Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 41

Thread: Duschia: How can an IEE submit to Dogma?

  1. #1
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,872
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Duschia: How can an IEE submit to Dogma?

    Since this is off-topic on the Trump thread, started a new one for it.

    So how can a freedom-loving IEE submit herself to rigid dogma?


    The word "dogma" is popularly bandied about by folk these days as a bad thing, something terribly oppressing. But I find it is freedom.

    Actually, Duschia, these other Q's aren't so hard to answer if I answer them one at a time.

    But first, I would like to draw your attention to a quote I have kept at the bottom of my signature for a long time because it is timeless in explaining a great truth I subscribe to, and might answer your question of how I can be dogmatic. I am dogmatic because WHEN the dogma is TRUE, there is great freedom in it. And I love freedom. It's a big value for me.

    Re: Freedom: Back when I was a Protestant [specifically: an Evangelical, "non-denom," Bible-alone, Faith-alone Christian], I was helping at a Vacation Bible Camp and we had the children singing a song about being free to do God's will in our lives. I remember kind of stumbling on that concept, thinking to myself, "Well that doesn't sound very freeing". So I continued to live my Christian life asking myself daily, "So what is my will for today?" while also praying, "Thy will be done." After so many years a Christian I am only just beginning to see the freedom and ease of asking instead each day, "What is thy will for me today?" But I am not very good at it yet. But I think it is the route to true freedom! One can soar! I have had dreams regularly throughout my life that I am walking, then running, then suddenly soaring over things and realizing I can easily fly if I choose, and I love it. I think maybe that is God's will for me (really for everyone), and where i am supposed to head, and then I will know soaring like I have only dreamed of.

    The Quote: "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"


    So, I like what the Papa said there. One is actually freer being stationary and centered than when one is whipped about this way and that, or is spinning like a zoetrope. These things restrict ones movements!

    I also know that one's freedom is severely limited when one's life and decisions are governed by lies and falsehoods. I chose Catholic Dogma because I sought truth, wherever it took me, and unexpectedly found it in the teaching and the dogmas of the Catholic Church, the last place I though I would ever find it. I was very happy as a Protestant. A little confused by some of their (scant) dogma, and confused by some inconsistencies and conflicts in it, but it was no biggie. I also was aware of some false teachers and how they badly affected some people's lives, and in fact there was a false teaching I had subscribed to that did bear (naturally) bad fruit in my life. But all I needed was Jesus, my Bible, and church with its fallible but mostly-nice people and rich fellowship.

    It least it seemed that was all I would ever need but something nagged it me - there must be something more. So I began seeking more truth, and found it in a totally unexpected place, the catholic Church. Which caused quite a crisis in m life. It was for me, like many others, a pearl of great price.


    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    How does it compare to IEEs intense dislike for 100% set judgement, (dogma not derived from actual Te) based organizations, and bits like 'their creativity sees nothing as predetermined' (see: Filatova)? IEEs also don't recognize formal subordination and 'see no piety towards authorities' (whether religious or not; see again Filatova on IEEs).
    I know I do bristle at 100% set judgment. I suffered under the set ways of a strong Ti boss this year. It was awful. Yet recently I noticed that my very favorite priests, and I have known so many as I have never missed a Mass until covid, and at times I have often sought daily Masses to attend all over the place, that I am most blessed by is my current one as well as the priest who married us 6 years ago - and both happen to be strong, set in their ways LSIs! And it is their strong Ti qualities that contribute to how they bless me. They deeply know the beautiful teachings of our church. They are extremely devout and focus their intelligence and fierce loyalty on the true teachings of he church, and becasue of their presenting and teaching and living the whole truth they have blessed my life HUGELY and I am SO grateful for them. Particularly the one right now I feel is the greatest blessing in my life, the ture definition of a pastor who really if devoted to his flock and is going to cajole and pray us into living God's word. In both of the eyes of these priests there was one time each when I have seen them recognize me as some flying leaf compared to their stalward implacable beings. But that is fine because I recognize that as type difference immediately. And I defer to them, my pastor, father, priest.

    Yes, I believe everything in this book:

    .................................................. .......

    Because it is ALL TRUTH, every word of it. There is GREAT FREEDOM in it, in every word.



    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    More:
    'Opponents of formulaic approaches and discipline' (Meged and Ovcharov)
    Hmm, trying to think of a formulaic approach. Well, the basics of being Catholic you could call a formula, but I see freedom as the fruit of it. We are obliged to go to Mass every single Sunday as well as Holy Days and certain Feast Days. That is sort of like a Mom saying her child must have a healthy meal every day. The child is "freer" becasue the child is healthy from this formula/discipline. We eat the body and blood of our Lord Jesus at Mass each Sunday because Jesus said if we don't, we will have no life in us.

    Having life in us is much freer than not having life in us.

    In order to have this life we must receive worthily. So we have the Sacrament of Confession, another way God pours Grace down from Heaven on us. Through the priests, we hear with our ears that God forgives us our sins, so that we may be worthy to receive him. Its a pretty powerful formula.

    In the same way basically go the rest of the dogma. They help us live free.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'They like to combine multiple things and ideas, rather than follow one thing to a logical conclusion' (Wiki composite)
    Well this is true that I like this, and really that is Catholic. "Catholic" is said to be sort of "Here comes everybody". There are so many ways to be Catholic! Our role models, the saints, are legion, and they are all deeply inspiring in so very many, very different ways! Definitely not limiting.


    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'IEEs are skittish about any sort of long-term membership in relationships, groups, or organizations which would imply certain duties and limitations on their freedom. They worry about being trapped in binding relationships where there are rules and demands on them that — in their opinion — would squelch their impulsive, freedom-loving search for new and interesting things and people to experience. They can overreact even to minor rules that don't affect them — just as a matter of principle.' (Wiki composite)
    Yes, this sounds a bit like me. Once again, there are so many ways to be Catholic, when one wants to go deeper you can join an apostolate or a 3rd order of any group, like the wonderful Franciscans, Carmelites, Salesians, Dominicans, Trappist, the Jesuits (Oops! Can that one!) - just to name a few. Each of these orders has a "rule"; to be a member you agree to live you life a certain way, certain many prayers a day, following these rules. There are so many wonderful, inspiring spiritual disciplines to practice, by being a 3rd order, or "lay" (not priest, not monk, not brother or sister but a regular person) member of these wonderful orders. a member. I want to join them all! Well, that's impossible, but I can't pick one because, yes, there are all those duties and disciplines to commit to, so I hesitate and then I never choose anything. Until I came upon The Apostolate for Jesus Christ the Returning King - that one could be mine, as the requirements and disciplines are very simple, very scant, so, lots of freedom and flexibility to suit me!


    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'They don't like to think about what others or "the system" might expect from them. They avoid clearly defining relationships, responsibilities, expectations, etc. and frequently feel threatened and overly rebellious when other people try to establish bounds and limitations that would affect them personally.' (Wiki composite)
    Yes, sounds like the freedom restrictions I shrink from.


    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'IEEs' avoidance of commitment and general air of uncertainty and unpredictability can grate on some people — especially those who are trying to organize people for some joint task and need participants to follow certain conventions and behave predictably and obediently.' (Wiki composite)
    Yeah, I think this is how my clueless (about my job) supervisor saw me this year.


    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'IEE is unable to work effectively within a rigid system that imposes too many restrictions.' (Gulenko)
    Agree with all that!
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  2. #2
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,872
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    Yes. I'm actually willing to think to see a fixed/set/dogmatic IEE is extremely unlikely. It literally goes against their type. They may be in higher ranks of various religions (as often religions are a social thing), but you see how they run away from 'set rules' here and there. It's similar for SEEs. Both types may nevertheless use their faith (if they believe) to 'spread some good message and deeds', but there is no dogma and anything-more-than-basic in rules.

    I actually know one IEE who is a 'strongly faithful' Catholic. She was born into a family of people practicing - in her case faith is strongly correlated to her (minority) culture and identity. I, myself, truly believe she is a strong believer and beliefs in good will and helping others. But, if you run into some 'questions' with her, you see how far she goes away from literal dogma sometimes. Examples below.

