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
I actually read a couple pages of the power of now and it was exactly how ScarlettLux describe it, it was not understandable.
(D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)
Originally Posted by Jarno
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?
Last edited by crazedrat; 04-28-2009 at 11:21 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tqoWwIDCCw
Maybe ESI is a potential type for him?
The saddest ESFj
...
Holy fuck. Die.
4w3-5w6-8w7
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.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I was thinking EII sp/sx for him, one of the attachment-based types 9/3.
LSI
ILI
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Most likely IEI-Ni. His work reeks of 4Dand
.
The only other option I'd see would be EII.
I am going with IEI > EII, because his work seems primarily
His views in this video are pretty much Ni lead, and I see signs of Fe Creative there (0:45, 2:53).
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 likeseeking to me.
Listen to his words. He is a logical type. In my opionion ILIMost likely IEI-Ni. His work reeks of 4D
The only other option I'd see would be EII.
I am going with IEI > EII, because his work seems primarily
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
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.Btw, "The Power of Now" seems like
4w3-5w6-8w7
Pitfall?
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.
Tolle's philosophy is the extreme end of this tendency. For a more balanced example, read Almaas' Facets of Unity.
4w3-5w6-8w7
"Certain kinds of abstractions" - Like what?
"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.
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"."Inner evolution of perceptions" - ???
4w3-5w6-8w7
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.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote