>>203
I am not yet an expert in Jungian analysis, so maybe there was a misunderstanding. Basically it was after reading some "Von der Weltseele" that I got the feeling that he is an INTP. Combining observations of his private life - participatations in archaeological activities and Schlegel's magazine - a better way to explain it is that some of his qualities (compared with other philosophers), are something what INTPs yearn for very much.

>>206
That's MBTI and has little to do with Jung's own theory which is rather crude and was just used as an early attempt to find the right categories of personality analysis, but anyway.
I see no point in connecting what you've said with INTP and all kinds of personality types can do whatever they want, they just do these things in different manners, and this "manner" is something hard to really give any definite description.
It is absolutely incomprehensible that someone can type him as INTP. It never even occured to me. A person's first function is NOT what characterizes the external appearnace of a person. Often the most obvious trait that someone exhibits, especially when this person is an introvert, or when they write, is their third function.
For example many so-called mystics of the perennial school are actually people possessing Ni as their third. There are many ISFPs in the perennial school, and many so-called artists with mystical leaning - especially those attracted by theosophy - are plainly Ni-tert. These people often think they are very Ni-driven but they very often cannot distinguish between what is truly archetypal and what is a mimic, though they refuse to admit the fact. A plethora of people obsessed with theosophy and "mystical" teachings, who cannot make the distinction between Schelling and arbitrary third-rate theosophy, are Ni-tert.
Many outwardly "logical" person do not operate "logically" in their own person. Schelling doesn't, Wittgenstein doesn't. Their intuition precedes their thought, but the way they express and try to come to term with their intuition is "logical". These two should both be Ti-tert. Schelling was logical but his writings are not clear and he doesn't want to be clear since it is in the dynamism and the complex net of thoughts that his vision emerges. His work is not an exhibition of clear thought but more of his insights, and what made him a logical philosophe is the way he honed his thoughts, and how his insights are organized into a powerful contrapuntal complex. There is also a tendency in people that regards Deleuze as Ti-dom which is absolutely nonsense.
Ti-dom are very different, they often do not have a "philosophical temperament"; you rarely see a philosopher that is Ti-dom but who also has a magnificent temperament, if there is any. Maybe Thomas Aquinas was a Ti-dom since he unlike, say, Schelling,Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>207
Nah, the last sentence was also quite a strech. Ti is neither consistency nor precision, but "internal consistency and inference". It is a theory-making function, but it doesn't provide the content of the theory that is produced. So someone who has Ti in their first three function tend to first give a hypothesis that can explain everything in a phenomenon that they observe, out of the need of consistency and sense making. Ti is sometimes quite delusional since they rarely really care to know about what actually is the case. Ti-dom/tert/secondary make hypotheses that make sense, and if these hypothese make sense they tend to believe in it and disregard factual information. This doesn't mean that Ti users tend to put things in a pre-existent framework. It is not a fixed framework that is important, but the consistency between a framework that is produced real-time and the given information. So precision is just a byproduct for the elimination of false frameworks that can be confused with the right one. If a framework makes sense then it can become more real than external information.
Anyways, in Schellings writings his Ti is driven by something alien to itself. His passages are often quite tortured, not because Ti produces tortured sentences; his Ti is carving something consistent out of a mess.
It doesn't require someone to be Ti-dom to exhibit strong Ti traits. And actually INTP, being Ti-dom, tend not to exhibit it. If you see someone who is quite argumentative in public (i.e. when he is not really comfortable) it is highly possible that he is NOT a Ti-dom. A Ti-dom tends to simply ignore others since he is so sure of himself, and that is also the reason why when a Ti-dom argue for his point he gives absolutely concise answer and doesn't explain much.

