So if you want to go, lets.
I’m quite sure sillohete would enjoy it as well.
For instance, one of things I didn’t want to bring out, since I was concerned about offending the conservative, is their consistency with the extroverted disposition in reasoning only to the extent that happened to fit their needs. This is why they are far more prone to dogma than the progressive could ever be. They cannot, or are incapable, of reasoning beyond what is a popular notion. This is because the popular notion is “out there”.
Furthermore, I don’t buy the previous bullshit that the conservative position is about fairness concerning making the rich pay more taxes. It’s more about an unreflective notion of a slippery slope that will eventually make lesser conservatives pay more taxes.
Furthermore, I consider every conservative argument against higher taxes little more than something like a teenager trying to justify a wrong act. We know that everytime some repubican president has instituted tax breaks for the rich, we have fallen deeper into debt. Yet all the the conservative has to offer us is an argument close to that of a teenager that has been busted at something:
They throw everything on the table hoping that something will hit.
Now let’s be very clear on this:
As far as I’m concerned, the Republican and Conservative position should be obsolete.
I have no fucking sympathy for it.
It is all I can do not to assume that the only reason the republican party still exists is that people are idiots.
?: are you sure you still want to go
Wow…
I wasn’t challenging you to a duel.
Also, I wasn’t planning on writing an explanation on why I believe in free markets until tomorrow since I was busy doing something… but your comments warrant a response… at least a short one for tonight. I understand that you are really passionate on this issue, but you are being overzealous in attacking conservatives. Your hate for republicans and conservatives inhibits your ability to understand their views.
Writing thought provoking posts takes a lot of time and effort. What incentive do I have to write you an argumentative post if you are going to treat me and my views with a complete lack of respect?
Well, you backed down at least. That’s more than I tend to expect from a conservative.
If you want to engage in respectful discourse, I am more than willing to myself.
I just want to make sure we’re clear on what extremes I’m willing to go to to defend my position.
I will not play games.
And my hate for republicans and conservatives doesn’t inhibit my ability to understand the other perspective any more than the republican hate for liberals does.
:-"
You are not a very good spokesperson for your cause… whatever that might be…
Please look back and reread the thread. I’m willing to bet that you actually agree with me on most of my points. Your obsessive need to put me in a box has perverted your perception of what I believe. In your mind you are a hero since you believe you are on the side of “good”, and I am on the side of “evil.” You also try and rationalize that everybody that agrees with you must be smart and how everybody that disagrees with you must be stupid. You use these rationalizations to give yourself an ego boost and a sense of superiority.
So far I have given you indication that I can be described as the following:
Someone who doesn’t believe that introverts tend to be more liberal than extroverts.
Someone who is an atheist.
Someone who is anti-establishment.
Someone who is anti-authoritarian.
Someone who believes that free markets produce a better economy than one in which government picks winners and losers through policy decisions.
Look back and read what you’ve written. Maybe that will give you some “introspection”.
Look Svet:
First of all, you caught me on a bad day.
And I apologize for it.
That said, if you want to engage in a respectful discourse, I’m more than willing.
But the minute I smell a game…
And why not, I’m starting to get hostile flak from the left of me.
I come on here to enjoy myself.
And that, inherently, excludes engaging in a pissing contest.
I’m sorry, Xun, but I believe we live in a hybrid economy and that is the way it should be. Beyond that, it is a question of which aspects of the economy we move to the command side of the spectrum and those that we either keep where they are or move a little closer to the market side.
Now while I empathize with your position on this and cannot totally dismiss your assertion that a communist society is the ultimate goal, I have issues with the degree of organization required to run such a society with our population and the mass production required to supply it. I just think there are some things we will have to leave to chance.
To give you an analogy: if we were to compare Capitalism to a sickness such as alcoholism (which there would be every reason to do), while you would reccomend the AA way of complete abstinence (which you would have every reason for doing), I would recommend Methods of Moderation (which I have every reason for doing).
I just don’t believe it has been Capitalism, Communism, Christianity, or any other Grand Narrative that has caused, ideologically, the problem. It has been the idea of a Grand Narrative in itself. There is nothing new about Capitalism. It is pretty much the issue we have dealt with throughout history:
That no matter what ideology you’re working under, there will always a be a small group of people who think they deserve more than everyone else -even if it comes at that lesser people’s expense. I just don’t see any final solution to that.
That is the thing.
A hybrid economy isn’t a life of moderation. A hybrid economy is drinking malt liquor instead of vodka. It kills you more slowly, but so what?
I’m not saying don’t drink, abstain. I’m saying cheat and drink occasionally, but do it responsibly. That way nobody notices, nobody cares.
Framing things in terms of binary absolutes then seeking a middle ground is still thinking along a binary scale. I’m saying there is another axis here. Look for the other axis. Don’t merely compromise on the axis you see.
I like this thread, I like it when people try to find correlations and entailments between political and psychological concepts, or ethical and psychological concepts. The problem lies in the ambiguity of the words liberal and conservative, introvert and extrovert. Liberal in what sense, in the sense D63 was using it (liberal as in, political dissident, or radical), or in the sesnse others were using it (liberal as in, communist or socialist). Likewise with it’s political counterpart, conservative in what sense, in the cultural conservative sense (i believe in upholding traditional morals and values, the status quo, by force if necessary), or in the economic conservative sense (capitalism). Yes it occasionally helps to clarify the meaning of words before you commence discussion.
I would tend to agree with D63’s original assessment, cultural liberals probably tend toward introversion, however, economic liberals probably tend toward extroversion. Tell you what, I think libertarians, especially the more radical variety, such as comedians Denis Leary and Doug Stanhope, as opposed to libertarians like Ron Paul, tend toward introversion (I don’t government/society interfering with my life, I’m independent, selfrelient and antisocial, I need my personal space, I need my private property), and communitarins, fascists and communists tend toward extroversion. Yes, introversion seems to work well with radicalism and a libertarian, limited government, and egoism, independence, individualism and reductionism, among other isms, but not necessarily with physicalism,materialism and hedonism, as one might anticipate/deduce, introversion seems to work better with mentalism, idealism and asceticism, oh and rationalism, intro seems to correlate with rationalism, as opposed to empiricism. Whoa…
…that’s a lot of fucking isms. Ultimately, it seems the archetypal introvert would be a political, economic and sociological monad isolate, even libertarians aren’t solipsist/paranoid schizophrenic conspiricist enough to do the the archetype justice. The true introvert would be a survivalist bushman, an anarchoindividualist with teeth. Capitalism is more introverted than fascunism, but all those freemarkets and human interactions/exchanges. I must say, I am attracted to the politicaleconomic ideal of the lonewolf.
First of all, eyesinthedark, I wasn’t aware that Dennis Leary was a libertarian. But I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me. Another one I would add to your list is Rob Zombie. I’ve heard much on his political views, but I’m guessing based on his flirtation with Satanism and his biker-like mentality that he is a libertarian. But he escapes the model I present by having an artistic style that is explicitly introverted as compared to Kid Rock who adheres a little more closely to the model by being both extroverted in musical style and a supporter of the Republican party. And of course there is Marylyn Manson who well… has to be totally inward looking yet is explicitly republican which is not altogether surprising given his outright embrace of Satanism -a kind of hard core libertarianism. So there are clearly exceptions to any model.
