Cellmold
Wake, See, Sing, Dance
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2012
- Messages
- 6,267
This site: http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?offset=20&writingid=263 discusses the shadow, and defines them (as well as the rest of our "dualistic" thinking) in the term "stories". "The separate self is a set of dualistic stories such as, 'I’m nice,' 'I’m a victim,' 'My life is incomplete,' 'I’m a successful news anchorperson,' or 'I’m unhappy.' This is the play of opposites playing itself out in our lives." "Your defensiveness is revealing that you are carrying a self-critical story around. You have a story that you are fat. You have a story that you are greedy."
Well, "stories" are basically "archetypes"--"ruling patterns" or models of events (as well as people, which we normally think of as archetypes); and as such are the domain of Ni.
Thinking upon this, in light of my own internal struggles, I realizes these were examples of "what's been left out". Like both my wife and even my counselor had recently been complaining that when I argue against certain aspects of Christian teaching on "growth", that I criticize a lot of arguments they didn't say, and [they say] they don't really believe in. But having studied all the doctrines for over 25 years, and participating in many online debates, I know that there is a lot of inference in many Christian doctrines, especially when it comes to God's nature and activity in salvation and our own "walk" with Him or "growth". Like The Trinity, for instance, is never spelled out in the Bible, but said to be "inferred" from various scriptures put together. These inferences often overlook other data.
Now, inference is a feature of iNtuition (focus on where things are heading, instead of just what they are). I've noticed, in many cases, a lot of Christians who are not really doctrinal experts will parrot the popular belief on something, but not realize its implications. So when I call those implications out, they feel I've "jumped the gun", and even "too black and white" (and as many black and white statements the Church makes on many things).
I realize that when people say things about God, especially as touching upon my own life, then a story or various stories emerge. Like if someone says that something painful was "God doing it for your own good", then a story emerges of Him singling me out and putting His own stamp on my problems (rather than helping me), and then, they're also telling me "submit to God", but it's becomes harder to do that with that story in the background. I also have trouble pontificating that something good was a particular act of Him, because that implies that the lack of good is also by Him, like what they call "permissive will". (And people then bow out and say "we can't understand His ways").
I then use all of this to "fill in what's missing"; that the person talking to me isn't even aware of. They then tell me "no, that's not what we meant"", and often put together a less critical string of meaning of the situation. But I "look at the trajectory" of "where the data wants to go", and what's "beyond the map" people are reading (As the person describing Ni told me), and it always seems to lead squarely to these negative conclusions. Conclusions which their rosy views of God's involvement in life "must leave out in order to remain intact".
This should have figured all along, when I was struggling to understand what I was told!
So I realized this was Senex Ni; the "critical" part of me that scans people's words looking for negative stories via inferences and implications.
Of course, for me, this is shadow, and very erratic, and I guess, often off-base, as the people are complaining. For Ni preferrers, it could be like this, in a negative situation (hence they're often characterized as "conspiratorial"), but it would also be used in a more mature fashin in good situations.
So can the NJ's here identify with this description?
This is very interesting. The line' the trajectory of where the data wants to go' is an extremely relatable term for myself. Ive often had issues when discussing or debating on forums because I make an assumption of motive, which is more to do with feeling I suspect, but it has that same problem with an interpretation of data, following it back and leading it forward again to a conclusion, all the while looking between the lines at what has NOT been said or seen but which is, to me, quite presently there.
However the risk is if you get it completely wrong and if I find myself making an unfair assessment of motive in others.
For example recently I was on another forum I frequent to do with a video game mod and I made a comment on the general state of the module as I perceived it, in other words; I gave an opinion. Not long after another poster replied to it in, (what appeared to me), a rather reactionary reply, in fact one of his first lines in said post was a rather soft ad hominem attack on myself.
I examined his post, I examined mine, I looked at the data available, I followed it back and followed it forward. No matter how I tried to twist it I could not see his motive as anything other than being threatened by what I posted and so he felt compelled into a knee-jerk reaction. The information always seemed to reach a head at this point, after all every person has an emotional investment in SOMETHING even if they are a die-hard logician.
Unfortunately I cannot say that I think he is being reactionary and knee-jerk without him considering what ive said, even though his reply instantly showed how much he had missed my point, because to do so invites him to quite easily state that this is not the case and that I am detracting from his points, which, (apart from the ad hominem), he did in fact make.
This has always presented a problem in such arena's and it ends up that I often have to constantly check what I might say in case I somehow do intepret the information in a manner of inaccurate assumption. So much so that ive found it is perhaps better to ignore it completely or else spend time arguing over little details that are not only insignificant, but also are completely unrelated to the original content.
In this way it could be said that feeling sabotages thinking and involves itself in subject matter that values have neither the place, nor the aptitude.
Ive also noticed that who said what and how seems to be one of the most popular methods of debate degradation online and in real life.