God I love this guy. His book has helped me so much. INxx, EII>IEI>LII>ILI IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j42cTkiGdXY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci8ZAj6Z8C4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqX5IFKYFWk
Printable View
God I love this guy. His book has helped me so much. INxx, EII>IEI>LII>ILI IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j42cTkiGdXY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci8ZAj6Z8C4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqX5IFKYFWk
I posted him a long time ago on the forum, no one heard of him then. I'm glad others have now. I kept promoting "A New Earth", after I first read it.
I could see him as EII. His voice sounds possibly EII.
This sounds fancy pants but in reality he's actually full of shit. I was so psyched up about what he was teaching I tried to apply it in real life situations and I got into so much trouble. The truth is looking ahead is very important in life. Just living in the moment too much brings too many painful consequences. And the mind is unfortunately how we establish a stable society. There's nothing really pretty or enlightening about it, but it's not about that- it's just a necessary evil because it is what works.
I mean just try it. Try to do what he says. Try to just embrace the inner Now and shit like that. Tell me if it brings you this key to success or whatever. I think he's just BSing personally. If you want to truly attain a valuable thing in life, it requires tons of reflection and looking to the future and also studying the past so you don't make the same mistakes again. That's how learning and growth happens.
He's just trying to find a way to accept the overly sensor go-getter types instead of realizing they were never that correct in the first place and he should be more comfortable in what he already knows would be true instead of just what will look good to the masses. (Most people like fast cars, quick money and sex and that's why his pop-psychology fan wanker theory applies to so many selfish, nihilistic, Oprah spoon-fed Americans) He looks very awkward and gimpish like he got made fun of a lot in grade school. Bet my life on it.
I feel sorry for him in a way. He's deeply sensitive, and I admire that in people but that doesn't really change anything or give you a special purpose in the world or make you a spiritual authority on much of anything. It's just a good quality because it's so rare these days. Believe me I have thoughts like him all the time, and I'm most likely his identical. So believe me when I say the guy is full of shit and he really just wants compassion and lots of friends. He's just *lonely* and he wants some of the love that he gave over the years but just got bullied instead.
Don't exaggerate what I said though. The guy clearly is smart about stuff, but the here in the now thing needs to be applied with a GRAIN OF SALT. It's not the key or secret to life. It's just one small part of the puzzle and he's dragging it on and on - making it sound like he needs to go out and just get laid for a weekend. But, he would have to idealize that in some way or it feels wrong. We're all like that though.
I love in the Power of Now where he talked about how men have 'mind issues' and women have 'body-pain' issues. I talk about that too. Gonzo porn and stuff turns men on visually but that's all it does. It's like this phantom jokester that smiles at us but never really satisfies us completely. The faster, the more dominant, the rougher- we men like that. But in reality the stuff that's actually good for us appears softer and docile. There's nothing that powerful about it. It's like, eating tofu makes you feel like a San Francisco pussy but it's actually much better for you than red meat.
The rough stuff heals some things in the mind and it releases some mind tension where we can't physically control things, so it's still important but many men make a lifestyle out of it.
Remember the best stories are ones that use concrete details (not even analogies) to describe what something is like, not abstract phrases. Because when you use abstractions like good/evil right/wrong you end up sounding like a condescending, judgmental asscunt. The truth is 'Now' is still too subjective. Now what? Now of what time? I'M IN THE NOW AND I GAINED THIS REALLY COOL SUPER POWER. IT ALLOWS ME TO SEE MEN NAKED.
He's not trying to say that he has the answer to all problems in life. He's just trying to help people accept reality for what it is and realize the essentials of meditation and what enlightenment refers to. He's helping westernize the eastern philosophies of "no-mind." Obviously this is not very useful in a day-to-day setting where we need to harness our minds and use them for their positive potentials: everyday tasks, our work, etc. At that point we need to use our minds actively in order to participate in society.
If you want to become a spiritual guru or monk, however, then yes, his principles are very useful for day-to-day living. Otherwise the mind is obviously a necessary tool.
Maybe a good insight. Beta NF-ery ftw...?Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
My guess is IEI.
I could only read like the first 5 pages of his book. It just seemed really vague, wishy-washy, how is he going to write more on this?, does he even have a main point?, all this is sort of obvious and bs-y....
Anyway, that's sort of the reaction I have to most writings by my quasis so...
