Hi,
I came across this audio clip from hypnosisdownloads.com:
http://hypnosisdownloads.com/insight...Insight-22.mp3
The basic idea states beliefs are born of emotions than knowledge. Thought some references recall Socionics.
A slightly long piece.
Hi,
I came across this audio clip from hypnosisdownloads.com:
http://hypnosisdownloads.com/insight...Insight-22.mp3
The basic idea states beliefs are born of emotions than knowledge. Thought some references recall Socionics.
A slightly long piece.
Last edited by AQ; 11-25-2008 at 05:56 PM.
NiTe
The metaphysics of yesterday is the physics of today.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
"Belief" and "Knowledge" are far from being synonimous. In fact, belief is often a substitute of knowledge (when the latter either is unuseable, or disliked by the subject) rather than a byproduct of it; the most common example is belief in God by religious people.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I think I disagree.
Belief doesn't occur without knowledge; but false belief is when knowledge is incorrectly applied.
For example, asserting an archetype of the unconscious as an entity which exists in reality.
The belief springs from the knowledge of a structure in the unconscious, but is incorrectly applied to reality.
Therefor the belief gives the illusion of not being based on knowledge; but what is really happening, is it's based on data of a different realm.
Otherwise, I can't imagine a way of explaining how people accept the belief in the first place, with nothing to compare it to; and i can't see any mechanism which would keep the belief enduring and render it resistant to argument
My thoughts on the archetypes, is they are fundamental forms of logic; and the ways in which we interpret them grant them a certain mysticism which Jung got far too caught up in. But this mysticism is secondary to the formal logic of the archetype. And contained within everyone, is the potential for comprehending formal logic.
Of what I am attempting to suggest, God is a good example. My argument would be it's an awareness of the potential for the most ideal form. This ideal form exists as an abstraction within our minds. The mistake is when we try and apply this knowledge wrongly, saying 'he' exists in 'reality'.
The fundamental difference between our positions is you're separating objects from formal logic. I am thinking formal logic is shown fourth through an object, and defines an object