Immaturity as the special hallmark feature of humanity

Darklord wrote:

Quote:

---

Immaturity is the special hallmark feature of humanity. Immaturity is what makes us, defines us, drives us, affects us, guides us, supports us and destruys us. Every single war, murder and other crime in the history of mankind has, once you get to the core of it, been driven by immaturity. The current "War on Terror" should be included in the definition of immature. Racism and other kinds of xenophobia are at the very root of immaturity, together with all this material gain stuff that keeps humanity from reaching full potential. And there's more: Hedonism. This keeps us generally from satisfactorily completing any single thing. Bureacracy is a pseudonym for immaturity. Fascism, oppression, exploitation, spam (Both mail and posts), violence, bias and, of course, childishness are all incarnations of immaturity. Immaturity has for centuries been the main foe of the great people of science, religion, philosophy, poetry, literature and society in general. None of them ever managed to remove a single sub-quark particle of it. Indeed, their works have usually been turned around and used to promote it. Case in point: Marx, Muhammed, Jesus, Nietzsche, Norse mythology, Greco-Roman mythology...
You think all the people out there, who cling to their immaturity as right, noble and self-evident, will just suddenly see the light and mature overnight? If you can pull that one off, I'll wordhip you for eternity and be your humble slave. But somehow I doubt it.

---

Darklord, what is it that you mean by immaturity, no empathy?

With "immaturity", I meant indulging the mindless drive to satisfy unchecked animal instincts. Animal instincts are fine, in animals. But when a species grows up and matures in the manner humanity did suddenly in the age following the 17th century, there comes a time when the survival instinct, in all its forms and manifestations, along with other basic urges, have to be counterbalanced - if not totally controlled - by ethics and logic. We must learn self-discipline.

The problem is to actually define and designate those animal instincts. Differentiating humans and animals is not easy, since, in my opinion, we have yet to really understand the how and why of people's actions. I have been thinking on the reason why there are people who can really hate others whom they have never met and lose their sense of empathy completely, making them kill even children.

This has lead me to believe that my aversion to this might be caused by my fear of it, instead of there being a universal law stating that it is wrong. Probably, what we consider 'wrong 'are those things that we have been accustomed to hearing, and have engraved in our minds without questioning if they are right or not, or those things that we simply try to avoid.

If there is no universal law to which all people follow, then on what would an ethic be founded on?

Darklord! :) You should go see End of the Spear. That movie is so related to this. Just dont expect a big budget film...

Darklord, are you sure that hedonism keeps us from satisfactorily completing a single thing? It can be a great driving power. That's one of the clichées Kiersey uses - that the SP types (the "hedonists") can achieve a lot simply because they ARE hedonists. They never "practise" playing an instrument or dancing or learning a language; they lose themselves in the moment and enjoy themselves so much that they just carry on and on and on, until they've achieved complete mastery. That's a stereotype but it's actually one that is true, to some extent.

So couldn't we say that hedonism, like its opposite (self-control? asceticisim?), just needs to be used in the right way? As in: "there's a time and place for every thing under the sun" etc.? In itself, neither of those things is "mature" or "immature". There is a kind of asceticism (or whatever) that is actually very instinctive and immature. Sometimes the same phenomenon can exist in a mature and in an immature form: like a kind of scale, with "needless self-flagellation" at one end and "healthy self-control" at the other.

Hedonism is, IMHO, not an SP trait. SPs are about the same as everybody else, they just have different strong and weak sides. Keirsey portrayed SJs as robots with emotions, SPs as animals with a voice, NTs as mechanical schematic design machines with a coating of humanity, and NFs as teary saints that spend their days reading poetry and whipping themselves. Out of those, he portrayed SPs in the worst light.

With "animal instincts", I mean "everything that is not part of the autonomous nervous system or consciously decided in the mind". Basically, we need to get to know ourselves and learn what parts of us can be trusted and what parts need to be suppressed. We have already, most of us, suppressed the instinct for physical violence. The time has come to start trying to suppress other counterproductive traits.
And, of course, most traits are not one-sided bad things. Everything in moderation. There is a time for everything. Never send a human to do a machine's job, and vice versa. What we need is not to rid ourselves of animality, but to be able to identify it, control it, apply it where necessary and keep it out of situations where it can only do damage.

People should be strong enough to build their own ethics. If a person manages to tear down their own xenophobia - the most animal of all - then how he treats the rest of humanity will, per definition, become more human.

