User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 19 of 19

  1. #11
    Senior Member niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENfP
    Enneagram
    8w9 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    I remember being taught that concept in a sermon in the temple I go to once. It's like looking at words in a language you know. You can't help but hear the word in your head and know the meaning when you look at it. It doesn't just appear to be an image. I wonder how animals see English words and letters. Even though this is such a small aspect of the mind, the difference between seeing something as what it truly is - part of a whole, and seeing it as what you know it is, is almost incomprehendably different. Nothing has a form, or expectations, and the world just seems so free, and complex, and beautiful. Babies must feel this way when they are first born...what they see they know is reality, and that is all they know about it. Freedom like this makes room for creating.
    sparkly sparkly rainbow excretions

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatGirl View Post
    holy shit am I a feeler?
    if you like my avatar, it's because i took it myself! : D

  2. #12
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    ...
    I'm not entirely sure what viewpoint you're opposing. I do not believe in an objective "spiritual" world, and such belief is not nessicary to especially non-theistic Buddhism.

    In fact, my identification as a non-theistic Buddhist came from my interest in cognative science. There's really pretty damn good evidence that, for example, the majority of decisions are not made on a concious level. This pretty well argues to me, at least, for the Buddhist concept of an illusory ego.

    So all I'm doing is learning how to control my own brain states? Well, seeing as I am my brain, I don't see anything wrong with that. So spiritual experience of the world is built into my brain? Well, that seems to argue against totally atrophying that bit of my awareness. Indeed, "spiritual" thinking may, for all I know, be a nice back door into some of my less concious processes.

    I approach meditation from the same stance I approach many other things: It's better to know than not to, and it's better to have skill where possible rather than abstain from skill.

    In short, I don't get what part of your post you imagine anyone here would disagree with.
    Let's do this thing.

  3. #13
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    I'm not entirely sure what viewpoint you're opposing. I do not believe in an objective "spiritual" world, and such belief is not nessicary to especially non-theistic Buddhism.

    In fact, my identification as a non-theistic Buddhist came from my interest in cognative science. There's really pretty damn good evidence that, for example, the majority of decisions are not made on a concious level. This pretty well argues to me, at least, for the Buddhist concept of an illusory ego.

    So all I'm doing is learning how to control my own brain states? Well, seeing as I am my brain, I don't see anything wrong with that. So spiritual experience of the world is built into my brain? Well, that seems to argue against totally atrophying that bit of my awareness. Indeed, "spiritual" thinking may, for all I know, be a nice back door into some of my less concious processes.

    I approach meditation from the same stance I approach many other things: It's better to know than not to, and it's better to have skill where possible rather than abstain from skill.

    In short, I don't get what part of your post you imagine anyone here would disagree with.
    I didn't oppose any viewpoint. I just expressed my own views on the subject like anyone else.

    If you were put off by my announcing that I'm a skeptic, that was just a casual label to let people know where I'm coming from. At some message boards with a heavy emphasis on debate about religion and mysticism, it's traditional for someone in my position to label himself as "an atheist and skeptic"; IOW, I'm an atheist when it to traditional religious beliefs and I'm a skeptic when it comes to New Agey-type stuff or Eastern mysticism.

    But it's not a judgment on anyone else or an announcement of opposition. If people are discussing traditional religion on a message board, then I would intro my first post with "I'm an atheist..." It wouldn't matter whether the participants were all fellow atheists like me or all believers, and it wouldn't be a commentary on them or what went before. It's just a casual courtesy.

    Similarly, if the discussion is about Buddhism, I intro my first post with "I'm a skeptic..." Again it doesn't express opposition to anyone or anything in the thread. It's a courtesy label. I just did it out of habit.

    If the intro caught you off-guard or if it seemed to be a comment on what went before, then I apologize. It's a normal-enough intro on some message boards, but maybe not here. I've usually been staying out of the forums dealing with religion and politics while at INTPc and MBTIc because I don't want to do those debates any more. But as a result I don't know the conventions here for posting in those forums.

    FL

  4. #14
    Member FranG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Wow this thread is interesting. Some interesting responses from certain people I didn't expect to hear.

    I'll just add to the OP that Ti is in fact very compatible with "Mindfulness." Mindfulness is that objective intuition that is often spoke about. This is an abstract concept. T is a concrete judging function. The two must work together, however the T should be the servant of objective intuition. As Meshou eluded too, one has to learn to listen to that inner voice and trust it. Then use Ti (or Te) to manifest that higher wisdom in this physical plane (i.e., the concrete world as we know it; the Matrix).

    Just to add, the abstract functions are N and F, while the concrete functions are S and T. That's why NFs are so lofty (or at least come off as such).

    Also interesting to hear that so many of ya'll meditate as I find that pretty hard to do. I'm still yet to effectively meditate but I haven't practiced all that much either.


    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    Just want to throw in my skeptic's opinion here.

    I took a transcendental meditation class in the 70s and played around with meditation for a while. When all was said and done, I considered it a mild form of self-hypnosis good for stress reduction and getting to sleep.

