Originally Posted by David Krein

Robert - works for me. I am an ENTJ who hasn't the foggiest notion of what spirituality is and not the slightest inclination to find out - my life is just fine without it. I know there must be such a thing because William James, in "The Varieties of Religious Experience" wrote about it and my father, a Presbyterian minister, talked about it a lot. If there is such a thing as a "God gene", I guess I missed out - does that make me a mutant? Or is it that ENTJ's are naturally that way?

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

I don't know. I'm not sold on the god gene. When someone isolates it, then I'll believe in it. I think it may have more to do with how often, and how much you use your right brain.

Also, people who use illegal drugs tend to have more spiritual experiences than others.

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

If you are an ISTJ, I suspect that Calvinism (preferably of the Presbyterian variety) is your best bet. Secondarily you could consider Roman Catholicism or some fundamentalist sect. .

Ugh! Not me!

I'm happy with a religion with beautiful music, traditions and rituals, and not a lot of dogma. In short, Reform Judaism!

I guess I am a "bad" ISTJ! :wink:

I hear that hell has some out of this world BBQ. Want to join me in the afterlife? :wink:

Better than St. Louis, KC and Memphis? THIS I've gotta see! :-D

Actually the best-tasting ribs I've ever had in my life were from Smokey Bones BBQ in Columbus, Ohio.

And the hottest? Well, there's a fellow named Johnson from Norfolk, Virginia who always has a booth at the Columbus Jazz & Rib Fest every July. His BBQ sauces are rated 1) All-American (what he calls "mild" is actually hot as, well, HELL!)... 2) Firestarter (even hotter, "middle of the road"-- yeah, right! )...and 3) the top-of-the-line? That would be Thermonuclear, and believe me it lives up to the name! The last time I had a plate of Johnson's Thermonuke I had to swig milk every couple of bites to keep the pain...yes PAIN...under control. Then, when I was done with my plate, rinsing my mouth out with baking soda solution was imperative to remove the lingering capaiscin (sp?) from my tastebuds...or there would have been no sleep for me that evening.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by David Krein

Robert - works for me. I am an ENTJ who hasn't the foggiest notion of what spirituality is and not the slightest inclination to find out - my life is just fine without it. I know there must be such a thing because William James, in "The Varieties of Religious Experience" wrote about it and my father, a Presbyterian minister, talked about it a lot. If there is such a thing as a "God gene", I guess I missed out - does that make me a mutant? Or is it that ENTJ's are naturally that way?

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Dave,

Here's a quick test to determined if you have the "God gene." I wondereing if the God gene has dominant and recessive alleles. If so, then a true believer would be homozygously dominant, an athetist would be homozygously recessive, and an agnostic would be heterozygously confused, defaulting to the domiance of God, of course.

--Croakmore (INTJ or INTP)

Mr. E.

I scored an 11. High average on their scale.

Does that make me a carrier? :shock:

Well, Pete, I scored a measily 4 on the test: "highly skeptical, resistant to developing spiritual awareness." That may be true for me. I know I could never have pulled an 11. (And I think Virgil's mind is frozen stiff up there in Embarrass.) Carriers of the God gene are welcome in my biosphere. And useful, too. How else can I conduct my recombinant experiments?

--Croak

I scored an 8: "spiritually average; could develop more spiritual life if desired." I could score up to 11 and still be in this category.

Seems to me the test is awfully tippy on the word "often."

A good test for spirituality, and not at all for fundamentalism or traditional religion IMO. I scored an 18. The only two I scored false were 2 that concerned feeling closely connected to other people.

I scored 10. I wanted to say "true" to some of the other questions, but it just wouldn't have been an honest response.

I scored '9' as a compromise. Two questions were ambiguous,at least to me, so I chose to count a half point for each.

To find that Eric Meece is an '18' is not surprising. To find Kiff is a '10' is ... a bit. :?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I scored '9' as a compromise. Two questions were ambiguous,at least to me, so I chose to count a half point for each.

To find that Eric Meece is an '18' is not surprising. To find Kiff is a '10' is ... a bit. :?

Did you expect me to score higher or lower?

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I scored '9' as a compromise. Two questions were ambiguous,at least to me, so I chose to count a half point for each.

To find that Eric Meece is an '18' is not surprising. To find Kiff is a '10' is ... a bit. :?

Did you expect me to score higher or lower?

Uh, higher.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I scored '9' as a compromise. Two questions were ambiguous,at least to me, so I chose to count a half point for each.

To find that Eric Meece is an '18' is not surprising. To find Kiff is a '10' is ... a bit. :?

Did you expect me to score higher or lower?

Uh, higher.

Well, what can I say? I'm basically a very rational person who is trying to become more trans-rational. It ain't always easy.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I scored '9' as a compromise. Two questions were ambiguous,at least to me, so I chose to count a half point for each.

To find that Eric Meece is an '18' is not surprising. To find Kiff is a '10' is ... a bit. :?

Did you expect me to score higher or lower?

Uh, higher.

Well, what can I say? I'm basically a very rational person who is trying to become more trans-rational. It ain't always easy.

I think it may be a matter of your being too conservative in your test taking. But who knows?

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I scored '9' as a compromise. Two questions were ambiguous,at least to me, so I chose to count a half point for each.

To find that Eric Meece is an '18' is not surprising. To find Kiff is a '10' is ... a bit. :?

Did you expect me to score higher or lower?

Uh, higher.

Well, what can I say? I'm basically a very rational person who is trying to become more trans-rational. It ain't always easy.

What will becoming "more trans-rational" buy you, Kiff? Is there something you perceive to be limiting about rationality? Just curious.

--Croakmore

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I think it may be a matter of your being too conservative in your test taking. But who knows?

Croaker had a good point: the test uses the word "often" a lot to describe these experiences, and I can't honestly say that they happen to me "often." If the testmakers had used "sometimes," I would have had more "yes" responses.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

What will becoming "more trans-rational" buy you, Kiff? Is there something you perceive to be limiting about rationality? Just curious.

--Croakmore

Simple. There are experiences I've had that I can't explain rationally. I have a curiosity about why that is.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Croakmore

What will becoming "more trans-rational" buy you, Kiff? Is there something you perceive to be limiting about rationality? Just curious.

--Croakmore

Simple. There are experiences I've had that I can't explain rationally. I have a curiosity about why that is.

But wouldn't any "explantion" have to be rational? Otherwise, it would be incoherent. You seem very coherent to me; and thanks for your coherent response.

BTW: I learned recently that the United Church of Christ played a key role in resolving the Amistad crisis humanely. That's an especially positive thing, I think (rationally), for your aforementioned intentions of joining that church. Good luck.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Croakmore

But wouldn't any "explantion" have to be rational? Otherwise, it would be incoherent. You seem very coherent to me; and thanks for your coherent response.

Well, thanks for the compliment.

I don't know that I can use the language of rationality to describe the spiritual experiences I've had. It's inadequate. It's very subjective. Now, perhaps Ken Wilber is right, and religious experience can be studied scientifically. I'd be very interested in seeing those results.

BTW: I learned recently that the United Church of Christ played a key role in resolving the Amistad crisis humanely. That's an especially positive thing, I think (rationally), for your aforementioned intentions of joining that church. Good luck.

Yes, I heard about that yesterday during my orientation session. Congregationalists were also big in the anti-slavery movement. I feel pretty good about that tradition, and there's a real sense of community within this particular congregation.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Croakmore

What will becoming "more trans-rational" buy you, Kiff? Is there something you perceive to be limiting about rationality? Just curious.

--Croakmore

Simple. There are experiences I've had that I can't explain rationally. I have a curiosity about why that is.

Any explanation has to be "coherent;" that is true. However, there are limits to what can be explained rationally, even if such explanations are coherent.

Reason uses labels and symbols. It generalizes by its very nature. It manipulates the labels of experiences; it is not experience itself (except the experience of reason). It can organize experiences into a coherent system of knowledge. Coherence means making consistent sense, and useful or predictable.

On the other hand, reason can point to archetypal and formal truths. The human reason itself isn't the truth; but you could call these truths "rational" because they are general and formal. At the "spiritual pole" of the philosophy circle, reason and experience blend together in The One, around where Jesus and Plotinus reside.

So reason has validity; it's just not the only validity. Thus it can be "limiting," since it cannot encompass the whole by itself. In that sense, the spirit or God is beyond reason. But, reason can demolish some "superstitions" about spirituality or God; at least provisionally.

Simple or not; I dunno. But the relationships among ways of knowing are interesting.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I scored '9' as a compromise. Two questions were ambiguous,at least to me, so I chose to count a half point for each.

To find that Eric Meece is an '18' is not surprising. To find Kiff is a '10' is ... a bit. :?

Did you expect me to score higher or lower?

Higher, though not an 18, certainly. If I were to guess, based strictly on your posts, I would have said 12 - just across the next border. 8)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Croakmore

What will becoming "more trans-rational" buy you, Kiff? Is there something you perceive to be limiting about rationality? Just curious.

--Croakmore

Simple. There are experiences I've had that I can't explain rationally. I have a curiosity about why that is.

Any explanation has to be "coherent;" that is true. However, there are limits to what can be explained rationally, even if such explanations are coherent.

Reason uses labels and symbols. It generalizes by its very nature. It manipulates the labels of experiences; it is not experience itself (except the experience of reason). It can organize experiences into a coherent system of knowledge. Coherence means making consistent sense, and useful or predictable.

On the other hand, reason can point to archetypal and formal truths. The human reason itself isn't the truth; but you could call these truths "rational" because they are general and formal. At the "spiritual pole" of the philosophy circle, reason and experience blend together in The One, around where Jesus and Plotinus reside.

So reason has validity; it's just not the only validity. Thus it can be "limiting," since it cannot encompass the whole by itself. In that sense, the spirit or God is beyond reason. But, reason can demolish some "superstitions" about spirituality or God; at least provisionally.

Simple or not; I dunno. But the relationships among ways of knowing are interesting.

Damn. That actually all made sense! :wink:

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I scored '9' as a compromise. Two questions were ambiguous,at least to me, so I chose to count a half point for each.

To find that Eric Meece is an '18' is not surprising. To find Kiff is a '10' is ... a bit. :?

I had to split the difference with six questions, but ended up with a '9', too. The "often"'s made the difference on a couple of my negative responses, and might have counted for more. Frankly, only the ones about losing track of time and/or what's going on around me can really be counted as daily occurrences...

I got a 6, not too surprising.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Croakmore

What will becoming "more trans-rational" buy you, Kiff? Is there something you perceive to be limiting about rationality? Just curious.

--Croakmore

Simple. There are experiences I've had that I can't explain rationally. I have a curiosity about why that is.

Any explanation has to be "coherent;" that is true. However, there are limits to what can be explained rationally, even if such explanations are coherent.

Reason uses labels and symbols. It generalizes by its very nature. It manipulates the labels of experiences; it is not experience itself (except the experience of reason). It can organize experiences into a coherent system of knowledge. Coherence means making consistent sense, and useful or predictable.

On the other hand, reason can point to archetypal and formal truths. The human reason itself isn't the truth; but you could call these truths "rational" because they are general and formal. At the "spiritual pole" of the philosophy circle, reason and experience blend together in The One, around where Jesus and Plotinus reside.

So reason has validity; it's just not the only validity. Thus it can be "limiting," since it cannot encompass the whole by itself. In that sense, the spirit or God is beyond reason. But, reason can demolish some "superstitions" about spirituality or God; at least provisionally.

Simple or not; I dunno. But the relationships among ways of knowing are interesting.

All of this seems true if there are good reasons for being unreasonable or rational ways for being irrational. Did I miss something?

--Croakmore

Croak - Like you, I scored a 4. Does this confirm my long-held contention that Adaptives are the most skeptical of the generational archetypes?

Robert - you may be on to something with right brain activity. There was a time when I think I was whole-brained, but the nature of my research the past few decades has been such that my right brain has atrophied. Now that I am retired from teaching, I am trying to get it back (although the nature of the research has not changed) by having surgery on my left hand to correct my Dupytrin's contracture so that I can play the piano again. But I seem to be playing it from the left side of my brain, and consequently am having trouble recapturing the kind of creativity and spontaniety I had 30 years ago. It's not so bad playing Beethoven but my George Shearing mode sucks.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by David Krein

Croak - Like you, I scored a 4. Does this confirm my long-held contention that Adaptives are the most skeptical of the generational archetypes?

Pax,
Dave Krein '42

Skeptical? Excuse me? You were the "silent" generation, of whom GI William Manchester derided in his histories as, well, complacent and apathetic.

Oh, but that was during your coming of age years, huh. Boomer coming of age years seemed a bit different than yours. But I wonder, what means more, what is a more powerful impact upon societal trends: Our coming of age years, or our mid-life or elder years? Seems to me this "skeptical" business came along during the latter, not the former times. But why was that, eh? Did the kids you bred make ya feel just a bit regretful of times lost in the shadow of the Greatest Generation?

Sometimes you "artists" make me wanna croak by the way you just use history and all this stuff.