is extroversion a sin?

Post Reply New Topic

I am very introvert. Sometimes I say a few things to my workmates and smile. But generally I live in a bubble. I have no friends, unless the workmates count, but none that I meet in my spare time other than if the whole group of workmates go to a restaurant together or something like that. Sometimes people have indicated that they have had interest in meeting me but I have rejected them or not answered with the same desire back. Most of the time though I'm left outside by others or for some reason I end up on the outside.

I feel like I am stuck in this bubble. But I am not sure it's a bad thing. In religion for example they talk about being in this world but not of it, being in this world as a traveler etc.

I feel that hypothetically I might be able to try to break out of the bubble, but it would require a huge effort. (or rather I know from past experience) And not only that, it feels to me for some reason that it would be to sin. It's as if I feel that detached observation is pure and spiritual whereas extroversion and partaking is sin. When I drink alcohol I feel that the threshold is much lower and it's much easier to break out of the bubble and I think this is because alcohol lowers your vibration, gets you down to a spiritually lower, more earthly, state. So you are more on the same frequency with the world as opposed to being above it, more spiritual than it.

I found this quote in History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell:

Is extroversion a sin?

I couldn't find anything in the Bible indicating it is, but what do I know. I'm just an atheist destined for hell.

By sin I don't mean that it has to be viewed as such by religion or described as such in any religion. I just mean low vibration, unspiritual.

I forgot to ask if anyone else has the same feeling, that extroversion is a sin.

In this context I have also been thinking about different personalities. To me it seems like personality is very much dependent on spiritual evolution. I think that perhaps spritual evolution serves to correct sin and therefore people will have less and less sin to correct the more evolved they are, and the correction of sin is done through sinning, therefore, from another angle it might be seen as the more evolved you are the more you sin or the more evil you are. The least evolved are the most socially coherent, the most in harmony with others. As you evolve you become more and more alienated, more introvert, more autistic, less connected to others. And eventually you hate everybody, even your own parents. The least evolved are the most easily manipulated, the most evolved are probably manipulators. This is why I also believe that the politics that serves the purpose of controlling people, having power over people, is simultaneously what enlightens people. I could write a whole essay on this subject, it's one of my favorite subjects at the moment.

Maybe you should write the essay to clearify your hypothesis.

Alienation =/= spirituality.

Yes maybe, I might in the future. But I don't really know anything, it's all just me speculating, trying to understand. I feel like I could write a lot but I haven't tried so I don't know for sure if I could. Although I have written quite a lot on other forums, spread out over many posts.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bCJOscgCc0[/youtube]

http://laitman.com/2008/09/the-conseque ... ms-growth/



When you look at some of the most "evil" people in the world, they appear to be the most noble. Highly powerful people are often more or less psychopaths. I think this might be because they are more enlightened than ordinary people and have higher intelligence so they appear more evil from the perspective of ordinary people. Evil appears to me to be pretty much just that which we are unenlightened about, although that might be wrong. I think that one reason people of power are psychopaths and evil is because when you have high intelligence and high enlightenment you see a bigger picture and sometimes doing the greatest good for the greatest number might include dealing with some people in a not so nice way.

I also see a dialectic in this. You become enlightened by your adversaries. The oppression from without reveals new layers of enlightenment from within, and you see a new dimension of your adversaries or what used to be your adversaries.

I think feminism is very related to this. It breaks down society, makes men introvert, sensitive etc. But what I ask myself is if procreation and culture isn't just a means to an end.

I have even wondered if civilization doesn't merely exist as a manifestation of sin, and a means to correct sin. And that enlightenment is in some way related to the breaking down of civilization or the end of the physical world, and the beginning of something beyond that. Mentally disordered and ill people are in my view probably some intermediary phase between the earthly and that which lies beyond, with one foot in each world.

You are entitled to your opinion. I personally think that alienation might not equal spirituality but I think it is very related. I think alienation is very much connected to spiritual enlightenment. Truman in The Truman Show, Winston in 1984, Bernard in Brave New World and Neo in The Matrix are all allegorical illustrations of this in my view. And Israel is hated by most of the world right now. Some say Jews are not God's chosen people, and only self-proclaimed God's chosen people, or not real Jews. I think that is incorrect.

This reminds me of Seneca's letter to Lucius 'On Crowds.'
http://www.stoics.com/seneca_epistles_b ... %80%98VII1

As usual this boring forum delivers astoundingly little. I really don't know why I keep posting here. I think I'll stop actually due to the suckage of this forum.

When I watch people I definitely see a strong negative correlation between the number of friends/partners and the substance inside the skull/spirituality. The happiest people are also the biggest as*holes.

I think this is too strong response, and by your reasoning, being good makes you unhappy, and it is spiritual to be that way. It is throwing the baby out with that bathwater. You have really no idea how happy people are in fact.

Sometimes the way you explain something solicits a different response. I wasn't compelled by your argument the way you explained it.

However instead if you had said that introspection, leads to thoughtfulness rather than inherited or impulsive view on life. You might have a point I don't think it necessarily true but it is a hypothesis.

The problem I'm having is you are implying that your unhappiness, and envy you have is somehow related to spirituality, really this is related to how you see yourself in relation to others. It is a reflection of status. Your social status feel less, so this is compensated by own spiritual status.

Many people in you situation, instead of becoming a hermit they go to churches like the Pentecostals. becuase the people get their fix of belonging. Not my cup of tea personally, but that is a common response.

I am not spiritual, I am introvert, and I and happy (but have been unhappy in the past). I don't speculate how 'good' I am, but I don't think I am evil.

If you want to be spiritual the way the Buddhist would understand then you have to let go of these negative emotions or not place such significance on them.

I see extroverts as narcissistic sometimes, they have to broadcast every thought they have, no matter how mundane.

Sometimes I see them as controlling, constantly talking, not letting anyone else have a say.

I know someone who is kind of an extrovert who talks to people to look busy, so he can get out of doing actual physical labor.

Sin (n): (1) A transgression of divine law; (2) Any act regarded as a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle; or (3) Any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, great fault or offense.

The second definition may apply if religious doctrine makes extroversion a "sin". However, since religious doctrine is purely a by-product of human belief, it is safe to say that the nature of this alleged "sin" is a purely subjective human concept.

In other words, extroversion is not intrinsically a "sin", but some closed-minded religious fundamentalists may say otherwise.

I specified in this thread that I don't mean that it has to be part of some religious doctrine, just that it is low vibration, unspiritual, harmful etc.



I believe that that view is, in your own words:

Oh. You mean "Is extroversion against the precepts of the healy-feely New Age movement?" I say 'No', simply because an individual's "Spirituality" is whatever that individual makes of it.

So, whatever gets you going, kid ... whatever gets you going ...

But narcissism also includes those that see other people being the problem, and a subtype include those that see themselves as more righteous and hard done by. This can be introspective, you just hear about the extroverts more.

@tomato all I can say is I'm not getting a good vibe from this, I would say you view is no less harmful. It is certainly not in line with Buddhist or Jain idea of positive vibration. In fact they would say it is harmful, and could cause suffering.

"Forgive me Father....last night I...I...I....started a conversation at a party!"


How many "Hail Maries" do I have to say - after commiting that sin of extraversion?"


I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.