    'What do you think about how the church treats LGBT+ people?' It's awful. I have many LGBT+ friends, both non-hetero and trans. I think I could date someone trans. I accept everyone and cherish them.
    'Don't you think priests here make way too much money?' Oh, of course they are! The church and swimming in riches is just wrong.
    '
    Do you think there should be a separation of church and state?' Yes, I do. I have many non-believing friends as well and I share their opinion on this. I think the church's influence in our country is too strong and sick, especially with how they mingle with our conservative government.
    'What do you think about abortion?' It's a complicated issue. I personally would never abort, but some cases are very sad and maybe there should be some sort of compromise. Maybe each case should be treated individually.
    'There are many awful things in the Bible...' Yes, sure they are. I also think some of these are awful. But I don't think it's 100% literally true, just written under God's influence... So you have to be more careful with some passages and see the spirit. I also think New Testament is a better source than the Old one.
    'Pope dogmas and various historic things?' Not infallible. People are people, not God.
    'Damnation?' I think there should be punishment, and maybe some souls... But no, I think rehabilitation is more important. Goodness will prevail in the end.

    And so on and so on. To the question, 'okay, so why don't you switch to some protestant faith that better matches your actual beliefs and has only those core things you agree with' I was answered with a baffled expression 'yeah, but my family is there and I was always there, I've actually found many alike friends and so on'. Understandable she doesn't want to upset anyone and is used to her own social circle (which I assume is pretty similar). She cares about kindness in the most natural way you can expect.

    This is a very different approach from citing dogmas and expecting someone to fit them, or accept them.
    I had earlier responded this much in the other thread so I will repeat it here to keep it all in one place:

    Wow! I got a lot from that. Yet this one would be easier to respond to first, so I might start by (later) responding to this one first. Like how I would answer those Q's, and why I think she answered them that way. I want to explain that. I get it. I see just where she is coming from. And yes, that sounds like an IEE response.

    It is a grace that filial and social affection keeps her coming to the Lord's House. But the truth is there is a stench - the Catholic Church founded by Jesus is overwhelmingly (but not completely) infiltrated - like "deep state", there is a "deep church" - and she is not yet woke to the fact that the most life-giving truths of our faith have been systematically hidden from her. She has been ROBBED of her rightful heritage. I will pray now for her, with confidence, that she be given the graces to someday answer your final question with:

    "Because Jesus HIMSELF is there! ALL of Jesus - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity! If I don't partake of his Body and Blood, I will have NO LIFE in me! And anyway, to whom would I go? He has the words of eternal life!" *

    ___
    *See John 6:66 (Find it here in context. Context is always key! https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+6&version=KJV )
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  3. #3
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,872
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    Yes. I'm actually willing to think to see a fixed/set/dogmatic IEE is extremely unlikely. It literally goes against their type. They may be in higher ranks of various religions (as often religions are a social thing), but you see how they run away from 'set rules' here and there. It's similar for SEEs. Both types may nevertheless use their faith (if they believe) to 'spread some good message and deeds', but there is no dogma and anything-more-than-basic in rules.
    I agree that a fixed/set IEE is extremely unlikely! I never met one, and don't think I ever will, knowing IEE. I think the problem here is the untruth that dogma is limiting to freedom. That is how it is presented by those who actually hold opposing dogmas, dogmas that are truly enslaving! In real life, living in true dogma is freeing.

    You are a very thoughtful person, Duschia! I wonder what your type is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    I actually know one IEE who is a 'strongly faithful' Catholic. She was born into a family of people practicing - in her case faith is strongly correlated to her (minority) culture and identity.
    I wonder what her culture is. Could she be Hispanic? They have a beautiful faith tradition, in spite of it being systematically being undermined by outsiders, which I will explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    I, myself, truly believe she is a strong believer and beliefs in good will and helping others. But, if you run into some 'questions' with her, you see how far she goes away from literal dogma sometimes. Examples below.
    Well, concerning what comes next. Some folk call her a Cafeteria Catholic. But that would be through no fault of her own. She has been wrongly deprived of her God-given right: the true teaching of the Catholic Church. She is basically sharing the viewpoint probably fed her by the dissident priests who taught her, and catechized by teachers using the only curriculum her shameful dissident bishop allowed his parishes to use. The Catholic Church has been deeply infiltrated, to the sorry state today where one can't trust the leaders. Later I will include a rather daring link, in a post to this thread, that I listened to tonight, in order to illustrate this point, so you can see what I mean. I might have to explain it first.

    Cafeteria Catholics refers to those who see the Church as a cafeteria, and they take their tray through the line and look over the selection of Sacred Teachings of the Church and say, "Oh, that one looks good, I'll take that! Not that one, though!" and on they go, choosing and rejecting, this, not that. A great majority do this, which seems profane, since obviously if it is sacred, it is not an option; it's an obligation.

    In our time and for decades the Church has been deeply and systematically infiltrated by many, many Judases. The Church is still the Holy spotless Bride of Christ. But many VERY unholy people are running the show at this time.

    That is why She is often ugly, and appears to be dying. She is in her passion. Evil will be purged from Her, but at what a price. I remember when Pope Benedict XVI was elected, seeing in a news story a photo of a nun in a habit with the sign, "The Cafeteria is Closed". There was hope that day that this new pope would clean things up. But it is going to take an act of God for that, and some real suffering. (Some traditional hold-outs claim Benedict is still the real pope. I certainly can agree he seems and acts more a real one than the present one).

    But your friend is certainly misguided through no fault of her own, probably her priest and her teachers taught her that this is the nice way to be Catholic. (referred to as "The Church of Nice" - that invented perversion of the Holy Roman Catholic Church).

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'What do you think about how the church treats LGBT+ people?' It's awful. I have many LGBT+ friends, both non-hetero and trans. I think I could date someone trans. I accept everyone and cherish them.
    I have never seen or ever heard of any devout Catholic in my entire life treat LGBT+ people awfully and I do not believe I ever will. And I bet your friend hasn't either. She has only heard the media endlessly beat out this falsehood, and she thinks its true, and is of course, if it were, it would be not only awful but against the sacred teaching of our Holy Church. She should know this, but sadly she probably doesn't: that a Catholic is obliged to accept everyone and cherish them because we are called to be like Christ, and this is what He does.


    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'Don't you think priests here make way too much money?' Oh, of course they are! The church and swimming in riches is just wrong.
    I don't know what the priests make but Bishops and Cardinals sure make too much. It is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'Do you think there should be a separation of church and state?' Yes, I do. I have many non-believing friends as well and I share their opinion on this. I think the church's influence in our country is too strong and sick, especially with how they mingle with our conservative government.
    Strong and sick? No, strongly sick are those who vowed to God to teach her the faith and did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'What do you think about abortion?' It's a complicated issue. I personally would never abort, but some cases are very sad and maybe there should be some sort of compromise. Maybe each case should be treated individually.
    Jesus is deeply grieved.


    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'There are many awful things in the Bible...' Yes, sure they are. I also think some of these are awful. But I don't think it's 100% literally true, just written under God's influence... So you have to be more careful with some passages and see the spirit. I also think New Testament is a better source than the Old one.
    Well the interviewer and the interviewee haven't read it. They've just been told some racey bits by haters. I am grieved but she is legion. She is Catholic, so she is rolling in heaps of spiritual riches, but she acts like a pauper, because she actually thinks she is. Because no one bothered to tell/show her how rich she is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'Pope dogmas and various historic things?' Not infallible. People are people, not God.
    Well, she has that one right. People are people, and not God. But she missed all the riches of our dogmas. Poor thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    'Damnation?' I think there should be punishment, and maybe some souls... But no, I think rehabilitation is more important. Goodness will prevail in the end. [/I]
    As you can see she has not read her Bible. Through no (or little) fault of her own, the devil has her right where he wants her (and everyone else). Believing his best lie ever - there is no Hell.

    De Nile. Not just a river in Egypt.