Which brings up a point that might help me better explain what I mean by the difference between the introvert and extrovert. It seems to me that, throughout our cultural history, there has been a kind of dialectic going on between the 2. For instance, at the turn of the century, this particular dialectic going on between Van Gogh (the more inward looking artist) and Cezanne who used a more geometrical style to capture what was in front of his nose. You can also see it, in abstract form, going on between the more inward works of the abstract expressionists as compared to the more hard edged abstraction of Mondrian who seemed primarily interested in creating something that would simply stand “out there” as an object in the world. In rock, as I pointed out earlier, there was Rob Zombie and Kid Rock. But even more important critical was the dialectic between the Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Granted, there was a lot of bleed over between the two. But the Beatles were clearly more interested in an inward looking style while the Stones were more outgoing in their approach, more about music to party to than music to contemplate. And note Lennon’s radicalism and his almost dominate influence on the direction of the group that was tempered by McCarthy’s more extroverted approach. This dialectic then re-emerged in the 70’s between the more inward looking Pink Floyd and the sometimes inward looking, but primarily orientated to the party style of Led Zeppelin. At this point, there seems to be a lot more bleed over than between the Stones and the Beatles which suggests a kind of synthesis.
I also think it reflects in two impulses that have haunted the arts since the beginning: the more introverted and inward impulse of the Lyrical that focuses on the more psychic and emotional responses, and the more extroverted outward looking impulse of the narrative.
And you are right in pointing out the problem presented by such categories as conservative, liberal, extrovert, introvert, etc… You have to be real careful, when using them, to remember that are only categories: heuristic conveniences that usually refer to our mental concepts and are limited in their ability to actually describe the person associated with them. Living where I do, I work and live with a lot of conservative people (one of which even refers to himself as being right-wing), a lot of which are my friends. And what I’ve found is that you have to put the category aside and look at their individual ideas. What I’ve found is that we tend to have a lot of common concerns. The primary difference lies in what we tend focus on and the conclusions we come to. Unfortunately, that’s a lot easier to do when you know the person as a whole, as being about more than their ideology. That’s not so easy here where all you have to work with is what people say. In this situation, you have to depend too much on your pre-established mental concepts to fill in the gaps. And this, invariably, ends up leading to something less than productive. It’s why I try to avoid discourses with users of opposing views. It always just turns into a pissing contest.
But getting back to the subject, it does kind of confuse the issue. But about all you can do is keep going at it from different angles until you hopefully progress to a more common and more clear understanding of the categories and their relationship. But as I’ve pointed out, we are talking about models and mental concepts, and the always inevitable exception. So how likely we are to actually make this progress is still up for question.
That’s good of you to equate Satanism or, Luciferianism with Libertarianism, Lucifer is the protypical rebel, afterall. His political philosophy, if he has one, is libertarianism or anarchoindividualism. In the garden of eden, Lucifer encouraged man and woman to become their own Gods, to discern the good/fact from evil/fiction theirselves, to awaken and excersise their higher faculties and not be dependent on some external entity for guidance. True knowledge/wisdom can only come from within, not through faith or coercion, as Jehovah would have it.
There are exceptions to every model, but for me, as I’ve gotten older and delved more deeply into philosophy, I have become more idealistic and… introverted, and less materialistic and extroverted. Perhaps, just perhaps, so called reality may be a poor, twisted, fragmented reflection of the model and not the other way 'round. Is it the mind that gives birth to reality (introvert), or is it the reality that gives birth to the mind (extrovert), or is it God’s mind that gives birth to reality? I’m inclined to believe the former, you’re inclined to believe the middle, for the now. So called reality may be formless and void, and through our binary, dualistic thinking, we give birth to hard and soft, rough and smooth, when in reality, there is nothing or, infinite potential. Perhaps a less binary, dualistic creature, filtering everything through his/her (again) mind, begets a more complex/intricate universe, one our puny minds, forever condemned to their mode of thought, cannot possibly fathom. To us, they would seem insane, or as Gods… but I digress.
Ahhh, a little more. For me, my inner world is more real than the external world. Abstractions have become my reality, the solidity I’ve been searching for. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the midst. The details of the world cannot be known a priori, but the categories, the categories, on the other hand…
Hmmm, interesting how you bring up art and music. I’m not as familiar with art, so I cannot comment. In terms of rock and roll, I’m now noticing several introvert/extrovert dichotomies. Rock music is itself an extroverted form of music, and can be contrasted with Classical, Jazz and blues, and can be compared with folk, country and pop. If you don’t follow me, think of it’s origins, rock and roll, Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley. However, rock music has many flavours, some more internally and some more externally driven.