In the end, that is what I come down to when I think of immaturity: Xenophobia. Humanity fears the unfamiliar. We want to destroy it. In the same vein, we fear to lose the familiar, even when the new is an improvement. In order to risk quoting myself on the phone with my mother, "What care we that diseases will be exterminated, the wars will finally end, violence be stopped dead in its track, and humanity will enter a period of true enlightenment, when we could risk that that old christmas tree decoration down on the street corner could be removed and replaced with a slightly different one?"

Oh, and before somebody else mentions it: No, I don't exempt myself from the above. I'm aware of my xenophobia, and I try actively to defeat it.

(I should have cut this post into a third of what it is. Oh, well...)

Hm. Maybe we read different Kiersey texts? The one I read was "Please Understand Me", the old edition. It was OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darklord

SPs are about the same as everybody else, they just have different strong and weak sides. Keirsey portrayed SJs as robots with emotions, SPs as animals with a voice, NTs as mechanical schematic design machines with a coating of humanity, and NFs as teary saints that spend their days reading poetry and whipping themselves.

---

As far as caricatures go, this is pretty accurate, I'd say, even for socionics types.

@Darklord: I must say your definition of immaturity is very good and impressive. I have had troubles trying to mature and only have begun to do so lately at the age of 19. Ethically, I've been more mature than others, but logically is where I seemed to be lacking my maturity. I'll admit that I also tend to fall into so-called animal urges from time to time. Though they usually involve something like going into this forum or playing a computer game when I should be doing an assignment. I'm not sure if that is immaturity or just being undisciplined.

I find Jung's idea of how people are metaphorically interesting. I always saw SJ's as robots :P and my ESFj mom sees me and my brothers as animals, so it makes sense :lol:. This is how I see each individual type using Jung's metaphors:

ENFp: Half Monkey - Half Saint
ENFj: Holy Robotic Saint
INFj: Holy CPU Saint
ESFj: Emotional Robot
ISFj: Emotional Computer
ESTj: Skilled Robot
ISTj: Skilled Computer
ENTj: Biological Super Robot
INTj: Biological Super Computer
ESTp: Logical Lion
ESFp: Ethical Monkey
INFp: Half Cat - Half Saint
ISFp: Ethical Cat
ISTp: Logical Mouse
INTp: Half Mouse - Half Super Computer
ENTp: Half Lion - Half Super Robot

Okay, I obviously did some mistakes here and there, but these are my individual metaphors using Jung's general metaphors. I guess, that would mean that Intuitive Judgers are the highest class of human beings, and Sensor Perceivers are the lowest class of human beings. I'm not too sure if that is true, but I'm basing this on Jung's metaphors.

Young and Confused, you should be careful when writing things like this:

Quote:

---

I guess, that would mean that Intuitive Judgers are the highest class of human beings, and Sensor Perceivers are the lowest class of human beings. I'm not too sure if that is true, but I'm basing this on Jung's metaphors.

---

You will have to define what exactly you mean by " higher class."

---------

Quote:

---

People should be strong enough to build their own ethics. If a person manages to tear down their own xenophobia - the most animal of all - then how he treats the rest of humanity will, per definition, become more human.

---

Wouldn't getting rid of all xenophobia also remove the fear of death? If you remove all fear from people, then we would do things without feeling any remorse. Maybe fear is what actually makes us follow an ethical conduct...

---
Either way, I feel that I am trying to create an argument which doesn't have any concrete foundation, since I have yet to understand nature in general. If there is no logical goal and direction in the phenomena of the universe, then it is pointless for me to be thinking at all. For some reason,
I feel that my life depends on things having purpose.
---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Young and Confused, you should be careful when writing things like this:

Quote:

---

I guess, that would mean that Intuitive Judgers are the highest class of human beings, and Sensor Perceivers are the lowest class of human beings. I'm not too sure if that is true, but I'm basing this on Jung's metaphors.

---

You will have to define what exactly you mean by " higher class."

---

I guess to me that would mean someone who is more in touch with the super-ego evolved human being than its animal-like id.

Since I'm an intuitive perceiver would that put me in the middle?

Is this how it would look if ranking existed:

Higher Personality Types

Intuitive Judgers - ENTJ, INFJ, ENFJ, INTJ - Saints and Super CPUs

Middle Personality Types

Sensory Judgers - ESTJ, ISTJ, ISFJ, ESFJ - Robots
Intuitive Perceivers - INFP, ENFP, INTP, ENTP - Half-Animal/Half-Saint or Half-Super CPU

Lower Personality Types

Sensory Perceivers - ISTP, ISFP, ESFP, ESTP - Animals

Note: I know this is extremely biased and I am basing it on what Jung had said, I want people to question it:

Do you actually have an idea of what you are saying? The problem with it is actually arguing what you wrote. It is based on nothing factual, and it doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I don't know how else to put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Transigent

Hahaha!

