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

[Ritella]

=)
Actually, mune, I thought you were kidding about the INTP/INTp thing.
I read the reasoning for the INTp capitalization awhile back. Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it. As far as I'm concerned INTp = INTP = ILI = InTp = iNTp =....
heh.
EDIT: If there actually is a preference/convention here, I'll try to be cognizant of it. But it's in the same way as I would say "It's me" and not "It is I." Common usage > the actual reasoning behind the rule.

[Jarno]

=)

Actually, mune, I thought you were kidding about the INTP/INTp thing.

I read the reasoning for the INTp capitalization awhile back. Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it.

Thank you.

[hellothere]

=)
Actually, mune, I thought you were kidding about the INTP/INTp thing.
I read the reasoning for the INTp capitalization awhile back. Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it. As far as I'm concerned INTp = INTP = ILI = InTp = iNTp =....
heh.
EDIT: If there actually is a preference/convention here, I'll try to be cognizant of it. But it's in the same way as I would say "It's me" and not "It is I." Common usage > the actual reasoning behind the rule.

wait, are you saying that you think someone's MBTT type is the same as their socionics type, or just that since this is a socionics forum, you don't see the need to use the "INTp" convention to signify you're referring to the socionics type and not the MBTT type?

[consentingadult]

God = The Unmoved Mover. I.e. that which is the cause of everything else, but in itself is not the effect of anything else.

The Unmoved Mover is beyond time and space(, as it is the creator of time and space). Therefore it is utterly impossible for leading Ni-types (in casu: ILIs) to come to an understanding of God.

[crazedrat]

God = The Unmoved Mover. I.e. that which is the cause of everything else, but in itself is not the effect of anything else.

The Unmoved Mover is beyond time and space(, as it is the creator of time and space). Therefore it is utterly impossible for leading Ni-types (in casu: ILIs) to come to an understanding of God.

Assuming we go with this whole unmoved mover bit
He is also beyond matter and energy... so why isolate Ni?
And how have you come to understand him anyway?
More like, it is impossible to understand using an information element.

[consentingadult]

Assuming we go with this whole unmoved mover bit
He is also beyond matter and energy... so why isolate Ni?
And how have you come to understand him anyway?
More like, it is impossible to understand using an information element.

So why isolate Ni? Could it be because the title of this thread is "INTp concept of God" ??

Anyway, I agree: to understand God (whatever that is) one has to be omniscient like God, i.e. one has to be God. So anyone claiming to know or understand God, is simply deluded. At some stage, one has to accept the fact that many things are ultimately unknowable. But people typically can't live with uncertainty, so they fill up the gaps in their knowledge anyway.

[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