation is also involved, then it is Empirical Thinking.
Or speculation.
>And Feeling is not thinking simply put
But feeling can also speculate. Because it's equally as rational as thinking.
>you are forcing yourself to look at da faxs
You can speculate about facts.

>>84708212
>On purpose even!
If true then why would he skirt around something that's so important to his theory? Was he just too much of a baby coward to let it out straight in his book that he believes in faries? Why the ambiguity? What an asshole.

The problem is he's such a rat and a people pleaser that it can be hard to tell who he's placating. Why should we believe him here when he claims to be scientific elsewhere?

>The reason why I haven't said more about it publicly is that I don't like to talk about things which are difficult to prove.
Phew, we're in the clear everyone, he knows it's bullshit!

I'm gonna have to take that line as some kind of metaphore then I suppose and continue to take it on its own merits. That letter is decades after PT, maybe his brain rotted a little in the meantime.

>Cites Joseph Banks Rhine dice throwing experiments as sufficient evidence of ESP
Interesting, so this is the guy to blame for Psionics being sci-fi? That's one more Game of Thrones mystery solved!

>>84708044
>months
Years, now.
>We were going to play Emerald, remember?
Yes. If you recover your save, or use moemon again, post the download you used here so we can be sure we're using the same one.
>>84708114
Don't worry, ESP isn't woo either.

>>84707279
>>Your MBTI
ESFP-T
>>What is something you don't like thinking about?
The possibility of losing friends.
>>What's something that scared you recently?
A gust of wind that carried me much higher than I was intending.
>>(Optional) Do you like Horror?
Yes.
>>(Optional) Are you a hypocrite?
I don't think so; I try not to be.

>>84707570
>>Was getting caught part of your plan?
That would be telling.
>>Have you every done something stupid irl because of an online meme?
Yes
>>What did you do?
Put a spoonful of cinnamon in my mouth.
>>Do you feel in charge?
Partly. Depends really on what you're talking about.

>>84708397
>I mean by psychological process anything that happens within your own psyche.
Ok, but we are here to split those processes.
> Any time you're using one type of reasoning, all other reasonings are present.
That's not really how it works here.
Also I begin to question what's the point of this discussion if you are going with "everything is everything else, fuck splitting and differentiating concepts".
>You keep trying to exclude things as if it's somehow mutually exclusive.
That's what thinking does, though the proper term would be separating and abstracting rather than claiming that one thing absolutely excludes the other, unless defined as specifically as A and not-A.
>Or speculation.
Nyo. "Pure" Thinking in Jungian terms would be just concepts, no facts, no possibilities, we aren't even necessarily concerned with something that happens at all, I might just define 2 random concepts and a rule to deduce a third right now.
>Or speculation
Sensation is opposed to that. It doesn't want to speculate, it wants accuracy to actual facts, not possible, not "what could be", only what the data says without allowing you to speculate on it.
>Because it's equally as rational as thinking.
Apparently that's called "intuitive feeling". Kind of shitty name ngl.
In common terms, generally feeling is not considered "reasoning" so understand that it won't be thought that way outside of Jung, who already assigned "speculative thinking" only to Thinking+Intuition.
>You can speculate about facts.
Sure you can, but then you are not just looking at the facts and data anymore, you are trying to move beyond it while only using them suggestions.

I should have gone with that sooner since you clearly had missed what I meant by intuitive suggestions.

It's the difference between:
>let's look at this pool of blood on the ground carefully and analyze it to find out whose blood it is
and
>the pool of blood being here might mean it was the original crime scene and the body was moved

>>84708184
I wish I could find more videos like that one. It's so difficult to find stuff that is made so well and actually takes you somewhere.

>>84708435
>Was he just too much of a baby coward to let it out straight in his book that he believes in faries?
Lol yes
>Why should we believe him here when he claims to be scientific elsewhere?
Let's say that he has his own definition of what's scientific.
>Phew, we're in the clear everyone, he knows it's bullshit!
But also yea, he didn't claim that "scientifically" since you can't prove it easily, if at all.
>That letter is decades after PT, maybe his brain rotted a little in the meantime.
He started to embrace less "scientific" things as he grew older I noticed.

>>84708572
>Ok, but we are here to split those processes.
It's not possible to split them if you don't start with the axiomatic presupposition that they are unified. If you don't recognize and acknowledge the base, the work becomes something else entirely.
You must first hear the song before you can isolate the notes. If you ignore the song entirely and only focus on a singular note, the note loses its life and becomes just a noise, a random frequency whose contextual meaning is lost.
>That's not really how it works here.
Except it is. Differentiation does not remove something from something else. It merely draws a line between the two concepts. They're still connected, still one. They just have a conceptual border where one can be identified as "different(iated)" from another.
A car whose wheel is differentiated is still connected to the car.
>"Pure" Thinking
Doesn't exist. Thinking happens within a psyche, which contains all functions happening at all times.
>It doesn't want to speculate
Nor does intuition. Thinking and feeling are what speculates. Intuition perceives, just like sensation.
Both sensation and intuition do the same exact thing through different means, which is perceive data. You can use thinking or feeling to speculate about that data.
>but then you are not just looking at the facts and data anymore
You are never just looking at the facts. It's impossible to do this.