I know this sounds retarded, but if you can suspend your disbelief and disregard the new-agey feel of the book overall, and take it for what it's really worth, well, it's helped me accomplish things I never would have dreamed possible.
hmm sounds interesting. must look into his work
Yeah but if I don't feel integrated in society in some way well- I just lose myself too much. I'm like that now. I've been a hermit for the past few years. And I feel kinda epic and 'deep' sometimes but well... I don't know, it's just lonely. Not that I was really all that while I was out doing real life things and having fun. Funny thing is I used to be kind of jealous of people like that but once I did them I thought they were lame kinda like 'omg this is it?' Not really a 'Oh this isn't so bad once I do it type thing' more like....no experience whatsoever can match my spiritual idealism so I'd much rather just sit in my room and write stories. =)
Well thanks for explaining things better. Hey lol maybe I am a spiritual guru or monk. I really act just like that guy in real life it's weird. But as I'm only 24 I have a long way to go before I'm at Tolle's level.
For me I have no desire to accomplish things so it doesn't really matter. I kinda just wanna be alive.
Btw if people want to hear about why I decided to become a hermit then go ahead. But there's nothing wrong with me it's all my choice. I'm not sick, it's just how I choose to live. I feel nothing really gives me the satisfaction... what is can never be as good as what could be. Even sex, meeting that person- going to my favorite place. It's all inherently disappointing. I'm not depressed though. More pensive and somber and just... deep. I really rub people the wrong way because I talk so seriously. I just want to like....create something so epic and big it changes the world so I'm like gathering energies. I promise it will happen. And it's something that will benefit all of humankind. I have to avoid a lot of like... unnecessary social shit for this to happen.
lol I know I'm not all that important. I don't have delusions of grandeur. This is just the way it needs to be done.
Gilly's first instinct was correct, I believe... INFj.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starfall
(The German accent makes him sound like a INTx, lol.)
You apparently don't understand the point of the book at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritella
You really don't understand the book, at all.Quote:
, does he even have a main point?
could you explain your reasons? or is it just a gut instinct?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJu
lol yeah, i know what you meanQuote:
(The German accent makes him sound like a INTx, lol.)
most of the time i think living in the present is a metaphor for Se. So I'd say INFp.
I would be wary of typing him by the philosophy he teaches, because as gilly's noted, its not really anything very original (not that ET claims it to be). And also I think a person of any type could appreciate such a philosophy.
I read 5 pages. I'm not claiming to understand anything. I was more referring to writing tone and style. And also, I'm just brain farting here.Quote:
Originally Posted by UDP
Sure... Here's a conversation with E. Tolle and Oprah (ENFj,) which shows how he interacts:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellothere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eouF-2owPZE&feature=related
If you want to concentrate on just E. Tolle and not the intertype relation, I'd say the first thing that jumps out at me is his use of Fi... He's a little constrained here because Oprah's giving out a lot of Fe... And they're not connecting on that level. There are a few semi-awkward moments, usually after Oprah attempts to distill something 'deep'--but she's a pro and doesn't let them fester... (On with the show, lol.) Compare Oprah's Fe with Tolle, who lacks it. Fi>Fe, which narrows down the potential types.
That brings us to deciding Delta or Gamma... I'm interested to see what you see here, hellothere... To be honest, ET's German inflected English makes him harder than normal to type. IMO.
I'd say EII makes sense.
thanks for the video. Could you be more explicit about where the Fi jumps out at you? I'm asking not just because I'm interested in his type but also because I want to check my understanding of this element (especially because I think it's my leading function lol). One thing that could be Fi was when he spoke about feeling a "deep inner connection" to certain places, but is there anything else? That almost seems too stereotypically Fi that I fear it might not be. But yeah, I can definitely see the difference between him and Oprah.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuJu
I dunno, I'm probably not qualified to speak, but he seems softer than I'd imagine an Se valuing (esp if in ego) to be, and from what I read in his wikipedia article it sounds like he has been very open minded to diverse philosophies and ways of thinking and what he has done so well is to perceive the essence of each and then tie them all together - I'm not sure about this but perhaps this is a manifestation of Ne - though if this is the case, I guess its possible that any type (or any person I guess I should say, considering I warm more to the idea of 'strong' vs. 'weak' being like Ritella said, a within person thing, that is, its possible a sensing type could display good use of Ni/Ne, but they are a sensing type simply because their use of Si/Se is better) with "strong" Ne could do this, regardless of whether Ne is "valued" or not.Quote:
That brings us to deciding Delta or Gamma... I'm interested to see what you see here, hellothere... To be honest, ET's German inflected English makes him harder than normal to type. IMO.