>>207
>Ti do not tend to make anythings "deep", it makes things precise and "systematic"
That's quite strange for me actually, since making things precise and systematic is something a "deep" thing for me, good examples are Schelling's "Ages of the world", for me which is not "insightful lectures" like that for you but has a very thought-provoking precision which looks like "deep" for me. And also Xenakis' book, Spinoza's philosophical modeling-like system description of his Ethics book. Or, Deleuze's Nitezsche book.
So I guess what you referred to as "deep" is always linked to Ni which is a completely unfamiliar thing to my nature. I suspect that I have never touched the "depth" of Novalis (according to your ealry judgement of "deep" for him), because his philosophical fragments under the influence of natural sciences, chemistry etc. are finally manifested as a poetic pinnacle, so he is like an avant-garde compared to his contemporaries, e.g. Hoelderlin.
>perennial mystics
I currently find that Chardin's books are full of things that I can't "understand" (again by my nature). This also caused me to unconsciously divide him into that "perennial school", but apart from this, his archaeological experience makes me feel more convinced of his judgments. But I can't totally believe it at all at the moment since I can't see any reasoning from perennial mystics' works. I often feel like this: every sentence of each of their books is trying to convey one single thing, and they have not made a convincing explanation. They just don't want to do reasoning like philosophers.
How to understand Chardin by the way? Do I need more "physics" trainings to understand Chardin? I don't know. Compared to him, Lubac is a totally poetic philosopher and I definitely like his honesty, I read his Atheist drama book.

>>212
>Ti
Strange. None of the philosophers that you mentioned seem very precise to me, including Spinoza. They are "logical" but it is not their focus. They are just not who those dumb art students etc think. When it comes to precision and systematicity what comes up in my mind are Whitehead, Dummett, etc., and maybe sometimes Kant (Kant is good at classification but he's not really precise and there are actually many flaws in his writings). In particular Dummett is extremely precise and there's a certain depth that is more Ti-oriented in his writings, but yeah it's a different form of depth.

>Teilhard
I'm not really sure. There are various ways of reading his works and various ways of understanding. It will help if you know, say, QM and the debates around measurements, and its relation with global semantic anti-realism, but that's too much and maybe a stretch from the first sight of it. Studying about evolutionary thought, its emergence, the philosophy/metaphysics that's behind it, and think about questions like "what is life" may also help… The related fields are very familiar to me so I have some difficulties comprehending what other people know or don't know about a certain subject, so it's hard for me to give a "list" or anything similar.
But first of all he's NOT really a philosopher, and his writings are more indicative of something rather than descriptive of something. For me myself, I think I won't recommend Teilhard to the earlier me; the best way to read Teilhard is to be led to him by certain questions that you yourself have regarding contemporary theolgy and the related fields.
But one thing is for sure. He's not for the "un-trained" and requires quite some understandings of history of thoughts (philosophy, science, etc) to get a hold on.

>>197
Why not simply translate it as:

The Master said,
"Book of 300 Poems,
one sentence to cover them,
that's - 'Thoughts ain't evil.'"

Schelling (in 1811 version):
1. Wrath (divine egoism) - divinity - Darkness, Nothingness, formless Chaos, Abyss - female "Nature is nothing other than divine egoism, softly and gently subdued by love." (dark world of the Father)
2. Love - Light, Creation - male "Creation is the conquest of divine selfishness by divine love" (light world of the Son, the son "overcomes the dark force of indifference in the Father", then "only with the emergence of the Son does the Father begin to understand himself and exercise the power of differentiation", hence Schelling believes a gradually self-conscious God)

Wrath -> Love
female -> male

Boehme:
1. Wrath - Seed - Darkness, Nothingness, formless Chaos, Abyss, contraction - male (dark world of the Father)
2. Love - Duality - Light, Mirror, Sophia, world of creation, expansion - female (light world of the Holy Spirit)

Wrath -> Love
male -> female (this is why Boehme belives that the son of God became human through the Virgin Mary)

Some of Schelling's other innovations are also mentioned on p. 43-44 of Martensen's Jacob Boehme: His Life and Teaching or Studies in Theosophy.

I think you already knew Schelling (and also Hegel) read Boehme extensively. I think Jung never read Schelling but he has similar thoughts to Schelling. As S. J. McGrath wrote in his The Dark Ground of Spirit this is a current of thought, and has a long tradition that can be dated back to Joachim of Fiore etc. and has many similarity to some Kabbalistic tradition, which Friedrich Heer tried to trace back 70 years ago (so his studies are quite outdated but he had the best big picture, much better than Voegelin, while Voegelin was a better philosopher and was more in line with contemporary thoughts, though he wasn't friendly with this current of thought).
If you read Peirce you'll find that even if Peirce wasn't an ardent reader of the German Romanticists, he read Schelling, and he's a less artistic but much clearer version of Schelling. Peirce was a better metaphysician, and Schelling was a more versatile and "dramatic" thinker who also did exegesis and studied on religions.
A Jungian or Hegelian way, or even Peircean way of thinking about this is that by discerning this pattern in religion you're observing the movement of the Spirit.

>>191
>Peirce
It looks like the school of pragmatism was a successor to the German Romantics, such as William James' book on religious experience and Peirce's two volumes philosophical writings… (haven't read Peirce yet).
Gradually I realized that the German Romantics literally made everything blossom…
Guess Meister Eckhart belongs also to the group of names you mentioned.

>>193
And I'm carefully reading Hodgkinson's paper these days, generally, all of these seem to be in a same philosophical temperament as what I felt in the history of mountaineering. When I found out that Horace Bénédict de Saussure even had some contact with Goethe, I was literally ecstatic.
But I think the perennial school should probably be excluded from this alliance.

>>193
German Romanticism is merely a segment of the current…There's a convoluted history of the emergence of evolutionary thought behind. I still think Heer's book is the best in tracing the current, though it is not conclusive.
How Goethe studied natural history, how natural history as a discipline emerged in France, etc. parallels and concordances everywhere. I won't even say it is philosophical temperament, it is literally the Spirit moves.
I'm not sure whether the perennial school should be excluded or not since I don't see any "school" there. It is just a variety of people not accepted in any cultural mainstream (German romanticism is totally a mainstream current) claiming that they are inheriting a certain tradition which is largely imaginary and loosely formed into a so-called school. It is a totally new-age phenomenon, a form of new religion.

>>178
1. Before music existed, God had only a body and no consciousness. Was it the gradual emergence of archetypes that led to the gradual emergence of music? Or, the archetypes were formal components that literally existed in the "beginning", so there is no such thing as "the gradual emergence of archetypes," there were only things like, the musical entity found its ground and became conscious, i.e., talking more about abstract concepts than human life.
2. Historical evidence of the chronological emergence of music, oral poetry, and ancient religions may indicate some early facts.

>>176
>If we replace "music" in the sentence with "love", "poetry" or something else publicly recognized as beauty, those sentences are also suitable for any random sages of the perennial school.
Correct. And that's divine simplicity.

>>177
Do you mean perennial school believes the idea of divine simplicity, so they always tend to make eclecticism claims like this?
I have not yet considered them from any central idea in the history of philosophy. I think so mainly because I encountered the concept of alpha-conversion proposed by Alonzo Church for lambda-calculus some time ago, which made me gradually feel that those claims are very suspicious simply because the replaceability of those "variables" (music or architecture, painting and other arts) in sentences in terms of their context.

>>177
>>180
That is absolutely not divine simplicity as I understand it, though there are many versions of divine simplicity. The most widely used version and the standard usage of the term refers to the metaphysical position that God is pure act of Being itself, and Being itself is good and beautiful etc. So God is not some'thing' that is 'Good' which can be alpha-substituted by, say, 'Beauty', but the only term that is simultaneously the subject and the predicate.

>>189
>It [existence] is not a real or determining predicate, for it does not add any determinate feature or content to the concept of an object [so far, complete agreement with Kant]. Rather ‘-exists’ is a non-determining predicate; It is taken to designate that activity which is the reason why things have any determining predicates at all. Existence is here understood as ‘active’ existence or ‘actualization.
> What Aristotle had conceived as the highest and most perfect kind of ‘divine’ being’ was the activity of νόησιϛ νόησεωϛ or ‘thought thinking itself’. The divine life in Christian theology and speculation was conceived indeed as essentially an activity rather than a ‘substance’ and as triune in its interrelations.

God's Esse is essentia, since God is pure act of Being. That is divine simplicity.

Similarly, if Ron Gregg knows that the company OR made a documentary film for him, https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=qjeJU1pk1X8, I can't imagine how disappointed he would be. Many individuals who obviously have self-conscious dignity will not be willing to have someone make this kind of thing for themselves after their death, so they seem to be defiling them by doing so.

Why do bands love to put their ugly, disgusting, big faces on those equally ugly designed posters? Why they never feel ashamed? Why are there so many disgusting pictures of them and they are so proud of themselves? Why they love to spread their stupid names? I don't think some mentally retarded people who naturally addicted to cool cultures 🍆💧 have anything to do with God's good or evil. Even their evil is so mediocre and low-level. Can they be as "evil" as Lautreamont?