>let's look at this pool of blood on the ground carefully and analyze it to find out whose blood it is
There is a speculation in this, that the blood belonged to somebody, and that there is a reason to analyze the blood to find its owner. You've exactly proved my point, flawlessly. An intuition is being followed here, that the blood has meaning, and leads somewhere.

Really, all you did there was mask the speculation behind language to pretend like it doesn't exist.

>>84708852
>If you don't recognize and acknowledge the base, the work becomes something else entirely.
That's your problem, though. Then start catching up already.
>Except it is.
Reasoning is still reasoning yes. But, say, if you are currently employing deductive reasoning, you are not necessarily doing anything empirical or speculative. It might be purely abstract conceptual stuff.
>Doesn't exist.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't in yourself and the evidence clearly suggests as much, but actually yes, people can think in purely abstract concepts.
>Nor does intuition.
You must add Thinking.
Going with compass analogy, it's like saying that North is not East, and East is not North, but there is such a thing as moving North-East. That is the realm of "speculative thinking" in that compass picture.
As for Feeling, this is honestly more of a semantic point since you might as well claim "intuitive feeling" technically means speculating about Feeling matters.

>You are never just looking at the facts. It's impossible to do this.
Holy intuitoid............

>There is a speculation in this, that the blood belonged to somebody
It's a firmly established fact that blood does in fact belong to humans, among other living beings. We will assume it's a human vicitm here for the sake of argument.
However, empirical thinking alone here wouldn't be able to establish more than "there is blood here", "blood comes from humans", "you can analyze blood to find its owner". Speculative thinking will need to produce a probable scenario that explains why is the pool of blood there at all tho.

File: JungFreud.jpg (262.6 KB)

>>84707279
>Your MBTI
ILE (ENTP)
>What is something you don't like thinking about?
Things I did in the past when I got too excited
>What's something that scared you recently?
The homeless person wheezing very hardly on the bus while walking around like a zombie on the transit
>Are you a hypocrite?
If you consider all those whom you share continuity with through memory as a yourself, then yes.

File: warhammer-warhammer40k-heresy-absolute-heresy.png (103.4 KB)

>>84709016
>pic
Originally what the fuck.

File: IMG_6117.jpg (506.5 KB)

Uncuffing SZN

Ashtarot x Gem!Master, birchtree

File: IMG_6118.jpg (1.7 MB)

Thas a tagteam no FTP

I go teepee mode, sickozzz
TOM
BOY
HEART
ACHE
OLD
EARTH
NEW
QUAKE

File: 2e4c3f6e5b04add138ebbe99c939f295.jpg (415.7 KB)

Meh, that should be enough.
Engaging was already pointless, but now it's going to be twice as much pointless.

For the sake of the audience, I must remind you that differentiation is a matter of consciousness.
There is no real point in framing it as "what *happens* in the psyche" as opposed to "what you are bringing up to conscious awareness(against what falls into the unconscious)".

>>84708985
>That's your problem, though.
Except it's not.
>you are not necessarily doing anything empirical or speculative.
Yes you are.
>It might be purely abstract conceptual stuff.
Pure doesn't exist. It's impossible for something to be purely abstract.
>people can think in purely abstract concepts.
Incorrect. An abstract concept will always be connected to ones own physical self and therefore be connected to the physical world in some way, shape, or form. Because you psyche exists in your brain exists in your body, which is itself physical, it's not possible for anything to be purely one way or the other.
Nothing within the psyche exists in true isolation. It will always have its counterpart present. The abstract will always carry with it the concrete and visa versa.
>That is the realm of "speculative thinking" in that compass picture.
Except, speculative thinking relies just as much on sensation as it does on intuition. Likewise, speculation can also exist in a feeling form.
Is speculative thinking something that exists? Absolutely. But speculation is not strictly a thinking activity, nor is it strictly intuitive. Much like memory, it's not directly connected to any singular function. That is the issue I'm rising.
Speculation itself does not point to any function. Though, the content of the speculation *might*.
>It's a firmly established fact that blood does in fact belong to humans, among other living beings.
It might belong to a human, since blood also belongs to other things. The investigators have to work with the same speculation.

The material fact is "the blood exists" where it came from is speculation. It came from a human? That's speculation. It could have came from a dog, it could have came from a cat. Hell, it might not even be blood. It could be a red herring to throw the detectives off the scent of the killer. Or just a random pool of blood from a completely unconnected event.

>>84709246
a lot of his arguments were reasonable

File: 1371074129600.jpg (26.4 KB)

>>84709246
>There is no real point in framing it as "what *happens* in the psyche" as opposed to "what you are bringing up to conscious awareness(against what falls into the unconscious)".
Absolutely false.
>>84709274
I thought I was being very fair and reasonable. I've been trying to cut back on the.... absolutism, because it can be unfair and unreasonable.
Unless the absolutism is inclusive. Reductive absolutism is not very beneficial for much.

Or, in a popular phrase everyone can understand:
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

>>84709274
Not really, no. The entire framing is wrong, and as usual it's more of a semantic point than any real content. He's not ever engaging with concepts and ideas on their own because he has nothing to say, and most likely doesn't even get them.

