socionics and spirituality

[liveandletlive]

OK so how has your understanding of socionics changed or altered your spirituality or religious beliefs, if not why?

For me, i don't believe in this but if socionics were 100% true i think it would be kinda cool if God were all of the information elements and he had no order for them because he's God and he's awesome so he could use any information element whenever he felt like it. Therefore, this also explains why he's understanding (can see people's strengths and weaknesses) and loving (because there's a little bit of him in each of us). I don't actually believe this and pray to like some sort of socionics God lol but i think it would be cool if you got to the pearly gates and thats what God was. He'd be like, "Hey you're one of the enlightened members of the16types.info?!?! You got a VIP pass straight to heaven!" haha- what do you guys think?

[aestrivex]

i think your scenario demonstrates that you have an incredibly parochial view of spirituality and religion. i would argue that "god" is roughly equivalent to the complete manifestation of every information element by definition (in psychological terms; there is an endless myriad of other kinds of things that such an entity would additionally represent.)

[BLauritson]

I've genuinely considered that, assuming reincarnation is true (something I've never been 100% decided on but leaning towards believing based on some things in my life), one's socionics type would remain the same. That is to say that the spirit or soul would be a particular type. Just my personal take on things; for any who would consider it this is NOT incitement to argument over any spiritual subjects.

[drd252]

I'm an antitheist; at the very least, God is null, especially within the context of socionics.

[liveandletlive]

I've genuinely considered that, assuming reincarnation is true (something I've never been 100% decided on but leaning towards believing based on some things in my life), one's socionics type would remain the same. That is to say that the spirit or soul would be a particular type. Just my personal take on things; for any who would consider it this is NOT incitement to argument over any spiritual subjects.

i think the same way... i always wondered if maybe everyone had 16 lives and everyone ends up one of the sixteen types in each life and then when you do this you go to heaven because theoretically then you are considered equivalent to "god". The only thing that I would be curious about would be the order of the types (or lives) and if it would be the same for everyone. Like you know how people call people new souls and old souls- which type would be a new soul ( types?) would old souls be ( / people?)

[liveandletlive]

i think your scenario demonstrates that you have an incredibly parochial view of spirituality and religion. i would argue that "god" is roughly equivalent to the complete manifestation of every information element by definition (in psychological terms; there is an endless myriad of other kinds of things that such an entity would additionally represent.)

haha r u smoking crack?!?! there is absolutely nothing even remotely parochial to do with that description in the slightest.

[aestrivex]

i think your scenario demonstrates that you have an incredibly parochial view of spirituality and religion. i would argue that "god" is roughly equivalent to the complete manifestation of every information element by definition (in psychological terms; there is an endless myriad of other kinds of things that such an entity would additionally represent.)

haha r u smoking crack?!?! there is absolutely nothing even remotely parochial to do with that description in the slightest.

its has too much of a monotheistic/christian-centric perspective for my tastes.

[BLauritson]

I've genuinely considered that, assuming reincarnation is true (something I've never been 100% decided on but leaning towards believing based on some things in my life), one's socionics type would remain the same. That is to say that the spirit or soul would be a particular type. Just my personal take on things; for any who would consider it this is NOT incitement to argument over any spiritual subjects.

i think the same way... i always wondered if maybe everyone had 16 lives and everyone ends up one of the sixteen types in each life and then when you do this you go to heaven because theoretically then you are considered equivalent to "god". The only thing that I would be curious about would be the order of the types (or lives) and if it would be the same for everyone. Like you know how people call people new souls and old souls- which type would be a new soul ( types?) would old souls be ( / people?)

I've thought about this briefly before now. To be honest I don't think any particular type would be a new or an old soul as such, since wisdom and things of that nature aren't necessarily type-related. Saying that though, I'm not hugely familiar with the new/old soul concept (I know a little bit about it but I don't know to what extent the implications of it are) so there might be things I'm missing out on. Do you mind if we continue this discussion in PM? There's something else of interest I'd like to add, although I feel a bit uneasy talking about it publicly.

[liveandletlive]

definitely.

[Khamelion]

God wouldn't need a system like socionics to understand his "children". We made up this theory in effort to understand what He already does...and we probably barely have it half right anyhow.

[Ms. Kensington]

i think your scenario demonstrates that you have an incredibly parochial view of spirituality and religion. i would argue that "god" is roughly equivalent to the complete manifestation of every information element by definition (in psychological terms; there is an endless myriad of other kinds of things that such an entity would additionally represent.)

haha r u smoking crack?!?! there is absolutely nothing even remotely parochial to do with that description in the slightest.

its has too much of a monotheistic/christian-centric perspective for my tastes.

^^ is this dual interaction? Looks like it. This conversation would have gone way differently if not between these two people.

[Blaze]

socionics says more about the limitations of individual human beings than it says about the omnipotence of God. we are flawed since we can't have all the IM's as a base function!

[liveandletlive]

blaze and ms. kensington: true that.

[aestrivex]

^^ is this dual interaction? Looks like it. This conversation would have gone way differently if not between these two people.

and what basis do you have for saying that?

[Ms. Kensington]

niffweed, for one I would have not responded that way. So, it would have been different. It would have been way different because it would have invited more argumentation. You seem to have been abated and even seem to "change subjects" from my perspective.

