INTp concept of God, devaluing conceptual understanding for a personal bond

[Warlord]

Te is good only for simple things, such as replacing light bulbs and stuff. It should not be used for existential questions.

You obviously don't understand Te, because you aren't a Te-ego. And as you claimed earlier you can't understand god, because you aren't one. This implicates that being Te-ego actual is the same as being god. And like I claimed earlier: I'm god. You just can't understand it for the above reasons

[consentingadult]

...about why he concludes humans are irrational.

I never said that.

[consentingadult]

You obviously don't understand Te, because you aren't a Te-ego. And as you claimed earlier you can't understand god, because you aren't one. This implicates that being Te-ego actual is the same as being god. And like I claimed earlier: I'm god. You just can't understand it for the above reasons

Amen!

[consentingadult]

In respect to rationality, you ignored the following issues:
Rationality is not confined to Te. It also is an aspect of Ti, Fi, and Fe.

Seems you are talking about 'rationality' in the Jungian sense, I wasn't. I was talking about rationality in the regular sense, as in 'Age of Enlightenment'. More in the direction of 'reason'.

Rationality is not necessary for everything, but it is necessary for some things.

That's exactly what I said, didn't I? Te is perfect for changing light bulbs, and as such, certainly is a useful human trait. But especially in the western world, it is overrated.

[crazedrat]

imfd93434.....
Mr. kant has perceiving functions like anyone else.
We are talking about the transformations functions are capable of. We are treating the functions as isolated processes. We are doing this for the sake of argument. I am not speculating on Kants creative Ne, or whatever it is he had, and how this manifested in his approach to his theory.
This is an abstract argument.
Fi's 'love of god' is also working with its ego block function & its HA function.
Get it?

Other guy:
You are polarizing rationality vs. existential awareness. This sort of rationality is exactly what Jung was referring to when he coined the functions rational / irrational.
Besides, I am not aware of another interpretation of the word rational. Maybe you could show me one.

If you are somehow isolating Te, and saying "Te rationalizing is just bad"... well, you need to set an argument up which identifies a particular aspect of rationality, differentiates Te rationalizing processes from the other 3 rationalizing processes, & identify the traits which make Te "bad" & the rest "alright".. then explain why this is true. You have not done this yet. This should of been the first thing you did.

[Lotus]

My impression of an INTP:

"Define "God"?
all powerful? yes and no.. <writes 100 pages>
omniscient? yes and no.... <writes 200 pages>
male or female? <laughs> what is "male" or "female"? The mystical embodiment of complimentary forces of nature with differing genitalia? one will never know...
....
....
...

<1 million pages later>:
Now that we've defined God, does God exist?
Oh wait, we have to define "exist"?
Do I "exist"? Do marshmallows "exist"?
<writes another 1 million pages>

If God exists, how does it affect things?
<Lists every aspect of everything the world over, with 40+ caveats per item about God's effect on it.>

Leaps of Faith? That's the equivalent of sputtering nonsense. Let's be rational here. Leap of Faith is another way of saying "shitty logic."
<1 million more pages of gibberish that only an Ni ego could understand.>

In conclusion, I predict that a rainbow of destruction will one day shatter the earth."



There you have it folks. A proof of the existence of something in which everything has been basically annihilated. Inability to categorically phrase anything, resulting in nothing that can be said about anything without it somehow being wrong.
And you can't contest the INTP on this, because he _is_ right: there is an exception to everything. But how can you prove to him that that doesn't mean you can't make a generalization? I will never know....

I don't think that sounds like an INTp at all.

[strrrng]

My impression of an INTP:

"Define "God"?
all powerful? yes and no.. <writes 100 pages>
omniscient? yes and no.... <writes 200 pages>
male or female? <laughs> what is "male" or "female"? The mystical embodiment of complimentary forces of nature with differing genitalia? one will never know...
....
....
...

<1 million pages later>:
Now that we've defined God, does God exist?
Oh wait, we have to define "exist"?
Do I "exist"? Do marshmallows "exist"?
<writes another 1 million pages>

If God exists, how does it affect things?
<Lists every aspect of everything the world over, with 40+ caveats per item about God's effect on it.>

Leaps of Faith? That's the equivalent of sputtering nonsense. Let's be rational here. Leap of Faith is another way of saying "shitty logic."
<1 million more pages of gibberish that only an Ni ego could understand.>

In conclusion, I predict that a rainbow of destruction will one day shatter the earth."



There you have it folks. A proof of the existence of something in which everything has been basically annihilated. Inability to categorically phrase anything, resulting in nothing that can be said about anything without it somehow being wrong.
And you can't contest the INTP on this, because he _is_ right: there is an exception to everything. But how can you prove to him that that doesn't mean you can't make a generalization? I will never know....

Sounds more like an INTj's philosophical manifesto.

[strrrng]

So you think an EII would crticize a LII for inability to categorically phrase anything? Never mind how what she said of annihilation so parallels the Adams book you read. (This is a good example of dialectical-algorithmic thinking -- process negativism -- being applied to NT dynamics, btw.)

I think an INFj would criticize an INTj for that tendency, yes. For as strictly delineating as INTjs can be, there is also an inverse to this (i.e. hitta), where all categories cease to exist, and they delve into Ti/Fe contextual relativistic crap. An INFj would see these arbitrary categorizations -- or lack of -- as superfluous and unnecessary, because what they see as important is the logical process, cause-and-effect behind it. Not to mention the external-context shifting that Ne/Si does. I don't know exactly what you're referring to with 'annihilation', and I don't see how it's exclusive to the 'dynamic' logic INTps use. Don't forget that they are Ni/Se, which is about internal consilience (on a dynamic plane), not multiple variables and whatnot.

edit: I would have to reread that story to verify the presence of specific functions. Judging from what I remember, it was probably more like some desultory Ni-->Ti rant from an Ni-INFp. It just had that overly-abstract, philosophical quality to it -- something which INTp's are not fond of. Not that they can't be philosophical, but the supplementary axis is Te/Fi, where the "logic" is 'out there' and dynamic; not a subjectively-based, ideological framework.

[strrrng]

There is no common context if one does not know how to parameterize objective reality. So when Ti is used with Te as POLR instead of as a function of Personal Knowledge, perhaps this is true (i.e. hitta, who I believe to be a Fe-IFp.)

The point is, Ti is the externally parameterized context. Gammas and Deltas don't care about having this sort of subjective framework to work from; they simply track the objective processes (Te). I don't know what you mean about that personal knowledge stuff; I was merely illustrating alphas' tendencies. It is true that IxFps have a more broadly-focused Ti, so they 'explore' that context more, but they still use it (are within it).

Deducing the cause-and-effect of objective phenomenon is precisely what Alpha's Ne does. (Alpha Ne falls under "cause and effect" Gulenko thinking style -- positivst and process.)

How is Ne cause-and-effect? Te is causality as we know it in the scientific sense; Fe is an internal causality of sorts, which is formatted with Ti. Ne is about abstract properties of objects, divisions and correlations between them, interpolation -- it's static. Cause-and-effect is dynamic.

In the Adams book, God's Big Bang annihilation into debris and subsequent reconstruction through human development of collective intellegence is describing how reality's objective parameters move around. From the evolution of this system, the individual's stake is realize. This is ultimately Ni applied to Te.

I would disagree. If one is looking at various contexts and trends, it is probably the Ti/Fe axis, as the causal trends are seen as internal reactions, and the externally-defined Ti context is shifted to account for said things. On the Te/Fi axis, the context is implicit and purely subjective; it does not have to be parameterized. Likewise, the causal trends that occur 'out there' are objective and logical. Relativism is much more Ti/Fe -- especially with Ne/Si, as Si is an external context for Ne to permutate from -- than Te/Fi. Most gammas have an extremely direct approach to reality, as if it 'just is.'

"Cogito ergo sum" -- LII Descarte started with a static premise about what an individual may know in vacuuo.

Right, an externally-defined Ti context to operate from. Then, as more internal trends occur (Fe), it is re-parameterized.

I think that's -Se unifying around Ti (ideology and aristocracy). In Beta, the "multiple variables" will be the long-term emotional environment. In Gamma, streams of material resources take that place and the +Se "darts" between democratic relations or points of voluntary exchange. If Beta maxmizes force, then Gamma maximizes velocity.

You may have something here. It does seem that beta's intrinsic "vision" (Ni) to be applied (possibly with force -- Se) is directed at/through internal causal trends (Fe), with a structure to work from (Ti). And gamma does seem more objectively dynamic, basing it off of, like you said, implicit relations (Fi) with processes to carry out said movements (Te). Nonetheless, Ni is about internal dynamic consilience, because it synthesizes all of the discrete physical data that Se registers into a consummate abstract process. Ne divides stuff within an externally-defined, physical Si field. (btw check out the discussion of the axes on my wiki user and talk page).

