The Implications of Spirituality/Enlightment on psych types

[UDP]

I've had this issue in my head for some time now, and I wonder what your thoughts are.



Maybe it could be likened to duality, but it also seems to soften some j/p edges that I've come across. What I am getting at is how spiritual persuits affect a persons type. I do not suppose, necessarily, that a person's psychological type will 'change' becaues of spiritual development or self cultivation. But I imagine, that, as a person, one could dictate and choose how to balance oneself out.

my expereince with spirituality helped me bring Thinking/Logics to Ethics, and I am also exploring the other dichotomies as well. The one thing that does not change is how I feel about relationships, like because I am an I, and IJ. But on a Much deeper spiritual level, I could even see myself 'not getting so caught up in it', and not really caring so much. So at times I wonder about the j/p scale of things. Furthermore, it seems to me like to get to the deeper truth, which may take on a spiritual nature, you have to: either loosen the j/p difference, or, for me, 'be more open to 'p' ". I could speculate, however, that 'being more open to 'p' ' stikes me that way, because I am inheretly j.


Furthermore, as I posted in the other thread, about the Awareness of the Implications of Psychological Lopsidedness. I think that awareness of such, combined with spirituality (or maybe spirituality isn't necessary), loosens some of the pysch, how the "Ego" has developed. Or at least, that is how it seems to me.

Because, I know I am INTj. But the further I delve into the truth of things, the deeper truths, the less relevant my INTj psyche seems to be. In some ways, my motivation is sapped, and dwindeling. I have less inclination to try to shape the world according to my leading function. It doesn't go away completely, but it is not as strong as if I didn't consider the spiritual side of things. I am sort of 'torn between' my INTj purpose and mood, and the spiritual "being-ness" of what is -- I am not sure how to put the two together, or use one or the other, or how to dissolve the apparent differentiation between the two.

So, I am wondering if anyone else has similar experience, or even just thoughts about this.

[Logos]

But does the pursuit of the spiritual affect a person's type or is it that a person's type affects their pursuit of the spiritual?

Supposedly, INTjs are drawn to mysticism and the occult. And you know, Carl Jung, was highly influenced by the principles of Gnosticism (essentially know yourself to know God).

[UDP]

True.

and yeah, about Jung and I both being INTjs. We are. And I'm exploring all that mysticsm stuff, and so forth....

(Is there anyway you could get a job doing that?)
(I really like exploring such things, I find)

[oyburger]

(Is there anyway you could get a job doing that?)
(I really like exploring such things, I find)

Only if you're Aleister Crowley

I went through an on off phase with spirituality and mysticism between the ages of about 5 and 22. I tried out everything I could get my hands on and that was accessible within my limited sphere.
I would be satisfied until something else caught my attention.

I've created my own version of mysticism and what that contains.
I think for the time being, I'm all spiritual-ed out. It would change my behavior superficially for a short time and that was about it.

[Phaedrus]

My father, who I strongly believe is an INTj, has said that he was very "square" when he was younger, but in his later years he is more drawn to spirituality and mysticism. From having had a rather typical scientific attitude, he is now drawn to (according to me) clearly irrational, unscientific views, including beliefs in telepathy and other "New Age-related" things, and a general relativism in epistemology and the philosophy of science with influences from Kuhn and even Feyerabend. In all his adult years he has been influenced by Martin Buber and the existentialist movement in psychology.

If I compare myself to him (assuming that I am an INTp), one could almost say that it is the other way around for me. My belief in a classical, "positivistic" attitude towards science has become stronger during the years, and my interest in spiritual things, the occult, etc., has faded. I am now almost allergic to relativistic doctrines of any kind, since they, in my opinion, are simply self-refuting or trivial.

[Ms. Kensington]

I think the need to "switch" between individual purpose and "what is" could be j.

Also, i am kind of floored by the wideness of the topic. I'll just say that, people of all types can and do believe in the same religions. If you mean world view, I would say what I began the post with.

[Polly]

Well I consider myself quite spiritual just not affiliated with any specific belief. I have to say though, when talking to Buddhists, many of the conclusions I've come up with in life seem to match their philosophies quite well.

