I could have sworn we were speaking in the present tense. Yes the nature of truth is subjective, but what I meant by "subjective truths" was a truth about something believed to be subjective, rather than outside the subject. She said she didn't believe in God or in deities in any way other than that they were mere concepts or fluid, psychological manifestations. As though the object in itself was just a subjective impression.
Some people view deity as internal, or something each of us is part of, or at least something that can be manifested internally. Pagans say, "Thou art God/Goddess". Even Christians speak of the divine spark within each of us. Accepting something as a useful construct doesn't seem that far from belief in any case.
We can't be sure these beings exist, so it would be impractical to make the assumption. In any case, if they do and we don't know it, they are irrelevant to us.
Now this is illogical. Our ignorance of something does not ensure its irrelevance to us; just consider our evolving understanding of germs, for instance.
The physical plane in my opinion is the very lowest level of the existence and by no means a harmonious place but rather a chaotic prison of pain and suffering.
Our mission in life must be to liberate ourselves from our earthly shackles and eventually expand to planes beyond the terrestrial and into the celestial heavens.
This sounds suspiciously like Christian propaganda. I prefer a more integrated approach, accessing whatever aspect of reality is most suitable and available for the purpose at hand.
Hm. Maybe I understand typology differently. Or half the time I'm just not that good at translating what I think into words. It is pretty hard to talk about things which are completely subjective in logical terms, even if they exist that way in my mind. I have a few posts where I lay out complete logical arguments, which I would think would constitute NT.
Are there holes that I need to fill, inconsistencies I need to untangle, obscurities I need to unravel?
Don't worry - when I see them, I will let you know. For now, I am still becoming familiar with your point of view as you have expressed it. Spiritual matters require a different type of analysis, which tends to be a bit more holistic and tolerant of subjective experience.
Sounds interesting. Although it might not be as relevant to MBTI as individual people discussing things relating to their types and temperaments.
It would be interesting to compare how different types relate to paganism -- how we found it, what it means to us, how we practice, etc. I'm not sure INTJs are any more common among pagans than elsewhere, and much as I know this is the path for me, I often feel like a fish out of water in conventional pagan settings. This is a dynamic I would like to understand better. In any case, I'll play.
As for The Secret, the type of positive thinking it describes seems more like wishful thinking, the new age equivalent of Christians who use prayer mostly to ask God for what they want. I prefer goal oriented thinking accompanied by visualization of the desired outcome. The principle here is really knowing your own mind, and understanding what is important and what is irrelevant to what you want. If you cannot imagine it, you cannot achieve it. Needless to say, none of this will amount to much unless accompanied by logical and concerted action to achieve the desired end.