Instincts vs Knowledge

[Tessertime]

Here is something to ponder on, all you philosophical nut-cases (that is a compliment):

In our age where we as humanity attempt to transcend the primal mind, and reach a heightened goal of universal understanding, one has to ponder where relationships fit in to the formula.
Relationships are, by and large, a tangible result of genetic coding with the need to breed and continue the survival of the species; Estrogen as a chemical provides one form of evidence towards that conclusion. However, in the macro scheme of it all, are relationships worth the investment of not only time, finances, and energy, but in our advancement? And at what cost?

If you consider past figures like Nikola Tesla; a genius way ahead of his time; great advances were made, and would have continued to have been made, due to the nature of refusing to engage in relationships (and if people actually allowed him to reach his potential.)
Figureheads like Tesla refused to engage in the chemical bliss that distracts the mind. In fact, he was a virgin through the entirety of his life.

Lust...love...romance...desires of the flesh...all of it is born of the instincts. Are we no better than animals if we engage in such? Would it not be the ultimate failing to engage the primitive mind in its desires? Is not the ultimate goal to reach the pinnacle of thought, knowledge, and understanding?
"But what is all that in comparison to human nature", you may ask. Well, every animal has instincts, and follows them (what else can they do?) But knowledge is something only we as a species can grasp. Furthermore, knowledge is the future of a civilization, and the ability to interact with the universe around us.
Knowledge could one day allow us to manipulate matter and the universe around us at will. Imagine (although it may seem ridiculous, but that word has been used inaccurately in the past) the ability to construct our own stable universe.
What does instinct bring to the table?
That is not to say that instinct isn't invaluable, but in the grand scheme of it all, it doesn't even compare.

To the subjective:

Relationships require conforming to society's standards and rules in that matter, which I think is BS. If you want to play in the sandbox, you are confined to the rules of the sandbox. You need to be adept at knowing what to say, how to say it, what to do, what not to do, and furthermore you need to be engaged in your emotions. That means you need to develop social and emotional intelligence, all of which take a lot out of you (especially introverts). An opportunity cost is therefore presented: The social/emotional game of love and relationships OR Time spent on research/studying/understanding.
As you objectively weigh those two, you have to wonder exactly which is of more value. Relationships can fail; miserably, and to your detriment (emotional wreck/financial difficulties/time and money lost.) Books, knowledge, and understanding, don't do any of that.
To that degree, I can't help but try to understand why people put so much effort into a relationship.

In my subjective perspective, knowledge is power, and is everything. Every event could be mastered, or averted, if you have the correct knowledge at that time. Knowledge is the capstone of civilization and the universe.

Care to discuss your points of view? /Debate

 

[Tessertime]

Let me summarize your post and rephrase your question: "are you an S or an N type?"

Lol. That is really attempting to side-step the actual underlying concepts. That had occurred to me in creation of this post, but it is more than that.
It transcends MBTI, because in the grand-scheme, MBTI is a concept that falls under the Knowledge portion of that set of scales; not a figurehead of either of the two sides.
P.S. Even N's, Intellectuals, etc, fall into relationships.

 

[Tessertime]

Is it just my sleepiness speaking, or is this one of those times when someone says "everyone is everything?" No offense intended.

It's about priorities, therefore N an S.

But yet is everything, everyone? If you turn things around like that, you get interesting results. For example: "Bearded dragon = dragon bearded." How about "Roller-coaster = Coaster-rolled." Or maybe "Toilet paper = paper toilet."
Watch for that paper toilet btw.

Would you care to further expand on your observation?

 

[Tessertime]

What I meant was that what I quoted was equivalent to "everyone is crazy" or "nobody is normal."

The main point was the second line though.

To the first line: I dispute it thus! (kicks rock)
Not everyone is crazy and not everyone is abnormal. I am the exception to it (at least until I learned that I am not alone). People are individuals after all, with their own motivations and interests. But just like you can't defy the laws of physics as we know them, the points I made should be considered.

To the second line: Can an S not make priorities similar or in exact nature, to that of an N? Is that not bowing down to stereotypes? After all, N's have stereos as well; S's aren't the only ones. Stereos may give off sound of a pleasing nature (depending on your perspective, and the sounds played) that S's like, but N's can enjoy it too.
If I went off the beaten track there, stereotypes can be based on empirical evidence. But it isn't necessarily evidence of a high calibre, or even of an appropriate pool of subjects (bias and inappropriate "experimentation" can take root.)

 

[Tessertime]

Wouldn't that make an S an N and vice-versa?

So if I pick up a book on theoretical physics, take a seat in a coffee shop next to a stereo/speaker, ponder on a complex issue, then mentally wander off into my own world for 20 minutes before a good song comes on and I decide to tune in to it for the next couple minutes, does tuning in to the music make me an S?
Define the parameters of an S over an N. What makes an N, and N, and what makes an S, an S. How is an ISTJ with a strong Ni much different from an INTJ with a strong Ni? Likewise, how is an INFP with a strong Si different from an ISTJ with a strong Si? Is the INTJ 60% better than the ISTJ at Ni? If you want to get into percentage, maybe an ISTJ is 73.45303% better than an INFP at Si?
To what value can you judge it, and how can you measure it? If I am an INTP, I can slip into Si. If you believe in the Dominant-Tertiary loop, than I can slip into Ti-Si. Would I not be an S? What if an ISTP slips into Ti-Ni? Would they not be an N?

Would it make an S an N and vice versa?
Perhaps.

 

[sprinkles]

Transcendence doesn't get rid of instincts - it integrates them.

 

[Tessertime]

Transcendence doesn't get rid of instincts - it integrates them.

Interesting observation. How would integration occur?

 

[sprinkles]

Interesting observation. How would integration occur?

My take is that you'd become fully aware of them and understand them with perfect transparency and there would cease to be a split. They'd vanish because they really wouldn't be instincts anymore.

 

[Tessertime]

My take is that you'd become fully aware of them and understand them with perfect transparency and there would cease to be a split. They'd vanish because they really wouldn't be instincts anymore.

That is something to ponder. I wonder though, if that would actually occur. If it did, would that be something akin to an ultimate goal of neuroplasticity: Overcoming one's humanity and ascending to a higher being? You could reasonably argue that if you understand that a wall is green, it is still green. It doesn't cease to be green. But human instincts are not only something you can control, to a degree, but on a molecular level, possibly something you can change.

 

[Ginkgo]

Transcendence doesn't get rid of instincts - it integrates them.

 

[ptgatsby]

Relationships are, by and large, a tangible result of genetic coding with the need to breed and continue the survival of the species;

I would question this line. Relationships are not about breeding. They are, however, about community. The traits that exist inside the relationship sphere have to do with cooperation as an evolved trait to support a group. Even if you define relationships only within a human sexuality sphere, it is worth noting that the humans cannot be readily separated from sexual selection; intelligence, social status and motivation all have roots in it.

For example, paper publishing is largely motivated by social posturing, despite it being a fairly "intellectual" approach. Or put differently, the framework we work in does not define humanity, it only channels human urges.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Without instinct Tesla would never have been born. Without his denial of instinct he would've never caused such advancement. It is never "either".

 

[RaptorWizard]

Without instinct Tesla would never have been born. Without his denial of instinct he would've never caused such advancement. It is never "either".

Great example Momental! The evidence in favor of this follows:

Our first endeavors are purely instinctive prompting of an imagination vivid and undisciplined. As we grow older reason asserts itself and we become more and more systematic and designing. But those early impulses, though not immediately productive, are of the greatest moment and may shape our very destinies.

But instinct is something which transcends knowledge. We have, undoubtedly, certain finer fibers that enable us to perceive truths when logical deduction, or any other willful effort of the brain, is futile.

 

[sprinkles]

That is something to ponder. I wonder though, if that would actually occur. If it did, would that be something akin to an ultimate goal of neuroplasticity: Overcoming one's humanity and ascending to a higher being? You could reasonably argue that if you understand that a wall is green, it is still green. It doesn't cease to be green. But human instincts are not only something you can control, to a degree, but on a molecular level, possibly something you can change.

In the case of a wall, it doesn't 'cease' to be green, but rather green stops being a 'thing' since what your eyes see is a representation of the light spectrum. Your eyes might still see the green but you recognize that nothing is truly absolutely green to all eyes.