Although P may be critical to that kind of perceiving openess, it does not necessarily bring you to enlightenment. You still have to be able to commit at least a bit to certain ideas.

As a P (keeping in mind that ENT part prior to that impacts the P) I guess how I function is like this....

I will, almost immediately, totally disregard previous knowledge if it doesn't match the new stuff coming in. New information places the old in question constantly and its only those things which are consistent with new information that I feel I can believe in.

Over time, there are certain ideas or constencies which stand the test of time I find. Such as balance.

If posed a question in regards to spirtuality or the like. I give my opinon based on connections I'm making at that time. If I gave it more thought, I could probably make more connections. Its not usually from anything specific I've read but more like it encompasses everything I ever read for which I can't instantly recall the details if I was asked.

It was the ideas generated from my experiences I remember rather than the actual details.

[UDP]

My father, who I strongly believe is an INTj, has said that he was very "square" when he was younger, but in his later years he is more drawn to spirituality and mysticism. From having had a rather typical scientific attitude, he is now drawn to (according to me) clearly irrational, unscientific views, including beliefs in telepathy and other "New Age-related" things, and a general relativism in epistemology and the philosophy of science with influences from Kuhn and even Feyerabend. In all his adult years he has been influenced by Martin Buber and the existentialist movement in psychology.

If I compare myself to him (assuming that I am an INTp), one could almost say that it is the other way around for me. My belief in a classical, "positivistic" attitude towards science has become stronger during the years, and my interest in spiritual things, the occult, etc., has faded. I am now almost allergic to relativistic doctrines of any kind, since they, in my opinion, are simply self-refuting or trivial.

Yeah, you 'sound' like an INTp, with the way you made that remark



For the record, though... I don't believe in 'telepathy'

From having had a rather typical scientific attitude, he is now drawn to (according to me) clearly irrational, unscientific views, including beliefs in telepathy and other "New Age-related" things, and a general relativism in epistemology and the philosophy of science with influences from Kuhn and even Feyerabend. In all his adult years he has been influenced by Martin Buber and the existentialist movement in psychology.

...........no. Doesn't float my boat. It could be that he just got so damn tired of everything that he wanted to try somsehing new -- that is a speculative guess. But that is kind of a long way to go.....



=======
=======


I think I said this above, but I wonder if spirituality has a dualization process, when it is actually sincere (or at least 'what I consider spiritual progress). Enlightenment is a good word to use, perhaps. I wonder, if that would ease constraints of a heavily developed psychological type, and lead more towards xxxx. I know that is more "tcau" type stuff to talk about, maybe, and I cannot remember if I brought this up with him before or not.

We'll see.

[Phaedrus]

Yeah, you 'sound' like an INTp, with the way you made that remark

Thanks!

[consentingadult]

What spirituality and enlightenment can do for you, is that you become more accepting of yourself and of other people. The overall effect is that you eliminate neurotic behavior and start acting confidently in your Ego zone. The Ego negotiates between the Super-Ego (=other people) and the Id (your own life force and will). This indeed counteracts the effects of a Type.

This phenomenon can be further explained by means of The Big 5. In this psychometric system, and individual is balanced if Extroversion is somewhere in the middle (ambivert) because too much extraversion leads to e.g. indiscriminate disclosure. Openness (roughly S/N) should be somewhere in the middle, because too much openness will cause speculation and not enough openness causes lack of info and thus skepticism. Conscientiousness (roughly MBTI J/P) should not be too low or high, because you should be able to achieve on the one hand, but to relax on the other hand as well.

I have the following hypothesis: high-self-esteem/low-neurotic individuals can be typed, but are more difficult to type, because they are "in the middle" behaviorwise. Now speaking of enlightenment: didn't Buddha say something about staying "in the middle?? :wink:

[UDP]

Thanks. I appreciate that response, because at least now I know someone else can grasp at the concept which I was thinking in my head.

I have the following hypothesis: high-self-esteem/low-neurotic individuals can be typed, but are more difficult to type, because they are "in the middle" behaviorwise. Now speaking of enlightenment: didn't Buddha say something about staying "in the middle??

Ah, very nice. Yes.

Something easily quotible comes to mind, also
"Zen Lessons: The Art Of Leadership"...

Balancing

The essential point in studying the Way is like balancing stones to weigh things-- just get them even, that is all. It won't work if one side is too heavy. Pushing ahead and lagging behind are both the same in being one-sided. When you realize this, you can study the Way.

[consentingadult]

I would like to add something to this.

In Socionics, but even more in MBTI, often it is said that you can not really be "in the middle", everyone has a type. Some people ask: but can't you work at going to the middle and balance things out? Well, I don't think there is a direct way, if you're N you can't really work at becoming more S. If you try consciously, you might even get neurotic.

How then do we go to the middle, behaviorwise? That is by becoming a high-self-esteem person, with is basically a straighforward, Western way of the principle of Enlightenment. The automatic and unanticipated effective result is behavior "in the middle". You have to take a little detour to get to the middle, don't aim straight for it.

Does this make sense, or are there people who can shed a different light on it?

[UDP]

That makes sense to me.
I just am not sure what you meant by "western", in terms of Enlightenment.

But everything else sounds about right. I think a lot has to do with internal confidence, self esteem, etc. Self-possession. Self-awareness, even. You begin to observe the self, and recognize tendancies, and in that way I believe you can (begin) over-ride the default ego (block, even) programming. But you can't do that if you are still worrying about other things... kind of like Maslow's self-actualization, etc.

[consentingadult]

That makes sense to me.
I just am not sure what you meant by "western", in terms of Enlightenment.

But everything else sounds about right. I think a lot has to do with internal confidence, self esteem, etc. Self-possession. Self-awareness, even. You begin to observe the self, and recognize tendancies, and in that way I believe you can (begin) over-ride the default ego (block, even) programming. But you can't do that if you are still worrying about other things... kind of like Maslow's self-actualization, etc.

The thing is, that Enlightenment is more of an oriental concept, which does not go well with Western-world logical-mechanical thinking. But in the Western world we have developed method and terminology that is more in line with our language, but is basically the same as principles we find in Oriental "psychology".

It is a public secret, e.g., that Freud got a lot of his ideas from Oriental knowledge. He even admitted this on occasion, but wrote stuff down in such a way that people started to think he came up with all of his theories himself. The truth is that many principles in Psychoanalysis have their basis in Orientalism.

Or does this sound vague?

[UDP]

Nope. It sounds about right to me.

Quite frankly, I despise the majority of western 'philosophy', because it really comes across as it being a waste (or at least poor use) of 1500 years or so. Where as Eastern stuff seems a lot closer to the truth, a lot more 'timeless', in particular buddhism and zen. But also things like the Upanishads. Something I've been into lately:

"That which is not thought by the mind,
But that by which the mind thinks:
Know this alone to be God, and not what people here adore".

[consentingadult]

Quite frankly, I despise the majority of western 'philosophy', because it really comes across as it being a waste (or at least poor use) of 1500 years or so. Where as Eastern stuff seems a lot closer to the truth, a lot more 'timeless'....

As usual, the real truth is somewhere in the middle. The Oriental approach has its pros and cons, so does the Occidental one :wink:

[UDP]

'word.'

( )

[consentingadult]

"That which is not thought by the mind,
But that by which the mind thinks:
Know this alone to be God, and not what people here adore".

1 John 2, verses 15-17:

Don't love the world or anything that belongs to the world. If you love the world, you cannot love the Father. 16 Our foolish pride comes from this world, and so do our selfish desires and our desire to have everything we see. None of this comes from the Father. 17 The world and the desires it causes are disappearing. But if we obey God, we will live forever.

You see, there is NO conflict between Oriental and Occidental principles.

Not bad, hey, considering I'm an atheist!? :wink:

[UDP]

nope, not bad at all.


I suppose I could be an atheist. I'd just have to change the words I use for the definitions I have already :ti:'d. I don't even know what to refer to myself as anymore, in terms of spirituality or faith or religion.

I guess I'm a seeker, if anything. ArcaneAdventurer (my aim handle), mystic explorer. But not really affiliated with any view or standpoint, at this time