[drd252]

I'm an antitheist; at the very least, God is null, especially within the context of socionics.

i do not see that. i mean what if God just created the personality breakdowns so that we would be able to function as a society? i mean socionics does suggest that we function as a socion whole with all it's interconnectedness and utile sub-functions. i am not saying though that the purpose of creating socionical orientation of human was directed solely towards creating and sustaining society. i believe that the purpose of human is to willingly choose God and His pure ways so that the creation of Him is finally complete as God has created, by Christianity, us into His identicals, which we cannot be unless we willingly choose his ways as well.

Let me break it down for you.

I'm an antitheist, perhaps you could see better if I write it as anti-theist, as in opposing theism. Believing in god (and "worshiping" in an organized manner, e.g. Christianity) is inherently detrimental to the long-term prosperity and continued existence of humanity. Theist beliefs create unnecessary rifts within humanity, which eventually widen to the realm of war. What you need to take from whatever it is you were trying to say in the above, is this: everyone is different, we process information differently and have different values, but we manage to function as a whole; conflict arises when people create arbitrary "ways", of which only one is true (God). 16 types, one "way", I don't think so.

Ugh, it never ceases to amaze me how fucking stupid theism/theists is/are, especially Christianity/Christians

[Warlord]

I don't believe in anything. There are no gods, no heaven, no hell, no spirits, no reincarnation, no soul. Nothing has any value or meaning, except the ones someone wants to create for himself, and even those are absurd. Socionics makes no difference to that.

[Khamelion]

socionics says more about the limitations of individual human beings than it says about the omnipotence of God. we are flawed since we can't have all the IM's as a base function!

blaze and ms. kensington: true that.

wtf thats what i just said man

[drd252]

@drd252: i agree with you that the world would function better without such things. but i do not agree that the purpose of life is a perfect society. it is to holify yourself as much as possible, to choose God for the afterlife. this is the last post i make on this.<------smart choice, I'll keep on though...

Society>Self and God=afterlife=null

Therefore, better yourself for the sake of bettering society, because god doesn't matter, because god doesn't exist.

Q.E.D.

[Warlord]

If I play the mental game, of describing the functionality of judeo-christian god. Then god, isn't being with all the functions. It's a being with only two functions, one is . And another function that is extraverted and one that humans don't have. This other function handles the information metabolism of turning thought into matter, it's remotely similar to , but is not .

[aestrivex]

niffweed, for one I would have not responded that way. So, it would have been different. It would have been way different because it would have invited more argumentation. You seem to have been abated and even seem to "change subjects" from my perspective.

great, give me some irrefutable evidence without actually saying anything.

whatever though.

[Ms. Kensington]

niffweed, for one I would have not responded that way. So, it would have been different. It would have been way different because it would have invited more argumentation. You seem to have been abated and even seem to "change subjects" from my perspective.

great, give me some irrefutable evidence without actually saying anything.

whatever though.

that's what i do best man that is seriously what i meant though

[liveandletlive]

haha oh i love my INTps so! better be careful that no SJ's see this thread lol

[aestrivex]

haha oh i love my INTps so! better be careful that no SJ's see this thread lol

....

[liveandletlive]

???

[aestrivex]

i'm becoming increasingly convinced that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[tcaudilllg]

I believe I've logically substantiated the existence of what people refer to as "soul", if not spirit.

In terms of socionics information aspects, at least.

Soul is the relationship of and ego (EIE) to and id, with the ego controlling the exchange; ...probably spirit is the other way around, with ego (IEE) controlling id.

Certainly ENFjs stress the soul over the spirit, and INFjs the spirit over the soul.

[aestrivex]

niffweed, for one I would have not responded that way. So, it would have been different. It would have been way different because it would have invited more argumentation. You seem to have been abated and even seem to "change subjects" from my perspective.

i don't want to post a recent pm conversation that i had with her without her consent on the matter, but what has transpired would, i think, tend to suggest that your claims are completely baseless.

basically we got into an argument based on my criticisms of her knowledge of socionics, which to me seems very limited as it seems to me she perceives socionics as some sort of MBTI/ganin-ish triviality. she, in a manner of speaking, objected to my comments (without making any attempt to refute them, i might add). at the very least, the arguments themselves contradict the reasoning behind your typing, if not the typing itself (which i'm still not sure about. i'm thinking about IEE but SEE certainly makes sense on some levels).

[liveandletlive]

niffweed, for one I would have not responded that way. So, it would have been different. It would have been way different because it would have invited more argumentation. You seem to have been abated and even seem to "change subjects" from my perspective.

i don't want to post a recent pm conversation that i had with her without her consent on the matter, but what has transpired would, i think, tend to suggest that your claims are completely baseless.

basically we got into an argument based on my criticisms of her knowledge of socionics, which to me seems very limited as it seems to me she perceives socionics as some sort of MBTI/ganin-ish triviality. she, in a manner of speaking, objected to my comments (without making any attempt to refute them, i might add). at the very least, the arguments themselves contradict the reasoning behind your typing, if not the typing itself (which i'm still not sure about. i'm thinking about IEE but SEE certainly makes sense on some levels).

i loathe you.

[Khamelion]

laugh