• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Difference in Fi vs Ti in the conclusion of a god

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's the same. Insight comes from all directions, and people do all sorts of things while life passes them by.

I can see going on from there to teaching others how to sit in a diaper staring at a candle flame. That's about it.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Interesting subject and I wonder how much my enneagram plays a role in this. Ultimately, I do not believe there is no god although I'm often stuck left wanting to believe. I'm kind of like Fox Mulder in the sense of "the truth is out there" and we just need to find it BUT rationally I ultimately believe there is no truth. There is no meaning, there is no sense of purpose. Yet I dislike the label "atheist". I don't feel it rings true to me. I rather prefer the label naturalistic pantheist which ironically enough, is quite close to Spinoza's definition of god although I do not believe that the world itself possesses a consciousness. I am however quite fascinated by the idea of tao in Taoism as a metaphysical essence which encompasses all which I feel does describe my spiritiual views to a great degree.

It's also interesting to point out what Lenore Thomson writes about Fi:


Lenore Thomson said:
Introverted Feeling (Fi) is the attitude that everything that is manifest (apparent, observable, described) is the expression of a soul or life force, in terms of which everything ultimately makes sense. Everything that happens is the result of a soul expressing its unique nature.
Lenore Thomson said:
From this attitude, each living thing is completely unique, and has unique needs. Every living thing needs to express itself and grow in its unique way. None of this can be put into categories or measurements, at least not without blotting out that utter uniqueness of each living thing. Because we are all living things, even though each of us is unique we can still connect to the life force as it exists in others.

Final Fantasy and the concept of Life Stream much?

Anyway, I think funnily enough, Thomson's description of Fi in a metaphysical sense does line up with how I view the world metaphysically to a large degree. Is there a god though? No, I don't think so. Even my idea of naturalistic pantheism is based on this concept of interconnectedness and it is this interconnectedness I revere, although I think calling it a belief would be a bit too much of a stretch. I'm most likely a closet INFP (I just dislike the label.)
 

Faceless Beauty

Transient
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
177
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
9w8
I would have to place myself under the label of agnostic. Also, I think the concept of god or a creator that are seen in some of the world religions are extremely anthropomorphic and are based more on common human characteristics than anything else. I find that some religions try too hard to create a god that is separate and superior to nature, and consequently view man's place in the universe as being somehow separate of nature. If there is a creative force that pushed everything into being, it's more likely to manifest as a force of nature rather than some "spiritual" deity with a human forms, features, and personality traits.

Otherwise the existence of god is something I can't exactly prove or disprove. So I prefer to just leave it at that.
 

Lexicon

Temporal Mechanic
Staff member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,342
MBTI Type
JINX
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
When my cat went missing once (actually got into the walls like a rat), I found myself wishing I could pray to Thor or something.
Desperate moment of weakness.

Jokes aside.. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a divine force. That said, I can't believe in what just might be there, and see no utility in pondering about it ad infinitem.
If there is one, cool.. I guess.
If not.. well, it really doesn't matter, either.

Just live. /shrug
 

Hetha

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
28
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
I don't personally believe in any form of a divine being. I haven't met anyone yet either able to prove or disprove the existence of one. I'm just personally not convinced that there is one, or that there has to be something out there or within us. I'm not short-sighted; not sadly limited in my understanding. My understanding is my own.

That said, I spent more than 30 years questing in my own way how I felt about it. I studied many religions and spirituality, both Eastern and Western philosophy, cultural anthropology, history, early western civilization, biology, microbiology, physics, chemistry, math, paleontology, genetics, and several other subjects of interest.
My hypothesis was after all this study, and the evidence points in the direction that humankind created the idea of a god figure, both as a coping mechanism for comforting the grieving, the sick, the injured, the poor, and all the maladies that effect humankind, as well as created a god figure to unify under a banner of common thought. Furthermore, humans created and used their own god figure to oppress, enslave, torture, rape, murder, and do cruel and inhumane things to other humans to divide and conquer other nations of humans, with the falsified notions of 'god empowerment' being 'on their side.' Outside of that, holy texts only prove that religions of the world exist. Not necessarily the existence of a diety. This seems to make the most sense to me, and that's where I found the evidence pointing at. I say, believe what you want.
I'll take the Marcus Aurelius wager,"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I was watching a film where a man was discussing the problem of free will in relation to science, and apparently much like the idea of God knowing our fate but us having free will, our lives are mostly governed by natural laws which are unavoidable, but we still have unique personalities.

I've noticed a lot in my studies that scientists are just starting to "prove" things that certain groups of religious people already knew for centuries.