Hmmm, when you brought up the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, I was waiting for you to say, the Stones are more introverted/republican, and the Beatles were more extroverted/liberal. This takes us back to the doublemeaning of these words. The Stones are more introverted in the sense that they’re more antisocial/individualist, where as the Beatles were more prosocial/collectivist. However, the Stones are more extroverted in the sense that their music is… dumber, it appeals to man’s more primary, base nature, where as the Beatles, particularly John Lennon, were more cerebral, more contemplative and reflective. Once again, I think liberals/beatles are extroverted in some ways, and introverted in others, the same goes with conservatives. Communitarians fit in more neatly with extroversion and… liberalism, and libertarians fit in more nealty with introversion and… conservatism. Overall, I’d say liberals are more extroverted and conservatives are more introverted, but they’re mixed.
Getting back to rock genres, I’ve noticed interesting contrasts between Prog Rock, Blues Rock, Alternative Rock, Psychedelic Rock and Heavy Metal on the one hand (introverted Rock), and Folk, Country, Pop, Glam and Punk Rock on the other (Extroverted Rock). Actually, come to think of it, Folk Rock tends to be fairly introverted. Another very interesting one worth mentioning, Grunge (intro) and Britpop (extro). Goth is a very introverted rock genre.
Ah fuck, I double posted.
Yes, your post points to how complex the whole issue is primarily because we’re talking about a lot of points toward the middle of the introvert/extrovert spectrum. For instance, you point to glam rock as being extroverted, and you would be right to the extent that it focused a lot on the excesses of fame. You have to remember that the stones were also often catergorized as glam rock (once again, those pesky little categorizations). But David Bowie, man! Aren’t there aspects of his work that seem decidedly introverted? And clearly, the Stones were about as a-political as a-political can be. Prog Rock was clearly introverted since it was more interested in making art than being famous. However, one could argue that there was a very external agenda involved in the positivity of Yes. Still, you had King Crimson’s 21st Century Schizoid Man and KIng Crimson themselves, many of its members which went on to make a name for themselves in Ambient circles which is about the most extreme form of introverted music I can think of.
I think the problem here, on top the issue of the introvert/extrovert being a spectrum, is the discovery’s of cognitive psychology that point to the the very real possibility that the notion of a coherent self is a myth, that what we are in actuality is kind collective multiplicity of impulses, needs, and ideas that may often be in conflict, yet create an illusion of coherence. (And just to digress, I would argue that this illusion is further aided by our given point in space and time as a given Perceiving Thing. But once again: I digress.) But I would argue that all these different impulses, needs, and ideas would tend to at all different points on the spectrum, and that the issue of being an introvert or extrovert relies on the general lean of these different aspects.
Now this would seem to discredit my original point. But I don’t think it does. As you pointed out, yourself, it certainly seems to explain a lot about the authoritarian personality. And that is all it needs to do: give an explanation to certain aspects of the human condition. It was never meant to explain the human condition as a whole. It was never meant to enable us to say: okay, that person is a Republican, therefore they must be an extrovert. All it was meant to do was give explanation to the impulses at work in their being a Republican, for instance, their propensity toward common assumptions.
I think the problem is the language and the external world, not the conepts themselves, the concepts are pure perfect. We’ll arrive at immutable truth, patience patience, give it time. Also… it is our conception, our conception of the concepts theirselves that needs improvement. Among other things, I’m a dualist and a Platonist, where as in essence, fundamentally, you’re a mechanist, you think mind must bend to matter, universals to particulars, metaphysics to physics, which is a very extroverted way of thinking, neh? Well, it helps to delve into metaphysics and epistemology in order to clarify our methods of classification, philosophy is all about classification,and anybody who isn’t at least somewhat intrigued by the general,probably shouldn’t be here