[NT] Ask an NT witch anything.

[Night]

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION] seems to have a lot of traits of the idiosyncratic personality style or in other words symptoms of schizotypal personality disorder (I like to say style) because of the odd magical thinking + beliefs.

Here is a link to that personality style page:
http://www.ptypes.com/idiosyncratic.html

It's probably not fair to develop a comprehensive behavioral profile based on a handful of posts on a peripheral corner site perched on an dank, obscure part of the internet dedicated to MBTI. I don't think I'd like my system of thought publicly flagged as clinically dysfunctional after offering my thinking on life, the universe, etc.

Skimming over her posts, much of what she offers seems to intermingle 'New Age' mediumistic philosophy knitted with old school theism/animism. Not my cup of tea (actually, diametrically opposed to anything I'd even consider drinking..), but it doesn't make me conclude she has a fundamental problem with her perceptual grasp on reality, or that my line of analysis is necessarily more personally gratifying than hers. To each their own, right?

 

[RaptorWizard]

It's probably not fair to develop a comprehensive behavioral profile based on a handful of posts on a peripheral corner site perched on an dank, obscure part of the internet dedicated to MBTI. I don't think I'd like my system of thought publicly flagged as clinically dysfunctional after offering my thinking on life, the universe, etc.

Skimming over her posts, much of what she offers seems to intermingle 'New Age' mediumistic philosophy knitted with old school theism/animism. Not my cup of tea (actually, diametrically opposed to anything I'd even consider drinking..), but it doesn't make me conclude she has a fundamental problem with her perceptual grasp on reality, or that my line of analysis is necessarily more personally gratifying than hers. To each their own, right?

I went on to say in other posts that she is functioning at a level above and beyond society and this kind of weirdness is just the thing to see through the colossal web of lies society has constructed around us.

 

[Night]

I went on to say in other posts that she is functioning at a level above and beyond society and this kind of weirdness is just the think to see through the colossal web of lies society has constructed around us.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[RaptorWizard]

^
It means society is screwed.

 

[Night]

^
It means society is screwed.

Society has always been screwed. Yet here we are.

Since the emergence of consciousness, we've managed to advance, over countless environmental and existential obstacles along the way. We aren't defined by our peccadilloes, but by how we creatively undertake their undoing..

 

[greenfairy]

Why does the epistemology of your belief system seem to be almost completely based on subjective truths? I recognize that the subjective world is just as real as any other, even if it doesn't correspond with the objective world. But isn't it the nature of belief to have faith in something external, even if it's not tangibly verifiable? Anything else is more or less just knowledge.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that last bit.

I don't really think it is based primarily on subjectivity; but it's relative to your perspective, I guess. Could you elaborate?

 

[greenfairy]

Society has always been screwed. Yet here we are.

Since the emergence of consciousness, we've managed to advance, over countless environmental and existential obstacles along the way. We aren't defined by our peccadilloes, but by how we creatively undertake their undoing..

Yes, but different societies throughout history have had varying degrees of screwed-ness, and proportional degrees of well being for the people who make them up. There are all kinds of factors which influence a society, and human well being, and it is worthwhile if we are going to be actively shaping our society, to do so in a way which maximizes well being rather than being destructive and unproductive. You see? It could be seen as idealistic, but really it's logical and rational to act towards balance and harmony. Do you disagree? Do you think it's logical to destroy our environment and perpetuate a system which causes rampant amounts of cancer?

 

[Night]

Yes, but different societies throughout history have had varying degrees of screwed-ness, and proportional degrees of well being for the people who make them up. There are all kinds of factors which influence a society, and human well being, and it is worthwhile if we are going to be actively shaping our society, to do so in a way which maximizes well being rather than being destructive and unproductive. You see? It could be seen as idealistic, but really it's logical and rational to act towards balance and harmony. Do you disagree? Do you think it's logical to destroy our environment and perpetuate a system which causes rampant amounts of cancer?

I like your ideas, but I think they're too subjective/impractical to be expressed outside theoretical exchange. I think you're offering false binaries when you pit the destruction of the environment or a decision towards harmony and communal well-being. It's not that simple.

Again, I like where you're coming from, but I think you're focusing on the negative aspects of human progress, insofar as we've been unable to eradicate them (I'd be interested to hear concrete alternatives, if you've got 'em) that inevitably happen when human beings work towards the successful propagation of our species these last 80,000 or so years. Again, if you've got a better idea, please share away.

I'm not saying that it's acceptable to allow suffering and misery to occur unchecked; just that we shouldn't scrap the entire system because our byproducts are contaminated..or that the option to suddenly eradicate these terrible existential maxims can happen as easily as I think you're offering..

I'm open to possibility, though..


The point of my previous post was that humanity has survived; that society is simply a statement of what people do when resource acquisition and reproductive prerogative combine over time into a cohesive system of cooperative human effort. To say that 'society is screwed' is to fly in the face of human history..

 

[JAVO]

The point of my previous post was that humanity has survived; that society is simply a statement of what people do when resource acquisition and reproductive prerogative combine over time into a cohesive system of cooperative human effort. To say that 'society is screwed' is to fly in the face of human history..

But, the past is not always an accurate predictor of the future.

 

[Ginkgo]

I'm not really sure what you mean by that last bit.

I don't really think it is based primarily on subjectivity; but it's relative to your perspective, I guess. Could you elaborate?

Aren't perspectives subjective?
Well, for instance you mentioned deities being subjective contents of energy. You also mentioned what appears to be ancestral memories surfacing from your subconscious into your consciousness, giving you a greater sense of who you were/are/want to be. We might say that beliefs are essentially forms of function, solidified when we are granted experience, even if some of those experiences are learned concepts based on abstract principles, or if we experience something deeply ingrained like impressions of a deep and clearly defined personal vocation. Beliefs are then reflected in our actions. If your beliefs are based on experience you recognize as subjective, then how do you act on anything but what resides in your mind? (ie. contemplation on what you know to be true, as opposed to acting on faith based beliefs that you recognize are based on external influences). When I say "faith", I don't refer to a religious body of thought, but rather having the will to accept something other than manifestations of your psyche. Or am I reading you wrong? Do your beliefs affect your life in a demonstrable way because they are reflected in how you view the world?

 

[greenfairy]

Aren't perspectives subjective?
Well, for instance you mentioned deities being subjective contents of energy. You also mentioned what appears to be ancestral memories surfacing from your subconscious into your consciousness, giving you a greater sense of who you were/are/want to be. We might say that beliefs are essentially forms of function, solidified when we are granted experience, even if some of those experiences are learned concepts based on abstract principles, or if we experience something deeply ingrained like impressions of a deep and clearly defined personal vocation. Beliefs are then reflected in our actions. If your beliefs are based on experience you recognize as subjective, then how do you act on anything but what resides in your mind? (ie. contemplation on what you know to be true, as opposed to acting on faith based beliefs that you recognize are based on external influences). When I say "faith", I don't refer to a religious body of thought, but rather having the will to accept something other than manifestations of your psyche. Or am I reading you wrong? Do your beliefs affect your life in a demonstrable way because they are reflected in how you view the world?

I'm starting to doubt my ability to understand abstract concepts. Maybe my N is not so strong. You'll probably have to summarize this into 2 straightforward and clear sentences with applicability for me to really get your meaning.

Anyway, let me give it a shot.

'Perspectives are subjective. How do I reconcile what my subjective experience tells me with external reality, and how do my actions fit in accordance?'

In dealing with things which are not directly and scientifically observable, you have to take a different approach. There are those things which can be known through observation (empirical science), and those which can be known by experience. The things I experience which are not scientifically observable, I take an inductive approach rather than deductive. I verify my experience with the experiences of others, namely indigenous cultures. I observe how well they work by the quality of life they and I had as a result of those experiences. Nothing I believe contradicts scientific knowledge- it is just incompletely supported by it.

 

[Night]

But, the past is not always an accurate predictor of the future.

Depends on what you mean.

As a 'for instance', let's pretend you mean technological advancement. Moore's Law might have something to say about that. Of course, you could always counter Moore's Law with the non-determinism of stochastic process, right?

I think the principle itself is just a convenient idiom, probably too diverse to take seriously anyway.

...
edit: and to be fair, you offered negative evidence with a sprinkle of 'gloom and doom'. A generic principle does not contradict the ancient machine of human progress, ever churning into tomorrow.

Tough cross-examination..


(Work day is done; I will be stop back later. Looking forward to some good discussion. )

 

[Ginkgo]

I'm starting to doubt my ability to understand abstract concepts. Maybe my N is not so strong. You'll probably have to summarize this into 2 straightforward and clear sentences with applicability for me to really get your meaning.

Anyway, let me give it a shot.

'Perspectives are subjective. How do I reconcile what my subjective experience tells me with external reality, and how do my actions fit in accordance?'

In dealing with things which are not directly and scientifically observable, you have to take a different approach. There are those things which can be known through observation (empirical science), and those which can be known by experience. The things I experience which are not scientifically observable, I take an inductive approach rather than deductive. I verify my experience with the experiences of others, namely indigenous cultures. I observe how well they work by the quality of life they and I had as a result of those experiences. Nothing I believe contradicts scientific knowledge- it is just incompletely supported by it.

That's fine. You basically answered my question. They seem to have occult elements.

I agree with Night about the practicality of your beliefs from what I can discern, but I'll have to reread the thread. Though, I disagree with you about your ability to play with the abstract. Judging from your "type me" thread, it doesn't seem sluggish at all. The thread seemed to be more of a discussion about your understanding of MBTI and cognitive function theory.

 

[entropie]

Np, that's your business. I'll probably never meet you. I don't tell the general population all this for this very reason. But like I say, believing it is more beneficial for me than destructive, so I kind of have to. Like with the shielding thing. If i'd just told myself I was crazy and not learned to do these things, I'd still be hiding in my room maladjusted and traumatized.

I am crazy too and to not loose it I have build a safehouse of retreat for my mind. eventually tho I got out of my room, still it took me a long time to adapt to the real world and to find out that my safehouse or fantasy world was good to protect me as a child but later on it just wasnt the real world.

I dont know if I could wish you that you would understand that, honestly I hope you wont have to.

 

[greenfairy]

That's fine. You basically answered my question. They seem to have occult elements.

I agree with Night about the practicality of your beliefs from what I can discern, but I'll have to reread the thread. Though, I disagree with you about your ability to play with the abstract. Judging from your "type me" thread, it doesn't seem sluggish at all. The thread seemed to be more of a discussion about your understanding of MBTI and cognitive function theory.

Oh ok. Maybe it's just verbal styles. I need to understand the meaning of every word people are saying, and how they relate to each other, and have a picture of what it all would look like.

So my question [MENTION=1425]Night[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION]: what about what I've said seems to you to be impractical? And if you like the ideas, what prevents you from embracing them? Do they just not work for you because you are not very spiritual or intuitive, or interested in nature, or whatever?

 

[greenfairy]

I am crazy too and to not loose it I have build a safehouse of retreat for my mind. eventually tho I got out of my room, still it took me a long time to adapt to the real world and to find out that my safehouse or fantasy world was good to protect me as a child but later on it just wasnt the real world.

I dont know if I could wish you that you would understand that, honestly I hope you wont have to.

Fair enough.

Except that for me in order to get out of my room and effectively live life, I had to embrace my fantasy world so to speak. Now I just have to learn more social skills.

 

[Ginkgo]

Good question. I had to look up reductionist monanism, and I haven't taken enough philosophy courses yet to fully understand it; but I'll do my best.

I believe the answer is that I don't. I have to have a rational explanation for everything.

I have a basic Taoist + chemistry kind of framework for understanding the universe, but I don't want to post it all on here, because I'm paranoid and don't want someone to steal it. So I'll briefly summarize. First is Ultimate Reality. This is the foundation of everything. It has objective and subjective components. We can't see all of objective reality for the simple reason that we are limited by our physical existence. It's like being on one side of a door and trying to see what's on the other side. But if someone else is on the other side, and tells you, you can get a sense of the bigger picture. That's why Ultimate Reality is made up of all realities combined. It takes each individual perspective to see the whole picture.

The universe goes in cycles of chaos-order, balance-imbalance. Balance is particularly necessary for sustaining life, and so for living things we can further divide into harmony-disharmony. These concepts simply tell to what degree you are in balance, with the dimension of your personal well being.

Balance underlies everything. I believe in polarity rather than dualism. Opposites are 2 sides of the same whole, and together they make one additional entity; so 1+1=2+1 (the whole)=3.
Reality is composed of yin and yang.

Our psyches are divided into conscious mind (yang) and unconscious mind (yin). Objective analysis and logic is yang (conscious mind); and subjectivity, intuition, and emotions are more the unconscious (yin). Together they make up truth. You can't have a complete picture of reality without using both.

Mysticism is yin, and empiricism or whatever is yang. Feeling and intuition are the yin to an NT's Ti and Te. Fi and Ni will have to be developed, as they are yin functions and help access the unconscious mind. As for myself, it is kind of hard to let my mind go. I used to hate meditating. I still prefer the kind where I just sit in silence or "get into the zone" to the guided kind. I notice what my Ni and Fi is telling me, and then I filter it through my Ti for analysis and send it to Te for verification. Also, I've just known things all my life, and I have "faith" in humanity's limited ability to understand everything. Magic is science we don't understand yet. Like typing on this computer would seem like magic to someone 300 years ago. I'm sure eventually science will verify things like psychic ability. Actually, there is a lot of scientific data on plants being conscious; it's just not published here in the US. Check out The Secret Life of Plants.

"False Dichotomy: This is where you say that there are only two choices, when actually there are more. For instance, you might say that someone is either alive, or they're dead, ignoring the fact that they might be Dracula. Or you might say that if someone's not a Democrat, they must be some sort of Republican, ignoring the very real possibility that they may be Dracula."
— Lore Sjöberg, Alt Text episode 5, "Logical Fallacies"

 

[RaptorWizard]

Here is a wizard (Merlin to be precise, and yes, he is a RaptorWizard!) who is a very old man, and with great age comes great wisdom, wisdom even greater than that of the witch, not to mention willpower.

 

[greenfairy]

"False Dichotomy: This is where you say that there are only two choices, when actually there are more. For instance, you might say that someone is either alive, or they're dead, ignoring the fact that they might be Dracula. Or you might say that if someone's not a Democrat, they must be some sort of Republican, ignoring the very real possibility that they may be Dracula."
— Lore Sjöberg, Alt Text episode 5, "Logical Fallacies"

Where? where have I made false dichotomies?

 

[greenfairy]

Here is a wizard (Merlin to be precise, and yes, he is a RaptorWizard!) who is a very old man, and with great age comes great wisdom, wisdom even greater than that of the witch, not to mention willpower.

No, witches are wiser than wizards!