Discuss.
Do you think socionics proves the existence of God and intelligent design?
Discuss.
I'm not even sure how it would count as evidence, much less how it could prove anything about the existence of any sort of divinity
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell猫が生き甲斐
A theory to prove another theory ? One must believe or be convinced that at least one of them is absolutely true. Do the organization of an ant's nests or a beehive prove the existence of God ? After all those insects "societies" are similar to our own society, there is a predisposition to an ant existence, a predetermined assigned task, a reason to a certain kind of bee to be ! Is there a similar thing when it comes to human societies ? Does each Human being has a predisposed "task" to accomplish or a predetermined purpose to contribute to the survival and development of the socion ? Socionics answers "yes" to those questions.
In the same order of things, Is the configuration of our solar system and the position of earth in that system unique in the universe or is it a predetermined natural order inherent to certain favorable conditions ? Did God needed all the universe Mass to justify the creation of our little tiny planet ? It's like saying "I need all the sand on earth to produce a single wine glass". In the end of the day, it all depends on our angle of observation. How do we make sense of the partial aspect of reality we can observe ? Somewhere in time we are the observed ones, an alien species might observe our solar system from a distant time and ask " Was there life in that long extinguished solar system ?". I don't know if there is a "will" or a conscious behind to the order of things, I know that we as a species have a power of projection and we can create a reason to everything. To me, there is too much of us in God's image for it to be different from us. We created God in our Image and that's maybe the only solid argument in favor of its non existence. God is too Human (it has human emotions and logic) to transcend the human condition, for it is part of it. God is a survival imperative, we need it as a whole, there is not a single society on earth who has not its version of it, be it a single God or an entire Pantheon, the darkness ( the unknown ) must be enlightened in order for us to move on.
It shows a human capacity to divide where divisions are not that tangible or exact. It also cures cancers.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 07-29-2022 at 11:35 AM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
The opposite..although in some ways it has been a miracle to stumble on it
Hint: if somehow socionics could show that these types that humans have are sort of archetypes that predate evolution.Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
The existence of God is clear through sage-ship and synchronicity, an evidence that should be obvious, but since it’s not official in human colleges, many people close their minds to some possible types of evidence, like that one.
A better curiosity is like who is God, how old is he, where did he come from, what can he do, what is possible by God, is God evil, all of that.
The thread of divinity within us is revealed during our psychic and transformative moments, where Love unmasks the trance charm of that which reveals patterns after unique casinos.
Just put all of your heart and faith in something, and see it come true.
Or better yet, honestly and compassionately seek God, connect, bind, and flow with emerald oceans.
https://sabrinacasey.yourwebsitespac...9systemswishes
Jogi Low = Tony Parker
Marius isn’t Venus
47 = Kobe Philosopher King Arceus
The spirit of Lugia is Jirachi, the spirit of BunnyRaptor, immersive wonder-works of Japan castle charts raining stars and rapids of edgy concept art rocketing for diamonds and ebony bulldozing harbors of fame and drinking relics emerging from ashes and oceans of wisdom and chlorophyll to rungs of lofty trademarks highlighting goldmines of choice and livewire fairytales
BunnyRaptor was greater than Nikola Tesla because she was George Lucas, Bruce Lee, and Jirachi*!!
Mr Mime = Mastermind
Gonzalo Montiel = Tom Montalk
RaptorWizard Holistic visionary oriented towards Contemplation Articuno (the16types.info)
Socionics/ Jung shows clearly that there is an amazing differentiation of cognition, totally symmetrical. This comes from homo sapiens' evolutionary past. As humans developed different cognitive skills the psyche spontaneously arranged itself this way permanently.
It depends what you mean by "God". You could say that God is the force that made the psyche organize itself. Something caused it. Reality/ nature maybe.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
\
Interesting...
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Raskolnikov
Gnosticism.
With regard to the question in the OP, it depends on what you mean by "proof." Mainline Christianity, as advocated by Iranaeus, posits that God can be known through faith alone. Gnosticism, on the other hand, posits that God can be known through direct experience. Jung, in particular, explored the unconscious realm, and with reference to thinkers like Meister Eckhart, considered God to be analogous with an unconscious force. Like mainline Christians who consider God to be infinite, Jung considered the unconscious to be infinite. "As above, so below", as it were.
That said, I think that while theological premises don't necessarily follow from Socionics because Socionics concerns Jung's functions and information metabolism, Socionics may act as a gateway toward exploring questions of universal consciousness, psychic realities, etc. And I have read at least one website that leaves "information metabolism" up to a very objective interpretation, meaning that it seemed to consider certain forms of information as "objective", external to the self, like a metanarrative claiming a sort of universal consciousness.
Last edited by ILoveChinchillas; 07-30-2022 at 01:02 PM.
Fucking awesome reply
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Raskolnikov
This is something lots of people have watched and remember. Just couple of weeks ago I met an IEE at a party who mentioned Jung's words in the video: "I know".
In this letter from 1960 Jung explains a bit more what he meant. I think it's important. Something to meditate about and let sink in.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
he knows there's a "god"
Last edited by chriscorey; 07-30-2022 at 04:40 PM.
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Raskolnikov
It's not possible to prove that something was created from nothing.
No.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Socionics, alongside all esoteric stuff, is a magnet for people who believe in other esoteric stuff. At least one professional socionist (I forgot her name, but she's been on Russian TV, and she self-types as ILE) uses it to justify creationism.
nothing means there are no limits and no limits means no limits to realities and possibilities so nothing implies everything
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
I know what "nothing" means when I used it in that sentence.
I've never heard that a lack of a substance makes it easier for it to exist.
Under my understanding of language, it is "everything" that is not limited.
edit: the first step to "proving" that everything was created from nothing would be to prove that everything is not eternal - which is not possible.
Last edited by Socionics Is A Cult; 07-30-2022 at 06:50 PM.
God or "God", that is the question. After reading Jung's explanation in that letter I linked it is not entirely clear to me which it should be. quotation marks or not. I can in a way understand why one should write God, without quotation marks. I think Jung explained the reason why, even though he said that his idea of God is unconventional.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Evolution can't be "predated" as it's a natural process, not a discrete event that occurred in the past. Everything organic or otherwise that accumulates any amount of change over time is considered to be evolving. The significance of each accumulated change determines the length of time necessary to observe significant deviation from a given ancestor. For humans the accumulated changes are very small and difficult to observe until you view things on the scale of thousands of years. Make no mistake though, we are still evolving
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
Okay, then that evolution is a directed process with already pre-established goals or results. Did the "idea" of, for example, a cow, exist before cows actually appeared on the Earth? What if it even existed before the universe came into existence?
No, because God used evolution and not intelligent design, people just have misconceptions about how evolution actually works. Species don't gradually emerge, they emerge suddenly, and when they suddenly emerge, it is due to environmental changes (relocation, cataclysms, etc.) When you look at Genesis, what does the Bible actually say? God split the lands and the waters in different ways, and then different kinds of plants and animals came in to fill them. That is exactly what modern science describes. Of course that sounds like hokum to people who are used to hearing certain types of religious people attempting to make scientific and pseudoscientific arguments, and there's still the Genesis 2 issue. I think the Genesis 2 issue is simple though, humans evolved from animals and "the beginning of the world" refers to the beginning of history (wer-ald, age of man) and not the beginning of humans existing at all. Humans clearly existed a long time in prehistory, but our oldest documented civilizations are definitely not older than Adam purportedly is.
Though I suppose these things are possible, Socionics really isn't a reason to assume any of this. Socionics imo is simply the best attempt at dividing people into discrete categories we've come up with so far. It's certainly not a divinely perfect system, so I don't see why us coming up with it is enough of a reason to posit anything divine
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell
Jung had possibly the most pernicious philosophy of anyone. He simply had no concern at all for truth, but unlike Nietzsche, had not even a nominal concern for power or beauty, either.
I haven't read all of his works but I have read a few and I do know of his overall history. He actually did have a grave concern for the truth. Grave enough for him to tell his mentor and up until that point best friend Freud that he was wrong. Wrong enough to break with Psychoanalytic theory/practice and forge his own path. Might have something to do with them belonging to ultimately conflicting quadras. Freud was/is typically typed as an SLI and Jung IEI.
I may quote the likes of Rand an Nietzche a lot but do remember I do so in regards to my assertion that broken clocks are right twice a day. Nietzche rightly respected the power of beauty and the beauty of power if ya catch my drift. Rand as well. Where they tragically failed was in their atheism and all their ultimate fuck ups can be traced back to that fundamental mistake. True beauty directs the rational mind towards the heavens and heavenly things. A transcendent yet ultimately transiently and breathtakingly beautiful sunset. The works of your favorite artist (provided they didn't sell out to the ruler of this world but even then they may have fucked up somehow and pushed a divine message in spite of themselves). Do you not feel pulled into a higher plain of existence upon viewing such stimuli?
Turns out there really and truly is a "God" as Christians understand it. This is, likewise, a thing Jung got in a sideways fashion. The "Collective Unconscious" is a theory that fits right at home in the worldview of any true Christian for many reasons I can think of...
Bring this idea to a debate about the existence of God and both sides of the aisle will laugh you off the stage, as will the socionics community.
For it to be valid evidence, you must prove socionics beyond a shadow of a doubt. Until that point all it can be considered is pattern-seeking ape brains formulating divisions to make sense of a set of items.
That's a very interesting question. It is established that one of the most important factor of evolution is the environment and to be more precise the adaptation of a given species to the changes in the environment. Nature tends towards equilibrium and that equilibrium is ephemeral in a cosmic scale. There are and there will always be movements and changes, sometimes cataclysmic (a very interesting word) and changes from which a new cycle of life begins like mass extinctions which are, again, cyclical in nature. Now, I don't think that there is a pre-established or predestinate final form. Nature is an adept of the "try and error" method so to speak. The species "form" that will survive is the most adapted version to a given biotope, that's natural selection. A selection based on the ability, adaptability of a species to survive and ultimately to reach equilibrium that is to say the top of the bell curve in a given cycle of evolution. Equilibrium is the foundation of the formation of an ecosystem. That's the circle of life and to quote a line from Jurassic Park "Life finds a way".
Now, to the second part of your question : "What if it even existed before the universe came into existence?" Well, I guess that the answer is similar to the time travel questions : Can we time travel to the past ? and the answer is "no". Can we time travel to the future ? and the answer is "yes", in theory. What I mean by that is we can go backwards in time up to circa 13.7 billion years ago and postdict that the configuration of the universe in that point of time will eventually lead to the "creation" of earth and life on it included the cows etc.. But there is no way to predict those events from the same point of time (13.7 billion years ago) because of the unpredictable factor. We can predict the upcoming events only for a brief period of time before we lose the track of the probability of any events to unfold, it's not different from weather predictions in that sense. One event leads to another or several other events, we have to see (it coming) the event(s) before we can predict any development. However, since we know that some (local) events are cyclical in nature, (like mass extinctions) because those events kept repeating in the past at a given rate, we can predict without any doubt that another similar event (like mass extinction) is coming soon or later. I think that destruction and chaos are the norm in the universe and creation and order are the exception, equilibrium like I said is a cyclical and ephemeral state.
You put God in quotes and you think the collective unconscious is something you would consider a Christian idea. I don't think you believe in God, I think you believe in racial consciousness and historically-inaccurate notions of European and white supremacy. How about you take your own witch test? Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead. Take it.
Socionics suggests at the very least that the human mind is purposive, and that its aims go beyond the purely material. It puts internal and spiritual qualities on the same footing as external and physical ones in a way that no mainstream theory does at present. That alone is enough to cast serious doubt on the physicalist hypothesis.
Does that mean that something bigger created the thing that gave the human mind purpose?
I don't care. I do have the evidence. If someone has an inability to detect the existing patterns, that's the subject's problem, not the problem of the ones that can spot the patterns. The fact that someone chooses to ignore an aspect of reality doesn't negate its existence.
Also, I'm sure socionics, or rather the phenomena that people have types, can be proven with a machine. It probably has been done already, just that maybe, it has not been released to the public. Each socionics function is an aspect of reality that is manipulated/monitored by a specific area of the brain. Again, I know this and I have no need of "proving" it to you (or anyone).
Which means nothing.
Hint: Socionics is a theory that isn't proven itself.
Why do you think it is not a divinely perfect system? Where is the flaw? Also, how can you assume what I'm saying isn't true, when you don't actually know? Why are you so categorical with something you haven't checked?
If you don't think Socionics is true, I can't help but wonder the following: 1) What are you doing here. 2) Why do you sport a self-typing.
Your thinking is very black and white here. Open your mind and you'll answer those questions on your own.
Socionics isn't true/false based on belief. It requires proof. Something that many who are faith based can't comprehend.
Mixing socionics and religion, I love it. There are some on here who have gotten a headstart on all of us, unfortunately.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
You seem to have some errors in your thinking, for example, seemingly not understanding the difference between believing something, and knowing something. Somewhat ironic too to claim that I am close-minded, when it is you who is asserting that socionics has not been proven.
God =/= Religion . I'm not claiming that Brahma, Xenu, or YHWH created Socionics, only that it seems designed intelligently, presumely by some entity. And I have proof.
Whether or not a person thinks Socionics is true should have no bearing on the ability to find evidence it is true.
If you don't know how you'd disprove Socionics, your confidence in Socionics may well be faith-based.
Alternative possibility: you have misinterpreted these "existing patterns" and assigned a value to them which isn't real.
The fact that you're leaning on a conspiracy theory that socionics has been "proven" but is hidden from us should be ringing a massive red flag in your head that you need to re-evaluate your confidence in this.
Entertain the idea that it is fundamentally incompatible with being definitively proven, in the same way you cannot prove the existence of any old adjective that can be used to describe a person's disposition. Even if you don't accept it as true personally, you can't reject it as an impossibility.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
