[Wake]

I think you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes "corruption". Do I like the idea of revenge? No. I don't think self-defense is about revenge, I think it's about saving your life. To me, I think it is worse to let someone else violate you, if you are able to defend yourself. Now, I understand that not everyone *can* defend themselves. And I don't know who is who, so I can't judge others. But I always judge *myself*. You know how I would have felt if I hadn't tried to defend myself (i.e. help myself, really)? I would have felt *guilty*. But again- that is me. It's my issue, and I am dealing with it.

Here is a question: The Old Testament teaches, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Now, I am not religious and so I have an undecided stance on this issue. But, there are religions that promote this view (eg. some forms of Judaism). That is a part of their *moral code*. So, if that is a person's moral code, and they believe in that fully, is it impossible for that individual to be a 1?

It's all very 6-like. Seems very well thought out and not a gut reaction of what is appropriate, and it ties into that bit Timeless said about action oriented vs. thought consistency. 6s, particularly SP 6s, feel guilty for that stuff also I've known 6s to be so hard on themselves. 1s scrutinize their actions to better them, but I think you mourn more than most.



I'll send you that SP 6 text at a later time.

[Steel Magnolia]

@Wake: May I ask why you keep insisting that I am a certain type? I don't do that to you, so please don't do that to me. I know my motivations.

[Wake]

@Wake: May I ask why you keep insisting that I am a certain type? I don't do that to you, so please don't do that to me. I know my motivations.

I was disputing the statement you made about 1s and violence, and speculating about your type. Perhaps I went too far, but type 1 isn't all about the ideology, it's about idealism, perfection broken. Osama had the stance he did because he envisioned a society under Sharia. A Christian 1 who is attached to The Old Testimate seems like it could be interesting seeing them try to implement such idealism on society.

You're right, I'll leave you to your own typing and dispute issues, not your type.

[snowbird]

I find my sister more solid in her principles; I'm more case-by-case and believe there are exceptions to nearly every rule.

I'm thinking that it's also the thinking/feeling difference between you and your sister. But, I agree that it's her type 1, also.

[Wake]

@SillaSY regarding thinking and feeling, I found RH's theory of Imbalance of Centers may apply to this matter. 1s are said to shift between instinctive and feeling center as they operate, as 5s are based in the thinking center. I may send you some text regarding this believe in a PM.

[Curiously]

@SillaSY regarding thinking and feeling, I found RH's theory of Imbalance of Centers may apply to this matter. 1s are said to shift between instinctive and feeling center as they operate, as 5s are based in the thinking center. I may send you some text regarding this believe in a PM.

If it's not much trouble, I'd appreciate material on this matter. Thank you!

[Wake]

If it's not much trouble, I'd appreciate material on this matter. Thank you!

Actually, I think this should explain it pretty well.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wv6...ession&f=false

[Kayness]

I think you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes "corruption". Do I like the idea of revenge? No. I don't think self-defense is about revenge, I think it's about saving your life. To me, I think it is worse to let someone else violate you, if you are able to defend yourself. Now, I understand that not everyone *can* defend themselves. And I don't know who is who, so I can't judge others. But I always judge *myself*. You know how I would have felt if I hadn't tried to defend myself (i.e. help myself, really)? I would have felt *guilty*. But again- that is me. It's my issue, and I am dealing with it.

Here is a question: The Old Testament teaches, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Now, I am not religious and so I have an undecided stance on this issue. But, there are religions that promote this view (eg. some forms of Judaism). That is a part of their *moral code*. So, if that is a person's moral code, and they believe in that fully, is it impossible for that individual to be a 1?

Sorry to hear that you've had such a rough childhood.

There's nothing that you've described about yourself that contradicts being a 1. Lashing back in self defense after years of taking it because you've had enough is, I don't think, a trait particular to any type. People behave in all sorts of ways in extreme situations or under extreme stress.

[aprilkutie]

@SillaSY regarding thinking and feeling, I found RH's theory of Imbalance of Centers may apply to this matter. 1s are said to shift between instinctive and feeling center as they operate, as 5s are based in the thinking center. I may send you some text regarding this believe in a PM.

Hmmm, this might explain my being very on the border with my INTJ/ISTJ.

[Daniel_James_Maher]

Here is a question: The Old Testament teaches, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Now, I am not religious and so I have an undecided stance on this issue. But, there are religions that promote this view (eg. some forms of Judaism). That is a part of their *moral code*. So, if that is a person's moral code, and they believe in that fully, is it impossible for that individual to be a 1?

There are three places where the Hebrew Scriptures says this; here they are in context:

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus 21;22-25

17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. 18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. 19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. 22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 24:17-22

16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Deuteronomy 19:16-21

I have taken an interest in understanding how the Torah was originally intended to be understood but this is difficult since language and expression can change a lot in a few thousand years. Here is some of what I think I have found:
The first reference is in the broader context of case law for litigation, the second in religious ceremonial law and the third in national criminal law these all applied once to the nation of Israel though it is hard to tell how they interpreted and kept the law. For example, they may not have practiced passover until around the time of their conquest by the Babylonians (2Chronicles 34:21;35:1), and they seem to have taken the interpretation of the year of jubilee fairly liberally (they didn't take a whole year's holiday) according to history. I mention all this because I thought you may be interested in the original context.

I think the context supports a few points that help answer your question.
This was not part of the Ten Commandments and therefore not moral law (and therefore not of interest to a 1 type).
In one case (Lev) this is used in the context of the universality of justice
In another case (litigation; Exo) this may not have been intended as an ideal but as a contingency
In the final case (Deu) the crime was heinous and the idea of giving the same punishment seems just to me
At any rate, these are all sentences that were to be passed down by a court, not a lynch mob situation; so the Israelite type 1 would feel the same way about it as an American type 1 feels about capital punishment for example.
Different circumstances, different laws; similar people, similar reaction.

Assuming I'm wrong about the nature of this eye for eye law, it doesn't change my answer, a type 1 in Israel would feel no different about these particular laws than an American type 1 would feel about US laws.

Considering that people in ancient times were having parts chopped off at the whim of the king outside of Israel, Hebrew law would have been considered too liberal and egalitarian in its day, kind of like the Netherlands.
Thanks for the question.