    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    And so on and so on. To the question, 'okay, so why don't you switch to some protestant faith that better matches your actual beliefs and has only those core things you agree with' I was answered with a baffled expression 'yeah, but my family is there and I was always there, I've actually found many alike friends and so on'. Understandable she doesn't want to upset anyone and is used to her own social circle (which I assume is pretty similar). She cares about kindness in the most natural way you can expect.
    Well it's baffling but I see it as a great grace from God. She is probably Hispanic and still benefiting from the graces poured down from Heaven nearly 500 years ago when the Holy Angels painted the portrait of Our Lady on the tilma of Juan Diego in Guadalupe Mexico nearly 500 years ago. So your friend is safe in the Ark (full of holes and water pouring in, but she is safe!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    This is a very different approach from citing dogmas and expecting someone to fit them, or accept them.
    Not sure what you mean. I guess I need an example.
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 08-18-2020 at 06:27 AM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    TIM
    INTp (Te)
    Posts
    490
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    The word "dogma" is popularly bandied about by folk these days as a bad thing, something terribly oppressing. But I find it is freedom.

    One is actually freer being stationary
    and centered than when one is whipped about this way and that, or is spinning like a zoetrope. These things restrict ones movements!

    I was very happy as a Protestant. A little confused by some of their (scant) dogma, and confused by some inconsistencies and conflicts in it, but it was no biggie. I also was aware of some false teachers and how they badly affected some people's lives, and in fact there was a false teaching I had subscribed to that did bear (naturally) bad fruit in my life. But all I needed was Jesus, my Bible, and church with its fallible but mostly-nice people and rich fellowship.

    It least it seemed that was all I would ever need but something nagged it me - there must be something more. So I began seeking more truth, and found it in a totally unexpected place, the catholic Church. Which caused quite a crisis in m life. It was for me, like many others, a pearl of great price.

    Well, the basics of being Catholic you could call a formula, but I see freedom as the fruit of it. We are obliged to go to Mass every single Sunday as well as Holy Days and certain Feast Days. That is sort of like a Mom saying her child must have a healthy meal every day. The child is "freer" becasue the child is healthy from this formula/discipline.

    In the same way basically go the rest of the dogma. They help us live free.

    There are so many ways to be Catholic! Our role models, the saints, are legion, and they are all deeply inspiring in so very many, very different ways! Definitely not limiting.
    This is clearly not Ti-PoLR, but Ti-seeking (and a dynamic type seeking a static type). You find freedom in Ti/Fe based dogmas. Pope Benedict (XVI) is likely a Ti-dom himself. You thrive in formulaic systems you can understand and accept as in line with your experiences. You seek clarity: Ti. I think your lack of Ni causes you to have problems with seeing that (generalizing and abstracting from memory/observation), plus Ne overestimation.

    : structure, analysis, coherence, consistency, cogency, accordance, match, commensurability, understanding, order, or the lack of thereof; analytical state of mind, clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of coherence, order, and regularity at different levels of structure, "debugging": seeing the whole system and then spotting nonsensical flaws or mistakes, or alternatively building one's own systems from simple and well-understood parts

    contrast

    : development over time, historicity, cause and effect, consequences, repetition, archetypal themes and examples, looking for causes in history or the past, past-future forecasting of event dynamics, rhythm, delay or act-now, past-turned imagination; a protracted and reflective state of mind, "falling out of time" and later trying to make up for lost activity, generalizing and abstracting past events from memory, using these generalizations to see what's going to happen, reflecting upon the past in order to be able to evaluate what is possible to do in the present moment and to predict the most likely course of events, patience that borders with inactivity
    Ne and Ti in stack, or: a lot of very different rules to choose (with that 'well you have different monks' anecdote - I know you have, I was raised in that faith; yet, there are many common points you have to follow). (I know a very similar ESE that also would like to 'thank their conflictors for everything', where I'm always like 'no you don't, go away'; but I guess this is a lost cause.)

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    TIM
    INTp (Te)
    Posts
    490
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    wonder what her culture is. Could she be Hispanic? They have a beautiful faith tradition, in spite of it being systematically being undermined by outsiders, which I will explain.
    No, she is not Hispanic. We are coming from the Catholic bastion of Europe. So, guess which one.


    Cafeteria Catholics refers to those who see the Church as a cafeteria, and they take their tray through the line and look over the selection of Sacred Teachings of the Church and say, "Oh, that one looks good, I'll take that! Not that one, though!" and on they go, choosing and rejecting, this, not that. A great majority do this, which seems profane, since obviously if it is sacred, it is not an option; it's an obligation.
    Not something IEEs particularly bond to.

    There was hope that day that this new pope would clean things up. But it is going to take an act of God for that, and some real suffering. (Some traditional hold-outs claim Benedict is still the real pope. I certainly can agree he seems and acts more a real one than the present one).

    But your friend is certainly misguided through no fault of her own, probably her priest and her teachers taught her that this is the nice way to be Catholic. (referred to as "The Church of Nice" - that invented perversion of the Holy Roman Catholic Church).


    She was born Catholic, is practicing and in many Catholic organizations. But I guess this is suddenly not 'true' to faith, not sticking to Ti-system. If you view churches from Fi/Te perspectives, they are made by people and what they think and value as people, not by some set rules and maybe interpretations (Ti). I'm also pretty sure she is not misguided. I feel your comments toward her are patronizing in a way; she hell sure know what she does and thinks. And has a right to do so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Strong and sick? No, strongly sick are those who vowed to God to teach her the faith and did not.
    Yeah, there is totally no problem with intermingling of religion and state, not whatsoever.

    (Just in case: it's sarcasm)

    Well the interviewer and the interviewee haven't read it. They've just been told some racey bits by haters. I am grieved but she is legion. She is Catholic, so she is rolling in heaps of spiritual riches, but she acts like a pauper, because she actually thinks she is. Because no one bothered to tell/show her how rich she is.
    I've thought the assumption that I was making questions was pretty clear, but before you do some more mental gymnastics (and pray for us): yes, we have both read the bible. She has read at least the Catholic version, I have read a few different ones (and actually compared them).

    Jesus is deeply grieved.
    Jesus is merciful. And there is nothing on abortion in bible either: there is a bit on not-hitting pregnant women (if she miscarries, then you have to pay whatever her husband demands in court and court allows, but not as much as for killing a woman actually; Exodus 21:22–23). Talmud permits abortion under special circumstances. There is nothing about abortion in the New Testament.

    But she missed all the riches of our dogmas. Poor thing
    IEEs are fine without them. (and please, stop rewriting your script every time to somehow create an illusion we agree and everything is nice and fluffy while we don't - tho dunno about the second part)

    As you can see she has not read her Bible. Through no (or little) fault of her own, the devil has her right where he wants her (and everyone else). Believing his best lie ever - there is no Hell.
    There is no hell in Hebrew (the Old Testament) Bible per se, so there is inconsistency. Moreover, Christians do vary on their views whether hell is really eternal and whether it would ethical and in-line for an ever-loving god to inflict such punishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...n_universalism

    Well it's baffling but I see it as a great grace from God. She is probably Hispanic and still benefiting from the graces poured down from Heaven nearly 500 years ago when the Holy Angels painted the portrait of Our Lady on the tilma of Juan Diego in Guadalupe Mexico nearly 500 years ago. So your friend is safe in the Ark (full of holes and water pouring in, but she is safe!)
    Nope, she is not. She is was born in a different (European) country as a minority person, then came back to the country of her ancestors for studying props (here). Your guessing game is poor, as we are not American. We live in a Catholic monolith.

  6. #6
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง
    TIM
    LSI-H
    Posts
    1,127
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    No, she is not Hispanic. We are coming from the Catholic bastion of Europe. So, guess which one.
    Xd you willingly went to Poland?!

  7. #7
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,872
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    ... I was raised in that faith...
    Someday you will know without a shadow of a doubt that this is your greatest blessing and richest inheritance.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  8. #8
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,484
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the way i see it is first someone or a group of people come along who want to share the spiritual awakening with others, the perspectives are fresh and new because they are outside of the way the people they are approaching have generally been thinking and they are actually useful to those people who are able to connect themselves with a sort of transcendental spiritual path. but all ideas tend to grow stale, and as they are processed more and more in people's minds and cultures, they start basically becoming meaningless, things that are recited more than known. the ideas didn't change, it was the people. at this point it has become dogma, something that is regurgitated over and over that doesn't have the awakening effect on people that it used to.

    religion is the belief system, and it can be used spiritually or dogmatically. it can be used to reignite the awakening process or it can simply become something that is recited over and over that doesn't really seem to give a pathway to transcend one's own state anymore. it can turn into a bunch of authoritarian rules people have to follow, which is really kind of the opposite of liberation. dogma is stale or calcified spirituality basically.

    i think this happens because the more the mind processes the same information, the more efficient this processing becomes, and the information eventually starts to just pass through without all the constant feelings and realizations that it was saturated in when first processed by the mind. it slips into becoming an unconscious process basically, and that makes it not spiritually active anymore. the more a culture processes the same information, the more efficient the processing becomes as well, and words and ideas that used to be infused with meaning when uttered or heard start becoming commonplace and dead. everyone says them, no one knows what they mean anymore, and although there's nothing wrong with them as ideas, now the human machine has adapted to the ideas and works them into its constant illusion it lives in (or this state of being spiritually asleep). or sometimes it can be a beautiful story, and still felt, but somehow the gateway to awakening isn't being activated by it.

    that said, i don't want to imply that say, chanting the same things over and over in a meditation isn't spiritually active. i don't mean that. a religion and its practices remains something that can be used spiritually/consciously or dogmatically/unconsciously by the self or a society.

    i don't know how type related i would see this... i think a system of constant rules though is more in the realm of things (static system of formal logic) because then truth isn't a process, it isn't dynamic. but no religious body can exist really without some . i mean all the aspects of reality are important. i wonder if perhaps truth should be dynamic because the human mind gets tired of the same old awakening language, just as it gets tired of the same old songs. but i'm probably missing the role of discipline which is to try to keep it conscious in the same old thing even though it is ready to shortcut it and move on. this is the actual work.

    i would probably see reading something literally in spirituality often as dogmatic as i tend to see religious works as kind of codes, they are trying to get one to reach something, but the direct words used or even example used may not be what matters. but religions are also cultural products, so they'll include sometimes things like ancient systems of laws that the origin culture lived by, or retell the history of societies, or have political meaning. i see a lot of those things as having high dogma potential and often not really at the heart of what i associate as the spiritual "core" of the religion. however, it's tricky.
    Last edited by inumbra; 08-21-2020 at 10:28 PM.

  9. #9
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,872
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You are very thoughtful, inumbra. I know I said this to Duschia above when I took time to respond sincerely to her many questions, but that was because I then assumed she was a person of goodwill, and I do not think that now. I am glad to see that you are not hostile. That is so wearying.

    What you share here is a different approach to thinking about religion than I have experienced it. I do not have a clear response so I risk useless words if I try now. To me the truth is clear, and stands out brightly. It is simple, yet deep. It is how Jesus is in the gospels. Simple, true and deep.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    TIM
    INTp (Te)
    Posts
    490
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    You are very thoughtful, inumbra. I know I said this to Duschia above when I took time to respond sincerely to her many questions, but that was because I then assumed she was a person of goodwill, and I do not think that now. I am glad to see that you are not hostile. That is so wearying.

    What you share here is a different approach to thinking about religion than I have experienced it. I do not have a clear response so I risk useless words if I try now. To me the truth is clear, and stands out brightly. It is simple, yet deep. It is how Jesus is in the gospels. Simple, true and deep.
    I'm not a she.

    I guess ILIs aren't people of goodwill now.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,137
    Mentioned
    1111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    The thinking of F types is often childish and is very influenced by emotions. They tend to hold opinions by irrational reasons as emotions.
    Politics is a field for emotional propaganda - so in those questions people are lesser reasonable. T types are lesser touched by stubborn irrationality in logical regions, but the more emotions a theme has - the lesser reasonable they become.

    Sometimes you may underesteemate the degree another human has a rational basis to think something. When it's not said - it does not mean there is nothing.

    Also. It's important to note, that to hold an idea by irrational reasons does not mean that idea is wrong. To be more critical is good when you know enough about that or when may stay in doubts without assured decisions. Emotions help to accept and to follow ideas, including correct ones.
    When you say to a child do not eat something alike a soup - it's important he'd did not. It's not obligate for him to have a science degrees in chemistry and medicine to understand why and there is no use for him to doubt. It's what dogmas are in positive side.
    People change any opinions easier if you'll say them good arguments, have authority state in that subject or you are personally important for them to influence through emotions. In other case they perceive you as the one who has just another opinion, without good basis for them to see. Sometimes you may have no good basis for other opinion indeed.

    As for types. To have same type (what is doubtful often, despite you may think so) does not mean to share same ideas. Some those ideas, being accepted irrationally, may even be not common for general type's approach or average for such people. Also sometimes ideas said are not what people would do on practice or felt badly doing it. Types is not all what influences on thoughts and behavior.
    Last edited by Sol; 08-23-2020 at 10:31 PM.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  12. #12
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,872
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay, he. I guessed that wrong.

    But I guessed right on ILI for you. No VI needed, no interview questions - just a couple of posts read that had nothing to do with typing! I think that is pretty good!

    The ILIs I know in real life are fine. Perhaps the anonymity of internet conversations would bring out a dark side I haven't seen?

    At any rate, when there is no good will then it is pointless to talk. What a waste of time.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  13. #13
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,884
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Dogma" is a thought-terminating cliché; no one thinks their own true beliefs are dogma. If you thoroughly understand why you believe what you do, it's not dogma anymore. If you lump well-understood beliefs into "dogma" too, you open the gates for everyone and everything to be judged exclusively by effects, with no respect to intentions. I shouldn't need to explain why you can't do that.

  14. #14
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,484
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sigh. It feels quite hasty to assume people aren't of "goodwill" or are of bad will. Is his great crime pointing out what information elements he detects? Evvvil.

    An article about dogma vs. spirituality: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...itual-religion

    I would include political dogma as well, which can also feed terrorists or hate crimes. Political belief systems can become religions, though perhaps they tend to shadow religions like how the political dogma in the US on both the left and the right shadows the country's most common and dominant religion: Christianity.

    The distinction isn't a relative thing about seeing oneself as so spiritual and others they disagree with as so dogmatic (although I guess that might be a dogmatic perspective in and of itself). There's a real difference. One is living, the other is a zombie.

    I also don't think all dogma or dogmatic states lead to violence. I wasn't trying to imply that.

    Anyway it's all connected, the rising terrorism, the rising fear and automatic distrust, the rise of political extremism, the rise of dogma. It's all fear.
    Last edited by inumbra; 08-24-2020 at 01:38 AM.

  15. #15
    Peter, The Machine, The Rock fireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wherever someone needs a good laugh
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    1,078
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IEE's spiritual gifts

    --IEEs are energetic, enthusiastic, and relationally-gifted members in any congregation. They value expressing their faith in song, word, praise, and action. They are found in the pulpit, in youth leadership, song leading, choir direction, and in almost every facet of corporate worship and service.

    --Multi-talented and theatrical, the IEEs can be found—in their religious congregation—writing and directing plays, performing shows, leading the Sunday school, and directing the choir. Often possessing the gifts of evangelism, teaching, and faith, IEEs exercise their gifts with warmth and enthusiasm. They are interested in knowing and expressing God’s loving qualities. This preference may need to be balanced with God’s justice and holiness.

    --IEE may need help with adding structure to their spontaneity, as well as being still before God and waiting on Him. They have the capacity to have a big heart toward God, and the people skills to bring others along with them as they seek their Creator wholeheartedly.

  16. #16
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,872
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onfireee View Post
    IEE's spiritual gifts

    --IEEs are energetic, enthusiastic, and relationally-gifted members in any congregation. They value expressing their faith in song, word, praise, and action. They are found in the pulpit, in youth leadership, song leading, choir direction, and in almost every facet of corporate worship and service.

    --Multi-talented and theatrical, the IEEs can be found—in their religious congregation—writing and directing plays, performing shows, leading the Sunday school, and directing the choir. Often possessing the gifts of evangelism, teaching, and faith, IEEs exercise their gifts with warmth and enthusiasm. They are interested in knowing and expressing God’s loving qualities. This preference may need to be balanced with God’s justice and holiness.