    More recently, scientists have used PET scans to locate the meditation/prayer experience in the parietal lobe of the brain, which governs the individual's perception of spatial orientation. Monks and Buddhists basically shut down their parietal lobe and get a feeling of being free-floating.
    This is a very interesting comment. I think ultimately science can explain everything quantitatively but not qualititatively. This is probably very well true; I definitely see metitation as a form of self hypnosis. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing though, kinda just is.

    But all the sagas write about obtaining "higher knowledge" and "better understanding" with meditation. They say they tap into another realm. I believe this to be true, of course I can't prove it. Maybe it isn't to be proved. I also find it interesting that a lot of classical writers say such things in describing their masterful works. Also, when I write poetry or quotes, I never know what is gonna come out. It feels like the hand has a mind of it's own often. Interestingly, sports athletes say the same thing when they have phenomenal performances in games. They say they just get in a zone and just go.
    I live the life daily; I die the death nightly

  5. #15
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    I didn't oppose any viewpoint. I just expressed my own views on the subject like anyone else.
    I should also clarify that I was responding to the OP. I was commenting on the nature of the moment of "unfocused awareness" before analysis begins, how to prolong it, how Fi deals with it, etc.

    My fault; I really should be more consistent about prefacing my messages with a quote from a previous post. My messages often take an overview, and it may be difficult for readers to figure out the context from which I'm speaking.

    FL

  6. #16
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FranG View Post
    This is a very interesting comment. I think ultimately science can explain everything quantitatively but not qualititatively. This is probably very well true; I definitely see metitation as a form of self hypnosis. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing though, kinda just is.

    But all the sagas write about obtaining "higher knowledge" and "better understanding" with meditation. They say they tap into another realm. I believe this to be true, of course I can't prove it. Maybe it isn't to be proved. I also find it interesting that a lot of classical writers say such things in describing their masterful works. Also, when I write poetry or quotes, I never know what is gonna come out. It feels like the hand has a mind of it's own often. Interestingly, sports athletes say the same thing when they have phenomenal performances in games. They say they just get in a zone and just go.
    You've mentioned a lot of different things.

    "Higher knowledge" from meditation: Maybe. Or it may just be a different viewpoint. The contemplative life will yield different conclusions from the active life.

    The creative process: When inspiration comes from unseen sources, I tend to figure the unconscious is providing some input. There are lots of ways to breach the barrier between the conscious and the unconscious and to tap the unconscious for inspiration.

    Athletes in the zone: That seems to be state of increased focus. It's almost the opposite of meditative floating awareness. Just to use an analogy, "in the zone" is like an enhanced Sensor state, whereas meditative floating awareness is like an enhanced iNtuitive state. In both cases it's like one shuts out unneeded inputs or brain functions in order to enhance a preferred function.

    In general: The brain has a lot of separate functions occurring at any given moment. One can shut down or enhance individual functions (or combinations of functions) lots of different ways: drugs, hypnosis, meditation, altering the mixes of sensory inputs, etc. It's fun to play around with that stuff, though I'm not sure how really meaningful it all is in the end.

    Just my personal opinion, though. I'm not an expert on this stuff.

    FL

  7. #17
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Read this today on a Buddhism/meditation site:



    The essence of the internalized judging functions (and other judging functions as well, to be honest) is to take the "thing" and objectify it and then to deconstruct, label, and organize it in some way. Ti does this immediately with anything it runs into.

    I find this interesting, since so many INTPs have mentioned a focus on Buddhism as their preferred religious belief (as opposed to one based on some sort of creed).

    How do you integrate being a Ti (or Fi, for you INFP types) person, if the goal of the philosophy is to focus on your perceiving functions and not really engage your internal judging function, since the latter is unpreferable and avoids perceiving the "thing" as it really is?
    Fortunato,

    Fantastic thread. It's a really weird issue. I think it all depends on preference. Ti can be used to organize reality (sensory or intuitive data) both during mindfulness and not. However, the issue is whether there's a PURPOSE for the Ti. Are you using your Ti to "get somewhere" (solve a problem, make "progress") or just to observe. The former is at odds with mindfulness because it involves distortions and judgments, while the latter seems more compatible.

  8. #18
    Senior Member bluebell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,478

    Default

    Is Se Buddhist mindfulness? Or am I confused about a) Se or b) mindfulness or c) confused about both?

    Se seems to me to be just taking in the world through the senses, not thinking, not analysing - just being.
    ...so much smoke pouring out of each chromosome.

  9. #19
    Senior Member wyrdsister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Ape
    Posts
    106

    Default

    To still the mind, to quiet the endless thoughts, is a wonderful tool and can aid many long blissful nights sleep.

    I have spent many years learning this.
    Wyrd is a concept in Anglo-Saxon and Nordic culture roughly corresponding to fate. It is ancestral to Modern English weird, which has acquired a very different meaning.

Similar Threads

  1. Is MBTT type compatible with Keirsey type?
    By Ezra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-14-2012, 08:20 AM
  2. Are some political ideologies more compatible with pessimism than optimism?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-24-2011, 09:47 PM
  3. PUTTING ALL THOSE RELATIONSHIP THINGYS TOGETHER; WHICH TYPE IS COMPATIBLE WITH WHO?
    By Ming in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-18-2010, 11:55 AM
  4. [Inst] compatibility with instinctual subtypes
    By the state i am in in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-20-2010, 10:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO