The Ubermensche and Type

[tcaudilllg]

I have come to the conclusion that conscious awareness -- or desire for conscious awareness when the awareness is not yet achieved -- of the use of vital ring information to complement information on the active ring, and vice versa, is the fundamental character trait of the Neitzschean Ubermensche. I say this because the desire to reconcile the unconscious information base with the available objective information pool in pursuit of objective, self-conscious ends effectively allows for the creation of new social values. Without this urge to reconciliation, people of contrasting views are unable to work together toward mutual ends. This desire to "individuate" in favor of attaining a deeper sense of self is described in detail by Carl Jung in his lecture series on Neitzsche. Says Jung, the desire to create common values, to leave a legacy to society that will be sustained, is illustrated in Zarathustra's teachings. Zarathustra himself advocates the day when all people have this self-same sense of self-control, and calls it the day of the Ubermensche.

Research is affirming the existence of this trait. In the early 20s, human development specialists have found, young adults transition from belief in fundamental precepts that are self-justifying as the basis for right-vs-wrong, to a belief that moralities are subjective and constructed on the basis of relativistic ideological frameworks. Although a majority of the transitioned individuals accepted their respective frameworks as their moral compass, a very small minority believed it necessary to seek reconciliation of their own ideological framework with others even in the face of obvious differences.

The conscious exchange of information between the 1st and 7th functions creates this self-same effect. The limiting orientation of the 7th function creates the conscious impression of a relativistic basis for objectivity when observed as the underlying justification for 1st function observations. The urge for reconciliation of the relativistic bias with objective criterion is a consequence of the mutuality of the exchange in the self-willed person. Neitzsche identified this trait in himself and made it the focus of his "superman" philosophy.

I suspect that there may be several people on this forum who possess the ubermensche trait.

I will be sourcing this post shortly.

[Expat]

Übermensch, please. Always with a capital "Ü" if you insist in using the German term.

Although I suspect that Untermensch would be more appropriate in many cases here.

[Creepy-bg]

Übermensch, please. Always with a capital "Ü" if you insist in using the German term.

Although I suspect that Untermensch would be more appropriate in many cases here.

what's the term in English? is this the superman thing? (I haven't read Tcaud's post)

[Gilly]

Übermensch, please. Always with a capital "Ü" if you insist in using the German term.

Although I suspect that Untermensch would be more appropriate in many cases here.

[tcaudilllg]

According to these articles, a phenomenon similar to the Ubermensche has been validated by empirical research. It is called the "opinion leader".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_leader
http://www.ciadvertising.org/studies...d/twostep.html

Weimann's paper addressing the re-emergence of the opinion leader theory into modern day (1991), he addresses several problems that have been overcome sparking the new interest in the old theory. As is further discussed in the section on theory criticisms, the two-step flow of communication theory is difficult to witness in the field. Many researchers have attempted to design credible models for testing the theory, but with only minor success (Weimann, 1991). Brosius and Weimann set out to explain agenda setting using the basis of the two-step flow of communication theory determined by Lazarsfeld, Katz, and the many other researchers. To avoid the difficulties in studying the actual flow of communication, Weimann and Brosius separated the opinion leaders from their two-step flow of communication theory. Participants were studied against a scale to determine the "Strength of Personality".

The Brosius-Weimann study attempts to describe the individuals whose personal communication has impact on agenda setting. These individuals are the archetypal opinion leaders, who still control the flow of information. Weimann and Brosius define agenda setting as a two-step flow, wherein certain individuals (influentials) "collect, diffuse, filter, and promote the flow of information" from media to the community. The difference between these influentials and the opinion leaders, as Weimann stresses, is that these influentials are usually elitists, not spread throughout the community as the old theory suggested (Weimann, 1991). Are these influentials a new breed? Or is there really a difference between influentials and opinion leaders? This, as yet, has not been addressed. Weimann and Brosius suggest the influentials are a subsection of the opinion leaders.

I hold that the Ubermensche is an intuitive instance of the opinion leader concept, and that the defining trait of the opinion leader is the ability or desire to exchange information easily between the conscious and the subconscious function sets defined in Model-A.

[krieger]

So how does that work anyway. Both function and information are poorly defined words, so citing an exchange of the latter by two instances of the former doesn't go a long way towards clarifying whatever idea you have of what actually happens in the person.

[Logos]

Übermensch, please. Always with a capital "Ü" if you insist in using the German term.

Although I suspect that Untermensch would be more appropriate in many cases here.

Not everyone knows how to make the umlaut on their computer. :wink:

I have come to the conclusion that conscious awareness -- or desire for conscious awareness when the awareness is not yet achieved -- of the use of vital ring information to complement information on the active ring, and vice versa, is the fundamental character trait of the Neitzschean Ubermensche. I say this because the desire to reconcile the unconscious information base with the available objective information pool in pursuit of objective, self-conscious ends effectively allows for the creation of new social values. Without this urge to reconciliation, people of contrasting views are unable to work together toward mutual ends. This desire to "individuate" in favor of attaining a deeper sense of self is described in detail by Carl Jung in his lecture series on Neitzsche. Says Jung, the desire to create common values, to leave a legacy to society that will be sustained, is illustrated in Zarathustra's teachings. Zarathustra himself advocates the day when all people have this self-same sense of self-control, and calls it the day of the Ubermensche.

Research is affirming the existence of this trait. In the early 20s, human development specialists have found, young adults transition from belief in fundamental precepts that are self-justifying as the basis for right-vs-wrong, to a belief that moralities are subjective and constructed on the basis of relativistic ideological frameworks. Although a majority of the transitioned individuals accepted their respective frameworks as their moral compass, a very small minority believed it necessary to seek reconciliation of their own ideological framework with others even in the face of obvious differences.

The conscious exchange of information between the 1st and 7th functions creates this self-same effect. The limiting orientation of the 7th function creates the conscious impression of a relativistic basis for objectivity when observed as the underlying justification for 1st function observations. The urge for reconciliation of the relativistic bias with objective criterion is a consequence of the mutuality of the exchange in the self-willed person. Neitzsche identified this trait in himself and made it the focus of his "superman" philosophy.

I suspect that there may be several people on this forum who possess the ubermensche trait.

I will be sourcing this post shortly.

A similar idea can be discerned from the beginning of Beyond G & E, when he begins by talking about how we remain unknown to ourselves until after the fact.

[tcaudilllg]

A similar idea can be discerned from the beginning of Beyond G & E, when he begins by talking about how we remain unknown to ourselves until after the fact.

Exactly.

[Logos]

A similar idea can be discerned from the beginning of Beyond G & E, when he begins by talking about how we remain unknown to ourselves until after the fact.

Exactly.

Actually I realized my error; it was in On the Genealogy of Morals and not Beyond Good & Evil where this happens.

[Not A Communist Shill]

A similar idea can be discerned from the beginning of Beyond G & E, when he begins by talking about how we remain unknown to ourselves until after the fact.

Exactly.

Actually I realized my error; it was in On the Genealogy of Morals and not Beyond Good & Evil where this happens.

[tcaudilllg]

A similar idea can be discerned from the beginning of Beyond G & E, when he begins by talking about how we remain unknown to ourselves until after the fact.

Exactly.

Actually I realized my error; it was in On the Genealogy of Morals and not Beyond Good & Evil where this happens.

In Beyond Good & Evil, he asserts that most people do not have genuine will; that they are lead by stronger wills even though they don't realize it, and mistake the stronger will for their own.

It's a similar concept, although with the opinion leadership philosophy it is simply the case that the individual will lies outside the opinion follower, and in the opinion leader. In return for the opinion leader's guidance, the opinion follower provides for the leader through non-creative activities that the opinion leader is ill-disposed to undertake.

So to say, for most people family and standing up for what you believe are the most important values in life, while for a select few who are so internally disposed, reconciliation of one's beliefs with others is more important. It takes a lot of energy to understand other's PoV, and this energy detracts from one's initiative to perform "everyday" tasks.

For example, I'm on this forum right now telling you this because I desire reconciliation with the opinions of the opinion leaders here, which would give me reconciliation with their followers by default. However, I have other matters to attend to of a more "mundane" nature that really demand my immediate attention.............

[Logos]

A similar idea can be discerned from the beginning of Beyond G & E, when he begins by talking about how we remain unknown to ourselves until after the fact.

Exactly.

Actually I realized my error; it was in On the Genealogy of Morals and not Beyond Good & Evil where this happens.

I'm sorry, but what on earth does that mean?

[krieger]

So to say, for most people family and standing up for what you believe are the most important values in life, while for a select few who are so internally disposed, reconciliation of one's beliefs with others is more important. It takes a lot of energy to understand other's PoV, and this energy detracts from one's initiative to perform "everyday" tasks.

I thought this was a disposition unique to liberalism. Is your oppinion leader concept the same thing as 'trancendental functioning'?

[tcaudilllg]

So to say, for most people family and standing up for what you believe are the most important values in life, while for a select few who are so internally disposed, reconciliation of one's beliefs with others is more important. It takes a lot of energy to understand other's PoV, and this energy detracts from one's initiative to perform "everyday" tasks.

I thought this was a disposition unique to liberalism.

Nope. One must be willing to put oneself at risk to create an effective alliance. Only opinion leaders have the awareness by which to do that safely.

Is your oppinion leader concept the same thing as 'trancendental functioning'?

Yes, in the complete form: mutual exchange between contrary elements and their functions. (but the opinion leader not just my concept alone.... Researchers of demographic trends have used it for years, and it is a subject of polling. It just so happens that my considerations take me toward the same phenomena.)

[Ezra]

Overman, one of the more misunderstood things of the 20th century.

So when I say "that's Über cool!" (which I never do), I am not saying "that's super cool!" but in fact "that's over cool!"?

[tcaudilllg]

Overman, one of the more misunderstood things of the 20th century.

So when I say "that's Über cool!" (which I never do), I am not saying "that's super cool!" but in fact "that's over cool!"?

Well, yes and no.. because you can make that word mean whatever you want it to. :wink:
But for Nietzsche it was about overcoming nihilism. (simple explanation)

That's actually a good point, because if you think about it, the opinion leader must have determined not to look at a situation from a nihilist viewpoint to have taken a position on it at all, because ultimately every positive does entail its own negative.

[tcaudilllg]

So how does that work anyway. Both function and information are poorly defined words, so citing an exchange of the latter by two instances of the former doesn't go a long way towards clarifying whatever idea you have of what actually happens in the person.

My experience of it is as follows:
Logic may be sound, but it may not be relevant. The problem of the INTj is fitting his logically consistent systems to the facts at hand. However, to the INTj there are many facts that are irrelevant to the INTj's focus of analysis. The solution is the transcendental function: instead of using objective facts and figures as the means of certifying one's logic, use only those facts and figures the limiting function (#7) finds reasonable. This works because the INTj's most confident logic is always that which they have deduced on their own, by pouring over Ni function 8 content: the sequences in which things are observed to happen may well be indicative of an underlying cause-effect relationship that is not already understood. But this Ni is always produced from Te, which means that the processes that are observed may always be correlated with the existence of factual phenomemon. Therefore fact begets process, which in turn begets truth.

Because a limited basis of fact is the basis for truth, one's truth will always be re, even though the objective flow of events suggests an objective "consensus" reality exists that accounts for all viewpoints. The transcendental function allows Ti to restrain its modeling enterprises to those models which may potentially describe reality. This allows Ti to produce more appropriate possibilities via Ne. However, Te may not have the full picture due to its limited factual base. Because Ti is drawn primarily from Ni, which for INTjs is an absolutely reliable source, Ti's analyses have greater empirical validity than does Te's factual basis. Te's basis is itself observed in the light of Si's broad, unspecific assessment of needs, and therefore whether or not needs are met or not is a clue for Te as to what the facts really are: if needs are not met, facts change. Because people have different needs, Te cannot account for the reality of everone's needs at once, and so cannot be objective: it will seek only those facts which are deemed relevant by its own needs. Therefore Ti, which arises from the endless strength of 8th function Ni, has the right of judgement as to whether or not Te's "facts" are acceptable, this judgement based on whether or not the facts fit the model which is suggested by the facts. There is therefore a mutual relationship between Ti and Te: Ti agrees to be relevant in exchange for Te's acquiescence to submit to Ti's judgement.

[krieger]

Is it about making yourself believe that your personal theories are correct to the point where you would regard them as actual external fact?

So, where a non-trancendental INTj might take an accepted fact as an argument, an oppinion leader would take his own facts as arguments and fight on behalf of them, thus putting their own person on the line instead of an external authority?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Research is affirming the existence of this trait. In the early 20s, human development specialists have found, young adults transition from belief in fundamental precepts that are self-justifying as the basis for right-vs-wrong, to a belief that moralities are subjective and constructed on the basis of relativistic ideological frameworks.

Big words make my head hurt. But to me I think what this is trying to say is basic common sense. As we mature and get older we learn how to think in shades of gray a lot better, and see more sides of the situation. I know this is somewhat true for me, though there are still plenty of people that I inherently like and dislike that make me seem 'little boy-ish' still.

Also another point that is kinda similiar to that is the reason that we get so de-sensitized to reality and 'real things' is so we can conquer them because mind is obviously greater than matter. Things look so small, but that is a step for me to control and make something even better and bigger for the next generation so they can too be awed, then be a conqueror. It's all part of the process.

[tcaudilllg]

Is it about making yourself believe that your personal theories are correct to the point where you would regard them as actual external fact?

So, where a non-trancendental INTj might take an accepted fact as an argument, an oppinion leader would take his own facts as arguments and fight on behalf of them, thus putting their own person on the line instead of an external authority?

That's one way of putting it. But's let's be clear: there is no leadership of opinion, and therefore no change in opinion AT ALL, without that stand being made. There simply is no cognitive basis for it otherwise.

The transcendental INTj makes sure the theory conforms to the facts, but then remembers that the capacity to model -must- be supraordinate to the facts themselves. Facts without theoretic modeling are useless. The facts are indicative of a relevant model; but once that model is accepted, the facts -must- obey the model.


Let's look at this from an INFj point of view. On the one hand you have , one's immediate feelings. On the other, you have , the external emotive environment. Both have an influence on your subjective state, because both are feeling and feeling = consciousness. (I've come to this conclusion after arguing with my ENTj psyche professor regarding it; he says consciousness is ("awareness of what's going on inside you", I say . ("the ability to recognize that others exist apart from you/differentiation of self") What feelings one chooses to embrace, from the vantagepoint, should be conductive to others' feelings. However, once one has chosen the "correct" emotional state to assume, it is necessary for society to "give back" to the feeler by respecting their pursuit of the feeling in all its vigor... more on this later.

[krieger]

What is the motivation for going into "opinion leader" mode? Can you describe what you feel and/or think prior to that "making the stand"?

[tcaudilllg]

What is the motivation for going into "opinion leader" mode? Can you describe what you feel and/or think prior to that "making the stand"?

Well it's usually prompted by some tinge of possible threat. When someone makes -any- assertive claim or acts to portray themselves as dominant, they are sampling function 1 from function 7. (1st transcendental function) They are reacting to what is perceived as threatening, but their reaction is measured and "expectant": you expect to receive a guesture affirming the non-hostility of the environment. The substance of arrogance is the refusal of oneself to acknowledge conciliatory guestures: a person who demands total submission is abusing the will to power, and failing the ultimate goal of the opinion leader, that of individuation of the self.
Invariably the refusal to submit is indicative of a weakness inside oneself; e.g., a problem of opinion that one cannot successfully integrate, invariably a mark of psychopathological influence that one recognizes as faulty, but cannot successfully apprehend the nature of enough to remove it from consideration. It is the purpose of self-critique to denude one's argument from what psychopathological influences may exist before making the stand.

When the stand is made, whether or not the standing opinion leader survives appears to be contingent on their ability to project an attempt at differentiation. If they do not have it in them to project the attempt, they will fall prey to the psychopathic influence which has inaugurated the problem. This will manifest in their isolation, as they do not have the inner peace necessary to remove the followers of their opinion from the flow of society in their own defense. It is the isolation that allows the pathological forces to move in against them. If the individual is capable of making an attempt however, then they will effortlessly motivate opinion towards themself, and a very real pretext for a cataclysm will emerge. This pretext will be imminently apparent via common sense to all those concerned, and a movement toward understanding and reconciliation will immediately being to manifest, provided that there are not too many neuroses in the opinion leaders themselves due to the use by the psychopaths of the symmetric counterpart to the transcendent function, which I call the reverse trancendent function in leu of a better name.