Darklord is so INFj. INFj's are awesome.

---

That avatar, Transigent! Holy heck. Is that you?? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Young and Confused, you should be careful when writing things like this:

Quote:

---

I guess, that would mean that Intuitive Judgers are the highest class of human beings, and Sensor Perceivers are the lowest class of human beings. I'm not too sure if that is true, but I'm basing this on Jung's metaphors.

---

You will have to define what exactly you mean by " higher class."

---

I guess to me that would mean someone who is more in touch with the super-ego evolved human being than its animal-like id.

Since I'm an intuitive perceiver would that put me in the middle?

Is this how it would look if ranking existed:

Higher Personality Types

Intuitive Judgers - ENTJ, INFJ, ENFJ, INTJ - Saints and Super CPUs

Middle Personality Types

Sensory Judgers - ESTJ, ISTJ, ISFJ, ESFJ - Robots
Intuitive Perceivers - INFP, ENFP, INTP, ENTP - Half-Animal/Half-Saint or Half-Super CPU

Lower Personality Types

Sensory Perceivers - ISTP, ISFP, ESFP, ESTP - Animals

Note: I know this is extremely biased and I am basing it on what Jung had said, I want people to question it:

---

That's pretty offensive Y&C. I'd expect a back lash if I were you.

Surely type has nothing to do with 'class of human being'. Type merely describes consistent ways of cognitive thought and behaviours.

Society may favour certain types sometimes but thats not to say those types are superior in any way, it merely says society sometimes produces conditions that are more easy for some to succeed in.

If you want to rank people in classes according to how evolved they are, surely a relevant measure would not be type, but IQ (as a measure of intelligence) or some other measure that distinguises humans from lesser evolved species. However, even a relevent measure such as IQ is hardly the be all and end all of evolution and superiority, its rather more complicated and subjective to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blaze

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Young and Confused, you should be careful when writing things like this:

Quote:

---

I guess, that would mean that Intuitive Judgers are the highest class of human beings, and Sensor Perceivers are the lowest class of human beings. I'm not too sure if that is true, but I'm basing this on Jung's metaphors.

---

You will have to define what exactly you mean by " higher class."

---

I guess to me that would mean someone who is more in touch with the super-ego evolved human being than its animal-like id.

Since I'm an intuitive perceiver would that put me in the middle?

Is this how it would look if ranking existed:

Higher Personality Types

Intuitive Judgers - ENTJ, INFJ, ENFJ, INTJ - Saints and Super CPUs

Middle Personality Types

Sensory Judgers - ESTJ, ISTJ, ISFJ, ESFJ - Robots
Intuitive Perceivers - INFP, ENFP, INTP, ENTP - Half-Animal/Half-Saint or Half-Super CPU

Lower Personality Types

Sensory Perceivers - ISTP, ISFP, ESFP, ESTP - Animals

Note: I know this is extremely biased and I am basing it on what Jung had said, I want people to question it:

---

That's pretty offensive Y&C. I'd expect a back lash if I were you.

---

I know, I want the backlash as you see in the note I posted. I'm not saying what I typed was true, that's just the idea I got from Jung. I want people to tell me why I am wrong or tell me why I am right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Do you actually have an idea of what you are saying? The problem with it is actually arguing what you wrote. It is based on nothing factual, and it doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I don't know how else to put it.

---

Well, when I posted it, I wasn't that confident or assured that it is correct, there was strong self-doubt actually. I just posted it anyways, to see what people thought of it.

This is my interpretation of what Jung had said. If you think that my interpertation is wrong, then tell me why it is so and I will disregard what I wrote earlier.

I'd like for people to make their own interpetations too. Maybe, everyone is equal no matter how each personality type appears.

You may well be right. Keep up the good work. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Wouldn't getting rid of all xenophobia also remove the fear of death? If you remove all fear from people, then we would do things without feeling any remorse. Maybe fear is what actually makes us follow an ethical conduct...

---

Naturally. Ridding ourselves of fear of the unknown would enable us to actually experience before judging. It would clear up our networks for more productive things.
As for death... I'm not afraid of death. But I'm scared as hell of the ten seconds right before it.

As for that, I think each type is displaying differing animalistic tendencies. We can not really rank the types. Btw., Y&C, your type descriptions are the best I've ever read :D .
From now on I'll introduce my type as the "Holy CPU Saint" :lol: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused

Quote:

---

That's pretty offensive Y&C. I'd expect a back lash if I were you.

---

I know, I want the backlash as you see in the note I posted. I'm not saying what I typed was true, that's just the idea I got from Jung. I want people to tell me why I am wrong or tell me why I am right.

