Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: ni views of spirituality

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default ni views of spirituality

    ni ego people, how do you view spirituality and religion? if you feel comfortable, please state how you came to believe what you do or simply state where you are now in your spirituality

    this is from 2005 but i think its soooo ni in some parts im posting it. there are some pretty direct quesyions so you will not likely be mislead when choosing which answers to read, heh... simple questions . i thought the answer to the songwriting question was telling

    http://www.licc.org.uk/culture/thom-yorke-interview

    just... yeah im interested in what ni resists.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is a very interesting topic that I think need to be discussed more.

    My personal relation to spirituality and especially religion is that it is total crap and also something evil. Though I share what people often mistake for a religious attitude in that I have a natural sense of wonder for the fact that the world exists. In this I have the exact same attitude as many scientists, for example Einstein (who definitely did not believe in God although he is often attributed a religious view). My natural temperament is also similar to that of the mystics. But a true mystic should never speak a word about his experiences, and every religion is false and should be attacked furiously.

    We can look at another ego type: Arthur Schopenhauer. He was just like me in most respects. He did not believe in God, and he furiously attacked Hegel's for being a charlatan (and he was right in doing that of course) and Hegel's philosophy for being nonsense (and he was right about that too). is linked to mysticism in Socionics, and ILIs are supposed to be spiritual people. But if we look at famous philosophers in history, we see that those belonging to the empiricist tradition (the tradition) of Hume, or are clear examples of ILIs (like Schopenhauer) are usually atheists, whereas the LII philosophers (Kant, Leibniz, Descartes, etc.) are theists.

    Why is that? Is there something wrong with how Socionics group these people and attribute spirituality and religious views to them? I suspect that that is the case. LIIs seem to be more prone to be theists than ILIs (who tend to be atheists), but that suggests that the type descriptions are at least misleading on that point and should be formulated in some other way to avoid misunderstandings.

  3. #3
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I’m very interested in the idea of self-actualization and enlightenment… In some sense I believe in these things because I can imagine a path in my mind that goes there… I think that people like Jesus Christ and Siddhartha Gotama essentially attained a state of enlightenment or self-actualization. I also think that this principle is often present in all religions in one form or another… just obscured by cultural context and time. For instance, I think if you strip away the cultural context from what Jesus taught and what Buddha taught, you’ll find they’re saying very similar things. I love the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, and it seems to be very Buddhist to me (even though Jesus was Jewish). I guess it's like there are many ways (whatever religion or spiritual path one chooses to adopt), but they can all lead to (converge at) the same place.

    I do believe in “God” but not in the biblical sense really. I don’t believe in a supernatural entity who thinks and speaks and lays its wrath upon the world. I don’t believe in biblical ideas of heaven or hell (at least not literally). I see most religious things as metaphors… Perhaps I see God as sort of the fabric of existence, the reason why any of this is here... I also tend to think if one is looking for God they only need to look inside themselves... sort of to know oneself is to know God, is to fully be oneself, is to fully be God...

    I hope I'm not offending anyone with such statements... It is not my intent.

    Anyway, those are my current thoughts.

  4. #4
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think is one of the most "individual" or "personal" functions, along with , and even more so than . Even in , can one ego type really explain to another why is it that he enjoys one kind of (say) drink in particular, rather than any other?

    can make your mind go essentially anywhere. It may make you go "spiritual", it may make you go communist or the like - for no reason easy to explain to outsiders.

    In my own case, I do not see myself as spiritual at all.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  5. #5
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    can make your mind go essentially anywhere. It may make you go "spiritual", it may make you go communist or the like - for no reason easy to explain to outsiders.
    Thats very informative. I've often wondered what Ni is, i've even asked INTp's and they were unable to explain it. I guess it really does sound 'timeless'. Thanks for posting that.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah i was astonished.

  7. #7
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    can make your mind go essentially anywhere. It may make you go "spiritual", it may make you go communist or the like - for no reason easy to explain to outsiders.
    hence the need to bound it with something else?

  8. #8
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    What a mind trip.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's harder for me to see accepting Ni as bound by something than creative Ni. But, I do notice in INFps that they cant really seem to get away from the influence of their creative function in that it will seep through and affect them, much like it says in the article. This is different than Ne, in a creative sense anyway.

  10. #10
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I was thinking about how the leading function restricts the creative function... I don't know... it was interesting that Expat (who is Ni creative) put it in that way...

  11. #11
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I hope I'm not offending anyone with such statements... It is not my intent.
    Far from it. I am a strong atheist, but I reconize the theme you're pursuing and largely agree with it.

    Joseph Campbell wrote:

    Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck to its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. ...The reference of the metaphor in traditional religions is to something transcendent that is not literally any thing. If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restuarant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu.
    Campbell may or may not be himself - that's irrelevent - but I think this speaks of a view on religion and where spirituality enters the picture. I think a lot of atheists and liberal theists see this view being lost in western religions, and they fear that - I do, at least. However, I see the view as filling a fundamental need, and I think it should start shifting away from religion to more of a humanistic/scientific domain.

  12. #12
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I think I was thinking about how the leading function restricts the creative function... I don't know... it was interesting that Expat (who is Ni creative) put it in that way...
    Of course it does. The information comes through from the dominant function, and the creative can only produce with what it is given. This is why for instance INTp and ISTp are so different despite having the same Te.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •