William James

[Joy]

http://images.google.com/images?q=wi...=1&sa=N&tab=wi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...iam_james.html

[Ezra]

I briefly studied a piece by him, about brain processes.

His style I believe was indicative of strong Te. I think he's a Rational.

[Mariano Rajoy]

I had to read his 'Varieties of Religious Experience' for my Masters degree, and from what he wrote, I would say alpha NT, probably LIE.

[Mariano Rajoy]

You mean Gamma?

Gah. ILE. ENTp

[Mariano Rajoy]

LIE is the better answer.

Most of his correspondence and relationships were Te types as well.

I have yet to meet an LIE that is interested in Mysticism or Religious Experience. I would be surprised if Expat or FDG ever took a sustained interest in mysticism. There is something about William James and his introverted logic / personal states of mind that jumps out. For example: "Mystical states carry authority for those that have them, but for no one else". Not a very LIE interest or LIE thing to value.


Check out the table of contents from his 'varieties':

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toc...lic&part=front


LECTURES XVI AND XVII
MYSTICISM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
Mysticism defined -- Four marks of mystic states -- They form a distinct region of consciousness -- Examples of their lower grades -- Mysticism and alcohol -- "The anaelig;thetic revelation" -- Religious mysticism -- Aspects of Nature -- Consciousness of God -- "Cosmic consciousness" -- Yoga -- Buddhistic mysticism -- Sufism -- Christian mystics -- Their sense of revelation -- Tonic effects of mystic states -- They describe by negatives -- Sense of union with the Absolute -- Mysticism and music -- Three conclusions -- (1) Mystical states carry authority for him who has them -- (2) But for no one else -- (3) Nevertheless, they break down the exclusive authority of rationalistic states -- They strengthen monistic and optimistic hypotheses.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Are you sure about this?

Both of the Gamma NT's have in their super-id along with in the ego.

Certain forms of mysticism is related to these two elements.. it's like saying there's never been any mystics or mystics.. which would be a mind boggling statement to me.

In my experience, ILI and LIE have been critical of mysticism and find its positions untenable. In my experience the study of mysticism, such as at a university, is populated with LIE, LII, EII, EIE.

However, I have met ILI and LIE that are interested in astrology, the occult, tarot, and such, but the likes of which have a completely subject matter.

I propose that there is something about Te ego that is unnaccepting of historical mystical doctrine. (Or at least does not find it fulfilling.)

[Ms. Kensington]

in my experience it is the Ni types that are into mysticism, Ti and Fe types seem to be more accepting of religions that are more structured. In my experience.

[Joy]

I would tend to agree.

[Phaedrus]

I propose that there is something about Te ego that is unnaccepting of historical mystical doctrine. (Or at least does not find it fulfilling.)

I would tend to agree. The idea that mysticism is linked to Ni comes from Jung, who attributed it to introverted intuition. But he admitted that he was clearly drawn to mysticism himself, and also that he had strong intuition (in contrast to for example Kant, whom Jung gave as an example of a pure introverted thinking type without much intuition). And Jung's intuition was clearly of the introverted kind in Jung's own terminology. That must be the main reason why many socionists believe that Jung was actually an ILI and not an LII.

It is not at all clear that Socinics is right about this. It could be a myth that is linked to mysticism.

[Logos]

From what I remember reading about him as well as his writings on the religious experience: IEE. -Valuing. Strong . Anti- blocked with , but at the same time, wide open to criticism from blocked with .

[Mariano Rajoy]

Let's just toss the mysticism side out of this argument because one it is a vague and ambiguous topic and there is no evidence that it is related causally with socionic information elements.

Let's talk about a view of his that might bring more insight into his socionic type such as his view on empiricism.



I have a preliminary observation on his type and it's neither LIE or ILE. I do think he is Te valuing.

You can't dismiss mysticism because the example you gave is thoroughly mystical. William James built his career on the scholarly study of mysticism. I find it difficult to accept the division you propose between James and mysticism.

[Mariano Rajoy]

The description I gave might very well be mystical, but I don't think there are many people on the board with the same understanding of mysticism or what you would place under mysticism. Also personal typings are unreliable and not convincing as far as arguments go.

So let's get away from the jargon and personal typings and talk theoretical reasons "why" tenets of mysticism might be related to various information elements and against others.

As far as my preliminary observations of his type.
I do think James might be valuing but I also believe he is valuing.

devalue pragmaticism because causation and systems of causation are a priority versus the direct application towards some "good". I think types are going to be biased towards rationalism and the rationalists like Spinoza, Descartes and Kant versus pragmatics and pragmaticism.

You do realize that William James argues against himself to some extent? In 1907 he published the 'Pragmatism', and in 1909 he published 'A Pluralistic Universe'. The latter contradicts the former, and his philosophical synthesis was never completed before his death. Furthermore, his 'Pragmatism' is intentionally anti-mystical, (or at least attempts to stand outside mysticism), and its place within the chronology of his work is important in that he is addressing that which is anti-mystical, thusly bringing it into mysticism.

See how he concludes the 'Pragmatism' lecture:

"I am well aware how odd it must seem to some of you to hear me say that an idea is ‘true’ so long as to believe it is profitable to our lives [i.e. PRAGMATIC]. That it is good, for as much as it profits, you will gladly admit. If what we do by its aid is good, you will allow the idea itself to be good in so far forth, for we are the better for possessing it. But is it not a strange misuse of the word ‘truth,’ you will say, to call ideas also ‘true’ for this reason?"

"To answer this difficulty fully is impossible at this stage of my account...Let me now say only this, that truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and coordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons. Surely you must admit this, that if there were no good for life in true ideas, or if the knowledge of them were positively disadvantageous and false ideas the only useful ones, then the current notion that truth is divine and precious, and its pursuit a duty, could never have grown up or become a dogma. In a world like that, our duty would be to shun truth, rather. But in this world, just as certain foods are not only agreeable to our taste, but good for our teeth, our stomach, and our tissues; so certain ideas are not only agreeable to think about, or agreeable as supporting other ideas that we are fond of, but they are also helpful in life’s practical struggles. If there be any life that it is really better we should lead, and if there be any idea which, if believed in, would help us to lead that life, then it would be really better for us to believe in that idea, unless, indeed, belief in it incidentally clashed with other greater vital benefits."

The subtelty is that he begins the lecture seemingly , but his true intentions, values, and solutions to the problems become in that beliefs, ideas, and metaphysics take center stage. William James is resolving a dichotomy and creating a synthesis within his own system of thought, which is, by the way, a very mystical notion to put forth.

Furthermore, William James is using the 'good' in a Platonic sense; i.e. as one part of the Patonic trinity: truth, goodness, beauty. To conclude with such a formulation does not suggest .

[discourse]

I have been waiting for a time, where I could learn something about him. He seems to have Ti . And Ne . So INTj or ENTp . But he also has Fi . So I'd say INTj with strong Fi to state out ethical beliefs.

[Joy]

James defined true beliefs as those that prove useful to the believer. Truth, he said, is that which works in the way of belief. "True ideas lead us into useful verbal and conceptual quarters as well as directly up to useful sensible termini. They lead to consistency, stability and flowing human intercourse" but "all true processes must lead to the face of directly verifying sensible experiences somewhere," he wrote.[6]
James's assertion that the value of a truth depends upon its use to the individual who holds it is known as pragmatism. Additional tenets of James's pragmatism include the view that the world is a mosaic of diverse experiences that can only be properly understood through an application of "radical empiricism." Radical empiricism, distinct from everyday scientific empiricism, presumes that nature and experience can never be frozen for absolutely objective analysis, that, at the very least, the mind of the observer will affect the outcome of any empirical approach to truth since, empirically, the mind and nature are inseparable.

Interesting. I share these views.

[Phaedrus]

Interesting. I share these views.

And such views have always been logically incoherent. You should get rid of those stupid views as soon as possible.

[Joy]

Aye aye, sir!

[nanashi]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/


I guess INFp, INTp, ENFj, or ENTj. Possibly INTp.

[Saberstorm]

I hate William James. Something with without Ti.

[Beautiful sky]

Hi nashi

He looks like a P type to me not an NF