---

The worse thing you did was classifying ENTps as middle class... :lol: You might as well dig a grave for yourself :D

The second worse thing is your tone is very racists to me. You would have made a good Nazi Party member. But we all know what happened to these "super humans".

But I'm more interested in what do you mean by
ISTp: Logical Mouse
I may not associate mouse as you do but I feel you are more a monkey than I'm a mouse :?

Hmm..you were the one who started the infamous "Bash a type" thread so I'm starting to question your motives and intentions...is this some kind of attempt to revive the type bashing discussion again?

I haven't read the psychology behind socionics enough to say if some kind of high-middle-low class classification exists there. I know that usually types want to promote themselves so there may be bias towards the type the researchers themselves are.

And you should stop posting when on drugs...

I think Y&C is just playing with logic for logic's sake. It's not like he's stupid and would create a biased system just to oppress you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

The second worse thing is your tone is very racists to me. You would have made a good Nazi Party member. But we all know what happened to these "super humans".

---

Well, you can call Jung a racist or nazi party member, because it isn't my theory. I just organized Jung's theory on how I interpreted what he said about SPs being animals, NFs being saints, NTs being some kind of advanced being and SJs being robots. Using that I made a system, but I did it so you guys can say what you thought of it and how you guys see it if it is wrong. I didn't say I agreed with it, its just an interpretation after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

But I'm more interested in what do you mean by
ISTp: Logical Mouse
I may not associate mouse as you do but I feel you are more a monkey than I'm a mouse :?

---

Well, I just saw a mouse as a quiet animal, even though it might not be. I felt like I act like a monkey at times and NFs are according to Jung are saints, so I decided to blend them together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Hmm..you were the one who started the infamous "Bash a type" thread so I'm starting to question your motives and intentions...is this some kind of attempt to revive the type bashing discussion again?

---

Well, I expected there would be tension of the bash thread and this system based on what Jung said. Though, my intentions are for good and not for ill, the bash game was a just a thing to do for fun that was not meant to be taken seriously. This system is just an interpretation of what Jung had said, not really what I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

I haven't read the psychology behind socionics enough to say if some kind of high-middle-low class classification exists there. I know that usually types want to promote themselves so there may be bias towards the type the researchers themselves are.

And you should stop posting when on drugs...

---

Well, I learned my lesson before to post high, it happened once and never again. Anyways, I believe that we are individuals overall and whether a person is at a higher level than another has more to do with the person than their personality type.

Darklord wrote:

Quote:

---

Naturally. Ridding ourselves of fear of the unknown would enable us to actually experience before judging. It would clear up our networks for more productive things.

---

I don't see what would be considered productive when there is no fear of death. It takes more energy to preserve your body than what you need to destroy it.

Quote:

---

As for death... I'm not afraid of death. But I'm scared as hell of the ten seconds right before it.

---

Really?.... there is a lot more to it than that. Have you thought about your connections to the world, such as those who are fond of or depend on you? No matter who it is, no one is without that fear.

Kraus wrote:

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that the above is definately considered "animalistic," but rather instinctual. However, back-track to cave-days, when civilization wasn't present. All the types probably existed back then. If certain types didn't display animalistic tendencies, you'd get maybe half of the types dying off, and the rest surviving. Obviously, you wouldn't have half the population dying off back then (not counting disease, drought, other conditions, etc.). Thus, it can be concluded that all types have certain animalistic tendencies, no matter how subtle or obvious. Everyone depends on animal instinct for basic survival.

---

Kraus ist Deutsch. Yes, I agree with what you are saying here. It's funny how Kraus/Herzblut considers this to be a long post.
-----

The thread is going another direction with the whole type-oligarchy that Y&C posted. Why don't you post it as another topic, that way we can try and keep things more organized?

@ Y&C: If what you said is even remotely accurate interpretation of what Jung has said, he is bit of a nazi and also a bitch.

That list of yours with super CPUs and mouses is kind of funny though.

Jung was those things =p

Arcanum, I can relate about others at death. I could care less about dying other than the want to survive... but what about all those bonds broken?

The problem is in the words. If we disagree about "animal instincts", "higher" and "lower" levels, "immaturity" etc., we first need to define what exactly those things are.

One of the muddles in this thread could be caused by this... What Y&C said seems to relate to "higher"/"lower" as in Freud's model of the psyche. In illustrations, the super-ego is higher up than the id. That was probably meant to illustrate the levels of consciousness: The super-ego and ego is what we're most conscious of, and we "read" the model from top to bottom, so it makes sense to picture the super-ego and ego as the first two layers. OK. But then people go on and say "...so therefore the super-ego is higher up in general". The consciousness is seen as this highly-evolved and rational tool, as the source of all creativity, morality, logic and whatnot. The unconscious is the "animal", a hairy and smelly beast that only wants to fight, eat or have sex, and that needs to be controlled or it would destroy itself with its urges.

And these assumptions needs to be questioned. Two reasons.

(a) They are based on a lot of other assumptions. Example: saying that "highly evolved" and "under conscious control" = "morally good" or "useful and productive". I'd disagree with that.

(b) They isolate the "layers" of our psyche. They basically say that one "layer" is solely responsible for and producing one set of results, without cooperation of the other layers. As if you could take things like "creativity", "rational thought" or "the urge to fight/feed/fuck" and pinpoint exactly where it comes from: urges = unconscious, rational thought = ego, etc.

This leads to assumptions like these (and I think they're all wrong): Our urges play no part in the super-ego's decisions. The kind of creativity that comes from our unconscious cannot ever produce rational and objective thought. We must develop our conscious functions (our super-ego or whatever) in order to become productive, mature, and morally good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

I think Y&C is just playing with logic for logic's sake. It's not like he's stupid and would create a biased system just to oppress you.

---

I agree. He is not necessarily stupid.

I'm not completely serious here so don't worry. Without the "logical mouse" thing I might have ended up not posting :lol: Some other type was a cat so I kind of feel I'm implied to be the hunted little mouse weakling type...there has to be another "quiet" animal describing ISTps better...being a mouse is so sad. And btw I'm more emo than any NT but not as logical...

But anyways I have known people who like to categorize and rank other people and it is annoying. And it is always dependent on their type. I know NT people who think they are the only ones capable of doing anything intellectually worthy. I know ES people who consider "detached from reality nerdy people" some kind of pathetic subhumans. I know F people who feel T people lack everything that defines a human. I know T people who believe logic separates man from the beast. It is so annoying and so biased and I get annoyed about the underlying negative vibes and unfair self promotion involved (not necessarily in this case but in general).

This kind of "logic play" isn't very useful either it just creates "negative possibilities". Only way to really apply it is in some racist kind of way. Maybe some humorously racist kind of way too which isn't much better.

And as far as ranking goes I would like to rank the types who are in touch with their "animalistic" side AND their "human" side on the top. They are most complete. This could be just another yin-yang thing :)

Ok I stop it now :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Wouldn't getting rid of all xenophobia also remove the fear of death? If you remove all fear from people, then we would do things without feeling any remorse. Maybe fear is what actually makes us follow an ethical conduct...

---

ok, i don't get how getting rid of all xenophobia removes fear of death or all fear from people.

last time i checked there are a LOT more phobias on top of xenophobia. also, what's commonly called 'xenophobia' isn't literally a phobia of everything unknown. it's really 'selective xenophobia'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

I think Y&C is just playing with logic for logic's sake. It's not like he's stupid and would create a biased system just to oppress you.

---

I agree. He is not necessarily stupid.

---

:lol: If I were Y&C I'd resent that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Y&C

Is this how it would look if ranking existed:

Higher Personality Types

Intuitive Judgers - ENTJ, INFJ, ENFJ, INTJ - Saints and Super CPUs

Middle Personality Types

Sensory Judgers - ESTJ, ISTJ, ISFJ, ESFJ - Robots
Intuitive Perceivers - INFP, ENFP, INTP, ENTP - Half-Animal/Half-Saint or Half-Super CPU

Lower Personality Types

Sensory Perceivers - ISTP, ISFP, ESFP, ESTP - Animals

Note: I know this is extremely biased and I am basing it on what Jung had said, I want people to question it:

---

This has so many things wrong with it and is obviously wrong, and where does jung say/imply this anyway?

(1) Type, by definition, looks at the consistent objective differences in people with no morals on which is characteristics are 'better' or 'worst'. Any implication of 'better' or 'worse' is subjective.

(2) 'Super CPU' - type dosent measure the total ability to process information, it measures how people process information, again any implication of one way being better than another is subjective. Even if society favours a cartain pattern of cognition and allows them to succeed more easily than others, that dosent make them more evolved or superior, it merely reflects that bias in society.

(3) Super CPU - If you want to measure the total ability of a person to process information you need to look at IQ and things like that, and as far a I know there is no correlation between type and IQ, and even if there is, you have to question what exactly IQ is measuring and whether the test is easier for particular kinds of cognition, and if people who score low are just not having their strengths tested.

(4) ISTp - If you mean super CPU to mean ability to process technical, impersonal information like physics, chemistry etc, ISTp's are often very capable in this regard ( :Si: related ). If consider 'animal' to mean acting without thinking of consequenses and lack of inhibition, this is silly, ISTp's are often one of the most socially inhibited types etc etc etc etc

What you are saying in the above essentially things like this, j's are stupid because they don't open themselves up to information like p's do, that is a stupid generalisation, the things above are just more of this kind of thing. You are simply making logical extrapolations from imcomplete information.

I could go on and on analysing each type and giving good rational arguments for each one being 'lower class' and also for each being 'upper class', but that is pointless because type of course is not a measure of superiority or evolution. If you want to measure evolution between species and within species, you need to study genetics, and look at the things that characterise evolution, of which type obviously isnt. (its not like the human race has huge numbers of Intuitive Judgers, and dogs because they are less evolved have huge numbers of Sensory Perceivers, thats stupidity, by that logic, the type who is the most represented is the most evolved! - survival of the fittest and all that)

Nothing I have read about socionics or any other type theory, or any other study of cognition has ever placed types of cognition in a hierarchy, and any apparent implication by jung, kiersey, myers-briggs or anyone else that this is the case is merely a misunderstanding.

Rant over, hehe :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I don't see what would be considered productive when there is no fear of death. It takes more energy to preserve your body than what you need to destroy it.

---

That's my gripe with the "stick to logic"-school of though: It removes any actual basis for action.
As for that, xenophobia and "not wanting to get harmed" are two different things. Also, while I do not fear death, something kinda tells me that just in case there isn't reincarnation, now would be a good time to live, since it might not happen again. It's just like being in a really good conversation: I want to see what happens next. The reason I do not commit suicide, even though I'm not afraid of death itself, is that I kinda want to see what happens next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Really?.... there is a lot more to it than that. Have you thought about your connections to the world, such as those who are fond of or depend on you? No matter who it is, no one is without that fear.

---

Well, I do have connections to the world, but since everything basically is temporary etc., I don't fear death. But that is another reason to live: Connections.
But, now, we have to separate: Xeonphobia is not the same as attachment, though they are certainly related. You can be attached to your culture without fearing others.

I'm also not advocating removing animal tendencies, but being able not to act on them when necessary. Use it as a tool, not a rule.

Kirana wrote:

Quote:

---

ok, i don't get how getting rid of all xenophobia removes fear of death or all fear from people.

last time i checked there are a LOT more phobias on top of xenophobia. also, what's commonly called 'xenophobia' isn't literally a phobia of everything unknown. it's really 'selective xenophobia'.

---

Wikepedia: "Xenophobia denotes a phobic attitude toward strangers or of the unknown and comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self."

Merriam-Webster: "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign"

Literally it would mean "fear of strangers" since it comes from two separate Greek words, not "selective xenophobia."

When I was using it, I was refering to fear of the unknown. My impression was that Darklord intended for that meaning with the line "In the end, that is what I come down to when I think of immaturity: Xenophobia. Humanity fears the unfamiliar."

My thinking leads me to believe that the fear of death is caused by uncertainty towards it. In my opinion uncertainty could be the root of all fears: If I knew exactly what would happen in any situation, then I would not be afraid of it. You might ask what does this have to do with removing all fears besides that of dying. I am looking at it this way:

premise: one's ultimate destitation is death, all other situations come before it. Also, death is the greatest physical harm to the body.

I) If one manages to understand all actions leading to and resulting from a certain situation, then, we would have control over it.

II) Since death is the ultimate destination, then by understanding it would imply that one no longer fears it.

III) And thus, the worst outcome of any situation would be dying, of which one has already control over. From here I state that one would fear nothing at all.

Darklord wrote:

Quote:

---

That's my gripe with the "stick to logic"-school of though: It removes any actual basis for action.

---

Actually, using logic helps you to know what you need to do in order to arrive at a certain goal. It's all about action.

Quote:

---

The reason I do not commit suicide, even though I'm not afraid of death itself, is that I kinda want to see what happens next.

---

Darklord, there is absolutely no reason for people to commit suicide. It's all about thinking of what you need and then finding out how to get it. The reason people commit suicide is because they feel that they need something but they do not know what it is, even less how to get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UDP

Great post, Y%C Laughing

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

You may well be right. Keep up the good work. :wink:

---

Thanks :) :shock:?

Well, a lot of people seem to be pissed at me especially ISTp's. :( Well I don't blame them, I realized that I misjudged the big picture at the time and I realized that Jung was actually talking about behaviour and not what personality is better than the other. I have a new version set up in general discussion and an intelligence system that doesn't seem so well received. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UDP

Great post, Y%C Laughing

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

You may well be right. Keep up the good work. :wink:

---

Thanks :) :shock:?

