What would be the complete way you would put it?
That in the realm of belief, you have skepticism on one side, and dogmatism on the other.
Skepticism represents the side of nothingness, emptiness, zero.
Dogmatism, on the other hand, represents somethingness, fullness (including of shit), one.
Somewhere between the two, you have Critical Thinking, which is neither fully skeptical, nor fully dogmatic, but does have some of both.
Critical Thinking is (somewhat) dogmatic in its commitment to keep an open mind, but (somewhat) skeptical in its desire to not simply believe everything.
It gives ideas a full hearing, respects what cannot be known, and how that affects the various positions on the issue, and casts its judgment when it feels it appropriate/necessary, knowing the limitations present in the situation.
Critical Thinking, not skepticism or dogmatism, should be the goal of the good mind.
The similar quote about skepticism and chastity I came across was by George Santayana
"Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through long youth, until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness."
Thank you for posting.
I actually originally posted "chastity of the intellect", but then changed it.
I couldn't remember who the original author was - I read it via another author - and the piece in which I read it had to do with skepticism and the modern mind.
I know Santayana was a naturalist and a moral relativist (sort of), but I'm not sure if I am thinking of the same thing you were.
I've never directly studied him - only read his quotes when other authors have used them.
Well, maybe one essay, actually.
I tend to like what he writes - he seems very wise and well-versed - though he comes off as rather inert.
Are you talking about me personally, or a hypothetical skeptic?
Both? Perhaps.
I was trying to offer you potential insight, based on what you'd written.
I think the person choosing to spend his/her time gets to choose how to do it.
That's fine.
But if embedded in their behavior is the tacit assumption that what the other person values is not valuable enough for one to sit, listen to, and consider, then one should not be surprised when the other does not respond well to them in kind.
Also, what are your expectations here?
Expectations?
I'm not sure I have any...
I spent four years trying to see things as an Evangelical Christian. God, for me, is an important thing. Would you expect me to spend similar effort in search of ghosts, the Yeti, or Bigfoot?
I think God is the most important of all questions, so no.
Ghosts I would not necessarily put in the same bucket as Bigfoot or the Yeti.
One need not put significant effort into researching these things, but could still keep an open mind to them (without necessarily believing in them, and even finding them highly unlikely [as I certainly do with Bigfoot, to a {very} slightly lesser extent the Yeti, and to a lesser extent ghosts {per your explanation, et al, the idea of ghosts/spirits has more room for interpretation, as well as more avenues for possibility (if one is truly open-minded about considering those possibilities)}]).
Would you, for instance, spend four years living as an ardent skeptic to see the value in modern skepticism as an attitude as an adult?
Or are you currently too skeptical of skepticism?
I have already done so.
What I discovered is that pure skepticism is its own form of dogmatism, and that the two "opposites" are actually the same in one crucial way: they are equally close-minded.
In between those two poles, right in the middle, is maximum open-mindedness (which actually includes openness to the possibility of closing one's mind at some point [i.e., the notion that, after considering all relevant information, one can actually make an informed judgment that can be correct; i.e., not simply the shallow/false "open-mindedness" of the typical liberal, post-modernist, hippy variety]), which both listens to the relevant information, but also takes a critical view of it (note: not skeptical, but critical [the difference between the two being that one - criticality - comes from a place of genuine open-mindedness, whereas, the other - skepticism - does not {its grounding is actually in close-mindedness (just like dogmatism)}]).
Well, suppose this pattern turns out to be true, and for larger groups.
What is it that you expect Ti doms to do? Not be Ti doms? Is that fair?
No, they should continue to be Ti doms.
They simply should cease to be Ti reets.
This means recognizing the limitation and narrowness of their ego block's/fixation's lens, and to eliminate the problems associated with such narrow and limited fixation.
Awareness -> Acceptance -> Action
Become aware of the problematic ego fixation (if, indeed, it does exist).
Accept that this is the current state of affairs, who you currently are, where you currently reside.
Then act to change, to overcome the problematic elements of one's fixation.
***
Then the cycle repeats itself.
What new awareness must one achieve next time around?
(In addition to the remembering of what it learned last time.)
(This is, in essence, a *deepening* of the awareness.)
What are the problematic elements of your fixation?
How could these problematic aspects be remedied?
What new perspective(s) should you assimilate?
How does this relate to your shadow?