bump. I wanna know where people are seeing the Fi
I don't so much see Fi specifically in anything he says or does as I do a general congruence with my picture of EIIs. He speaks calmly and formally, rarely gets excited or shows any overt displays of emotion, says exactly what he means without making insinuations or trying to form grandiose, abstract connections, and generally seems more "tolerant" of Oprah's attitude than willing to engage in the atmosphere she is trying to create. It seems like she is setting up this big grand scheme of having people communicate all the world over and it's this big, special event, and he pretty calmly just sits there and says what he has to say without seriously engaging or contributing to the sense of grandiosity that she seems to be trying to create.
I think he's a leprechaun ;).
I enjoyed Power of Now, but thought A New Earth was more of the same, and got bored with it.
He kinda lost me when he started talking about the Pain Body, but eventually I was able to see it as a metaphor and from there use the metaphor to help explain certain behaviors I see in myself in others ...
As for how living "in the now" can work on a daily basis, he does address this in one part of the book, basically implying that our brains will work on the future without us actively thinking about it - although encased in language that sounds like all we need to do is "align" ourselves with the direction of "good energies" (not his words, just remembering my impression) to have results. That's not entirely likely to get the gas bill paid on time, unfortunately ... don't forget how he described living on a park bench for two years just blissed out - which means he was homeless and jobless. While that took away a lot of shit to worry about, he couldn't have survived without a society around him, so at least in part I agree with BulletsandDoves on that.
Interesting...I experienced the Pain Body very directly and nearly exactly as he describes it, and I'm entirely convinced that it made my first and only experience with true, full meditation possible.
lol, that was very recent
Yeah, I agree with Starfall, as usual :) INFj.
To those who have read his books... How could Socionics be anything other than deep identification with your thinking mechanism?
If you use it properly it may be able to help you identify when you are looking at his thinking mechanism.
:lol: at people being interested in him/this now. I brought him up over a year ago and nobody cared.
But then you're not simply observing. You're analyzing, which is a function of your thinking mechanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by UDP
:pQuote:
:lol: at people being interested in him/this now. I brought him up over a year ago and nobody cared.
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Joy
So then according to this philosophy, identifying yourself as a Socionics type and analyzing your thoughts/behavior/experiences according to Socionics are only going to take you further away from who you really are. Studying Socionics, especially if you think about it a lot, will only serve to greatly strengthen your identification with your thinking mechanism. The more you try to identify yourself as a particular type/dichotomy/quadra, the more your ego will feel the need to defend this concept of self. Fear, anxiety, worry, other forms of unhappiness, and most likely physical manifestations of such (disease, pain, or unfortunate circumstances in your life) are sure to follow as the strength of your defensiveness grows (which will happen in proportion to your preoccupation with Socionics).
Tolle says throughout his books that the wisest ppl are often those who, at one point in time, were overly identified with the mind or pain-body, and then for whatever reason, renounced those allegiances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
Thus if one makes of Socionics a 'pain-body,' or a rigid mental identification, then yes--I imagine that he'd view it as unfortunate... However, I don't believe that he's against the old Greek maxim 'know thyself'--and thus, to the degree that Socionics allows one to 'know thyself' but not become overly identified with/limited by that self-conception, (here's where the other Greek maxim about 'moderation' is applicable,) I imagine that he'd regard Socionics as instructional, (or at least having the potential to be instructional--for various reasons/purposes.)
oicQuote:
Originally Posted by JuJu
(I'm only on chapter 3 atm. :lol:)
Okay, so at this point I'm just about through The Power of Now, and I must say I'm a bit disappointed. It started out really good, but after not too long he stops talking about the basic concept (the one that he describes in the first few chapters) and starts talking about his opinions about the past and future of the human race and the world. (It seems to me that someone's having a bit too much fun with his eighth function. :? :lol:)
I'm not sure what to think about the "pain body" he describes. I understand (and tend to agree with) the underlying concept, but the way he explains it seems a bit contrived to me.