Well, a lot of people seem to be pissed at me especially ISTp's. :(

---

Yeah you pissed your duals :o You only have one dual type so stop calling them lower types and animals! Especially not mouses! You should promote their good qualities instead.

But in summary the types you selected as "Higher Personality Types" give you thumbs up of course...maybe not INFjs because they are so ethical :lol:

The types you described as "Lower Personality Types" and animals generally give you thumbs down...no surprise there.

The "Middle Personality Types" probably don't care enough to make a statement...

This thread is now officially hijacked :) Then again maybe this is related to the topic after all :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UDP

Great post, Y%C Laughing

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

You may well be right. Keep up the good work. :wink:

---

Thanks :) :shock:?

Well, a lot of people seem to be pissed at me especially ISTp's. :(

---

Yeah you pissed your duals :o You only have one dual type so stop calling them lower types and animals! Especially not mouses! You should promote their good qualities instead.

But in summary the types you selected as "Higher Personality Types" give you thumbs up of course...maybe not INFjs because they are so ethical :lol:

The types you described as "Lower Personality Types" and animals generally give you thumbs down...no surprise there.

The "Middle Personality Types" probably don't care enough to make a statement...

This thread is now officially hijacked :) Then again maybe this is related to the topic after all :lol:

---

Yeah what your saying pretty much sums up everything. :D I'm sorry if I hurt any SPs, I did not mean to. I just made a mistake and I learned from it now. What Jung said had to do with behaviour, but nothing to do with who was at a higher level. It actually reminds me of the castes in India and the alphas and betas, deltas of Brave New World. I always despised castes and grouping people, I'm dissapointed that I fell victim to it. My apologies, once again. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused

My apologies, once again. :(

---

Heh don't worry. Apology accepted as far as I'm concerned. I apologize too if I was too blunt or rude or something :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XoX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused

My apologies, once again. :(

---

Heh don't worry. Apology accepted as far as I'm concerned. I apologize too if I was too blunt or rude or something :?

---

Thanks, btw I changed the symbol for ISTp to fox instead of mouse because of Rocky's avatar, plus it makes sense too. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Actually, using logic helps you to know what you need to do in order to arrive at a certain goal. It's all about action.

---

Logic can be used to decide the manner in which to arrive at a goal, but if you follow strict logic, then no action is required, as, deep down, logic would need a goal to work towards, and, in the end, that goal would have to be arbitrary and unfounded in logic. Logically, there is no point in living. When you get right down to it, logically, there is no point to anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Darklord, there is absolutely no reason for people to commit suicide. It's all about thinking of what you need and then finding out how to get it. The reason people commit suicide is because they feel that they need something but they do not know what it is, even less how to get it.

---

Hmm... Yes, my wording was unclear. My meaning was closer to "lie down and die" or something like that.

Quote:

---

Logic can be used to decide the manner in which to arrive at a goal, but if you follow strict logic, then no action is required, as, deep down, logic would need a goal to work towards, and, in the end, that goal would have to be arbitrary and unfounded in logic. Logically, there is no point in living. When you get right down to it, logically, there is no point to anything.

---

Why does a goal need to be found in logic in order to use logic to arrive at it? (don't know how else to word it) Logic is just a tool. An example could be algebra: If you have an equation like 3 + 2 - 1 = 4, where in the left side there are actions and the right is the goal, then you could say that in order to produce 4 we can apply algebra to the left, but not to the number 4 because it was simply the desired amount.

By saying that logically there is no point in living, then you have already decided that in living you will not achieve what you want, which does not make much sense, since if you desire something from this world then you would need to be living in order to get it. See what I mean?

Logically, there is no point in living, because whatever you want to accomplish, in the end, is illogical.
Is it logical to want to succeed?
Why do you want to succeed?
What constitutes "success"?
If you look at it, wouldn't it be just as logical to want to die and not have to continue striving for anything, and also helping the rest of the species by giving them one less mouth to feed and trash can to empty?
Your success will, unless it is extraordinary, be forgotten in ten years, except for by your friends and family, and even if it is extraordinary, it will be forgotten in 1000. If not 1000 years, then 10.000. It will also probably have no effect on the future to any significant degree. If it is significant, it'll probably be used for perverted purposes.
What kind of mark do you want to leave behind?
Why should humanity survive? Is survival logical? If so, can you show me the deep-down basis for survival?
My point is, while logic can determine everything else, it can not give you a basic goal from which to build, no matter how logically you do so.

Darklord wrote:

Quote:

---

Is it logical to want to succeed?

---

depends if it will help you achieve something you want.

Quote:

---

Why do you want to succeed?

---

I'm sure that there is a reason for it.