I would doubt a LIE wrote it -- it is more subjective than pure Te.

Not sure.

In a very narrow sense, all quadras have ideology -- but a select few ideologies will not vary with time, place, or persons.

I agree with this. Maybe you could expand to clarify?

[consentingadult]

Rationality is not confined to Te. It also is an aspect of Ti, Fi, and Fe.

This is true, not just from a Socionic perspective, but also from a dictionary perspective. However, that is not what most people out on the street use it for. They mostly use it in relation to logical thought processes (e.g. processes of deduction and induction).

Matter of semantics.

[strrrng]

By objective parameters, I means something like a topo map of terrain -- although you can have objective and abstract parameters by adding a time dimension. How will my inputs and outputs vary when I drill for oil at different times and places?

A Ti framework generally accounts for this. Whether it's physical or abstract connected reactions, one will track the connected activity (along with, presumably, Fe internal reactions -- this comes from there or there, now apply a more general rule to account for each) to fully format the 'picture' and 'movement.'

Te navigates the terrain. Te+Si will stay more in one place on the map, knowing how to steadily maintain its various resources, like locks and dams in a watershed. Te+Ni treks through while vigilantly surveying the road ahead (and behind one's back). It can be difficult to see past mountains though, so you had better uncover other patterns in any available data.

I think you're right about TeSi being more methodical -- it is external dynamics, so each reaction has an ostensible cause and relationship. TeNi well be more...conceptual..yes...'what is really going on here'...then to the extensive interactions -- soon enough force can be applied.

If Ti measures distances, it is among points on a static framework. With Ti+Se, the framework is crafted so you can force it onto reality consistently like a brand. Depending upon the time and place, reality is molded by different brands more readily. Ti+Se tracks how consistently the mold is imposed.

I agree. TiSe gauges physical phenomena -- 'this is what it is' -- and parameterizes: now we know the exact reality. Which is why it needs its internal dynamic counterparts to get into the internal connectedness and reactions -- what's going on behind this absolute reality.

Ti+Se is lower-maintenance than Te+Si, but it's higher-impact on the environment. And in environments suitable for Ti+Se, there are probably other Beta ST trying to impose themselves, too. Although, your static frameworks might be similar and you might team up. It's less likely if you are Se+Ti though, because Se+Ti types are less consistent in their habits.

Agreed.

There is another static framework imposed, and that is the framework generating the environment itself. If you are patient and not imposing yourself (and avoiding others' impositions) then you can from any time and place try to deduce it from the few characteristic universal to being in any environment. This too is a less obvious thing to "uncover", so sloppiness may lead you very astray. It helps to periodically compare the deductions with different environments -- although, often you can get that data from the people who are trekking around. (But then you must also learn to recognize good and garbage data.)

Which framework would generate the environment itself? Isn't that simply the terrain -- which is to be mapped by specific functions. Or are you possibly referring to Ni -- inferring the universal from the details, establishing gestalt, continuous patterns to 'guide'.

Of course, sloppiness may be more tolerable if instead of universality, you just want sufficient framework to piggyback some people who are, in a narrower time and place, forcing things around.

So, Ni/Se duality type of thing, possibly?

Te is causality in an economic sense, although the accumulation of information itself has economies. A dialectical-algorithmic NT may unravel the most obscure flaws which imperfect them. A vortex (or positivist-result) NT may most economically accumulate knowledge using the latest methodologies. When Se is still highly valued, the obvious application is profit. As Se becomes less valued (though Te valued more), these two types succeed in tasks demanding the most objective information economy. You cannot negotiate or seduce a satellite back into orbit.

What do you mean by economic? I think Te is causality in the most literal sense of the word -- each action has an reaction (ostensibly). Not the relationships, just the affects of actions.

Ne+Ti seeks to discover the cause-and-effect relationships within the environment, which themselves do not change. Relativity theorist Albert Einstein and String theorist Brian Green are both likely ILE. (Now how many LIE scientist romanticize about theories of everything?) "Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them." -- von Neumann

Yes, and this is because of Ti+Si. The environmental interconnectedness which is later parameterized and structures -- "this is exactly what is going on in these 'fields'" Of course being based off of internal Fe trends and permutation mirror-reflections of Ne, respectively. I agree with that quote, in regards to TeNi methodology.

But it's not relativism, as it applies everywhere. God's Debris are (or would be) the entire reality.

And the "entire" reality is merely a contextual fragment that exists on multiple dimensions. There's nothing really absolute about it, which is how Te tends to be, in it's more objective reference to the actual processes occurring 'out there.' Ti's logic -- while being absolute at times -- is subjective, up for interpretation of 'why is this framework the best?' Isn't that part of the message within that story?

You will probably find more theoretical agreement among Alpha NT mathematicians than Beta NF mystics. Likewise, there will be stronger consensus among Alpha SF's on what constitutes being right or wrong. Although, Beta ST may be less variable in a number of ways. I don't know if this particular correlation very significant either way.

Of course you will, because alpha NT's have two external fields to operate from, whereas beta NF's have Ni, which will cause a conglomeration of conceptual standpoints -- especially with a broadly-focused Ti. Beta ST's may be more invariant...they cannot grasp implicit Fi relationships...alpha SF's don't have as much of a problem with it and are more precise with internal reactions (Fe), so "this is what should happen for this emotional effect" maybe.

I think Gamma NT trends are quickly obselete, in their present form in a practical sense, but their past experience can accelerate realizing a new trend well beyond other types. Think of how quickly prices internalize more superficial information in the stock market. Or think of a fractal. In nature, the fractals are more repetitious than in the evolution of societies, let alone their markets. The later evolve faster than a fern.

I suppose. A grasp of the internal dynamics of interactions between things coupled with the objective activity of objects can produce such a standpoint.

[crazedrat]

Much of this will also depend on the nature of the information which the INTp is attempting to objectify. Ni-INTps, from the three others I have met, tend to get caught up in metaphysics. They take an articulate, detail oriented approach to abstraction

[Jarno]

I haven't read the whole thread, but just wanted to mention this.

I've had a meeting with INTP's a while ago, when the subject of God was covered briefly.

Some INTP's believed truly in a God, probably very christian too. The other INTP's didn't believe in God, only in science/evolution etc. The opinions were all pretty different, and I presume it isn't easy to get a general idea of what the concept of God for INTP's is.

[Ms. Kensington]

I haven't read the whole thread, but just wanted to mention this.

I've had a meeting with INTP's a while ago, when the subject of God was covered briefly.

Some INTP's believed truly in a God, probably very christian too. The other INTP's didn't believe in God, only in science/evolution etc. The opinions were all pretty different, and I presume it isn't easy to get a general idea of what the concept of God for INTP's is.

i remember something expat wrote once, and that is that Ni will carry a vision, whatever that may be. In an INTp I've seen it demonstrated more in terms more physical or depersonalized than in Beta NF.

[ardentmoth]

I happen to (generally) agree with AQ.

I am an INTP, 5w4, Senior Philosophy undergrad. My dad is a pastor for a more conservative church. My mom does taxes. I see them both as "authoritarian former roommates who happen to give good advice." Dad is ENTP, mom is ISFJ.

I once believed almost blindly, hit the age of 18 or so, and everything changed:

I began to use my frontal lobe predominantly. Where I had tested as a depressed INFP before, I have only always tested consistently since then as an INTP. I think that perhaps I was tweaking my answers for some reason, and finally just stopped doing so.

My conception of God is simple. He is the "creator and sustainer of all things." Ibn Sina said it best with "His existence is implicit; his essence is existence." So, then, my definition of God can be summed up as follows:

That Being who promotes the most existence.

A corollary might be "That Being who denies the most death," and another could be "He who meets the most needs."

I have no reason to think this definition is somehow illicit, or that other religions do not follow it. I have no reason to think that such a being could not exist; in fact, all things exist (not all things obtain). Probability, Possibility, Time, and Space all dictate by their workings that everything -must- exist, even if it does not pertain/obtain to our universe.

So do I believe in God? Well, Is there a way not to? By His definition He -must- exist, or else nothing that is could be. Perhaps He is nothing (on a personal level) like anything we can imagine, or conceive of, yet there is no way that He could not exist.

So, I am no longer treading water in the vast and violent ocean of my former faith. I have reached the shore, and the sun is rising; seagulls are shitting everywhere, and the screams of a sinking ships fall as annoyances on my ears.

[ArchonAlarion]

I do not believe in a god, like many INTp's.

However, presents things in an "epic", meaningful, and novelistic way. Hidden connections come across as twists in a plot, so an INTp might wonder if there is an author behind the story of the universe.

At least thats how I feel.