Can someone tell me if A New Earth is about anything more than his ideas about the past and future of the world and humanity?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAvfdwypmnw]YouTube - Honoring Others - Eckhart Tolle - www.eckharttolle.com[/ame]
Either INTp-Ni or INFp-Ni, IMO ..
No. INFj-Ne.
INFps are just more aggressive and sexual than that.
Love thy neighbor as yourself blah blah treat other people nicely, don't be an asshole. Yadda yadda yadda, stay aware.
How patronizing.
True, you know, but patronizing.
Instead of preaching I kinda prefer "Heh, shit- you fucked up on that too? So did I!"
I have never read his book before but if that is how you determine his type based on your explanation of his motive then I must be a Delta.
What he is saying is that if you hold onto a particular set of thoughts, identities, etc.; then you limit yourself from perceiving its opposite form of awareness; and then he is applying that to relationships. So he is telling everyone on here to, basically, stop being their type.
I might be able to see INFj-Ne
Can't stand this guy. Definitely INFj-Ne then, if anything. Ugh... I actually bought his two books and they are complete crap, imo. Stating the obvious and putting it into pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-mystical phrases. GAH! STOP!!!
I actually read a couple pages of the power of now and it was exactly how ScarlettLux describe it, it was not understandable.
just some kind of soft talking schizo who thinks he's the next prophet and bringer of light.
what type... i don't know. But I know I don't like him.
His view of human relationships is also negative. He is an anti-romanticst, that is why he clashes with IEIs.
He's actually quite negative. In one of his videos, he talks about how since all human relationships will fail in the end, that we try to use other people to fill a void in ourselves, we should I guess- just stop trying and devote ourselves to his cult?
I don't think so buddy. What a fucking money hungry whore that needs to get over himself.
I am tired of that thinking. "It will all be for nothing in the end so why even try?" How emo.
No passion whatsoever in that man. Brrrr religious types are annoying.
You're right, he is INFj-Ne. I can see it now.
I have only seen this one video of him. I definitely agree with what he said in it. Maybe you misunderstood it. Maybe you reduced it to something stupid because you can't see its relevance. Maybe you have some other idea of your own which contradicts it. If you do, I'd like to hear it. I agree he comes off as a narcissist.. But I do not care about that. Dismissing an idea through calling it 'emo' is baseless and a waste of my time. I don't care if an idea rubs against you and gives you 'bad vibes'. I only care if the idea is valid, and in this case I think it is. That goes for all the pussy sucking INFps on this thread.
BulletsandDoves: You are framing his point of view wrongly. That is a stupid interpretation of things. You made his point sound stupid intentionally, and you cut things short.
Scarlettlux: Whether or not he is a snob is irrelevant. Why do you care if he's a snob? Why does it matter at all? Why mention it?
Numbers: Yes I agree his way of talking alienates most of his audience
Jarno: Why don't you like him? Because he thinks he's too important? Do you disagree with what he said about ego consciousness vs. a lack of motivated consciousness?
lol i can see repressed sexual deviant
INFj sounds good.
I'm jumping the bandwagon on disliking him.
No, I don't think I did. Elaborate
Haha you're actually right. But Crazedrat was right too that people were misrepresenting Tolle's message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starfall
He's some INFj. I always thought Fi subtype, but never definitively.
There are no "shoulds", that's the point. It's simply an awareness he's speaking from. All human relationships won't fail in the end, but instead relationships will be totally transformed and become more full than they've ever been, once you don't see the need to seek yourself in them anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsandDoves
I've gotten a similar reaction from some other Betas I've talked about Tolle's stuff with. I feel like Tolle has this central message, then goes and shows how that central message is manifested in all these different contexts, which seems really Ne/Si to me. I personally find that helpful because I look for that concrete manifestation of the abstract principle in order to better understand and feel it in my everyday life. I don't know if this is the reason some Betas haven't liked his stuff, and maybe my sample size is too small, but what he does (taking the central abstract principle and permuting it in these different experiential contexts) seems really Ne/Si, and I can relate to it easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlettlux
I came across this woman/channel yesterday and liked what she had to say:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faoHcnpNspM]YouTube - Ramtha on Emotional Addictions 1 of 3[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvBT9fjuucU]YouTube - Ramtha on Emotional Addictions 2 of 3[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDZV7uVJQuw]YouTube - Ramtha on Emotional Addictions 3 of 3[/ame]
(she was also one of the interviewees in the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?")
