User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 36 of 36

  1. #31
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urarienev View Post
    @Eric B hmm, I often think about a similar subject...not sure if it relates but I'm trying to understand what you mean exactly. So when thoughts come to me like "I am not accepted by these people" or something...like at work or even a group of friends...my next thought is crap I need new people in my life that are kool or what not...then I start to say how can it be all the "other" people...if im the only one not fitting in...then I start to blame it on myself instead of the group...and then i practice LOA and other things...I have found that people i hate leave the country...two people have done that...I personally believe everything happens for a reason...so I believe it's working for me...if it doesn't work though I come to the conclusion that I just have not met the right people...and that's what it sounds like the problem may be if you dont want to bend to fit, then you need to find people that are willing to accept you and that you're willing to accept...which would mean they would have to be mature...it's hard to find actually. I also try to think to myself that my friends either have an unconditional love towards me or they don't...I can usually "feel" this out. And I know my boundaries then. I also reciprocate this to them(unconditional love). In any relationship though, it's good to know where the boundaries are...like someone can do something really shitty to me and I will immediately forgive and be happy if they say...but I did this or am doing this to make up for it...that to me allows my expectations to fall but then come back up, realizing that they are just human, and they're only doing the best they can at that given time...and I usually appreciate their intentions and find that they do actually have a heart...In reality I have not once met someone that has said "Let me do this to make up for what I did, I'm sorry" usually just get a sorry...so good luck with that lol... Am I, at all, touching on what you're saying? lol
    OK, though I Wasn't just talking about social situations, regarding "bending to fit", but rather career/profession as well (like moving up in an organization, or competing for talent). But then, I guess the same thing would hold; maybe it's not the right career or profession.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  2. #32
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Just going through Kiloby's site, and found this excellent description he gave of the Shadow: http://kiloby.com/writings.php?writingid=263

    I can see his ultimate view is a “non-dual” one, meaning there's no real division between “self” and “others”, which I guess leads to that “all is One” view of Eastern philosophy. (So that answers my question of what "separation" is about. It's the sense that we are separate from each other and objects in our awareness). Funny, but he actually criticizes it for not having a concept of the shadow. I never realized that.
    Also funny, we've recently had a bunch of topics on life/death here and on PerC, and this makes the non-dual view sound very likely.

    Having to deal with the fallout from being at such a crossroads, I like how it discusses the whole thing about uncertainty in “awareness”, and how it makes all of us, no matter which side we take on any set of opposites, fight strongly against what is unchosen.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  3. #33
    Unapologetic being Evolving Transparency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Just going through Kiloby's site, and found this excellent description he gave of the Shadow: http://kiloby.com/writings.php?writingid=263

    I can see his ultimate view is a “non-dual” one, meaning there's no real division between “self” and “others”, which I guess leads to that “all is One” view of Eastern philosophy. (So that answers my question of what "separation" is about. It's the sense that we are separate from each other and objects in our awareness). Funny, but he actually criticizes it for not having a concept of the shadow. I never realized that.
    Also funny, we've recently had a bunch of topics on life/death here and on PerC, and this makes the non-dual view sound very likely.

    Having to deal with the fallout from being at such a crossroads, I like how it discusses the whole thing about uncertainty in “awareness”, and how it makes all of us, no matter which side we take on any set of opposites, fight strongly against what is unchosen.
    WOW ...this IS a really good description. Thank you!!! so much to reflect on
    "Once the game is over, the Pawn and the King go back into the same box"

    Freedom isn't free.
    "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ Orwell
    I'm that person that embodies pretty much everything that you hate. Might as well get used to it.
    Unapologetically bonding in an uninhibited, propelled manner
    10w12

  4. #34
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Just finished this book: http://www.amazon.com/Living-Your-Un...ref=pd_sim_b_4
    and it shed more light on a non-dual interpretation of life.

    In later chapters, it points out that our consciousness divides all of reality into split dichotomies.
    This explain type theory, and why it's all about opposites, with one preferred in consciousness, and an opposite suppressed into the unconscious!


    As one person I was discussing the apparently "universal" symmetries of nature (including type theory) with told me: "I can absolutely appreciate your pleasure in the logic, symmetry, and predictability of Beebe's system, but the fact remains that Nature isn't logical. It's cyclical, yes, but the Ego isn't, and our frameworks are creations of the Ego. This positively ensures that every model casts its own Shadow, which includes elements it can't acknowledge or classify without undermining its founding premise."

    I could sense that this was probably right, but couldn't figure why. But this book showed that it's the ego that divides reality into opposites.

    So to explain it as I have come to understand; example: light and dark. In reality, that is nonexistent, and there is no difference between areas we call light and dark; you only have rays of photon energy at different wavelengths in different areas, and the dichotomy is created by receptors in our physical makeup picking up some of these wavelengths as sensory stimulation our consciousness interprets as “light”.

    The first set of opposites is “I / not I”; and everything gets placed into these categories. Since we are in bodies located in a particular place and time, then this extends to “here / not here” and “now / not now”.

    It's the state of being imbedded in something that creates dichotomous splits. A dimension we are looking in becomes split into “ahead” and “behind”. Yet a perpendicular line we are looking at from a distance is not divided like that, but can be seen as a whole.
    However, since it represents a dimension that we are nevertheless still embedded in, a line parallel to it can be drawn through us, and the dimension is nevertheless still divided; either into left/right, or above/below. Time of course is divided into past/future.

    God and evil is also another split we are familiar with, and according to the biblical narrative, we were not originally equipped to handle this. When we took it on, then we "fell" into our current state, which is really more about our perception of things, then the universe and nature being truly "evil". (It was described as "very good", but then our perspective changed, and the first thing was the shame, regarding our own existence. The entire Biblical story of redemption is about the undoing of this through the sacrifice of Christ; though the Church would ironically continue to promote, and in fact greatly emphasize knowledge of good and evil, in thinking the Gospel is essentially that we need to be made "good" by being saved from an evil universe.

    Animals would also consist of brain-based portions of awareness, but their brains don't have the capacity to host a full ego, (Animals are said to have souls, but not spirits), so they go on preprogrammed instincts.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #35
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    So we are naturally set up as the center of our perspective, so that the entire universe is divided by our location in it. (Space, time, chance {actualized potential reality} or identity).

    This makes me think more of what our egos really are. It seems all of our consciousness is tied to the brain, so you wonder what else is left to represent the "soul" or "spirit". Why should just a bunch of chemicals and nerves create a sentient, individual entity? Perhaps it's what the non-dualists call "awareness".

    So in our makeup, it seems “awareness” is what provides the consciousness, and the brain (with its storage of personal experience) provides the individual or differentiated entity. It's like having one body of water, and pouring it into many different shaped containers.

    (In my view, this “one” entity could not be God, because then we'd all be incarnations of God, and in Christian theology, only Christ is God Incarnate. So it's another entity created by God; let's say, “Adam”, who was then breathed into the body, and first divided when the female was split off, and then they began dividing it into all of humanity. This idea would actually make more sense of the Calvinistic hamartological concept of “federal headship” in more than just a physical sense; where we were all “in Adam”).

    Question that remains is, what makes the brain a receptor of this awareness?
    I'm thinking it might be some sort of "resonation of vibrational energy" setup, the way radio transmission works. Life is "energy", of course, and energy is usually manifested in some sort of motion, (if nothing more than just the atoms and molecules). I know I have seen "vibrational energy" as something associated with occult religion, or at least the Egyptologists I once saw selling literature (Metu Neter) in the subway years ago. Googling "life as vibrational energy" brought up a whole bunch of LOA sites, and I still don't buy that vibrating the right way will change mail that is already on its way to your house. (That would truly be magic/witchcraft). I can see where vibration would subtly influence other people, though (hence, what we call "vibes"; this site explains it: http://www.stevenaitchison.co.uk/blo...ational-energy). I don;t think that can be taken to too far an extend either. So a person might be more likely to send you a check, though it won't stop a bill from coming.

    Anyway, something in the neurons must vibrate at a certain frequency, and it resonates with some sort of awareness energy that fills the universe and affects at least the strings spacetime consists of, and creates a bounded "portion" of awareness tied (in a particular location and time) to the body the brain is apart of, and when it begins filling up with experience, we generate a new "person".

    Sounds so spaced out compared to anything I've ever though of before, but it seems to be what would make the most sense according to the way the rest of the universe works, and provide a workable idea of what the ego really is.

    (Computers): "firmware" "hardware" "software"
    Humans: soul body spirit
    Individual: ego brain psyche
    goal: survival nourishment individuation
    Awareness: individual sensory one whole
    Primal state: [safe] "naked" "unashamed"
    Emotions: courage/fear
    hope/despair
    peace/anger
    desire/aversion
    joy/sadness
    love/hate
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  6. #36
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Qualia

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Just finished this book: http://www.amazon.com/Living-Your-Un...ref=pd_sim_b_4
    and it shed more light on a non-dual interpretation of life.

    In later chapters, it points out that our consciousness divides all of reality into split dichotomies.
    This explain type theory, and why it's all about opposites, with one preferred in consciousness, and an opposite suppressed into the unconscious!

    As one person I was discussing the apparently "universal" symmetries of nature (including type theory) with told me: "I can absolutely appreciate your pleasure in the logic, symmetry, and predictability of Beebe's system, but the fact remains that Nature isn't logical. It's cyclical, yes, but the Ego isn't, and our frameworks are creations of the Ego. This positively ensures that every model casts its own Shadow, which includes elements it can't acknowledge or classify without undermining its founding premise."

    I could sense that this was probably right, but couldn't figure why. But this book showed that it's the ego that divides reality into opposites.

    So to explain it as I have come to understand; example: light and dark. In reality, that is nonexistent, and there is no difference between areas we call light and dark; you only have rays of photon energy at different wavelengths in different areas, and the dichotomy is created by receptors in our physical makeup picking up some of these wavelengths as sensory stimulation our consciousness interprets as “light”.

    The first set of opposites is “I / not I”; and everything gets placed into these categories. Since we are in bodies located in a particular place and time, then this extends to “here / not here” and “now / not now”.

    It's the state of being imbedded in something that creates dichotomous splits. A dimension we are looking in becomes split into “ahead” and “behind”. Yet a perpendicular line we are looking at from a distance is not divided like that, but can be seen as a whole.
    However, since it represents a dimension that we are nevertheless still embedded in, a line parallel to it can be drawn through us, and the dimension is nevertheless still divided; either into left/right, or above/below. Time of course is divided into past/future.

    God and evil is also another split we are familiar with, and according to the biblical narrative, we were not originally equipped to handle this. When we took it on, then we "fell" into our current state, which is really more about our perception of things, then the universe and nature being truly "evil". (It was described as "very good", but then our perspective changed, and the first thing was the shame, regarding our own existence. The entire Biblical story of redemption is about the undoing of this through the sacrifice of Christ; though the Church would ironically continue to promote, and in fact greatly emphasize knowledge of good and evil, in thinking the Gospel is essentially that we need to be made "good" by being saved from an evil universe.

    Animals would also consist of brain-based portions of awareness, but their brains don't have the capacity to host a full ego, (Animals are said to have souls, but not spirits), so they go on preprogrammed instincts.
    Sure, we perceive by making distinctions. And the more distinctions, the more we see.

    Sure, we don't see the wavelengths of light, we see light and dark and colour - we see qualia.

    And qualia are -

    1. ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.

    2. intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.

    3. private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.

    4. directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

    And if we make no distinctions, we see nothing, not a quale.

Similar Threads

  1. Fear as a driving force and mind made sense of Self
    By phobik in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-31-2009, 07:27 AM
  2. [NT] Differences in ENTP and ENTJ sense of humor
    By sakuraba in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 08:51 PM
  3. N-S/J-P dichotomies and sense of humor.
    By mtaclof in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-06-2009, 11:12 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