Quote:

---

What constitutes "success"?

---

Same as what is "happy" (I referred to this somewhere else in the forum). "Success," like all others, is just a word made up by a select group of people who had something in mind when they decided to create it. Somehow, one feels pressured to act by these type of words, probably due to the importance given to it by the collective insecurity we call 'society.'

Quote:

---

If you look at it, wouldn't it be just as logical to want to die and not have to continue striving for anything, and also helping the rest of the species by giving them one less mouth to feed and trash can to empty?

---

Here is the problem. It won't be logical to die if you want to help the rest of the species. It all depends on what you consider as 'helping' that is. What I think happens is that we are often caught in the crossfire of people's competing interests. An example of this is the conflict between those who claim they want to save the planet and those who apparently want to destroy it. One side will make you feel that producing waste is disgusting, and that humanity is all about greedy consumption and destroying the planet. The other side does not see what the big deal is, and continues to contaminate without really caring about the consequences not related to wealth. It's ironic that while one is flushing the toilet and contributing to contamination, the other lives in a house built on fine land. In the meantime, individuals get influenced by the strength and power that is mass human organization.

Forget about what other people tell you is right, because you won't be able to find any logical explanation when the goals you follow are made by others own interest.

Quote:

---

Your success will, unless it is extraordinary, be forgotten in ten years, except for by your friends and family, and even if it is extraordinary, it will be forgotten in 1000. If not 1000 years, then 10.000. It will also probably have no effect on the future to any significant degree. If it is significant, it'll probably be used for perverted purposes.
What kind of mark do you want to leave behind?
Why should humanity survive? Is survival logical? If so, can you show me the deep-down basis for survival?
My point is, while logic can determine everything else, it can not give you a basic goal from which to build, no matter how logically you do so.

---

This also has to do with what I said. Why is it important to be remembered and have an effect on the future? Of course it is completely illogical because we weren't the ones finding this important in the first place...

It all boils down to this: What is the fundamental logical reasoning for wanting something?
So far, we've been chasing in circles. I'll have to try to be more specific.
Look at the base of the universe and the very bottom layer of human development, which would be the lower ranks of animals. Is there a logical reason for life to exist at all? Wouldn't it be more convenient and expedient to stick to strict chemical and physical reactions rather than having to move into biology? what purpose does life serve? What is the point behind anything?
Apply logic to that. You won't find very much, which is why religion exists. Deep down, we can't know the meaning of life, or even if it has one. This would then preclude the 100% logically based human being from seeing a purpose behind anything. The person in question would be overqualified for finding the best way to fulfill a predetermined goal, but would be absolutely gridlocked when it comes to determining a goal for him/herself. Oh, if they could decide upon an arbitrary base on a level above "I want to live" - "I want wealth", for instance - then (s)he could operate magnificently, but that would be precluded. Basically, logic cannot bridge the gap between foundations and operations, because the goal that is supposed to bridge that gap must be arrived at arbitrarily.
See what I mean?

Darklord, I do understand what you are saying. Yes, I have also thought of how our existence might merely be the result of large-scale atomic interactions, and how our very thoughts are simply the result of them. The idea of everything following consistent and ever-predictable behavior is very depressing to me as well.

I definitely also understand what you are saying about the apparent uselessness of studying other sciences that do not focus on going to what is fundamental.

Let me put it this way so as to understand what you are saying, and at the same time, show you what I have meant before: How would you consider something of having meaning or a point?

If it meant something to me, obviously, then it has a meaning/point to it. Or if I can see a very good logical reason, extrapolated from something that means something to me.
However, the "means something to me" is still the core of the issue.
And, of course, no matter how fantastically good that meaning/reason/point might be, if it conflicts with my personal values, forget about it! :wink:

Darklord wrote:

Quote:

---

However, the "means something to me" is still the core of the issue.

---

Exactly, this is what I was referring to when I said that there are certain words (in this case phrases) that without any good explanation we feel pressured to somehow act upon them. Maybe it has to do with depending only on the grammar of a conversation rather than having interest in understanding the motives behind what is said. The phrase: "I want to succeed" sounds perfect, but it somehow feels empty.

I have a strong feeling that no matter how you can improve language, the best form of communication is empathy. It goes into the very basis of what is communicating. Combining empathy with an accurate understanding of the physical laws of nature would definitely lead to a level of inter-human connectedness which will transcend anything that could ever be iterated through language.

Exactly. Communication where the clearness factor is removed: You get your point across instantly.
And the best thing is, political debate would be over in 4 seconds :lol: .

Quote:

---

And the best thing is, political debate would be over in 4 seconds .

---

hehe, that would be funny to see.