User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 87

  1. #71
    Content. Content? DigitalMethod's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Okay. But Ni feeds Ti an internal and depth based set of premises unlike the breadth based premises of Ne.
    Sounds like my experience as an INTJ, except with Ni and Fi.
    "The life of the individual has meaning only insofar as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful."
    - Albert Einstein

  2. #72
    Senior Member paisley1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    369

    Default

    I give you this argument Solitarywalker, in case the logic isn't inferred from my 3 previous posts.

    If you're arguing using emmanation theory, you're only arguing from a worldview that has as much and as little evidence as creationism. There is no evidence for an emmanating universe, as described in the work I submitted, in fact creationist theory is a much more modest claim. You are using presuppositions that can not be proven, therefore making and asserting fact claims on what the infinite realm can or can not do, is suspect if not completely fallacious.

    1)Theistic creationism is trivially false because the concept is self-contradictory. God is portrayed as both infinite and finite. He is the creator of all things, yet he interacts with the finite world. Only finite things can interact with the finite world by definition.
    How do you know so perfectly the infinite realm, to know how it can interact with the finite realm. Far from refuting my claim, your argument goes to prove my argument. The infinite, is telling us, that it came to live among us. Does nothing to disprove my argument but in fact strengthen it.

    2)Theistic creationism maintains that God made the world out of nothing. (It says in the Bible that he said, let there be light and out of nowhere light abounded.) This contradicts the principle concerning nothing coming from nothing.
    God created out of not anything, that is, of his own ability to do so. Not that he created something from nothing which is false, but that he created out of not anything, Ex Nihilo.

    3)Theistic creationism maintains that God is outside of space. This is tantamount to saying that God does not exist.
    In fact quite the opposite, it is saying God created our version of reality so we would know what space is, that we could have life and being and interact with it. As described in the essay, God put everything here to reveal himself to us, "God's handiwork in nature is not a matter of His being intellectually trapped, but of His revelation of Himself to His creation, a self-disclosure which is aesthetically beautiful;" As your claim doesn't follow the argument, it becomes irrelevant.

    4)Biblical texts and all texts that endorse Theistic creationism do not maintain a consistent message. It is not clear if it is asserted that God is finite or infinite. For example, in the book of Genesis it is clear that he is finite. He is portrayed as a finite being because he is not the only being that exists. (If he was an infinite being, he would be the only thing that exists). We know that he is finite because there is also the garden, Adam and Eve. Other accounts do not clearly portray him as a finite being and do not prohibit the interpretation of the text where God is an infinite entity.
    This is all irrelevant. Again, because your presupposition of the universe is that it is emmanating, you would of course infer that this is false, but the emmanating universe, is not proved to be true or fact either. There's nothing holding me to the idea of an uncaused first cause having any trouble interacting with that which it created. You're using a false claim to prove another claim is false.

    Why must it be the case that the world is in us and why it must not be the case that we are in the world? Because this world is finite and only finite terms of description could be applied to such a world. Nothing comes from nothing, therefore this finite world could not have been self-created. It means that it was created by something. As aforementioned, only finite things could be applied to the finite world. This means that this world could be created only by a finite entity. This is logically impossible as we incur the infinite regress problem. We would proceed ad infinitum seeking the first finite entity without finding it.
    First, self defeating, then, irrelevant. You are using metaphysical ideas to explain yourself, and then defeating yourself by claiming you don't have the means to understand those metaphysical ideas. Why and on what authority can you claim that "only finite terms of description" could be applied to such a world?

    We perceive the world that we know only in finite terms. Therefore we perceive our universe as having a beginning. This beginning is merely a distorted perception of the infinite realm which has no beginning or an end. Hence, this way we perceive our known finite world as beginning from nowhere. The Big Bang theory depicts exactly that phenomenon.
    There is no evidence to support an emmanating universe to make this more convincing than the concept of an uncaused first cause. Occam's razer states that the simplest answer is usually the best answer, and in this case, an uncaused first cause is far simpler, than the complexity of an emmanating universe, and the level of scrutiny an emmanating universe brings with it, as stated in the essay. "John Leslie, the philosopher of science who has occupied himself most thoroughly with the Anthropic Principle, points out, any such evidence for a World Ensemble is equally evidence for a divine Designer.[22] Moreover, each of the above scenarios faces formidable scientific and philosophical objections.[23] Wheeler's theory, for example, not only succumbs to the problems generic to oscillating models,[24] but insofar as it posits singularities at the termini of each cycle, it is not even a model of an oscillating universe at all, but of just a series of unrelated worlds. Inflationary models not only face the problems of how to get the inflation started, how to get it to end without excess turbulence, and how to get it to allow galaxy formation, but more importantly they themselves require an extraordinary amount of fine-tuning prior to inflation, so that the appearance of design is not eluded."

    (From a good hearted spirit of intellectual debate, there's no need for flaming. Critique the logic or the opinion, not the person. I'm surprised you haven't been moderated SW.)
    "Truth stands true, independent of whether you agree with it or not."

    "Don't let what matters least, matter most."

    Extroverted (E) 50% Introverted (I) 50%
    Intuitive (N) 62.5% Sensing (S) 37.5%
    Feeling (F) 51.61% Thinking (T) 48.39%
    Judging (J) 51.52% Perceiving (P) 48.48%
    8w9 EIE

  3. #73
    Senior Member something boring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    nnja
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    To get there, though, is the hard part...

    Luckily my dad is INTP and discussed many ideas with me throughout my childhood

    But yeah, the divorce from reality is still quite a problem. NTPs are better at ideas that pertain to current discussions, and better at articulation (generally).
    I'm gonna have to agree with you here, as sadly, a great deal of my time is currently spent somewhere out in left field. I am walking toward the game, though.
    "Don�t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." - Howard Thurman


    [SIGPIC]http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l110/evillinclinations/fortune45.gif[/SIGPIC]

    ...and yes, I'm still on about that...






  4. #74
    Senior Member Winds of Thor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    :
    You think there's a great difference between spirituality and religion, is that right? Religion as a kind of distortion of spirituality? It is a distinction I have made myself, even if I haven't been so careful with it lately.

    Correct.

    Personal experience can be analyzed logically. In most cases they experience powerful sentiments that they mistake for real life occurences. As I said earlier, it would have been better to just leave things be that they cant explain clearly.
    Religion is a biased view...The religious voice seeks judgement, if you willl.
    Spirituality is the essence of function, I'll say an amplification of that innate 'substance' of our beings.

    Correct.[/QUOTE]
    "..And the eight and final rule: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight."
    'Men are meant to be with women. The rest is perversion and mental illness.'

  5. #75
    Senior Member mwv6r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    INFj
    Posts
    208

    Default

    This poster is really dogging INFJs. While some of his points are valid (INFJs can be divorced from reality because of our Se blindspot; I certainly experience that often myself!), all the negativity and rambling about how badly we need to develop our T is just obnoxious. Every type has exemplary qualities and also poor qualities. Singling out one type and (rather sanctimoniously) picking us apart and saying we'd be better off as a T instead of an F is oppositional to the purpose of Myers-Briggs and also mean-spirited in general. Every type has a blindspot. My very good INTP friend, for example, is witty and great with abstract thought, but she's constantly bemoaning her Fe blindspot -- she unintentionally offends people on a regular basis and then feels bad when she realizes what's happened. My ISxJ parents are dedicated, responsible, and organized, but they have Ne in their blindspot which causes them to have trouble with abstract theory/new ideas outside of their library of past concrete experiences; I used to come home from college and excitedly try to talk about theories I'd learned about and they were skeptical and utterly uninterested. Does it mean that any of us are inherently bad people or inferior to other types? No. It just means we all have different strengths and different weaknesses. Nothing more, nothing less.

    And I get tired of T snobbery. F and T are both legitimate ways of responding to the world. T is not superior. I get so nauseated when Thinking types believe they are more intelligent. (I am perfectly capable of rationality and reason. I just take values and relationships more into account in my decision-making than would a T-type. I understand the logic and rationality that Ts use when making decisions, but I'm uncomfortable making some decisions solely on the basis of cold hard facts when there are human/relational elements involved.)

    Okay, done ranting :o)

  6. #76
    Senior Mugwump Apollanaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mwv6r View Post
    This poster is really dogging INFJs. While some of his points are valid (INFJs can be divorced from reality because of our Se blindspot; I certainly experience that often myself!), all the negativity and rambling about how badly we need to develop our T is just obnoxious. Every type has exemplary qualities and also poor qualities. Singling out one type and (rather sanctimoniously) picking us apart and saying we'd be better off as a T instead of an F is oppositional to the purpose of Myers-Briggs and also mean-spirited in general. Every type has a blindspot. My very good INTP friend, for example, is witty and great with abstract thought, but she's constantly bemoaning her Fe blindspot -- she unintentionally offends people on a regular basis and then feels bad when she realizes what's happened. My ISxJ parents are dedicated, responsible, and organized, but they have Ne in their blindspot which causes them to have trouble with abstract theory/new ideas outside of their library of past concrete experiences; I used to come home from college and excitedly try to talk about theories I'd learned about and they were skeptical and utterly uninterested. Does it mean that any of us are inherently bad people or inferior to other types? No. It just means we all have different strengths and different weaknesses. Nothing more, nothing less.

    And I get tired of T snobbery. F and T are both legitimate ways of responding to the world. T is not superior. I get so nauseated when Thinking types believe they are more intelligent. (I am perfectly capable of rationality and reason. I just take values and relationships more into account in my decision-making than would a T-type. I understand the logic and rationality that Ts use when making decisions, but I'm uncomfortable making some decisions solely on the basis of cold hard facts when there are human/relational elements involved.)

    Okay, done ranting :o)
    Well said! I agree wholeheartedly with all of your points (I've gone on similar rants myself). In particular, I'm sick and tired of having to constantly defend the Feeling functions against their many detractors. Both Fi and Fe get attacked and criticised, but Fe seems to be picked on the most, even by Feeling types themselves! I've seen it labelled as "manipulative", "insincere", "mind-control" and many even more derogatory names, by intelligent people who should know better. Surely even the most ardent Thinking type can see the logic in the following statements:

    People respond more positively when you treat them with respect.
    Most people do not like to be constantly criticised.
    Many people are skilled at reading our moods.
    The manner in which we say something conveys as much information as the words themselves.
    You cannot reason with a person in the grip of a powerful emotion.
    Diplomacy may require us to soften our approach.
    Sometimes a white lie is more appropriate than telling the truth.
    Even Thinking types make mistakes, a sincere apology is a good way to undo any damage this may have caused.

    These are all examples of the type of information mature Extraverted Feeling takes into account when making its judgement calls.

    If we always ignore these factors, then our communications will not be heard in the way we intended, no matter how logical or rational we may believe them to be.
    INFJ 9w1 sx/sp/so

    "A wizard is never late. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to." - Gandalf The Grey

    And if I only could,
    I'd make a deal with God,
    And I'd get him to swap our places,
    Be running up that road,
    Be running up that hill,
    With no problems.

    - Kate Bush

  7. #77
    Senior Member something boring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    nnja
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apollanaut View Post
    If we always ignore these factors, then our communications will not be heard in the way we intended, no matter how logical or rational we may believe them to be.
    There was a time when I tried very hard to denounce Fe. At that point, this statement was my life. Fe left unchecked can get you into trouble in a variety of different ways, but only if you let it. To deny one's own natural gift will always leave one incomplete.
    "Don�t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." - Howard Thurman


    [SIGPIC]http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l110/evillinclinations/fortune45.gif[/SIGPIC]

    ...and yes, I'm still on about that...






  8. #78
    Senior Member vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mwv6r View Post
    This poster is really dogging INFJs. While some of his points are valid (INFJs can be divorced from reality because of our Se blindspot; I certainly experience that often myself!), all the negativity and rambling about how badly we need to develop our T is just obnoxious. Every type has exemplary qualities and also poor qualities. Singling out one type and (rather sanctimoniously) picking us apart and saying we'd be better off as a T instead of an F is oppositional to the purpose of Myers-Briggs and also mean-spirited in general. Every type has a blindspot. My very good INTP friend, for example, is witty and great with abstract thought, but she's constantly bemoaning her Fe blindspot -- she unintentionally offends people on a regular basis and then feels bad when she realizes what's happened. My ISxJ parents are dedicated, responsible, and organized, but they have Ne in their blindspot which causes them to have trouble with abstract theory/new ideas outside of their library of past concrete experiences; I used to come home from college and excitedly try to talk about theories I'd learned about and they were skeptical and utterly uninterested. Does it mean that any of us are inherently bad people or inferior to other types? No. It just means we all have different strengths and different weaknesses. Nothing more, nothing less.

    And I get tired of T snobbery. F and T are both legitimate ways of responding to the world. T is not superior. I get so nauseated when Thinking types believe they are more intelligent. (I am perfectly capable of rationality and reason. I just take values and relationships more into account in my decision-making than would a T-type. I understand the logic and rationality that Ts use when making decisions, but I'm uncomfortable making some decisions solely on the basis of cold hard facts when there are human/relational elements involved.)

    Okay, done ranting :o)
    Well said.

  9. #79
    Senior Member batumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    infj
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Guilty as charged for most of it, but look, with Dostoevsky you're a bit out of your league here. I would be happy to elaborate with you off-thread if you are interested.

  10. #80
    Senior Member batumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    infj
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Spending more time with his T would have allowed Dostoevsky to break free from religion. Ti would have allowed him to see the world for what it is, irrespectively of whether or not everyone was religious around him.


    What an incredibly arrogant statement on your part.
    I don't suppose there is any chance you might be able to understand that Feodor
    was not seeking to break free from his faith?
    I personally am seeking to become more deeply immersed in that same faith.
    This reality you value so highly is also quite temporary.

Similar Threads

  1. How far divorced from books, film, TV and media portrayals is society becoming?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-05-2011, 01:21 AM
  2. [INFJ] INFJs and Single-Mindedness
    By Kiddo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 06:39 PM
  3. [INFJ] INFJs and Dating
    By Kiddo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 06:42 AM
  4. [INFJ] INFJ and Compliments
    By chippinchunk in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 01-24-2008, 09:20 AM
  5. [INFJ] INFJ and grief
    By tovlo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 06:49 AM

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