# Social instinct and love of humanity, god and self



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Bluity said:


> ...Ok.
> A couple of things:
> SO does not create supernatural feelings.
> Instincts would not be revered as a god.
> ...


this. also, if religion were run by Sx doms, why would monks and nuns/priestesses in many cultures be celibate? how many people can honestly go to church and say "that priest/pastor exudes sexual, addictive energy"? 
...probably not many

if anything, religion is probably mostly So/Sp, So/Sx and Sp/So


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

Bluity said:


> ...Ok.
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> ...


question, do you ever take anything for how it really is rather than making stupid assumptions? cause i for one am not energized enough to take a crowd of idiots head on in a debate..

i could argue with you endlessly, but i dont think i would reach anywhere with someone who doesnt listen the voice of rationality.

but ill go on anyways: what youre saying is wrong, social instinct IS all encompassioning even if its the last one.. at least for synergetic instincts.

if So is not god, then please, give me a psychological explanation for what god is. it should be as clear as day, that for sx sp's social instinct is god.

"SO-last people would be the last stacking you'd expect to run a religion."

LOLWHAT?
ahem, christianity is sx sp's invention.
but yeah, sp sx follow science as their religion so in THAT one youre correct, but you apparently forgot the other side.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> this. also, if religion were run by Sx doms, why would monks and nuns/priestesses in many cultures be celibate? how many people can honestly go to church and say "that priest/pastor exudes sexual, addictive energy"?
> ...probably not many
> 
> if anything, religion is probably mostly So/Sp, So/Sx and Sp/So


UMM.. thats not how it works. christianity is sx sp's domain, thats how it is, it IS what it is.


this is idiotic.. i dont know how you people can seriously be so.. ugh.. =|
i dont know what its called, "smart ass"? probably it. although it doesnt emphasize enough what youre doing.

and btw, so sp's philosophy is capitalism, although yeah, many of so sp's are fake christians.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

@Tharwen did you consider that people not understanding what you're talking about could be a sign that you aren't doing a good enough job of explaining yourself? Instead of assuming someone who disagrees with you is an idiot, consider how well you are communicating your message.


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> @_Tharwen_ did you consider that people not understanding what you're talking about could be a sign that you aren't doing a good enough job of explaining yourself? Instead of assuming someone who disagrees with you is an idiot, consider how well you are communicating your message.


i know im doing _far_ from enough in my communication to express the various details. in fact, the theory seems so overwhelmingly all encompassioning, like its behind the whole existence of mine, so i hardly grasp the full extense myself, even though on paper, i know my theory in a superficial level completely.

i just think people should do better job at focusing on understanding others rather than criticizing since theres _always_ places to criticize, and it doesnt really help anyone to do so.

i could give my original file of the theory, if itd help make any more sense.. and yes, i do use stereotypes to get my theory across.
:

following is a list of cultures in the descending order as which sx so finds most appealing to the least appealing. its also the order in which how much other and themselves instincts find it appealing to be in sx so culture.

so sx india, hippies, buddhism, the most colourful culture
sx sp christianity, personalizing the unconscious as god, pre-scripted morals
sx so china, efficacy, rationalism, information circulation happens by rational conviction
sp sx europe, education, status, pessimism as defence of their ideology "they would have the same problems"
so sp usa, capitalism, monopoly game
sp so farming culture, like how finland used to be, common sense is their creation, opinions as their method of information circulation, like domino effect

culture in secondary position is always the one with highest chances in throwing a revolution to overtake the dominaing one, which is always on the third position.

the last culture is always corrupted by the dominating one by showing ideologies which are similar due the shard direction, the middle instinct, but the product is always too different which causes the last one to go in witch circles never finding anything to satisfy them from the culture.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Tharwen said:


> *ive pondered these things for months, and i reached a point of certaint*y, and what i always do at that point is, i simply implement what ive concluded into my world view, and after that it isnt questioned and thus also, largely the evidence isnt needed anymoree because *i see it so clearly*. its like you see a giant rock in front of you, you dont need explanations for what you see, its a giant rock because thats what people call it.


But how do you reach that point of certainty? What is your thought process like? How do you know, @Tharwen, when something is true? Perhaps there is little use discussing this matter with you at this point, but I do want to ask you those questions before dropping the matter. 

Would you say you simply "know" things to be true without having any reason to trust in that thing?



> i think it makes intuitive sense that sx sp's dominate christianity. its because of the way they experience So, *they experience it as if it was a person, yet So is so all encompassioning so this person must be very powerful.* they decided to start calling it god.
> 
> and because its their religion, thus it makes natural sense that sx sp's thrive in christianity, its very useful for them because its engineered by them.


I see another assumption there and I cannot tell how you came to that particular conclusion either. Your reasoning is entirely unclear. You are convincing nobody but yourself. This isn't just irrational. It's a dangerous practice, really. It goes against my nature to consider my own powers of thought and intuition to be infallible as you seem to. 

You know, even if all the right evidence is placed in front of a people doesn't mean they aren't going to interpret it different ways. So how do you know your way of interpreting what is in front of you is the most accurate representation of reality? 



> and also, if all airplanes youve seen happen to be certain types of airplanes, no, *it isnt far to conclude they all are that way,* but reality in many other places has already subjectively proven that there usually is always something you wont experience, so it works like sudoku, that you have to assume theres something beyound your current understanding.


And yet we know that it would be way to much to assert the claim (and entirely false) that all airplanes are Boeing 747s. So it is indeed far to conclude so. You would be asserting something that is untruthful. The whole point of why I said that was to say that you do have to realize your experiences are very, very limited and there is something beyond how you see things. 



> so no, i dont think theres a fallacy in subjective reasoning, these "holes" you claim my reasoning to have are easily taken care of.
> 
> and yeah, i actually agree that genuine nihilists are probably all suffering from mental problems. why else would they lose sight in the value of life? we all innately poses it, and the only way to lose it is by losing our sight. of this i have my own experience in.
> 
> ive numbed myself to my feelings cause i experience too much pain, when i started numbing them, i didnt know it would also take all the good stuff away too..


I'll have to disagree with your there. Why else would nihilists lose sight in the value of life? First of all, mental illness isn't necessarily the only cause for somebody to lose sight of meaning in their life. Second of all, you assume much about nihilists in general. 

I do get what you mean about numbing yourself, though.  That is what happens sometimes when you try and shield yourself from feeling pain. You shield yourself from feeling the good things too.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Tharwen said:


> question, do you ever take anything for how it really is rather than making stupid assumptions? cause i for one am not energized enough to take a crowd of idiots head on in a debate..
> i could argue with you endlessly, but i dont think i would reach anywhere with someone who doesnt listen the voice of rationality.





> this is idiotic.. i dont know how you people can seriously be so.. ugh.. =|


The irony is palpable.

But let's start simple.

You have made a number of assumptions:
SO is God
Last instincts are all encompassing.
SX SP made Christianity
So SP made capitalism
And so forth.

So prove them. Let's start with the SX/SP made Christianity one.

Here is a description of the Blindspot:
* *




The third (last or bottom) variant in the stack is can be called one's “blind spot”—it's like an unused muscle that on occasion feels sore. *One believes that this area is uninteresting and unimportant, that one can do without it. At the same time, there is shame associated with the 'blind spot' variant - a sense of deficiency. One constantly feels like one is lacking skills and refinement in the areas pertaining to your last instinct.*


Here is a description of the SO Blindspot:
* *




b) SO blind spot - finds it hard to concern self with another’s agenda, dismissive. *They may feel that connecting socially will cost them something and consider interactions to be draining. Would rather act as a lone force, lone wolves, I'm-on-my-own attitude, feeling that they don't need others and others don't need them*. Fear of being emotionally crippled, *being unable to connect with many people, *self-conscious of being socially ungracious. It’s hard to take in the gifts and generosity of others. Projected fear - if I ignore others, they will ignore me. There’s an expectation of humiliation.* A desire not to impose self on people* in fear of not being wanted or being klutzy.


And here is a description of the sx/sp/so stacking:
* *





a) sx/sp

Motivation: To know the heart, reconcile inner conflict, form a secure union.

This is perhaps the most internally conflicted of the stackings, and potentially the most inconsistent in behavior. This may occur as a blockage of the sexual instinct which can be redirected as a more generally brooding and troubled personality. They may isolate themselves for long periods of time before reemerging. *They live according to a strictly personal outlook and are not particularly concerned with the approval of others outside of their immediate concern. *They seem to be searching for something, the missing piece. If they find a soulmate they will unite without fanfare, forming a secret bond, dealing with formalities as an afterthought. Powerful sexual impulses facing inner resistance may manifest symbolically in the psyche, giving way to soulful interpretations of the unconscious. Under periods of stress severe sexual tensions may manifest as erratic, impulsively destructive behavior. Can seem restless, torn between the comforts of a stable home life and the urge to wander. May be prone to self-medicating.

Energy: intense energy expressed calmly, steadily, assertively

Mindset: "If I can make (us) have an orderly & pleasing lifestyle, I can keep up and escalate all this merging/intensity."

Blind spot: Likely to neglect their desire to maintain physical saftey, comfort, and an orderly lifestyle for the sake of their primary concern of seeking intense connections and experiences, in average-healthy levels.* May not have an awareness of the need to connect in a broader sense with the world, of a sense of security or in groups or of the need to seek it, or even of the need to foster approval, support, and understanding of themselves within groups they are connected with, often causing misunderstandings with allies, supporters, friends, and family members.*


There is nothing all encompassing about the blindspot. It is underdeveloped, ignored, and causes shame and misunderstandings when used.

Explain how sx/sps can govern a religion when the traits they need to do it effectively - awareness of others' needs, responding to groups' agendas - is the very area they have the least interest in, let alone skill. Explain how of the two billion Christians in the world, all are governed by the stacking that couldn't give two damns about groups in general.

PS: Don't say "I just know shit."


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Tharwen
as a fellow NF, I'm well aware of the frustration that comes with "just knowing" something and not being able to logically articulate it, but intuition about a topic cannot be trusted when the user has an incorrect grasp of the subject matter. I suggest you go back and research what it really means to be Sx, Sp or So.

if you need a place to start, I suggest here:
http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...ce-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings.html

anyway, what are you trying to get at here?
1) if you're simply stating your opinion, that's fine. I've stated mine and have nothing more to say.
2) if you're trying to convince us to your point of view, you need to make an attempt to explain things in a way that can be understood by people instead of saying "I just know it! you're stupid".


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

Julia Bell said:


> I do get what you mean about numbing yourself, though.  That is what happens sometimes when you try and shield yourself from feeling pain. You shield yourself from feeling the good things too.


"But how do you reach that point of certainty? What is your thought process like? How do you know, @_Tharwen_, when something is true? Perhaps there is little use discussing this matter with you at this point, but I do want to ask you those questions before dropping the matter. 

Would you say you simply "know" things to be true without having any reason to trust in that thing?"

its a long process, i gather data (this happens by observing people, which most of it is unconscious) then in my head i feel how things are, then i feel some more until it kinda makes sense, then POP, a realization hits me, and it just matches what i see by my eyes completely. its like theres a storm of feelings outside my head,(other people) which i have to pick up and sort in my head. when i type people, i just blabber whatever i can, and somehow i unconsciously observe them until realizations hit me.

when im musing a theory, its kinda different. i have a lot of data ive gathered about the world, which doesnt make that much sense but then i think about it all from a theoretical perspective, and it works like glue which glues all the mess together.

its akin to building with legos, i have no clear destination, i just build whatever seems to make sense, and often i have to rewind back and brake the parts to fit some newer findings better.

and i know when im right, judging from how well my theories unite with the unconscious reality i feel.

like with this theory ive been explaining, i dont understand it completely, but whenever i think about it, it feels like im observing a hidden, unconscious version of the reality. like a web behind the veils.

i think its kinda hard to explain how the process works, it happens so automatically to me that im not even aware of it completely. things just kinda click together in my head. =|

am i making sense of this to you now?

i often compare different thesises/theories by trying to see how they would fit into my lego world, and one significant problem is, that i can make anything fit in, really. but i do see clear difference in the compatibility of those theories, so i usually discard incompatible ones.


"I see another assumption there and I cannot tell how you came to that particular conclusion either. Your reasoning is entirely unclear. You are convincing nobody but yourself. This isn't just irrational. It's a dangerous practice, really. It goes against my nature to consider my own powers of thought and intuition to be infallible as you seem to. 

You know, even if all the right evidence is placed in front of a people doesn't mean they aren't going to interpret it different ways. So how do you know your way of interpreting what is in front of you is the most accurate representation of reality?" 

i dont really remember how i arrived to my conclusion, all i know is that i somehow reached there and it happens to fit my world view now so its relevant. i can give my facts to people, and as they seem self evident so it makes no sense to cling into the evidence i used to reach that point.

it might not be the most accurate one, but in this moment it is to me, the one making most sense.

people might interprete the facts differently, but beyound that, theres always the core truth, the fact, which is the same for all of us. i have realized, people can speak total bs yet have facts behind their .. stupidity.

" And yet we know that it would be way to much to assert the claim (and entirely false) that all airplanes are Boeing 747s. So it is indeed far to conclude so. You would be asserting something that is untruthful. The whole point of why I said that was to say that you do have to realize your experiences are very, very limited and there is something beyond how you see things." 

remember the sudoku thing i mentioned? thsi is where it comes into play, just like in sudoku, you have some information, and you use that some information to generate information which is _beyound_ your observations. that way we can see much more than just what we observe.

" I'll have to disagree with your there. Why else would nihilists lose sight in the value of life? First of all, mental illness isn't necessarily the only cause for somebody to lose sight of meaning in their life. Second of all, you assume much about nihilists in general."

mental illness is the extreme of unhealthiness, but as long as theres some aspect of sanity involved, so should there be value.



Bluity said:


> The irony is palpable.
> 
> But let's start simple.
> There is nothing all encompassing about the blindspot. It is underdeveloped, ignored, and causes shame and misunderstandings when used.


"You have made a number of assumptions:
SO is God
Last instincts are all encompassing.
SX SP made Christianity
So SP made capitalism
And so forth."
UGHF.. youre seriously missing plenty, first of all, i didnt say so is god, and no, last instincts aren encompassioning.. the other ones yes.

"Explain how sx/sps can govern a religion when the traits they need to do it effectively - awareness of others' needs, responding to groups' agendas - is the very area they have the least interest in, let alone skill. Explain how of the two billion Christians in the world, all are governed by the stacking that couldn't give two damns about groups in general."

christianity is a way where sx sp's can feel like the religion is personal enough for them to be interested in, thus they find a way to activate their So with christian beliefs.

and not giving a damn is more like not giving a damn if they spread lies, and christianity is full of them so they just go along as it fits their world view perfectly.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_Tharwen_
> as a fellow NF, I'm well aware of the frustration that comes with "just knowing" something and not being able to logically articulate it, but intuition about a topic cannot be trusted when the user has an incorrect grasp of the subject matter. I suggest you go back and research what it really means to be Sx, Sp or So.
> 
> if you need a place to start, I suggest here:
> ...


on one hand, i find it frustrating to attempt wording something which is beyound my verbal abilities. and then on the other, i just care. i just care about other people, so i dont want to be mean and not give them a chance to see what i see.

i have a theory which specifically addresses positions to every instinct, and on every instincts domain, they have different ladder. i mean.. this is so fundamental, its the core of all of our cultures.. =S

however, it was the buddhists who made it, i just went a step further and created a psychological version of it, for every culture out there.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Tharwen
and my point is that you went a "step further" from a model you incorrectly understand


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

This thread is a Te dom's nightmare.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@_Tharwen_, the very height of irrationality is when you try and make your premises fit the conclusions you have come to about how things are. You have tunnel vision, and you are actually being incredibly arrogant, even if that is unintentional. You care only whether things affirm how you see the world. You claim that those who cannot see what you see are "irrational". I do hope someday you realize the awful implications of thinking in this manner for your own sake. Please realize your way of thinking doesn't simply affect you -- it affects the people around you. 

What you are relying on is not Intuition. I lead with Ne. I know Intuition. And Intuition is not this magical function that tells you how things are without reason. 

@_Marlowe_, it is also a type Six's nightmare. o.o


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

Julia Bell said:


> @_Tharwen_, the very height of irrationality is when you try and make your premises fit the conclusions you have come to about how things are. You have tunnel vision, and you are actually being incredibly arrogant, even if that is unintentional. You care only whether things affirm how you see the world. You claim that those who cannot see what you see are "irrational". I do hope someday you realize the awful implications of thinking in this manner for your own sake. Please realize your way of thinking doesn't simply affect you -- it affects the people around you.
> 
> What you are relying on is not Intuition. I lead with Ne. I know Intuition. And Intuition is not this magical function that tells you how things are without reason.
> 
> @_Marlowe_, it is also a type Six's nightmare. o.o


i dont think its really possible for me to think any other way than the way i do, so whats the point of trying to be something you arent?
yeah, i think its rather correct, that i indeed have a tunnel vision. but im REALLY convinced that i see what i see, in that tunnel vision.

and you probably meant sp so nightmare, they hate it when people behave sx so'ish.

and i dont get it, arrogant!? it doesnt fkin make sense to me, i cant understand what you people mean by that, POOF, it goes over me, cause i dont get it!

and if you didnt read, i said i contemplate ALOT before i make my final conclusions, so just cause i dont remember my conclusions doesnt mean its MAGIC! ...


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this. also, if religion were run by Sx doms, why would monks and nuns/priestesses in many cultures be celibate? how many people can honestly go to church and say "that priest/pastor exudes sexual, addictive energy"?


Actually I'd contend that many motivational speakers (including pastors) are sx-dom. Very high intensity. I've talked with some hot young missionaries who I'd swear was trying to seduce me...to Jesus.

Tharwen, if you're going to propose a theory, it should be consistent. 



Tharwen said:


> UGHF.. youre seriously missing plenty, first of all, i didnt say so is god,





Tharwen said:


> if So is not god, then please, give me a psychological explanation for what god is





Tharwen said:


> and no, last instincts aren encompassioning.. the other ones yes.





Tharwen said:


> social instinct IS all encompassioning even if its the last one.. at least for synergetic instincts.





Tharwen said:


> its because of the way they experience So, they experience it as if it was a person, yet So is so all encompassioning so this person must be very powerful. they decided to start calling it god.


Is SO God or not God? Is SO all encompassing or not encompassing?


Tharwen said:


> christianity is a way where sx sp's can feel like the religion is personal enough for them to be interested in, thus they find a way to activate their So with christian beliefs.


You say SX SPs created Christianity because it fits them, and it fits them because they created it. See the circular reasoning? How does Christianity fit SX SPs? You say it feels personal for them. What about Christianity is personal to them? What about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions is not personal enough for them? Are all 40,000+ denominations 'personal'? Was Jesus SX SP? The apostles? And why do SX SPs need to activate their SO if SO is already all encompassing?



Tharwen said:


> on one hand, i find it frustrating to attempt wording something which is beyound my verbal abilities. and then on the other, i just care. i just care about other people, so i dont want to be mean and not give them a chance to see what i see.





Tharwen said:


> whats the point when the people on the other end are idiots who cant understand a shit without excessive explanations?





Tharwen said:


> question, do you ever take anything for how it really is rather than making stupid assumptions? cause i for one am not energized enough to take a crowd of idiots head on in a debate..



You have a strange way of not being mean.

I'm genuinely interested in how you came up with your ideas, but the very definitions you use are wrong and inconsistent. If you're not going to explain the hows or the whys, what's the point of us being here?


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Tharwen said:


> and i dont get it, arrogant!? it doesnt fkin make sense to me, i cant understand what you people mean by that, POOF, it goes over me, cause i dont get it!


Well, arrogance: "having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit,ability, etc."
Thinking something *must* be true because it fits into your way of thinking can come across that way, especially when you call people idiots.

Really, I can relate to it being difficult to explain your thought process to people, and it's frustrating when they won't understand. One of the advantages to communicating on a forum is that you can spend more time on your forum posts so your point have a better chance at coming across clearly. 



Bluity said:


> Actually I'd contend that many motivational speakers (including pastors) are sx-dom. Very high intensity. I've talked with some hot young missionaries who I'd swear was trying to seduce me...to Jesus.


Lmao, I can believe that.


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

Bluity said:


> Actually I'd contend that many motivational speakers (including pastors) are sx-dom. Very high intensity. I've talked with some hot young missionaries who I'd swear was trying to seduce me...to Jesus.
> 
> Tharwen, if you're going to propose a theory, it should be consistent.


now that i think, ill have to agree, majority of the priests ive came acoss had HUGE intensity to them, very sx sp, like, although its just a specualtion as i didnt know them well enough to say for certain..

" Is SO God or not God? Is SO all encompassing or not encompassing?"

for so sx and sx sp's it is. i think the reason is just the connection between so - sx, and as they dont posess a high Sp, so they lack the grounding of sp so's. so sx tend to call it the collective unconscious, while christians call it god. i think sx so's call it tao. but the rest three instincts dont have it. i would speculate, its cause they are more grounded.

" I'm genuinely interested in how you came up with your ideas, but the very definitions you use are wrong and inconsistent. If you're not going to explain the hows or the whys, what's the point of us being here?"

well i fidn it more productive to discuss the facts without questioning them uselessly.

i do like to discuss the hows and whys too, but _only_ when im at that part of the process myself. as i believe, ive gone past that point in this theory. the theory has proven itself right to me consistently, so i have no more reasons to doubt it.

"You have a strange way of not being mean."

well, as it is, its rather very frustrating to argue the whys and hows when ive already forgotten them as irrelevant data..

"You say SX SPs created Christianity because it fits them, and it fits them because they created it. See the circular reasoning? How does Christianity fit SX SPs? You say it feels personal for them. What about Christianity is personal to them? What about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions is not personal enough for them? Are all 40,000+ denominations 'personal'? Was Jesus SX SP? The apostles? And why do SX SPs need to activate their SO if SO is already all encompassing?"

the love of god, having a relationship with god, etc, thats personal. they need to activate their So because its offline.. sure they might occasionally activate it, but without christianity, sx sp's dont have a consistent method to activate it, thus the nickname of "hungry ghosts" for sx sp's came as buddhists would put it.

buddhism is so sx religion, sure its true we can all choose any of them, but theres always one that fits best.

the picture ive got of jesus, yeah, i htink he could be an sx sp at their best. he seems to poses that christian altruistic love quality. which is how sx sp's are at their best.
@_Nonsense_

"Really, I can relate to it being difficult to explain your thought process to people, and it's frustrating when they won't understand. One of the advantages to communicating on a forum is that you can spend more time on your forum posts so your point have a better chance at coming across clearly."

perhaps, but the lack of unconscious communication and many perspectives viewing it simply makes it _impossible_ to come across the way you intended.. and its DEEPLY frustrating when others interprete it differently than you intended. i doubt even jesus would have patience at that point.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Tharwen said:


> and its DEEPLY frustrating when others interprete it differently than you intended. i doubt even jesus would have patience at that point.


If he didn't have patience for people misinterpreting him, I think he would have given up on humanity a long time ago...

Which may explain a few things. :tongue:

Well, people can't read your mind, so it's going to happen.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Tharwen said:


> well i fidn it more productive to discuss the facts without questioning them uselessly.


What you have proposed so far are not facts. They are strongly held beliefs you take as facts. How you feel about a belief has nothing to do with its accuracy.

Everything you have said is wrong.



> " Is SO God or not God? Is SO all encompassing or not encompassing?"
> 
> for so sx and sx sp's it is. i think the reason is just the connection between so - sx, and as they dont posess a high Sp, so they lack the grounding of sp so's.


It's interesting that you say it's "just" the connection between SO and SX, as if this is common knowledge everyone has accepted. Show me how SO and SX are connected. Find me any theoretical basis, any piece of literature, any real life examples on how SO and SX are connected.

According to you, SO is all encompassing when it is the first instinct and last instinct because of the connection to SX. Show me, in the instinctual variant thread that you yourself have linked, where it says that SO can bypass other instincts. Tell me how an instinct in the last position, which by definition is the weakest, can overwhelm the top two. You realize since SO is the middle stacking for only two of the possible stacking, then four of the six stackings have an all encompassing SO in your theory.

Also, I'm SP/SO, and I'm not grounded for shit.



> so sx tend to call it the collective unconscious, while christians call it god. i think sx so's call it tao. but the rest three instincts dont have it.


Christians are apparently their own stacking now. You did this in a previous post, mixing religions, nations, and "farming culture" and attributing a stacking to each.


> so sx india, hippies, buddhism, the most colourful culture
> sx sp christianity, personalizing the unconscious as god, pre-scripted morals
> sx so china, efficacy, rationalism, information circulation happens by rational conviction
> sp sx europe, education, status, pessimism as defence of their ideology "they would have the same problems"
> ...


You're mixing apples and oranges and making a craycray fruit salad. Firstly, how did you group, Europe, education, and of all things _pessimism _into sp sx? I also like how Europe is apparently one culture though it contains more than 40 nations. You hear that, European union? You're all educated, pessimistic SP SX loving bastards. And you apparently love you some status, even though SO is last in your collective stacking. Secondly, all cultures went through agricultural stage so I don't know why Finland was singled out. And an an SP/SO I resent being called the creator of common sense. I can assure you, I have no common sense, though I do love me some dominoes. Thirdly, notice how SX SOs would call the collective unconscious (which is a Jungian term, and therefore an entirely different conceptual system) Tao, yet SX SO China is all about "efficacy, rationalism, information circulation...by rational conviction." You've never read the Tao Te Ching have you? Because the Tao has nothing to do with efficiency or rationalism. Tao is about the impersonal essential force in the universe. Wouldn't an SX SO want something more, in your own words, "personal"? Would SX SOs call it Tao if they weren't in China, or did SX SOs just not exist until Laozi arrived? 



> the love of god, having a relationship with god, etc, thats personal.


That is true. So is a relationship with nature. So is a relationship with a lover. So is a relationship with yourself. All human relationships are personal.



> they need to activate their So because its offline.. sure they might occasionally activate it, but without christianity, sx sp's dont have a consistent method to activate it, thus the nickname of "hungry ghosts" for sx sp's came as buddhists would put it.


You just said that SO is all encompassing. How can it be all encompassing AND offline? So you're telling me SO is all consuming, overwhelming, and overrules the other two instincts...AND needs to be activated because its offline. What is it, an on/off switch? It's either all encompassing or its not. It can't be both.

How do SX SPs activate their SO if they're not Christian? How did SX SPs activate their SO before Christianity was invented? What does SX SP have anything to do with the insatiable hunger of hungry ghosts? 

You know what is conspicuously missing from this discussion? Core type. Upbringing. Personal beliefs. All these forces that shape a person and has more influence on them than instinctual stacking. 

You have plucked random traits from separate conceptual frameworks, thrown it in a pot, and cooked up this crockpot of a theory. Which would be fine, except 1]you insist on calling it SO, which it is not, 2] you refuse to present any facts and insist that it self-evident, which it is not, 3] you insist on calling us idiots, which we are not, and 4] it is not even internally consistent.

This is SO: Cooperation, team work, group unity, awareness and concern for others' needs, awareness of hierarchies and groups' relations

This is not SO: Religious leanings, supernatural feelings, collective unconscious, God

That is all.


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

Bluity said:


> Everything you have said is wrong.
> 
> 
> Also, I'm SP/SO, and I'm not grounded for shit.
> ...


"What you have proposed so far are not facts. They are strongly held beliefs you take as facts. How you feel about a belief has nothing to do with its accuracy."


lol no. they are facts, and at this point im giving up on trying to explain them to you.

"It's interesting that you say it's "just" the connection between SO and SX, as if this is common knowledge everyone has accepted. Show me how SO and SX are connected. Find me any theoretical basis, any piece of literature, any real life examples on how SO and SX are connected."

uh, if you really want to know, then why dont you just think about it? *scratches jaw* =/

you dont really expect the instincts to work alone? cause if your proposing such, it would be plain silly.

" According to you, SO is all encompassing when it is the first instinct and last instinct because of the connection to SX. Show me, in the instinctual variant thread that you yourself have linked, where it says that SO can bypass other instincts. Tell me how an instinct in the last position, which by definition is the weakest, can overwhelm the top two. You realize since SO is the middle stacking for only two of the possible stacking, then four of the six stackings have an all encompassing SO in your theory."

you know how i hate it when people simply dont read white i write? i said SYNERGETIC instincts.. =|

"Christians are apparently their own stacking now. You did this in a previous post, mixing religions, nations, and "farming culture" and attributing a stacking to each.
You're mixing apples and oranges and making a craycray fruit salad. Firstly, how did you group, Europe, education, and of all things _pessimism _into sp sx? I also like how Europe is apparently one culture though it contains more than 40 nations. You hear that, European union? You're all educated, pessimistic SP SX loving bastards. And you apparently love you some status, even though SO is last in your collective stacking. Secondly, all cultures went through agricultural stage so I don't know why Finland was singled out. And an an SP/SO I resent being called the creator of common sense. I can assure you, I have no common sense, though I do love me some dominoes. Thirdly, notice how SX SOs would call the collective unconscious (which is a Jungian term, and therefore an entirely different conceptual system) Tao, yet SX SO China is all about "efficacy, rationalism, information circulation...by rational conviction." You've never read the Tao Te Ching have you? Because the Tao has nothing to do with efficiency or rationalism. Tao is about the impersonal essential force in the universe. Wouldn't an SX SO want something more, in your own words, "personal"? Would SX SOs call it Tao if they weren't in China, or did SX SOs just not exist until Laozi arrived?"


how is being a smart ass going to help anyone? of course not every european culture is necessarily sp sx, but ive observed that finland is and by what i know, the other ones are akin to this.

in finland the agricultural stage lasted to our thousand eight hundreds, i dont see other european countries being that long into it. and theres still alot of cultural reminders of the sp so dominated past we have, like a tradition of going to countrylands to live agricultural life every summer, and pretty much _everyone_ does it. 

no, china was sx so dominated long before laotzi, but he decided to create a religion for the sx so's so now they have one, isnt that great?


"You just said that SO is all encompassing. How can it be all encompassing AND offline? So you're telling me SO is all consuming, overwhelming, and overrules the other two instincts...AND needs to be activated because its offline. What is it, an on/off switch? It's either all encompassing or its not. It can't be both."

UMM, the same way sx so's can turn their intensity offline if they lose confidence?(due extreme unhealthiness) and turning a last instinct offline is _much_ easier than turning the primary one, i think middle instinct is the only one whose always on.

i dont know how your interpeting that it would be encompassioning when its off, clearly it cannot be that without being on.

"How do SX SPs activate their SO if they're not Christian? How did SX SPs activate their SO before Christianity was invented? What does SX SP have anything to do with the insatiable hunger of hungry ghosts?" 

well, without christianity sx sp's seem to endlessly devour everything in search of intensity, cause they dont realize its the So instinct thei require for the intensity, and christianity proves a lasting way to activate their So.

before christianity, it was like it much like now is in countries where christianity is not allowed or flourishing, meaning they were lost without guidance.

" You have plucked random traits from separate conceptual frameworks, thrown it in a pot, and cooked up this crockpot of a theory. Which would be fine, except 1]you insist on calling it SO, which it is not, 2] you refuse to present any facts and insist that it self-evident, which it is not, 3] you insist on calling us idiots, which we are not, and 4] it is not even internally consistent."

i might not be verbally that talented, but im doing everything in my power to explain this to you yet you fail, you see it for what it isnt. so yeah, i dont think its far to call someone idiot if they cant comprehend english. you just look at some superficial parts, taking them out of their context, give them DIFFERENT meaning than what intended, and you certainly dont have the ability to view the intricate truth told to you.

"This is SO: Cooperation, team work, group unity, awareness and concern for others' needs, awareness of hierarchies and groups' relations"

your view is so limited. So is much, much more than just about social affairs. i think im coming to the conclusion, that youre just a superficial person so youll never really see the deep truths of life.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

Tharwen said:


> "What you have proposed so far are not facts. They are strongly held beliefs you take as facts. How you feel about a belief has nothing to do with its accuracy."
> 
> 
> lol no. they are facts, and at this point im giving up on trying to explain them to you.
> ...


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)




----------