    --IEE may need help with adding structure to their spontaneity, as well as being still before God and waiting on Him. They have the capacity to have a big heart toward God, and the people skills to bring others along with them as they seek their Creator wholeheartedly.
    This is interesting, but where did it come from? It actually sounds like an internet article description of MBTI's ENFP, a lot more than a Socionics description of IEE. I often find that internet articles that have MBTI type descriptions have descriptions that don't describe the types so much like Meyers and Briggs described them, themselves. I find them to be more cartoon-y, with the various emphasises off-base. Yes, IEE's are very interested in people, are positive and expressive of themselves and their ideas and in artistry, but we also need regular good chunks of no-people time. Socionics admits that IEEs are the most introverted of extroverts, which is unseen in this particular description, while it is true of me and the other IEEs I know. We can light up socially when we need/want to, but that is not us all the time. In fact the above sounds closer ESE's I know, who are constantly "turned on" in a group setting.

    Sunday Mass is an introverted time for me, and all Catholics too. The article you quoted describes Protestant Sunday services, which have a characteristic "horizontal" focus, on "our shared fellowship". Also Protestant congregations have more things going on that allow for the self-expression of extroverts, and some of those would involve IEEs,* for sure. Yes, there is also worship** there, so there is vertical focus, but the horizontal is strongly emphasized as well vertical, just as in your description.

    The Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is different. It is the source and summit of our faith, what we live for all week. It is ALL worship, all vertically focused, as each person inwardly prepares to encounter and receive Jesus in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. So Mass is a solemn, devout, and "introverted" time for the extroverts as well as the introverts. Like this:

    .................................................. ......




    __________________________________________________ __

    ** When i was Evangelical Protestant I was also very busy with my teaching career that I poured all my extroversion into, and at home I did all the cooking, cleaning, laundry, dishes, shopping, gardening, painting, wallpapering etc. etc. by myself, plus my marriage was difficult (i was immersed in it and didn't realize fully how difficult it was til I was out of it) so while I was very much encouraged to be more involved in church activities, my involvement in the sorts of things yo mention was infrequent becasue I had to preserve myself.

    **I have fond memories, when I was Protestant, of singing Protestant praise and worship songs, which is strongly "vertical" as well as horizontal...
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  17. #17
    Seriously Judicious Emotivist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,872
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let me share some clarity on Dogma. I am doing this for Dushia's sake as well as anyone reading this, in case Duschia is interested in the true facts of this matter. If we've argued under false definitions, it all means nothing. So this, Duschia, is what Catholic Dogma actually is:

    Catholic Dogma is simply the truth given us by Jesus and handed down by the Apostles. Church is entrusted with preserving these truths, this original deposit of faith, that Christians accept and do not question. However, whenever in history any part of this original deposit of faith is questioned, and threatened with heresy, the Church convenes in a council and clarifies what the Church has always taught. And then, to safeguard it from the current and any future heresies, the church defines this truth handed down by the apostles as Dogma.

    So that is all Dogma is. God is eternal, and "God changeth not". Likewise the Word of God is true for all time. "Dogma" is simply the Church's methodology for making sure that true teaching of Jesus never changes.

    That is truth for all people, for all time, no matter the personality type.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  18. #18
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,140
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Duschia: How can an IEE submit to Dogma?

    Easily.

    Bald trainer in the scene: ENFP Huxley

    You have been removed from this discussion.

  19. #19
    ⚢ Ψ^(`∀´#)↝ object class Euclid Cybel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    burrowing
    TIM
    slime girl
    Posts
    148
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Duschia

    To be fair I know quite a lot über religious EIIs. They seem to blend Church values with their personal ones (ex: pro-LGBT) into this weird mishmash of beliefs that contradict each other when you look closely. They solidify throughout their life to a point where they would die for their beliefs; quite intense stuff. They focus more on the all-loving Sky Daddy side and drown out the negatives (thy shall be smote!). I could see how an IEE would be similar. The sense of community is also probably a very alluring factor. The really atheist types are mostly ILE and ILI.

    200% terminal retardation
    fully automated vegetable corpse

  20. #20
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง
    TIM
    LSI-H
    Posts
    1,127
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snek View Post
    @Duschia

    To be fair I know quite a lot über religious EIIs. They seem to blend Church values with their personal ones (ex: pro-LGBT) into this weird mishmash of beliefs that contradict each other when you look closely. They solidify throughout their life to a point where they would die for their beliefs; quite intense stuff. They focus more on the all-loving Sky Daddy side and drown out the negatives (thy shall be smote!). I could see how an IEE would be similar. The sense of community is also probably a very alluring factor. The really atheist types are mostly ILE and ILI.
    TFW they can't into Ti... doublethink desu

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    TIM
    INTp (Te)
    Posts
    490
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snek View Post
    @Duschia

    To be fair I know quite a lot über religious EIIs. They seem to blend Church values with their personal ones (ex: pro-LGBT) into this weird mishmash of beliefs that contradict each other when you look closely. They solidify throughout their life to a point where they would die for their beliefs; quite intense stuff. They focus more on the all-loving Sky Daddy side and drown out the negatives (thy shall be smote!). I could see how an IEE would be similar. The sense of community is also probably a very alluring factor. The really atheist types are mostly ILE and ILI.
    Yup, they mix and mash and it 'doesn't make sense' (for most people and 4D Ti especially). I think in another thread I responded to Eliza with how my religious IEE friend does so. Back then, I even kinda pointed out to them (my friend) that 'maybe they should just become some protestant Christian and have all that freedom they (subconsciously) seek for'. It's a big difference to 'reading about dogmas, accepting them at sight and defending them as true word'. If anything, they make a parody of anything Ti-related popes have ever produced.

  22. #22
    ⚢ Ψ^(`∀´#)↝ object class Euclid Cybel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    burrowing
    TIM
    slime girl
    Posts
    148
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    Yup, they mix and mash and it 'doesn't make sense' (for most people and 4D Ti especially). I think in another thread I responded to Eliza with how my religious IEE friend does so. Back then, I even kinda pointed out to them (my friend) that 'maybe they should just become some protestant Christian and have all that freedom they (subconsciously) seek for'. It's a big difference to 'reading about dogmas, accepting them at sight and defending them as true word'. If anything, they make a parody of anything Ti-related popes have ever produced.
    Coming from someone who’s seen just how disgusting, petty, childish, corrupt, borderline-colonialist Abrahamic religions can be firsthand, but also someone who has some zealot friends, Eliza’s sounds pretty great actually, if a bit sheltered. She hasn’t blown a fuse like a lot of Christians do when you question them, which is extremely rare on the internet and signals maturity ig. I think she’s adopted most of the benign/hopeful aspects which is the best you can hope for. Tbh users like End make me cringe way more. I think you should let it rest, as it seems like you understand partially why IEEs can be OK with the idea of a “boring, lame Sky Bro #434 religion”.

    edit: i retract this statement. no one is safe from cringe
    Last edited by Cybel; 09-10-2020 at 10:00 PM.

    200% terminal retardation
    fully automated vegetable corpse

  23. #23
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    IEE-Ne 459 sx/so
    Posts
    157
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've always thought of @Eliza Thomason as ESE-Fe(strenghtened Ne+Fe). Ti inferior makes so much more sense than Ti Polr for her.

    Most IEE(that don't know about socionics or Ti and were never supervised by a LII/LSI) don't perceive dogmas as truth or principles that should be coherent because they don't care about Ti. That's what Ti-Polr is about. Even if you point out to them how they are contradicting themselves, they wouldn't really know why that is "false". In IEE world, everything is just discourse. If you can tie two concepts together in a sentence, means you have found a compromise; yeah!

    Adherence to an organised religion in modern times depends mostly on whether this religion fulfills a need for us. This could be anything; a need for transcendent truths; a need for community; a need for reassurance; a need for faith. Eliza says she found freedom in the Catholic Church; (I guess she means freedom from doubts? from meaninglessness?). I am not able, for the life of me, to adopt this perspective, even if I respect hers. I am profoundly profane; I understand freedom as absence of religious bigotry and dogmas. I severed my relationship to organised religion; I'm free of God. Who is to say which freedom is greater?

    It doesn't mean that I am aspiritual; I just find my spirituality in wordly things and not in some rule book. I've always been attracted to the numinous quality of nature.

    “Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn.”
    ― John Muir, The Mountains of California
    france-vosges-grand_ballon_memorial-web-1080x400.jpg
    Only there occasionally

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    TIM
    INTp (Te)
    Posts
    490
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snek View Post
    Coming from someone who’s seen just how disgusting, petty, childish, corrupt, borderline-colonialist Abrahamic religions can be firsthand, but also someone who has some zealot friends, Eliza’s sounds pretty great actually, if a bit sheltered. She hasn’t blown a fuse like a lot of Christians do when you question them, which is extremely rare on the internet and signals maturity ig. I think she’s adopted most of the benign/hopeful aspects which is the best you can hope for. Tbh users like End make me cringe way more. I think you should let it rest, as it seems like you understand partially why IEEs can be OK with the idea of a “boring, lame Sky Bro #434 religion”.
    You are a great SLI bro, bro.

  25. #25
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    IEE-Ne 459 sx/so
    Posts
    157
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    "Dogma" is a thought-terminating cliché; no one thinks their own true beliefs are dogma. If you thoroughly understand why you believe what you do, it's not dogma anymore. If you lump well-understood beliefs into "dogma" too, you open the gates for everyone and everything to be judged exclusively by effects, with no respect to intentions. I shouldn't need to explain why you can't do that.
    Interesting. I agree that the responsability for understanding his reasons to believe weights on the believer. But isn't the real issue with most believers, whether they have understood their beliefs or not, that they can't step out of their own beliefs? Shouldn't it be a bigger responsabilty for believers to try to thouroughly understand why others believe what they do? Otherwise, a beliver turns into his shadow; an ignorer. An ignorer has turned away from truth to dedicate himself wholly to his fetish; his knowledge is dead, and his truth is just some videotape he plays over and over in his mind. Real enlightenment has then just turned into some light at the end of the tunnel; paradise is for the dead.

    btw why is your avatar a poopin' wolf ? WOOooOOOooooohHHhhh
    Only there occasionally

  26. #26
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,884
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    Interesting. I agree that the responsability for understanding his reasons to believe weights on the believer. But isn't the real issue with most believers, whether they have understood their beliefs or not, that they can't step out of their own beliefs? Shouldn't it be a bigger responsabilty for believers to try to thouroughly understand why others believe what they do? Otherwise, a beliver turns into his shadow; an ignorer. An ignorer has turned away from truth to dedicate himself wholly to his fetish; his knowledge is dead, and his truth is just some videotape he plays over and over in his mind. Real enlightenment has then just turned into some light at the end of the tunnel; paradise is for the dead.
    Well, this begs the question of to whom, or to what, it is one's responsibility to step outside of a belief. I think that reason is the servant of the passions, and that all truths beneath me, not above me, are to my liking. All of my truth-seeking is done in service of my will to life; if a truth refutes my will to life, I should oppose it. The idea of "The Truth" (capital T) is itself a bit of a phantom; that Truth is a good-in-itself, that the good in pursuing it at all costs must be self-evident, and not conditional; and that, even if the Truth ever could refute one's will to life, one should be willing to relinquish everything in its service.

    But I will make no such sacrifice for the selfish god of Truth! Nothing is above my will to life! If this selfish god, this "greater good," draws blood of any of its own children, then it proves that nature is indeed wrought in strife! And if all is wrought in strife, then let me be the cruelest. For as long as any power in the world dares impinge upon my will to life, then let my own Power be the highest good in all the world!


    But, you may ask, is nature truly wrought in strife? You may ask, is not the notion of life as a War of All Against All a construct of the power-hungry in order to cement their rule? And, were their rule dismantled, would not a more cooperative and less competitive field be left in their wake? I think the question itself betrays lines the asker has already drawn in the sand. For who are the "power-hungry," and how were they able to convince us that life is a war of all against all, if it was them who did such? How did they herd us all into an arena, if that is where we are? Was it a one-time anomaly that the most sociopathic of people once and forever ascended to the highest echelons, persisted their power for eternity, and from there, created all the strife of Modernity? I wouldn't think. Such a one-off malicious omnipotence, leaching out into everything that has a name, is almost equivalent to an actual Devil, a fantastical thought. And, I wouldn't accept that probability would allow this error to happen only once and never again, as if any revolution could correct it for all time. Why should this single event in human history be framed as artificial, but all the others accepted as emergent?
    I think the rise of the cruelest people to high places was an emergent phenomenon. Easily repeated, if disrupted. Bound to have happened in the past timeline. Even given that the "War of All Against All" is truly a spook conditioned onto us by the mighty, the inevitability of their rule would mean we would all be conditioned into this mentality at one point or another. Which, in a sense, demonstrates the War of All Against All as a true principle.

    The common rebuttal to this is that humans have collective agency, by which we've altered the cruel forces of nature in past times, and mayhaps may alter ourselves out of our own cruelty. I doubt this. Modern humans have diverted a few rivers, but the rivers we end up diverting depends upon where we spawned, which depends upon where the rivers were to begin with. Our ability to alter the map depends upon the starting state of the map. People neglect that the scale and complexity of the present world is needed to keep the machinery running, but this complexity makes individuals mostly powerless to move us towards more sustainable paradigms, let alone the impossibility of collective organization.

    Any fine-tuning of the system for greater efficiency that does not come from the system itself is dead-end fantasy. So no, I would say the human race does not have real agency. Our own success will continue to undermine the foundations that allow us to exist. The philosophy of Modernism, the power of human greatness to improve upon the world in which we live, was a blind alley.
    So there is no Enlightenment. "Enlightenment" began when we started injecting religious fervor into scientific progress. But nothing guarantees that progress can endure forever. In the end, all that matters is to become the slaver and not the enslaved, just as the ancients did. Thus then, thus now.


    If the world's a shark tank, let me be biggest.

  27. #27
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    IEE-Ne 459 sx/so
    Posts
    157
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Well, this begs the question of to whom, or to what, it is one's responsibility to step outside of a belief. I think that reason is the servant of the passions, and that all truths beneath me, not above me, are to my liking. All of my truth-seeking is done in service of my will to life; if a truth refutes my will to life, I should oppose it. The idea of "The Truth" (capital T) is itself a bit of a phantom; that Truth is a good-in-itself, that the good in pursuing it at all costs must be self-evident, and not conditional; and that, even if the Truth ever could refute one's will to life, one should be willing to relinquish everything in its service.

    But I will make no such sacrifice for the selfish god of Truth! Nothing is above my will to life! If this selfish god, this "greater good," draws blood of any of its own children, then it proves that nature is indeed wrought in strife! And if all is wrought in strife, then let me be the cruelest. If the world's a shark tank, let me be biggest.
    Veeeeery interesting(and poetic)! I think this relates a lot to beta vs delta actually.

    I don't think that reason is the servant of passions, and I believe that there are higher truths that are good in themselves even if Truth itself is a phantom; these truths are tied to the essence of things and not to my liking. A tin can is made of tin, whether I like it or not; I will die, whether I like it or not; the past can't be undone and human existence contains suffering, whether I like it or not; fear breeds suspicion, which breeds violence, whether I like it or not; I can't be sure that my religion is the true one because all knowledge is built on assumptions, whether I like it or not. Why would I accept truths if they hurt me, would you ask. Well, they only hurt me if I want them to be otherwise. If instead of being able to look them in the eye, I cover in fear. But it is not these truths that make me weak; it's the fear. The passion.

    In what way are they higher truths may you ask? What makes them worth suffering for? In that they lessen suffering not now, but ever after. They lessen suffering not only for you, but for everyone. Because they transcend my or your life; they make you strong. The truths you like are like candy; they make you lazy, weak, dependent on some holy book in order to understand the world around you; but you were dependent of your tastes all along anyway, weren't you? Higher truths give you the choice to accept life as it is; they give choices! and only with this gift, free will, can you start to suffer for something instead of from something. You have the choice; will you make life better for everyone?

    You say you oppose "every truth that refutes your will of life"; but isn't this struggle the negation of the will of life itself? You are engaged in an never-ending cycle of suffering and struggle, diminishing with every revolution, undermining your strength with each fight. In that state, what will of life are you talking about? Shouldn't it be better referred to as a will of death?

    You refuse to make sacrifices to the "selfish God of Truth", but let me ask you: who is selfish by never wanting to suffer? You! Projecting your selfishness on truth is just another trick of your ego to make you run away from pain.

    Let's talk about passions. Sometimes I walk in the park and I see people walking their dogs. They pick up a stick and throw it; the dog, unfailingly, starts to run after the stick and bring it back to his master. The dog doesn't know why he does this; probably the master doesn't either. Dogs exhibit this reflex because their ancestors were conditioned to bring back hunter's prey that was killed. Now however, both dog and master are replaying a pointless scene from centuries ago. Your passions, your rage, your happiness, your trust, are similar; they have reasons to exist, biological, historical, or personal. Again, this truth gives you a choice: learn to understand your passions, put truth in a equal-to-equal relationship with them. Be the dog who says "what, what am I doing?". Or you could be the one replaying for ever your own fears, falling ever deeper into nihilistic determinism. Pick.

    78f0f50285dd11bef4946bc47283e49281-pills-lede.rhorizontal.w1200.jpg
    Only there occasionally

  28. #28
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,884
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    I don't think that reason is the servant of passions, and I believe that there are higher truths that are good in themselves even if Truth itself is a phantom; these truths are tied to the essence of things and not to my liking. A tin can is made of tin, whether I like it or not; I will die, whether I like it or not; the past can't be undone and human existence contains suffering, whether I like it or not; fear breeds suspicion, which breeds violence, whether I like it or not; I can't be sure that my religion is the true one because all knowledge is built on assumptions, whether I like it or not. Why would I accept truths if they hurt me, would you ask. Well, they only hurt me if I want them to be otherwise. If instead of being able to look them in the eye, I cover in fear. But it is not these truths that make me weak; it's the fear. The passion.
    Passions are the reason we do anything at all. Therefore, everything, even truth-seeking, must be done in their service. When a truth overrides the ego's own will to exist, it's akin to a mind parasite.


    In what way are they higher truths may you ask? What makes them worth suffering for? In that they lessen suffering not now, but ever after. They lessen suffering not only for you, but for everyone. Because they transcend my or your life; they make you strong. The truths you like are like candy; they make you lazy, weak, dependent on some holy book in order to understand the world around you; but you were dependent of your tastes all along anyway, weren't you? Higher truths give you the choice to accept life as it is; they give choices! and only with this gift, free will, can you start to suffer for something instead of from something. You have the choice; will you make life better for everyone?
    It can't be overemphasized that these "holy books" began with these very wisdom traditions predicated upon such "higher truths." They gained the appearance of incoherence upon layers of layers of divorce from their initial contexts and traditions, until now, naive moderns see them as the apotheosis of incoherence. It is not our age that is an age of anachronism and schizophrenia, it is every age but the first.


    We suffer not for our desires, but when our desires conflict with our surroundings. The will to live alone is a noble enough reason to fight; a loftier reason will not give us any greater means to achieve it, it will only be less attainable and breed more suffering. And ironically, fighting for "something greater" is a loftier battle than simply fighting for one's own meager self, and being satisfied with that alone.

    You speak of "holy books" with the subtle connotation that they are mere dogma the ruling class commandeers to control us; when ironically, desiring "something to believe in" is equally a call of enlistment to holy war, for a cause with no guaranteed reward.

    Suffering, or suffering for anything, is not noble in a vacuum. What causes pleasure is good; what causes suffering is bad! There is no need to invert this! To romanticize one's own suffering is the cope of the beaten dog. He has no guarantee his pain will amount to any good in the end; he must tell himself it will in order to treat the pain. But how can a wound be desirable because it compels us to numb it with morphine? Better had the wound never been inflicted, and the morphine never needed.


    You say you oppose "every truth that refutes your will of life"; but isn't this struggle the negation of the will of life itself? You are engaged in an never-ending cycle of suffering and struggle, diminishing with every revolution, undermining your strength with each fight. In that state, what will of life are you talking about? Shouldn't it be better referred to as a will of death?

    You refuse to make sacrifices to the "selfish God of Truth", but let me ask you: who is selfish by never wanting to suffer? You! Projecting your selfishness on truth is just another trick of your ego to make you run away from pain.
    If I willed death, I'd calmly accept the mark for death Nature has placed upon my head, rather than kick and scream for my own good. If suffering for something is noble in itself, I'm on the right track.


    The hard boundary of selfish and unselfish is an illusion. If a collective were infinitely unselfish, it would willingly serve the interests of even its enemies. That a group will act to preserve itself demonstrates its selfishness. Moreover, a group's self-interest requires not only the continued existence of some number of its parts, but also the integrity of the connections between them. Whereas an individual's self-interest, in the end, asks nothing but the continued existence of that individual. He asks little, he binds few people to his own will, the ties around him may form and break as they please, but in the end, he wishes nothing but to Be.

    Which then is the more rapacious, the more fecund and all-consuming? The one who seeks only his own good, or the engine that demands expansion and compliance? Which one grows and devours more of the heavens, infinitely replicating itself over the immense beauty and diversity that once was, replacing it with concrete, drab, uniform, consistency?
    Certainly not the selfish individual. Only the selfish group. The selfish truth. The Selfish God.

  29. #29
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    IEE-Ne 459 sx/so
    Posts
    157
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Passions are the reason we do anything at all. Therefore, everything, even truth-seeking, must be done in their service. When a truth overrides the ego's own will to exist, it's akin to a mind parasite.
    Well, I think the ego is the mind parasite. It makes fear of pain bigger than pain itself. It makes hunger for pleasure bigger than pleasure itself. It makes survival the only stake of existence, but existence extends beyond stakes. You don't need an ego to live, but you need to live if you have an ego.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    We suffer not for our desires, but when our desires conflict with our surroundings. The will to live alone is a noble enough reason to fight; a loftier reason will not give us any greater means to achieve it, it will only be less attainable and breed more suffering. And ironically, fighting for "something greater" is a loftier battle than simply fighting for one's own meager self, and being satisfied with that alone.
    True; but I never said you should look for reasons to fight. Look for reasons not to fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    You speak of "holy books" with the subtle connotation that they are mere dogma the ruling class commandeers to control us; when ironically, desiring "something to believe in" is equally a call of enlistment to holy war, for a cause with no guaranteed reward.
    Again no. Stop putting words in my mouth to feed your ghost. Meaning has not to be rapacious or violent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Suffering, or suffering for anything, is not noble in a vacuum. To romanticize one's own suffering is the cope of the beaten dog. He has no guarantee his pain will amount to any good in the end; he must tell himself it will in order to treat the pain. But how can a wound be desirable because it compels us to numb it with morphine? Better had the wound never been inflicted, and the morphine never needed.
    Of course not. One should not romanticize the suffering one could have avoided. But aren't you willing to fight and suffer to uphold the rights of your meager petty self? This fight and suffering could have been avoided also. You are just not willing to let go, you think you control your existence but it controls you, and the fight you are engaging in is as holy to you as the wars you are talking about. Surviving at any cost, huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    What causes pleasure is good; what causes suffering is bad! There is no need to invert this!
    That is the true motto of the beaten dog. The dog that doesn't understand that he has decided that only pleasure and suffering matter, delimiting the sphere of his existence to his little perceptions. Btw, I never inverted this, you're attacking a strawman dude. What I said is that you're just a pawn if you don't investigate what makes you suffer and what gives you pleasure and define the meaning yourself. Alone. Free.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    The hard boundary of selfish and unselfish is an illusion. If a collective were infinitely unselfish, it would willingly serve the interests of even its enemies. That a group will act to preserve itself demonstrates its selfishness. Moreover, a group's self-interest requires not only the continued existence of some number of its parts, but also the integrity of the connections between them. Whereas an individual's self-interest, in the end, asks nothing but the continued existence of that individual. He asks little, he binds few people to his own will, the ties around him may form and break as they please, but in the end, he wishes nothing but to Be.