This is particular impressive in the field of medicine, where even in Western medicine, doctors are going to have to back-track from a purely Western approach, because they're acknowledging the validity more and more of preventative medicine in things like massage and eating the correct foods, which is an ancient idea in the East, as well moving back toward more natural birthing practices for women (with some medical supervision) and the power of emotions and faith and meditation and belief upon the physical health.

In the future, people will recognize the validity of East and West working together, and of science being the what and religion being the why. I sincerely believe this.

Because when everything attempts to become too Westernized something is missing, women were having unnecessary C-sections, doctors weren't acknowledging the validity of natural medicine and the power of the mind at all, and so forth. It's only as we've come more into the 21st century that things are becoming more balanced.

Eastern and Western thought are both necessary for the optimal state of humanity. Focusing too much on Western thought becomes ridiculously literal and black/white, right/wrong, divisive, and what many Easterners refer to as a wild imbalance of too much masculine energy.

With the electronic media the West is moving East, and with universal literacy the East is moving West.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Critical Thinking

The real divide is between those who are in love with critical thinking and those who are in love with belief.

This morning, down at the Farmers' Market, I was talking to two Buddhists. And I voiced two cogent criticisms of Buddhism. Well, what a faux pas. The last thing Buddhism wecomes is critical thinking. They tried to maintain a benevolent attitude to me but it was plain they regarded me malevolently. But what they regarded with malevolence was critical thinking.
 

Hetha

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
28
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
@ Victor: Very true. I've encountered this with believers of many different paths and faiths. Critical thinking seems to be the enemy of faith.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
@Victor: Very true. I've encountered this with believers of many different paths and faiths. Critical thinking seems to be the enemy of faith.

Yes, it does seem to be. But critical thinking is taking faith seriously.

Critical thinking starts with Socrates in Ancient Greece and was rediscovered in the Renaissance of Europe and fully flowered in the Western Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. It is the glory of the West.
 

Faceless Beauty

Transient
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
177
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
9w8
I don't personally believe in any form of a divine being. I haven't met anyone yet either able to prove or disprove the existence of one. I'm just personally not convinced that there is one, or that there has to be something out there or within us. I'm not short-sighted; not sadly limited in my understanding. My understanding is my own.

That said, I spent more than 30 years questing in my own way how I felt about it. I studied many religions and spirituality, both Eastern and Western philosophy, cultural anthropology, history, early western civilization, biology, microbiology, physics, chemistry, math, paleontology, genetics, and several other subjects of interest.
My hypothesis was after all this study, and the evidence points in the direction that humankind created the idea of a god figure, both as a coping mechanism for comforting the grieving, the sick, the injured, the poor, and all the maladies that effect humankind, as well as created a god figure to unify under a banner of common thought. Furthermore, humans created and used their own god figure to oppress, enslave, torture, rape, murder, and do cruel and inhumane things to other humans to divide and conquer other nations of humans, with the falsified notions of 'god empowerment' being 'on their side.' Outside of that, holy texts only prove that religions of the world exist. Not necessarily the existence of a diety. This seems to make the most sense to me, and that's where I found the evidence pointing at. I say, believe what you want.
I'll take the Marcus Aurelius wager,"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

Yes! In my short lifespan and with the little knowledge I've gained so far, I'm starting to see that religion is more of a coping mechanism to deal with things such as death, a way to understand the world, and a way to form some sort of basic moral code for members of society to follow or something like that.
 

Hetha

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
28
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Yes, it does seem to be. But critical thinking is taking faith seriously.

Critical thinking starts with Socrates in Ancient Greece and was rediscovered in the Renaissance of Europe and fully flowered in the Western Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. It is the glory of the West.
I do agree. Socrates is one of my favorite philosophers when I studied philosophy. One of my projects in Humanities class,(a bonus assignment) was to apply the Socratic method to a complete stranger and gauge their unfiltered reaction to a question. Then we had to write something explaining what question we asked, and their answer/reaction to it. It made us realize how "not well" people took to Socrates, and why he was so controversial in his day. Loved it!
 

Hetha

New member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
28
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Yes! In my short lifespan and with the little knowledge I've gained so far, I'm starting to see that religion is more of a coping mechanism to deal with things such as death, a way to understand the world, and a way to form some sort of basic moral code for members of society to follow or something like that.

Yes, and sadly, the holy texts I've read so far seem to endorse moral codes I don't agree with. The 21st century has already re-defined a lot of the moral codes so as to make many of them look primitive and brutal, backwards and downright immoral. I don't believe in "objective morality" either. Morality in my humble view is subjective and dynamic, and we can make a difference and redefine our world. We just simply need to make the effort.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I can see going on from there to teaching others how to sit in a diaper staring at a candle flame. That's about it.
I guess you aren't a very spiritual person. Staring at the flame isn't the point, and wearing what you call a diaper isn't as silly as you think. Maybe you should try it some time and get out of your head for a bit. See what insights you come to without Ti. ;)
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I guess you aren't a very spiritual person. Staring at the flame isn't the point, and wearing what you call a diaper isn't as silly as you think. Maybe you should try it some time and get out of your head for a bit. See what insights you come to without Ti. ;)

Yes, staring at a flame induces a trance, and so lights up a different part of the brain.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Actually all religions don't tell you that at all, and it's debatable as to whether even the religions which say it meant it literally (as most Westerners interpret it), or rather a state of consciousness or being.

I didnt meant that all religions says that. But just out of curiosity, which ones doesent?
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
See I'm not sure about that. I do think consciousness arises from physical components, but a version of monism says that particles have both relational and intrinsic properties and that the relational properties are physical and the intrinsic properties are mental; so perhaps everything is both physical and mental. I'm not sure about it, but if it were true it would do a good job of solving the mind body problem and it's consistent in a roundabout sort of way with the wave particle duality property.

So I think consciousness is a physical substance, indeed everything is- but there are different ways in which we conceptualize the physical which don't include a lot of things and which I think should. History has shown our definitions to be continually changing; in the time of Descartes people would not have thought electromagnetic fields were physical. (I don't know all of the science that existed at the time, but if this is incorrect you could easily pick out something else which illustrates the same principle.)

Well, every particle known both is something, has effects on some other things and is effected by some other things. That thing that they are is the physical aspect of it, and the effects on/from them are not physical properties, but(dunno if this relational thing you said is referring to this) is the effect that the physical properties have when interfering with properties of other physical structure. I dont think that consciousness is a physical thing in itself but comes out of physical reactions, so its a cause of physical properties of certain type of neurons not a physical thing in itself. Basically if you take one neuron from the area where for example working memory is formed, its not conscious by itself. But if you add impulses to it that have a specific representation to it and let it send impulses to other neurons which also know what some specific impulse stands for and build a big construct out of these and also add different types of neurons from other areas and get things like conscious decision making to it and let those neurons effect back to working memory and other areas that send signals to working memory, you get a construct that works like consciousness.

I really dont think that quantum physics is required for consciousness, except ofc keeping the physical structures working from which consciousness arises, but the idea which some people have that consciousness is a property of quantum physics is pretty far off imo.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The real divide is between those who are in love with critical thinking and those who are in love with belief.

This morning, down at the Farmers' Market, I was talking to two Buddhists. And I voiced two cogent criticisms of Buddhism. Well, what a faux pas. The last thing Buddhism wecomes is critical thinking. They tried to maintain a benevolent attitude to me but it was plain they regarded me malevolently. But what they regarded with malevolence was critical thinking.

Well, I kind of disagree with this, because you operate under the assumption that the truth you have arrived at is something which they too should value, despite you seeming to come from an atheist point of view. It doesn't mean they are not critical towards their faith but their critical thinking or what they critically ask themselves are not the kind of questions you are interested in. You reject the idea of their faith entirely, they must still accept certain tenets in order to believe.

I honestly fail to see why one conclusion must ultimately be better than the other. If believing in Buddha gives them meaning in life who are you to question this meaning that they found as meaningless?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I guess you aren't a very spiritual person. Staring at the flame isn't the point, and wearing what you call a diaper isn't as silly as you think. Maybe you should try it some time and get out of your head for a bit. See what insights you come to without Ti. ;)

I've read books about the practice and found out that it takes years to gain proficiency at it. Also, it sounds like it would be very hard on my knees which hurt bad enough as it is. It also conflicts with the Western view that people don't get enough exercise in their daily lives.

how-to-draw-a-buddha-big-belly-style.jpg


Fat wannabe American? ^
 

Faceless Beauty

Transient
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
177
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
9w8
Yes, and sadly, the holy texts I've read so far seem to endorse moral codes I don't agree with. The 21st century has already re-defined a lot of the moral codes so as to make many of them look primitive and brutal, backwards and downright immoral. I don't believe in "objective morality" either. Morality in my humble view is subjective and dynamic, and we can make a difference and redefine our world. We just simply need to make the effort.

Right. Morality isn't really an objective thing either, and like you said is very dynamic. Just because people from thousands of years ago wrote some books about morals and things does not mean that it is 100% relevant to this very day. The major changes within some religions themselves over time is proof of this. Even though there are a few constants that are still somewhat applicable, values and needs of individuals changes with time along with technology and increased understanding of the world around them. Also, since these ideas are no longer confined to a specific region of the world, increased globalization is helping to forge new ideas about those texts. Even when some of these religions first started to spread, they were transformed and adapted to the values and cultures of regions they took hold of.
 
Top