Yes, you are right. If I was taking his advice I would of recognized what you were saying was irrelevant to the idea in the first place. I'd be able to appreciate your reaction for what it was.. what exactly that is, I'm still wondering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starfall
EII-Ne seems like the best guess. "The Power of Now" actually helped me quite a bit when I was in a bad place in life, after getting kicked out of school and waiting to be admitted to a rehab clinic; I realize that it's mostly New Age crap, but it was a positive influence at a time when I was basically feeling lost and impressionable. It's very wishy-washy, and incredibly vague, but I dunno, I guess with anything like that whole self-help genre, what matters is less what is said, but who is reading it.
But see Steve, this is what is so patronizing about that advice. I never before ever sought myself in a relationship so telling me to 'stop doing that' is very patronizing and condescending of tolle, as I never even did that before in the first place. I try to choose relationships very carefully because they obviously mean a lot to me. I don't 'seek myself' in a relationship (although you are bound to learn things about yourself anyway from the other person's feedback), I view a relationship as something that forces people to be selfless.Quote:
All human relationships won't fail in the end, but instead relationships will be totally transformed and become more full than they've ever been, once you don't see the need to seek yourself in them anymore.
Tolle doesn't even know me. He hasn't spoken one syllable to me, doesn't know me from Adam, and he thinks he has a right to tell me how to live my life? Fuck that condescending Delta shit. My good friends got to know me for YEARS before they felt confident enough to give me advice, and that's how it should be.
Not so much about us 'liking it' as it's something that appears to work for us. Because of how our Ni works, we can derive confidence from looking in the past. What might be 'ideals and mystic nothings' to you is pure magical strength for us. I mean the power of now is okay and all, but it indirectly implies that your life always sucked in the past, but me- I can gain confidence and psychic energy if I think of the times in the past that life didn't suck, if I remember when I felt truly supported and loved- that can help push me forward. If the 'now' SUCKS then I don't want to focus on the now, geddit? If I'm taking a shit, I don't want to 'focus on the now' because all I'm doing is making the bathroom smelly, I'd much rather fantasize about something else while shitting. The present moment isn't inherently better than the past or the future. It's just the present moment. It can be awesome (neutral), or it can also suck- just like any other timeline. And instead of helping me or making me feel empowered, like most stuff written by Deltas, it makes me feel guilty.Quote:
Do you INFps like your memories and fantasies? Can taking away your fantasies and memories from you be so repulsive? Funny people, hah. ??
A bit of dissociation and fantasizing is healthy. Nothing wrong with it. You'd probably end up killing yourself from being too much in the present as well. I guess I just don't understand his advice and I like to argue/debate with him, as usually the opposite has worked better for me.
To me, Beta compliments and encouragement are compliments and encouragement that are nothing but the pure truth - that is what makes them so powerful. It's like 'Hey this person really knows me and has been keeping an eye on me, it makes me feel wanted and like I'm really HERE.' (which is why I loved the Beta show 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' so much because it did that constantly.) We don't lie to you just so you will feel better, which is essentially what I see Tolle doing. (Maybe that helped you but see that wouldn't help me, and I would get into an argument with the person.) Also it's like All Light all the time, he doesn't really explain in very good detail the problems he had in his life, which makes me think he's just a selfish cash cow.Quote:
I realize that it's mostly New Age crap, but it was a positive influence at a time when I was basically feeling lost and impressionable.
If you are always bound to stay high you are bound to stay low, you know?
I realize my hatred of this man is irrational but I don't care. He annoys me. This will be my last post about the topic until other people comment on my rants. (Heh triple post ftl)
See, it's little self-depreciating comments about people's personality quirks that I enjoy so much.
Ok, so don't take it as that. I don't think the spirit of it is to be condescending. Do with it what you will. If you do ever find yourself identifying or ego-seeking in a relationship at any given moment, just keep it in mind. It's not really about adhering to a philosophy, but just about noticing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
Cool. I'm the same way (or at least try to be), and I definitely agree, you are bound to learn things about yourself in the relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsandDoves
I believe Tolle's comments on relationships refer to egoic seeking like "I need this person to be such and such way for me to be whole and content". Then when the person deviates from your ideal plan for him/her, you suffer and feel resistance inside. The suffering essentially comes from arguing with reality, or "denying the present moment" is how I believe he refers to it. "She shouldn't be yelling at me!" you may think to yourself. Well, is that reality? There she is, yelling at you. Behind it there is always something deeper. "She shouldn't be yelling at me because soulmates aren't supposed to have disharmony, and it means that she doesn't love me or I am unlovable because my soul-mate (who I have unconsciously given power over me to judge me, and whose approval I need), is raising her voice at me."
Kind of childish thinking, but existent nonetheless in many relationships. Being "present" or "enlightened" really just means noticing these childish unconscious beliefs and how they aren't really true, which opens you up to so many more exciting possibilities once the crutches are shed.
He's not. You are, through him ;P. You're abnegating your own absolute power and projecting that he's trying to take it from you. Trust me, I've done the same for ages. It's core 6-stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsandDoves
My personal take on it is that he's just saying what's worked for him, and is showing you the world as he sees it. The only way someone could be offended by what he (or anyone) writes is that either Tolle says something they themselves believe to be true and don't want to admit, or that they've doubted their own sense of being and project this insecurity onto him, as if he's trying to invade/uproot their sense of order, when it is but only the reflection of them doing it to themselves. Even if his (or any author's) goal was to try and convert people to some ideology (which it is not), he is powerless unless people give (or try to give in their minds) power to him. And if they happen to agree with him and find his words true to their own experience, then there really isn't any converting at all, and only people identifying with an external form of their own views in their head.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsandDoves
It really comes down to though, take from it what you will. If it resonates with you, great. If not, great, it's not for you then.
It's okay if a person yells at me sometimes. But if somebody is yelling at me all the time or even half the time that IS not what friendships or relationships are supposed to be about. It's a matter of consistency.
And yes I realize them yelling has more to do with their own issues cause usually people will snipe at people for things they do not like in themselves.
The rest of your post, well while well-meaning, seemed to be more blame-the-victim crap that is present in this society because people are just too damn lazy to realize that people just have unfair advantages based on money and that's all there is to it.
you just don't understand what he means by 'seeking yourself' in a relationship. you being gay makes that even more ironic
I thought "now" was supposed to be an Se thing, with living in the moment and such. Jim Carrey is apparently starting some kind of spiritual movement with ET. Here's a video of Jim Carrey talking about it:Quote:
Originally Posted by tuturututu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tqoWwIDCCw
Maybe ESI is a potential type for him?
Holy fuck. Die.
Tolle = INFj
Carey= ESTp
philosophies/ways of living =/ socionics type
Yeah, true. And I don't hate him because he's "another delta psychologist" (not that they aren't twats). It's more that he's snaky, insincere, manipulative and self-serving IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
I was thinking EII sp/sx for him, one of the attachment-based types 9/3.
LSI
ILI
Most likely IEI-Ni. His work reeks of 4D :Ni: and :Fi:.
The only other option I'd see would be EII.
I am going with IEI > EII, because his work seems primarily :Ni: valuing to me.
His views in this video are pretty much Ni lead, and I see signs of Fe Creative there (0:45, 2:53).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUuHHy_AhPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxGRkEccgbU
And I get the impression he could be 6w5.
I also see signs of Fe Creative in the second video, but it is quite subdued. He'd be 2Ni, likely.
(He's one of those rare people I could consider being 3-subtype, though that subtype
still seems like it can only exist in fiction and not real life, to me.)
Btw, "The Power of Now" seems like :Se: seeking to me.
Listen to his words. He is a logical type. In my opionion ILIQuote:
Originally Posted by Olimpia
He might be super Si+
Smoking rolled up dog crap would bring you more enlightenment than this guy could.
I only read two pages of The Power of Now before discarding it, but my impression wasn't really that he was positing "power" or awareness of the present moment in a volitional sense; rather it struck me more as a kind of new age, faux buddhistic reification, a pretense of being in some sort of mystical harmony with one's environment, which imo is reflective of the characteristic pitfall of delta Si.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olimpia
Pitfall?Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
entp
Yeah, like I've noticed deltas are sometimes resistant/unwilling to integrate/accept certain kinds of abstractions (typically Ni-based ones). To me it just seems like they don't always follow the inner evolution of perceptions the way Ni/Se-valuers do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
Tolle's philosophy is the extreme end of this tendency. For a more balanced example, read Almaas' Facets of Unity.
"Certain kinds of abstractions" - Like what?Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
"Inner evolution of perceptions" - ???
I'm not too interested in spirituality or mysticism myself. I don't think I would enjoy reading about it. From what I've learned of existentialism, which isn't much, I kinda like it. It has that idea of focusing on transient sensory experience, unless I'm mistaking my "isms." I'm not into anything supernatural. Psychological woo is about as woo as I get. That's why I'm always a bit skeptical when I read about the theoretical underpinnings of the enneagram, for example.
My bad, not LSI. EII
Well, ime it's usually when I start talking about some concept without a fixed reference point or throw out an impression that I simply expect someone to "get" implicitly/indirectly that Si-valuers will concretize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
For example, back in senior year of high school, I wrote a poem that was supposed to be a metaphor for personal evolution in the context of relationships. Anyway one part made a subtle allusion to war, as a way to highlight my experience... I showed it to a friend of mine, who then showed it to his LSE brother, and the latter immediately started talking about how it reminded him of the war in Iraq.
Obviously Si-valuers can think abstractly, but with Ni-valuers, it's like they can more easily align their own subjective context with the other person.
Well, see above, but it's mainly just that when Si-valuers relay inner/subjective experience, it tends to have a more tangible "coloring".Quote:
"Inner evolution of perceptions" - ???
So, the LSE just said the first connection that popped into his head rather than looking at the allusion to war and considering how that might relate to your personal experience, especially in the context of the rest of the poem. Is that right? If so, it might also partially relate to weak ethics.Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
I realize we often expect others to just "get" what we are saying. Maybe it's true that people in the same quadra are more likely to understand you without a long, drawn-out explanation? I always wonder if there are other explanations for that, like similar levels of intelligence, or similar experiences and interests. Maybe people in the same quadra are driven to have the same kinds of experiences by instinct, and that's where those shared reference points come from that we can use to connect with others quickly and easily.
Either way, it seems like the LSE didn't really get the point. That's more likely with STs than NFs in my experience, especially with something like poetry. (This doesn't apply with SLE literary critics like Harold Bloom really.)
When you say that Ni valuers can more easily align their subjective context with another person, do you mean that they can see life through someone else's perspective more easily? I'm wondering if that's the case, and if so, what the consequences of that are.
EII, annoying person
I dunno, you could just as easily interpret that as the LSE knowing what you were talking about and simply relating his own experience of "personal evolution in the context of relationships"--I mean war is a profound, perhaps the ultimate, expression of just that--band of brothers anyone? Sometimes in these conversations I really wonder who the shallow person is
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
I generally agree, but I've never really had that problem with beta STs.Quote:
Either way, it seems like the LSE didn't really get the point. That's more likely with STs than NFs in my experience, especially with something like poetry. (This doesn't apply with SLE literary critics like Harold Bloom really.)
It's something I've observed happening the most when two Ni-egos converse. For example, the first time I met an old EIE friend at a gathering, he and I ended up together alone on the balcony, smoking cigarettes. There was a brief silence, and then he said something like, "I wonder if the rain drops can see themselves on the way down." which sparked a two minute poetic discourse. The point is that we just "knew" what the other was saying without needing it to be made explicit. I've never had this with Si-valuers.Quote:
When you say that Ni valuers can more easily align their subjective context with another person, do you mean that they can see life through someone else's perspective more easily? I'm wondering if that's the case, and if so, what the consequences of that are.
I'm not saying one can't draw external parallels to metaphors that bear on their meaning, but in this case it was intended as self-contained/standalone. And he wasn't really alluding to any "personal evolution" in his commentary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
how do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
Because, as per my friend's account, all he said was something along the lines of, "Hm, war... you mean like the conflict in the middle east?".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
SNATCHED BY NI!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
credit to Chae for the funny saying
IEI
Don't know why people type Eckhart Tolle EII and Osho IEI. Eckhart is much more animated than Osho, who makes jokes with a completely straight face. Osho gives me Fe PoLR vibes.
So what do you think would enlighten people then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramas
ILI > IEI. Because this guy makes me feel like I want to beat him up.
If someone is going to beat him up then he is going to be beaten up.Quote:
Originally Posted by consentingadult
Like a tumbleweed rolls through the desert a man consisting of straws can not muster up real passion in his veins.
That's so cryptic and deep. Or so I assume, because such understanding is way too complicated for simple minds like mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by COVID 007
Delta NF
EII 9w1 sp/sx