This guy only ever argues on three levels: definitions, shitty metaphors, and (lack of) context. And to that, I can briefly answer in three ways very quickly:
1. Language is not absolute, it is dynamic and contextual. Jung especially is known for twisting language quite a lot, and using the same terms to mean different things.
2. Metaphors and analogies are not a substitute to an argument, they are rhetorical tools to explain a concept if you believe it's difficult to put it in purely conceptual terms, or that the audience might not be able to engage with it otherwise.
3. There is a certain perspective implied in Jungian psychology in general: conscious vs unconscious, intentional vs accidental, abstract(differentiated in this case) vs concrete, you get the point. If you begin speaking about "everything happens in the psyche" you are straight telling me you didn't even enter in this framework at all.

I don't know if I can attribute that to a sheer undifferentiation of Thinking, or dishonesty, or laziness, or pride, but one thing I know is that I'm wasting time.

>>84707569
>>OP1
havent heard that in a long time

>>84709382
you should just fuck him already there's a lot of sexual tension here

File: 1372937623660.png (12.3 KB)

I genuinely cannot tell if he cannot understand what I'm saying, or intentionally misunderstands in order to maintain his bias belief that I don't understand/haven't read Jung.
>>84709421
>picre

File: INFJune runes.jpg (2.4 MB)

>>84709412
Optional Prompt Uno? Yeah, some agents can be pretty demanding.

Is anyone here familiar with the work of Taylor Northcutt, aka Prosopa Insights on physiognomy. Ive watched a couple of his youtube videos and theyre quite interesting, however I dont know if it is total BS or not.

File: IMG_8617.jpg (56.8 KB)

>>84709461
Sounds like a Taytay/Scrim sideproject kek

>>84709448
Who's that little guy with pointy ears at the bottom right?
Is he smug or distraught?

File: Circletriangles.png (130.1 KB)

>>84709421
You first

>>84709448
Archetype of wholeness spotted.
Additional circles must be posted.

There was this one that wasn't properly explained until later on, I had figured out it tried to imply your inferior function(regardless of which one it is, not specific to sensation) is "past-oriented" and later managed to find a quote from him actually claiming as much.

>>84709494
Tutanotanonette's forgotten PW!

>>84709510
Well spin a swastika sideways and call it a poleshiggydiggy! Circles AND squares fit inside Vanilla Aisu's wandshape!

>>84709510
>"You first"
>implying he'll go second
we did it guys we made a new /mbti/ couple

File: 5625873030186.jpg (99.0 KB)

>couple
Don't you mean... thruple?

part of the conspiracy is to outright embrace the Epstein jewry

File: segmented circle.png (155.0 KB)

>>84709609
Could be third, or fourth, I didn't specify. No more than 4 though, that would be heresy.
Also, emotional feeling is a better name here, but what the actual fuck "intuitive feeling" is supposed to mean, seriously? Empathy(since it implies reading your feelins intuitively, as opposed to the SF style of being emotive/affective?)

Question for Centaur: when you snogged Lilac, was exploring her teeth with your tongue like navigating the backrooms?

>>84709659
why do you hate lilac this much

Someone pooped a few times today- look at all the lilac posts!

im going to collect all the lilac posts and put them in a box and look at them every day and smile

I just urinated, i wonder what ideas flooded into Lilacs mind this time

File: IMG_3343.jpg (63.8 KB)

>>84709659
Rent, and I don't say this often
F R E E

File: IMG_4046.jpg (702.4 KB)

>>84709696
I do that with every good post/posts I want to read when I'm in more of a reading mood/anything Hecate!

That was quick- she immediately picked up on the messaged left by my PISS! mixing yellow and brown in the toilet truly summons lilac hahahaha

>>84709722
You forreal like Rhonda being like "I shit down your throat I shit down your throat YOU are obsessed with ME" in the meltie hoespiral lmfao go septic go cwazy hunny whatever helps

I thought of swimming with R today

Obsessed? delirious lonely e-whore cant stand the thought of her porcelain throne falling apart!

File: IMG_6144.jpg (563.7 KB)

>>84709749
Sooo you want the addy so you can.. put firecrackers in my toilet? Alright. That would sure be payback to my neighbors, pull up shawty, kek

>Three things I'm not and you might be
Hrmmmm.

Does it count as being particularly self-indulgent if you make a character of your own type and say she has both simps and is quite successful in her career?

File: IMG_1062.jpg (642.3 KB)

>>84709773
Subjectively, not if you have the life which inspired to back it up.

I didn't know Mother Hecate was the escrow in e-whoring. STAGE, SET, READY, ACTION! Is lilac Hecate's little lolcow?

File: IMG_6320.png (295.4 KB)

Nothing to the power of No One objects!
>>84709800

La Le Lu Li Lolac is a Bhakti darshan receiver with no embodied teacher!

>>84709791
Obviously and originally not.
There's always a certain difficulty in portraying your own type fairly, but also in a way that's not literally just the author's self insert.

File: IMG_5783.png (219.0 KB)

His type is the negative space and shapes hallucinated between black and white!

File: IMG_6145.jpg (436.8 KB)

>>84709836
"Mary Sue" and "Gary Stew" are terms created by people who don't know the Curse of Perfection.

>Your MBTI
ENTP
>What is something you don't like thinking about?
The self fulfilled prophecy that I will spend the rest of my life procrastinating and never reaching my full potential
>What's something that scared you recently?
Nearly lost control of my car while driving like a maniac
I learned from it, I'll drive like a maniac but better in the future
>(Optional) Do you like Horror?
If you mean horror movies, no, they're boring as fuck
Actually, it's always boring, I like the resident evil games tho, kinda
>(Optional) Are you a hypocrite?
Who isn't?
I can't think of a single person I've ever met that I would say have never shown hypocrisy in one way or another (well, anyone that I spent time with)

But then again I don't understand how most people seem to not understand what words mean, or they act obtuse around their meanings, grooming your partner is normal and expected, manipulation is something everyone does every single day, everyone's hypocritically beating around the bush and never get to the fucking point, most people know the truth but won't say it out loud simply because they're scared of what it really means, people are monkeys and monkeys do monkey things
Context either matters or not depending on the side they're trying to portray, people don't even understand the religious nature of their philosophy simply because they think they're atheist, but instead worship random ass celebrities that wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, world is a weird place, and yes, you're a hypocrite too you faggot

You shed blood, sweat and tears for a 4chan general. Life can be a 4chan troll sometimes

>>84709791
See, the INFJ might not see themselves as a unicorn, not in a material or aesthetic manner, but they do believe they're 'right', they are, for all intent and purpose, paladins, the annoying, faggoty, sometimes useful but more often than not just the retard you have to deal with paladin that thinks the light is guiding their path and their choices are god's gifts to humanity, while also feeling like shit all the time and acting like actual fucking demons but convince themselves that it's for the greater good and the end always justify the means

>>84709878
Everybody knows an INFJ like that it seems

>>84709841
tfw your penis is an intuitive type too.
>relatively erected

>>84709850
I would never.
Might have done it with another type, but not my own. Actually I don't fucking know, since I've a policy of "shit on all types equally"(but also make them equally endearing, of course).

>Your MBTI
ISTJ, but in socionics I think I'm ILI.
>What is something you don't like thinking about?
Society, politics, philosophy, and death and the afterlife but I do it anyways.
>What's something that scared you recently?
I had something of I believe an anhedonia moment a few months ago where I thought of myself going to hell.
>(Optional) Do you like Horror?
Yes, but not to such an extreme point that it becomes emotionally dark and depressing.
>(Optional) Are you a hypocrite?
Even though I understand the need for standards in life I secretly believe everyone is ultimately compelled by their own psychology and abilities to act in certain ways. In other words I don't really believe in free will, and yet I will occasionally be upset with people for things they didn't really choose.
Even though I like to think to myself that both consequentialism and deontology are bad if taken to extremes I think I am technically more of a consequentialist than a deontologist although I still pay heavy attention to rights and responsibilities
Also I'm a coward.
Ultimately, I hope for us to be able to eventually either permanently create a reality with no pain, mental or physical, for all life, or if that's not possible than to destroy all life permanently. That works too.

>>84709995
ISTJs are sexyman

If tomorrow ever arrives,
Tell her I'd like a surprise.
Something carried by the wind,
That you can't pretend-

File: IMG_6983.jpg (127.5 KB)

fell from heaven? For FREE?

Just like my babby rosary

The sky is known to give all sorts of gifts for free.

File: I wonder what those buttons mean.png (16.3 KB)

We was aliens 'n shiiiiiet

>>84711384
>= smonkle the Jonkstink

>>84711584
Is that what his name is?

>>84709850
>> 84709841
>> 84709826
>> 84709791
>> 84709771
>> 84709720
>> 84709705
>> 84709483

baka i like patchi more

send that gaylord to the gay dimension
FOREVER

as patchi supply goes DOWN, demand goes UP
as lilac supply goes UP, demand goes ..... ???

Supply and demand aren't real.

>>84707279
>>Your MBTI
not telling its bad opsec.
>>What is something you don't like thinking about?
>>What's something that scared you recently?
>>(Optional) Do you like Horror?
>>(Optional) Are you a hypocrite? Are you scum not worthy of being crushed under the bottom of my shoe? You are a rat. You disgust me.
lol ur never gonna get me failtroll my opsec's absolutely unstoppable. you cant do shit

File: 1766570438294148.png (2.7 MB)

>>84707279
>>Your MBTI
INFJ
>>What is something you don't like thinking about?
Probably rape, pedo shit and stuff
>>What's something that scared you recently?
Some woman was screaming recently, I thought someone died but it was a false alarm and nothing rly happened
>>(Optional) Do you like Horror?
Not much
>>(Optional) Are you a hypocrite?
I find it honestly... not very possible to not be a hypocrite, I am simply too flawed for my thoughts to be fully in line. I don't even believe that I think and process things the same as others do
>Are you scum not worthy of being crushed under the bottom of my shoe? You are a rat. You disgust me.
Idk
>>84707570
>>Was getting caught part of your plan?
Ofc
>>Have you every done something stupid irl because of an online meme? What did you do?
Probably just say stupid shit 2 myself at times
>>Do you feel in charge?
I think, no, idk not rly

>>84712722
Security through obscurity is bad opsec though.
If you are aware of the inferior function, you can patch it up or leave it open to influence as required. It won't become differentiated in consciousness

File: 1751090405622868.png (1.8 MB)

>>84712837
looks like someone's a little jealous

File: mpv-shot0002 (2) (2).jpg (233.4 KB)

>>84712848
Not really since people can't type my ass despite me showing the inferior functions. That's true typesec.

File: 1757194852619008.png (1.7 MB)

>>84712862
i've checked ur opsec levels and they're not looking good. it's all good bro but just don't come here coping to me just cause ur mad that my opsec is so much better than urs

>>84712862
They can probably tap your ass when they want thanks to your terrible opsex

>>84712874
Ironically though, it works kinda like opsec in the sense that a system is only as secure as its weakest link. Finding out the "weakest link" in this case is 1/8, easy to brute force

>>84712881
What if that was part of the plan.

>>84712921
>What if that was part of the plan.
hot!!

Though now that's considered a fallacy
https://www.cs.ru.nl/~jhh/publications/weakest-link-fallacy.html

What level of Ni-groid are we dealing with here

>I know people who knew Nietzsche personally, because he lived in my own town, Basel, so I heard many details of this kind. For instance, in one of his lectures he was talking about Greece and Graecia Magna in most enthusiastic terms, and after the lecture a young man who had not understood something he had said - for those ordinary students were of course not quite able to follow Nietzsche's tremendous mind - went up to the professor to ask him about it.
>But before he could put in his very humble request, Nietzsche said: "Ah now, you are the man! That blue sky of Hellas! We are going together!" And the young man thought: "How can I go with this famous professor and how have I the money to do it?" and he receded further and further, Nietzsche going at him and talking of the eternal smile of the skies of Hellas and God knows what, till the young man backed up against the wall. Then suddenly Nietzsche realized that the fellow was frightened by his enthusiasm, and he turned away abruptly and never spoke to him again.
>That is the way he dealt with friends, he was absolutely unable to adapt to people, and when they did not understand him right on the moment, he had no patience whatever. He was also exceedingly impatient with himself. He was terribly, recklessly impulsive. He liked to be invited to certain social gatherings, but if there was a piano, he played madly; he went at it till his finger nails bled. That is no exaggeration, it is a fact. On his other side, he was quite funny.

>The self can be contained in the anima, for instance, and then it causes an anima possession and the effeminization of a man's general character, his philosophy, all his convictions, his conduct, etc.
I sure wish Jung was alive to see how the world looks like right now.
Anima possession rights and all of that.

File: 1780294595015108.png (1.6 MB)

>>84709659
I read this in a irish accent for some reason

>>84713743
P-patchouli confirmed?

File: type change according to Erika.jpg (562.1 KB)

>>84709246(me)
Was thinking that I might have accidentally pulled the typical intuitoid move of touching upon something that's bigger than one might imagine, but in typical extravertoid fashion I had only seen it emerge in a particular object, and threw it right back to it, to claim that it has to do with the object.

But isn't that true for the entire debate surrounding modern MBTI and especially cog.function theories?
Or even bigger than that, isn't it true for how people use typology in general, and sometimes "psychology"(when that is confused with neurobiology especially) as well?

How many can even tell the difference between the mind and the brain?
How many fail to see the abstracting attitude of consciousness, and don't consider that an expression of will?
Or if you want it fully in Jungian terms: how many still haven't figured out that the difference between the superior and the inferior function is essentially explained entirely by this quote:

>Dr. Jung spoke of the inferior function being united to the collective: it is just a bit of nature and, as such, must first be accepted and adapted to. . . . The superior function is in your hands, and you can put it to your uses. The inferior is your master, and you must adapt yourself to it. Yet it is nature; there is life there.
So you must conceive in it those terms: I claim that Thinking can be fully abstracted from not-Thinking because that is just what defines the Thinking type. They turned Thinking in a tool of consciousness, not a mere happening of nature. And that will certainly be used to oppose everything else, especially the oppressive hold of Feeling upon the body.

>>84691605
INx
>Do you believe in God
Yes.
>What is the biggest sacrifice you would be willing to make?
I meant more like "what's the most important thing that you could give up", but the words didn't come to me. It's better that way, but still not great. Too late now anyway. Extreme deja vu right now, or just then. I've never been sure if that's a good or bad omen.
>Cutest animal you could *not* beat in a fight
Bear, obviously. Bears have to be the quintessential example of that. It isn't too hard to imagine this pine martin is a bear. Had i a good picture of a bear i'd post that instead, but i don't so you'll just have to make do.
I thought more people would go for this question, especially Turbie, but she and everyone else went for the sun one. The only other person to chose the animal question is also the only other person* to have given a straight Yes to the God question: That can't be a coincidence, but i don't know what to make of it.

*At the time of writing. I decided to wait until the next thread (that being this thread) to post this, in case pointing out the pattern caused it to change. Then that one asshole had to go break the pattern anyway by answering Yes and nothing else. At least it is still true that everyone who answered Yes to the God question did not answere the sun question, while all those who did not answer Yes did.

>>84707544
It's really funny when people get mad at terms that are literally just a way to categorize normal human behavior. It's seriosuly not that deep, NO ONE is going around thinking about each person's mbti or their own. It's like getting mad that someone invented the words for indigo and cyan when blue already exists and saying that they must think that color has some intrinsic meaning behind it. no nigga i just want to be able to say what this specific color of blue is succinctly.

>>84714697
It gets even sillier when you realize how basic the formulations are. For instance, something that you will read *a lot*(I'm not exaggerating, I've seen it countless times now) outside of Psychological Types, from the man himself:

>You must have a function which tells you that there is something, and that is sensation.
>Then you must have a function which tells you what the thing is, and you can call that thinking.
>And then a function which tells you what it is worth to you, and that is feeling.
>You would then have a complete orientation for the moment, but the time axis is not considered: there is a past and a future, which is not given in the present moment, so you need a sort of divination in order to know where that thing comes from or where it is going, and that is called intuition

That's what anon is mad at here, and apparently completely unthinkable.

File: __edogawa_conan_akechi_anna_and_cure_answer_precure_and_2_more_drawn_by_pi_to_lily__1338618fd4fb2dac6bfcbcdd45975c28.jpg (541.0 KB)

How did the thread go from bump limit speedrun to ded anyways?

>Not in your highest differentiation, your so-called differentiated or superior functions, are you connected with other human beings, but in your inferior functions. You see, the differentiated functions help you to be independent.
>If you could live entirely in your differentiated function, you never would need any other human being; you would be under no obligations and dependent upon nobody. But where you are inferior, inefficient, you are connected with mankind. The real vital connection is always through the inferior side, the "human, all-too-human," as Nietzsche says.
I could swear I read this one before.
Think that's fairly evident with the thinking types lurking on 4chan and their inferior feeling, definitely the easiest form to observe.

>>84715328
Because my op is shit, also Litoot MAD

Don't worry though. The beast will shortly rise

>>84715328
There was a lot of activity last thread. This thread has lower activity.
>>84715550
I thought she made this thread and last.

>>84708461
I managed to dig out my copy and save last night and it appears functional. Not 100% sure which crusty old version of Moemon it is but I made sure it's one of the ones that's entirely identical to emerald so that you could just stick with base emerald if you wanted. Also because it's what mumkey Jones played in the long long ago of 2017. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xda1RKAwAPk We could play one of those more modern revival versions where they add 10trillion hi fidelity safe-sexy gen 4-8 anime babes and gameplay improvements etc. But I do enjoy how in the swamp this one is, it's pure in a way. And also I never actually got very far in any gen 3 game soni wanted to keep the experience as "pure" as possible.

Nowadays it's actually quite hard to find just the old reskin versions. But yeah I don't mind my team being known so far in advance. Do your worse is what I have to say! All I need to do is make it in Smogon again and then I'll be ready.

File: Nana Levels Up.webm (3.8 MB)

>>84715603
Ohno.

More importantly, I can understand throwing more typological stuff in the 1925 seminar since it was 4 years right after PT and the subject of typology was very fresh still, but do I want to know why the fuck there is so much specifically in the Zarathustra seminars here?
Did Jung really spend so much time TYPING his idol? Not even I do that wth. Not across 5 whole years for sure(seminars starts in 1934 and end in 1939)

>>84715603
https://voca.ro/1mEh9Hu63VYe

>>84715647
Why would she make a self indulgent happy birthday centaur thread filled with snacks relating to my niche socio-economic britbong status? Also pretty sure she likes Gnostics! Only one of the last 8 threads wasn't obviously just me.

Anyway what I was referring to is the effect of Lilac and Patchouli sharing the same space causing a gigantic explosion measuring 15, maybe 16 litoots. Hence if lilac posts patchouli keeps his distance and vice versa. Right now they're both in like a Mexican standoff for fear of both activating the thread's awareness at the same time facing Mutually Ass-ssured Detoxification (from the internet). For context Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reported to be like 6, 7 Litoots

The point being that either one of them could keep us afloat, but there appears to be some kind of grudge betwixt the pair, which is just tragic really.

>>84715790
Oh I didn't know that. That makes me think of pokemon types. It never occurred to me that some of you will avoid the thread if a certain other poster is around or become more active if a certain poster is here. I have my own type match ups who I'll avoid if i see them too much and I'll become more active if I see certain other posters. I had no clue you were the one making the OPs btw.

>Only 2 male models from Colorado survive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdB3Oyd5HtU

All the talk about dreams and writing reminds me that I had dreamed of one of my characters twice.
The first time we were both at my (now empty) grandparents house, I have no idea why the fuck they would be there. My sister was there too, I didn't interact with them.
The second time I was aware of their presence in a random street which I'm not sure I ever seen IRL, but they were surrounded by a large group of people and I couldn't actually confirm it was really them but I just knew(TM).

>>84707611
*bane'd

The bane hammer is real

File: A Centaur's Life Volume 26 Chapter 2017 page 2 panel 3.jpg (104.8 KB)

>>84715959
>I had no clue you were the one making the OPs btw.
How else did you think things were suddenly somewhat functional? I hope you don't take too much offence to this, but I see you lot as an assortment of slugs, worms and skittering lizards in severe need of herding in order to be somewhat productive. You'd all just mill about without meeee! I've definitely grown more authoritarian in general in recent years. At this point I'm basically a fascist except with absolute sufferage and without the Nationalism.

An empire of equals perhaps? Hopefully this is the sort of thing LLMs and absolute information control might help enable. You know, assuming we don't just run out of computer parts by then like I first predicted. The opportunities for governance are endless! Fire up the people grinders! Summon the crowds! Get them ready for output optimised like we've never seen before! It's of course still early days yet, for me and for them.

File: Akechi.Anna.full.4671342.png (3.8 MB)

>But if you know you are creative and enjoy being creative, you will be crucified afterwards, because anybody identified with God will be dismembered. An old father of the church, the Bishop Synesius, said that the spiritus phantasticus, man's creative spirit, can penetrate the depths or the heights of the universe like God or like a great demon, but on account of that he will also have to undergo the divine punishment." That would be the dismemberment of Dionysos or the crucifixion of Christ.
What the fuck is wrong with Chr*stians?

File: 1765312338481967.webm (1.9 MB)

Which types are most likely to virtue signal?

>>84716968
Extraverted Feeling types very stereotypically.

>>84716968
Any and all types are equally liable to virtue signaling. The only thing that changes is why and/or how.

>>84708461
Were there ground rules for what moves/strategies we could use? Also which format specifically. Gen 3 singles sure. But what option am I picking in showdown?

When will we come to terms with the fact that intjs are all fembois, even the girls

When will we come to terms with the fact that intjs are just larping ESTJs?

what type is one that's loved by INTP but hated by ENTP (or at least regarded with wariness)

>>84717133
What is infp?

Sometimes they are larping IxFPs too but I'm ok with that.
Many of the INTJ description make them sound like they are just socially introverted ExTJ alright.

>>84717133
Maybe IxFP?

>>84717162
Holy synchronicity.

When something ends,
Does it really?

File: IMG_8629.jpg (64.3 KB)

Grudge? *Grudge*?

I'm just trying to exorcise monitoring spirits and jezebels from boys against their highest hopes using my Ladybug Decode Rune. If there's a grudge, it's one-sided, and they'll be dead in < ~7 days anyhow.

>That an atheist is particularly concerned with God is not understood with us because we are still unspeakably barbarous in that respect, but the East is a bit more differentiated in such matters. They have the saying that a man who loves God needs seven rebirths in order to be redeemed or to reach Nirvana, but a man who hates God needs only three. And why? Because a man who hates God will think of him much oftener than a man who loves God.
>So the atheist hates God, but he is in a way a better Christian than the man who loves him; Nietzsche is a better Christian and far more moral than the Christians before and after him. You see that explains a great deal of Zarathustra, which is a highly moral book. If anybody should try to live that teaching, he would have astonishing experiences. He would certainly feel himself to be a better Christian than all those before him.
We are going to need a Jung-tier in the fedora tier list. Wasn't expecting to read such kino tonight.

Remember kids:
DEATH ISN'T REAL.

File: 𝑯𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝑺𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒚𝒐𝒖 _ 𝑯𝒂𝒊𝒌𝒚𝒖𝒖.jpg (52.2 KB)

https://youtu.be/umbySqppx74

Who is more exfp between Yuji and Hinata?

If two flowers blossom, and one of them dies;
Do you think the other one cries?
I wonder, does the caterpillar fear
The transformation to a butterfly?

>>84717841
Hey I said it before about a week ago, Jung absolutely fedoramogs my regular atheism out of the holy water.

>>84717979
Didn't you lose that argument by every metric? Just saying it again doesn't make it true. Death is real

File: Consider this.png (171.9 KB)

>>84718388
No, I won by every metrics.

I realized of my hypocrisy today but I'm so ashamed that if I came to the truth and admitted my sins I would have to kill myself

>>84718423
What was your point again? Death isn't real because the first law of thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroyed and then just totally ignoring the implications of that and the other two laws?

>>84718297
I heard the transformation is pretty awful. The motivation for me as a caterpillar would be to be strong enough that I can actually make it out of my cocoon

>>84718455
The point is that death isn't real. Nothing is ever lost. Everything that is will always be.
It's a very simple point.

>>84718634
>Nothing is ever lost.
Complexity is 100% lost. Entropy is real.
The decomposition of your body through the ongoing process of anaerobic life in it is an irreversible process.

>>84718381
I get what he means though.

An atheist is "thinking about God" in the Jungian sense still. If he rejects the idea that there's a God out there, he will still need to place the archetype somewhere else. So he has to claim there are other "Gods", as in things that would embody the same archetype, and he must think about how and why would you assign them "divinity"(without outright claiming you are doing that). Or he himself must become some sort of God, like the Ubermensch here(Jung confirms it's essentially a God archetype).

It's kinda like how if you go for claiming that 3D is PD, then the Anima archetype will still tie man to a 2D woman, or maybe a tulpa if you want to go full introversion. And worst case scenario, (You) become the woman I guess.

>>84718669
It's not lost, complexity is reformed elsewhere. You speak as if entropy is a one way street. It's not. Everything that decays returns to its base materials and is then reformed into something else.
Because neither the materials nor the energy that held them together can be lost.

Death is not real. It's merely a change of physical state.

>>84718709
>You speak as if entropy is a one way street. It's not.
Take your meds, schizo.

>>84718713
It's a very simple alchemical principle.

>>84718709
You're missing the part where there's a giant ball of energy in the sky that's converting mass into massive amounts of energy. The energy used is lost but is replaced by energy from outside. It is absolutely not the same energy that held the decaying thing together that is reforming the base materials into something else.

>>84718728
Ahh, so you're hoping that if you say death isn't real enough times it'll turn lead into gold? I think you've handled enough lead already sweetie.

>>84718750
The energy is not lost. It's just not contained in the massive ball anymore.

But, if the sun's energy is depleted and replaced, has the sun died? By your argument, it would've.
>>84718767
No, I'm not hoping anything, sweaty.

>>84718806
I meant that the energy that is used by the living things is lost, and is then replaced with fresh energy from the sun. This isn't when they die but is happening constantly. But to take your distraction seriously it is not when the sun's energy is replaced that it dies but when it has used up all its energy. Our sun is set to slowly cool down into dust over the next 5 billion years or so. When it is no longer able to generate heat you could say it has died, in the same way a fire dies. Can you gather the ashes and start a new fire? If not, then why not?

>>84718902
Oh, I see, I misunderstood.

But, even after the energy is depleted from the sun, the energy still exists and the matter which created the sun still exists. They both just exist in different forms.
>in the same way a fire dies.
The fire doesn't die. The matter is just no longer flammable.
>Can you gather the ashes and start a new fire? If not, then why not?
Obviously not because it's not flammable. What makes you so sure if you started a second fire, that the flame which appeared wasn't the same exact one from the first fire?

But, your analogy is somewhat flawed. Is the fire dead, or is the material which was burned into ash dead? What about the fact that the material which was burned before it became ash was dead before it was burned. If it was dead how could it have been burned? How does "dead matter" contain energy which can be used as fuel to create "living flame"?
The matter that remains can be used to create other forms of matter which are "alive again" and can also be burned again.

>>84719017
>The energy still exists
It technically exists but is dispersed and less able to do anything than it was before
>the matter which created the sun still exists
No it doesn't. The sun converts some of that matter into energy while also changing it into different matter. It is both different matter and some of it is lost. There is less total mass at the end of the process than there was at the start.
>The material is not longer flammable
The fire stops happening.
>What makes you so sure if you started a second fire, that the flame which appeared wasn't the same exact one from the first fire?
It's a different fire, you said yourself it's a second fire, but more importantly you need to get new flammable materials still don't you? You can debate if it's a separate fire or not after you actually have a fire.
>Is the fire or the material dead
The fire is dead. The material was already dead before it was burned. Dead wood even burns better.
>How does "dead matter" contain energy which can be used as fuel to create "living flame"?
It doesn't have the ability to act and can only be acted upon by something else. Flame isn't
>The matter that remains can be used to create other forms of matter which are "alive again" and can also be burned again.
Energy is lost at every stage of any process you're thinking of. Without adding external energy or material you can't get a fire as big as the first line back a second time. And again it can only be used by other things, it can't act upon anything.

the sun isn't real dude. you really think a big yellow thing can just exist and keep us all warm?

>>84719170
>and less able to do anything than it was before
Or is it more able? The matter and energy could collect in multiple other stars, planets, and lifeforms.
You know the ol' space meme, you're just space dust from explosed stars or whatever. The same energy and matter that sustained the stars form is now what sustains what you call "life".
Did the star die, or did its form simply change? Does the capitillar die when it becomes a butterfree?
I think not.
>The sun converts some of that matter into energy while also changing it into different matter.
It all still exists, just in a different form.
>The fire stops happening.
Or does it? What makes you so certain of that? Simply because you cannot see it? The fire never stops happening. It's just no longer localized.
>you said yourself it's a second fire
That doesn't mean it was a different fire. Take a bucket of water, freeze it, thaw it and freeze it again. The second block of ice is the same as the first.
>but more importantly you need to get new flammable materials still don't you?
I don't believe so, no. I mean, if you want to see the fire, sure. But it still exists without your observation.
>The fire is dead.
The fire still exists, therefore is not dead.
>It doesn't have the ability to act
Fire doesn't have the ability to act, therefore it cannot die because it's not alive.
You're introducing new rules which only make your position weaker.
>Energy is lost at every stage of any process you're thinking of.
Energy is not lost, it merely is not contained in the same container. All the energy still exists.

>>84717841
>if you hate niggers you're better at being a woke blm supporter than actual woke blm supporters
the logic isn't really working, was he on something?

>>84719307
Hah, you think yellow is real? Try again kiddo. It's just waves of different frequencies being interpreted by your brain and simulated as color in your perceptual field of vision.

>>84719342
Which just happens to show the color yellow

>>84719363
Unless your brain were configured in a different way such that it would produce red.

the sun is way too far away to keep people warm. earth has her own mind and just makes things feel hot or cold depending on her mood.

>>84719382
The individual would still call it yellow and also the frequencies mentioned are real thus yellow is real

>>84717108
>>84717165
"I'm a gigachad ubermensch INTJ even though I have practically zero of the chad Se function."

>>84719400
Unless everyone called it red.

>>84719439
Yet that wouldn't change the frequencies involved at all