Does this help explain the difference between Gamma and Delta?
Gamma
Delta
Extroverted Thinking
Does this help explain the difference between Gamma and Delta
Gamma
Delta
i don't think those things have anything to do with
i agree with ptl
(This is kind of negative but there are positive things earlier in the chapter. It doesn't describe "healthy" thinking, rather when extraverted thinking has taken a back seat.)
From "The Collected Works of C.G. Jung", vol.6 "Psychological Types", chapter X, p353
(Am I the only one who thinks ILIs can tend to be theosophical?)The destructive quality of this thinking, as well as its limited usefulness on occasion, does not need stressing. But there is still another form of negative thinking, which at first glances might not be recognised as such, and that is theosophical thinking, which today is rapidly spreading in all parts of the world, presumably in reaction to the materialism of the recent past. Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to a transcendental and world embracing idea. A dream, fo instance, is no longer just a dream, but an experience "on another plane." The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is very simply explained as "vibrations" passing from one person to another. An ordinary nervous complaint is explained by the fact that something has collided with the "astral body". Certain ethnological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily accounted for by the submergence of Atlantis, and so on. We have only to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed that everything is already explained, and that "spiritual science" has left no enigmas unsolved. But, at bottom, this kin dof thinking is just as negative as materialistic thinking. When the latter regards psychology as chemical changes in the ganglia or as the extrusion and retraction of cell-pseudopodia or as an internal secretion, this is just as much a superstition as theosophy. The only difference is that materialism reduces everything to physiology, whereas theosophy reduces everything to Indian metaphysics. When a dream is traced back to an overloaded stomach, this is no explanation of the dream, and when we explain telepathy as vibrations we have said just as little. For what are "vibrations"? Not only are both methods of explanation futile, they are actually destructive, because by diverting interest away from the main issue, in one case the stomach and in the other to imaginary vibrations, they hamper any serious investigation of the problem by a bogus explanation. Either kind of thinking is sterile and sterilizing. Its negative quality is due to the fact that it is so indescribably cheap, impoverished, and lacking in creative energy, It is a thinking taken in tow by other functions.
Well I can be "theosophical"(I hate the word, because it conjures up the image of a sleazy new age crystal hugger, which i dont consider myself to be) in the sense that I am interested in the occult, but I dont really beleive in everything I read, unlike my cousin, whos also ILI and shes alot more into it than I am. Ok I admit I beleive alot of stuff most people would find bizarre, and unscientific, so sue me.
I agree with Jung in that paragraph only in so much that any form of thinking is cheap and unscientific. There is no form of thought which does not rest on assumtion of some sort, be it "official" or not. I have my reasons for beleiving what I do, just like quantum mechanics has its reasons for being popular, even though it is not true on a theoretical level. I do agree that in the occult and new age worlds there is a lack of critical thinking, however, I dont beleive religion should found itself purely on critical thinking, that would just be science and not religion. Religion is about teaching people values, and poetic and hermetic forms of expression often get deeper into peoples souls than mathematical calculations ever could.
What makes you think that ILIs are more into cheasy new agey thinking than other types, btw?
Young?
I did not read Young, thanks for posting it.
I think what he wanted to say is actually about extreames. Why sould we go this pass if the world is not just spirituality and not just material but both and that is why it is precious, it is Life. Balance is the answer and socion is the answer too, people need to anderstand each other better and accept that somebody's weakness is somebody's strength (Love) - together we can do a lot.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Quadras
I forgot to say aboutversus
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
Observation :wink: . Even those ILIs who aren't into that kind of thinking are certainly less disdainful of it than most other types.Originally Posted by Cheerio
I also see similar things in LIEs, so perhaps it is the influence of. I can certainly see how
@Olga: I agree that they are both extremes. People don't tend to be "balanced", they tend to have a bias one way or another, my idea was that this was how
I've seen INTps that were pretty damn critical of new-age bull.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Semantic difference:
crit·i·cal
adj.
1. Inclined to judge severely and find fault.It's quite possible to be critical without disdain.dis·dain
tr.v. dis·dained, dis·dain·ing, dis·dains
1. To regard or treat with haughty contempt; despise. See Synonyms at despise.
2. To consider or reject as beneath oneself.
n.
A feeling or show of contempt and aloofness; scorn.
Re: Extroverted Thinking
This is interesting. First I wasn't sure if I agree. ENFPs and INFJs inclined towards materialism? Hng? Whatchatalkingabout? ... But I'm beginning to see your point.Does this help explain the difference between Gamma and Delta
Gamma
Delta
Discovering the material side of things helps me to navigate life. How bad moods "work", for example. How it all ties in with exposure to sunlight, with the kinds of food you eat, with how much sleep you've got. How several little situations that disappoint you or make you feel like a failure can, if they happen in a row, build up a bad mood. So what you can do is expose yourself to situations that counteract this. Etc etc etc. Finding out about this feels, to me, like a relief - like very good news. I feel more comfortable with that kind of thing than with any "esoteric" explanation of bad moods. Not sure what that could be. Perhaps stuff like the gemstones associated with your birthday. I've got an instinctive, in-built distrust of that kind of stuff.
So I've got a certain positive bias towards materialism, and a negative bias towards teosophy. Or is saying this an over-simplification? Perhaps it's interesting for the purposes of this thread to note why this particular Delta has this kind of bias.
My Fe is subconscious, i.e. I'm not as comfortable using it as you guys. Same thing for Ni, and Ni includes symbolism. So anything that involves those things a LOT is kind of uncomfortable, at times even scary. It involves a loss of control. (After all, it's to do with my subconscious functions - the ones I can't control consciously.) So of course I'll shy away from any teosophic stuff. "Materialism" gives me a way of navigating inexplicable and scary stuff. It makes it understandable, manageable, and less scary. Bad moods as a result of bad karma - urk. Bad moods as a result of not yet having had lunch - yup, I can deal with that.
My bias probably has also to do with my desire to understand things. (Wasn't this ENFPs' hidden agenda?) Whenever I learn something, or are told to do something, I need first to understand why something is necessary. Materialism (in this kind of context) gives me more food for thought; it's easier to see through and understand. Teosophy can't be explained - it's based on hypotheses I can neither understand nor verify, but would have to believe because I'm told to believe them.*
*DISCLAIMER. This is how things present themselves to me. Another person is probably able to understand and verify teosophy.
Wow. I actually hadn't considered that -- I was considering the STs/NTs pretty much on their own.
Thankyou for your perspective! It adds a whole new dimension to the idea.
You're welcome. I've got a translation job again and was procrastinating - I always get good ideas when I'm procrastinating. I'm using this as a technique. Whenever I'm stuck in a project, I give myself an unpleasant duty I must do instead, and hey presto...
Re: Young?
I agree, I think he was mainly criticisizing how people can get so caught up in a way of thinking that it shuts out any form of insight or open mindedness towards anything new, (which is the root of science as well as spirituality if you ask me) and that people who are spiritual tend to do this all the while criticising the scientific community for doing the same thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have two thoughts to add.This is interesting. First I wasn't sure if I agree. ENFPs and INFJs inclined towards materialism? Hng? Whatchatalkingabout? ... But I'm beginning to see your point.Does this help explain the difference between Gamma and Delta
Gamma
Delta
Discovering the material side of things helps me to navigate life. How bad moods "work", for example. How it all ties in with exposure to sunlight, with the kinds of food you eat, with how much sleep you've got. How several little situations that disappoint you or make you feel like a failure can, if they happen in a row, build up a bad mood. So what you can do is expose yourself to situations that counteract this. Etc etc etc. Finding out about this feels, to me, like a relief - like very good news. I feel more comfortable with that kind of thing than with any "esoteric" explanation of bad moods. Not sure what that could be. Perhaps stuff like the gemstones associated with your birthday. I've got an instinctive, in-built distrust of that kind of stuff.
So I've got a certain positive bias towards materialism, and a negative bias towards teosophy. Or is saying this an over-simplification? Perhaps it's interesting for the purposes of this thread to note why this particular Delta has this kind of bias.
My Fe is subconscious, i.e. I'm not as comfortable using it as you guys. Same thing for Ni, and Ni includes symbolism. So anything that involves those things a LOT is kind of uncomfortable, at times even scary. It involves a loss of control. (After all, it's to do with my subconscious functions - the ones I can't control consciously.) So of course I'll shy away from any teosophic stuff. "Materialism" gives me a way of navigating inexplicable and scary stuff. It makes it understandable, manageable, and less scary. Bad moods as a result of bad karma - urk. Bad moods as a result of not yet having had lunch - yup, I can deal with that.
My bias probably has also to do with my desire to understand things. (Wasn't this ENFPs' hidden agenda?) Whenever I learn something, or are told to do something, I need first to understand why something is necessary. Materialism (in this kind of context) gives me more food for thought; it's easier to see through and understand. Teosophy can't be explained - it's based on hypotheses I can neither understand nor verify, but would have to believe because I'm told to believe them.*
*DISCLAIMER. This is how things present themselves to me. Another person is probably able to understand and verify teosophy.
1. That I agree that
2. I think the name "theosophy" is pretty bad, because theosophy is actually a specific school of occult thought that existed during the late 19th and early 20th centuries founded on the teachings of a Russian woman named Helena Blvatsky who challenged the assumptions of modern science due to what industrial society was doing to humanity at the time(child labor etc), and thus the name "theosophy" is used here as a refernce to any form of occult thinking which scorns modern science However, the occult sciences should not all be placed under the umbrella of theosophy, thats like saying all of psychology is MBTI.
The occult sciences are actually the purest form of science known to man, as they are the precursor of all the exact sciences. Or do you really think scientific immuminism could have existed without the gnostics, hermetics, sorcerers and later on alchemists, magicians, philosophers, astrologists, and other now-called "pseudo scientists" who preceded them?
Well, I didn't pick the words - I took them straight from Jung (the translation, anyway).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote