Posted by John DiFool on February 08, 2001 at 07:21:11:
In Reply to: Well, here goes. Possibly my most controversial post ever. (text) posted by Diarmuid on January 31, 2001 at 09:40:07:
> I agree with Cory that stereotypical 4w5s are agnostic, somewhat existentialist and don't tend to slavishly follow organised religion (yes, I KNOW the exceptions exist; sometimes it snows in April, but April is not a typically snowy month).
> The popularity of belief/morality systems which are based on impossible events is similar in character to the popularity of alarm clocks with snooze buttons. The purpose of an alarm clock is to emit a persistent noise that is impossible to sleep through. Why do we want snooze buttons? My guess is they offer a little bit of flexibility.
> At heart, religions are essentially moral codes. But few are able to make their way through life without breaking these rules of morality on occasion. The fact that the world's major religions are in direct conflict with scientific fact is a useful tool for individuals who find they wish to temporarily "let go" of their strictures.
As a 4w5, I would have to disagree on that 'stereotype'. >grin< Since we are drawn towards self-actualization, sooner or
later along the path to same we also start encountering events (external and internal) which we can't explain using purely
materialistic means-I know I have. Mysticism would seem to be right up the 4w5's alley.
Yes some 'religions' are based on impossible events-that happened (?) thousands of years ago, and which have been
distorted all out of proportion by their 'True Mythic Believers'. Mythic Religion has little to do with authentic spirituality tho,
and in fact you will find many of the same elements at the esoteric/contemplative end of the religions in question (even
while the EXOteric side of things may appear radically different). The key is that you are directly experiencing firsthand
your own revelations, and not relying on some umpteenth-hand story handed down from ages ago, and, oddly
enough, you aren't throwing out reason in the bargain (but are going >beyond< reason).
John DiFool