    Which then is the more rapacious, the more fecund and all-consuming? The one who seeks only his own good, or the engine that demands expansion and compliance? Which one grows and devours more of the heavens, infinitely replicating itself over the immense beauty and diversity that once was, replacing it with concrete, drab, uniform, consistency?
    Certainly not the selfish individual. Only the selfish group. The selfish truth. The Selfish God.
    Why are you talking about the collective now? Why is less rapacious good? This sounds like a so-last rant. It's great if you found your own religion, sp/sx. Tread the path forever alone then, and loose everything you hold dear(last but not least your life the little thing you tried to preserve) because that's what your bottomline seems to be. You choose to write your life as a tragedy, your choice.
    Last edited by lkdhf qkb; 09-09-2020 at 06:24 PM.
    Only there occasionally

  30. #30
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,484
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Which then is the more rapacious, the more fecund and all-consuming? The one who seeks only his own good, or the engine that demands expansion and compliance? Which one grows and devours more of the heavens, infinitely replicating itself over the immense beauty and diversity that once was, replacing it with concrete, drab, uniform, consistency?
    Certainly not the selfish individual. Only the selfish group. The selfish truth. The Selfish God.
    sounds like dogma

  31. #31
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,884
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    sounds like dogma
    I've already explained how that's a thought-terminating cliché.

    Back when we were purely lizardbrained, we preferred it when meeting our physical needs was sustainably constant.
    Now, we also have abstraction. Would we not also prefer our abstract layer to remain sustainably constant likewise?

  32. #32
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,884
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    Well, I think the ego is the mind parasite. It makes fear of pain bigger than pain itself. It makes hunger for pleasure bigger than pleasure itself. It makes survival the only stake of existence, but existence extends beyond stakes. You don't need an ego to live, but you need to live if you have an ego.
    I'm sorry, but this sounds like dark-mother speak, like a cosmic monster is trying to gaslight someone into thinking "That's not the real you! The real you wants to shed its body, and merge itself with me! Don't you trust your mother?", even if it's a mother someone has never met before, or had no fond memory of.

    I'm not saying that's your intent, I'm not trying to sound accusatory, but that's where this line of reasoning always leads. It's kind of irreconcilable, trying to convince someone who has his own good as ultimate value that they should shed it in favor of the whole. It can't really be breached in one direction or the other, so it's all talking past each other at this point.



    Again no. Stop putting words in my mouth to feed your ghost. Meaning has not to be rapacious or violent.
    "Holy books" is kind of a meme, though. As I said before, what you call "higher truths" were once embedded into these types of text that became what they are now, by the strange distortions of time. The "holy books" meme is a botched understanding of what they began as. We tried to seek higher truth in the past, and warlords allied themselves with our occultists, and they commandeered that meaning to their own whims.

    If it happened before, it's prone to happen again. That's why I equate the two. I'm sorry if my ambiguity made this sound accusatory.
    "Religion" as being a distinct object, rather than the default that permeates through every other aspect of our culture, is a bit of a novelty. Most of our essential notions of life developed in a "religious" age - we can't remember a time where we became what we are without it. If it goes that deep down into our origins, are we really rid of it? Do we know that what we're doing now isn't some sort of religion of its own? I doubt.

  33. #33
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,484
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    I've already explained how that's a thought-terminating cliché.

    Back when we were purely lizardbrained, we preferred it when meeting our physical needs was sustainably constant.
    Now, we also have abstraction. Would we not also prefer our abstract layer to remain sustainably constant likewise?
    i meant that what you are calling truth there, i would call dogma or ideology. it sounds like a collectivist ideology that is imposed upon the individual to force conformity and is more like "this is the truth you must all believe in and these are the rules you must all follow" rather than actual seeking of knowledge (which is a curious process, not an incurious one that demands everyone think the same way).

  34. #34
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,884
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    i meant that what you are calling truth there, i would call dogma or ideology. it sounds like a collectivist ideology that is imposed upon the individual to force conformity and is more like "this is the truth you must all believe in and these are the rules you must all follow" rather than actual seeking of knowledge (which is a curious process, not an incurious one that demands everyone think the same way).
    It was more of a hook or a flair.

  35. #35
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,484
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    It was more of a hook or a flair.
    no idea what this means. maybe it means that truth and dogma are indistinguishable from your pov? i would see them as distinct as i see one as living and one as dead. and it seemed you were discussing how you don't want to live by other "truths" imposed upon you and only by your own. although your own may or may not be dogmatic, "truths" imposed on people coercively in my mind almost always are dogmas. and it's true they will be mind viruses, some more harmful than others, as they lead away from truth. things that lead away from truth, lead away from accepting reality as it is, and that causes harm to the self. of course, it's difficult to know what is true. for instance, is the world simply to be reduced to a shark tank in which only the cruel benefit? i can see this perspective, but i don't know that i believe it's "true" since if it were i would think no one can rise via kindness.

  36. #36
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,884
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    maybe it means that truth and dogma are indistinguishable from your pov?
    Yes.

  37. #37
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    IEE-Ne 459 sx/so
    Posts
    157
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    I'm sorry, but this sounds like dark-mother speak, like a cosmic monster is trying to gaslight someone into thinking "That's not the real you! The real you wants to shed its body, and merge itself with me! Don't you trust your mother?", even if it's a mother someone has never met before, or had no fond memory of.

    I'm not saying that's your intent, I'm not trying to sound accusatory, but that's where this line of reasoning always leads. It's kind of irreconcilable, trying to convince someone who has his own good as ultimate value that they should shed it in favor of the whole. It can't really be breached in one direction or the other, so it's all talking past each other at this point.
    You're not listening and you're just playing me some cliché slippery slope fallacy. I just said that living without letting your fear of ego death set all your priorities, you would be happier. Happier to live in your own body. The focus on survival needs discards everything that doesn't serve them => Focus is also ignoring. You're ignoring human connection and care. What the f*** has that to do with your neurotic fear of being absorbed?

    Your thought has fermented for too long; but what came out is not some nice booze duh you sicko i'm done

    EDIT: you're basically saying "my programming says survival is ultimate value. my programming does not allow to understand how other humans can contribute to my survival. so any collective is detrimental to survival. I'm a robot and impossible to argue with. Beep Blorp meep"
    Last edited by lkdhf qkb; 09-09-2020 at 10:10 PM.
    Only there occasionally

  38. #38
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,884
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    You're not listening and you're just playing me some cliché slippery slope fallacy. I just said that living without letting your fear of ego death set all your priorities, you would be happier. Happier to live in your own body. The focus on survival needs discards everything that doesn't serve them => Focus is also ignoring. You're ignoring human connection and care. What the f*** has that to do with your neurotic fear of being absorbed?

    Your thought has fermented for too long; but what came out is not some nice booze duh you sicko i'm done

    EDIT: you're basically saying "my programming says survival is ultimate value. my programming does not allow to understand how other humans can contribute to my survival. so any collective is detrimental to survival. I'm a robot and impossible to argue with. Beep Blorp meep"
    Well, "ego" could be taken to mean "you have too much self-importance because value your own self-interest too much," immediately implying that the issue at hand is one of individual vs. society. That's probably why I derailed in that direction. Maybe I read "ego" wrong. Apologies if that's the case.

  39. #39
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    IEE-Ne 459 sx/so
    Posts
    157
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Well, "ego" could be taken to mean "you have too much self-importance because value your own self-interest too much," immediately implying that the issue at hand is one of individual vs. society. That's probably why I derailed in that direction. Maybe I read "ego" wrong. Apologies if that's the case.
    Ok sorry for being disrespectful. Indeed, "Ego" was not meant as egoistic, but as the fears you identify with and which create a distorted focus and make you take your values too seriously, whether self-interest or communal interest. As if it's either or.
    Only there occasionally

  40. #40
    stare into me flames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    As seen on T.V.
    TIM
    E I E I OOOOO Sx/So
    Posts
    2,377
    Mentioned
    295 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This reeks of Ti seeking. I know the stench very well.
    And I'm what you desire, like a siren in the night



    Quote Originally Posted by Starfall
    Everyone, pls give Bled some likes. He craves the likes much like Suedehead craves the cock.
    7w6 2w3 8w9 - The Free Spirit

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •