The Phenomenology and Theories of Immanence

[tcaudilllg]

If you fail any of the transcendent functions, then the subconscious will overtake consciousness. The meaningful question is if the takeover is purposeful or forced. If forced, then the person not only becomes absorbed in nihillism, but previously held an extreme viewpoint regarding the relationship between the functions considered. If purposeful, then the personality agrees to allow the subconscious to control consciousness in exchange for mastery of the subconscious itself: consciousness takes hold of unconscious and molds it in its own image. It is a question of whether consciousness willingly submits to the greater intentions of the subconscious or if it resists outside pressure to submit until the pressure becomes prohibitively great, allowing the subconscious to literally seize control of the person and drive them insane.

In the case of a failed transcendent function the polarities of the lead element are reversed between a function and its contrary. (Hitta's 32 types, recall.) In the case of INTj 1st transcendent function, the base element becomes +Ti, the (auxiliary) program element -Ti. This forced balancing of the psyche against +Te and -Te sets up a tremendous clash between -Ne and +Ne for their respective positions. (they were "left out" of the agreement) Reality cannot sustain these dueling creative energies for long.

Before losing themselves, the immanent person may profoundly influence their world by creating content that guides the mind towards their unstable viewpoint. Most religions exist on basis of this content and the unusual "conflict" mentality it creates in the mind: it brings the shadow directly to bear against the ego and keeps them in constant neurosis. (the christian devil vs. acceptance of Jesus is an example.)

Some people fail to acheive either transcendence or immanence. It is possible (as history attests) to die before reaching the developmental stage at which the personality has the option of transition. This eventually may be apprehended concretely (as in disease) or intuitively, and actively fought against. Transition failure is probably due to poor energy supply between dual functions.

[Elro]

If you fail any of the transcendent functions, then the subconscious will overtake consciousness. The meaningful question is if the takeover is purposeful or forced. If forced, then the person not only becomes absorbed in nihillism, but previously held an extreme viewpoint regarding the relationship between the failed function. If purposeful, then the personality agrees to allow the subconscious to control consciousness in exchange for mastery of the subconscious itself: . It is a question of whether consciousness willingly submits to the greater intentions of the subconscious or if it resists outside pressure to submit until the pressure becomes prohibitively great, allowing the subconscious to literally seize control of the person and drive them insane.

One: 1
Two: 25
Three: 21
Four: 8
Five: 5
Six: 9
Seven: 13
Eight: 10
Nine: 5
Ten: 5
Eleven: 1
Twelve: 7
Thirteen: 4

Too much effort to do this for the other paragraphs.

[UDP]

So what's the bottom line here, tcau?

[tcaudilllg]

Well I haven't finished that colonated passage yet; but what it comes down to is an explanation of the stranger aspects of the human psyche. We have here an intuitive framework for the likes of say, Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King, even Jesus. We also have a framework for ******, many extreme figures of our time (including Al Qaeda, various ultra-right and ultra-left elements, neo-nationalists, cultural absolutists, etc.), and also I suspect for Neitzsche... maybe even Phaedrus who, like Nietzsche, has contempt for any suggestion of a god's existence.

I've noticed that Phaedrus tends to think he can tell me what I can and can't do... like I've got boundaries I should follow and such. I think he's projecting his own weaknesses onto me, thinking that if I go "too far" I may end up being overtaken by pathological thinking. I suspect he thinks himself vulnerable to this thinking and fears it could lead him to nihillism, which would be the effect, I intuit, of putting two polarly opposed incarnations of the same element against one another. (one would undo the other's work as soon as it was done.) This seems to me the psychological basis of nihillism and the self-destructive thinking which accompanies it.

Or... there could be more to Phaedrus' particular case. The way he talks about Ti and his "quest" to understand it... it's like he's chasing after something he can't have, ever... which would be a case of the latter scenario I mentioned: "not making it" to the transcendent opportunity. He wouldn't have to worry about that for a long time though, because Ti is his eighth function and that means he won't be facing transcendence failure until well into old age. It could mean despair, though.

If you notice, Phaedrus appears to be having a lot of Fe problems around here. He probably wants Ti awareness to shore up his Fe against attack. The problem is that Ti doesn't think it worthwhile to defend his positions. Perhaps he cannot see this: that the Socioncs/MBTI fight isn't worth waging. He's not helping Ti and thus, Ti is not helping him. (perhaps my own disagreements with him are reflective of this.)

[krieger]

So according to your theories, there are people who acheive trancendence and become "leaders" and people who fail and become "immanents", fanatics. What of the "follower" contingent of the socion...?

What factors do you suppose play a part in the determination wether a person does or does not succeed to acheive transcendence? Do you suppose this is genetically determined?

[tcaudilllg]

So according to your theories, there are people who acheive trancendence and become "leaders" and people who fail and become "immanents", fanatics. What of the "follower" contingent of the socion...?

What factors do you suppose play a part in the determination wether a person does or does not succeed to acheive transcendence? Do you suppose this is genetically determined?

The leadership theory is seperate from the transcendence theory: both followers and leaders have the option of transcendence.

I actually think so, yes. I'm still working out what all this means. As usual with my theories, it's just an explorative avenue bedrocked on an overarching principle. The point is that the phenomenon exists... it remains to us -- hell, to history -- to describe its many forms. I offer that it is intuitively useful to look for signs that a person is capable or incapable of eventual transcendence, because it gives you an idea of how far they are going to go in their opposition to you even after you meet them "half-way". To an extremist -- and that's what these transcendence-incapable people act like -- there is no moderation, no middleground; only capitulation. (not counting the voluntary submissive "good" extremists, of course.) I prefer to use "immanence" as opposed to "extremist", because immanence is a state and extremism is a behavior. But all chronically extremist-behaving people are immanent.

[tcaudilllg]

Confrontational Form:
The confrontational immanent seeks to impress + aspects in such manner as to have them perceived as '-' aspects; they actively seek to oppress those they dislike. To understand why they dislike people at all, it is important to observe the interplay of aspects in Model B.

Information is validated by uniting both subjective attitudes of a given function. The threat of validating information, is that it just might condemn oneself on objective grounds. (it is a common theme in fantasy literature to pose the problem of a "false prophet", in which the hoped-for hero is accused of being an agent of the devil, and is haunted by the fact that it may be true). This is a threat to the personality's ego integrity and, if not properly checked, would force a dissociation of the person, because the personality is formed on the basis of having integrity to a given point of view, and the violation of the same disrupts the rationale for the person to maintain the character which rationalized the violation. The personality avoids this by balancing objective validity with subjective validity: yes, conclusion X applies to you because you did A, but you were justified because what you did was in self-defense of Y, and therefore served the greater good B. This is the logic beneath such publically troubling experiments as the electrocution test, in which subjects were asked to "electrocute" actors who pretended to be in distress from the "shocks". The subjects did not continue the seemingly cruel activity because they were told, but because they believed themselves in service to the greater good of completing the experiment. (similar to how German soldiers participated in the Holocaust on behalf of what they believed to be the "greater good" of the German state).

The confrontational immanent sees the very worst in subjective validation, because the fact yet remains that even though the person was serving what they perceived to be a worthy cause, from an objective standpoint they were still in the wrong. The confrontational immanent sees themselves as needing to right what they see as "self-delusion" by attacking the source of the delusion. (invariably, an objective cause that was colored subjective by the sacrifice of a passive immanent). Subjectively they validate themselves as being in service to this same greater cause of objective validation for the whole, and hardly practice what they preach. The confrontational immanent is torn by on the side their own subjectivity, and on the other their determination to free the world from the same: the sins they commit in service to their quest for freedom fuel their hatred of the "other" who they see as forcing them to commit misdeeds. Their destruction of the other, in their view, will grant them salvation from the otherwise unbearable torment of knowing that they are precisely that which they despise. It is this quest for salvation not only for others, but also for themselves, which leads them deeper into extremism and ideological fanaticism.

[tcaudilllg]

Objective good I define as that which brings the four psychic domains closer together by direct means; that is, the use of the transcendent function whenever possible to bridge differences between the domains. It is the intention to live in harmony with those who have views different from one's own.

Objective evil I define as that which divides by direct intention the psychic domains. Note that a response to an evil act by thinking to move against another psychic domain in retaliation for an act against it is not evil if it leaves open the option for disarmament when the infringing domain relaxes its hostility to the other's existence. However an idealistic purge of the domain in its entirety, commited to action, is objectively evil.

How to judge objective evil as chronic to an individual? For that is truly the criterion on which the evil person may be classified in truth, and restrained by society. It is not so simple as to say, "the sociopath is evil", or that the extremist is evil. A stubborn passive immanent may resist any pressure to change their own methods, and so lead their entire ideology away from truth. Jung says many things about the shadow, primarily that he is "inferior", but also possessing a number of good qualities. We must not dismiss the shadow so hastily, or else needless understanding and personal tragedy will result.

The question is one of whether a person intends to use transcendent aspects as a weapon, or for reconciliation. When the object is converted into the subject, does it drive fear and hate into people's hearts, as did the Sept 11th hijackers, or does it assauge the experience of fear and bring hope for lasting peace? Does the conversion of subject to object create a vessal of war, or an object of admiration which bridges partisan lines? Does sacrifice bring war, or peace?

[tcaudilllg]

Note: I am using the term "conflictor" in this case to denote a chronic state of conscious conflict between a person and the world about them. "Conflagration" may be a better term, but it doesn't have the same ring and is difficult to pronounce colloquially. (further, there is a question of whether overt aggression, or sustained retaliation and persecution, is a trait of the person; "conflagrational immanent" may only be suitable for the aggressive incarnation of the type. (we know these on the internet as "flamers")).

Consider the following:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/24/imus/index.html

We have in this case a person who has been accused of racism toward black athletes. The perception of him as a racist has stuck remarkably well; polls show a majority (and this person has had enough exposure to be recognized by most people in the U.S.) believe him to be a racist. Imus argues that people are "out to get him", and that he has been misunderstood.

Why would someone believe people are "out to get him"? It makes no sense in a world where most people only want to be left to their own devices, whether for their own completely subjective purposes (read: the joy of sewing a quilt for a loved one) or on behalf of the creation of concepts that have objective value. (the creation of a new theory, idea, technique, etc.) For Imus to believe this must mean that he has an a priori disposition to believe that other people are hostile to him. This disposition allows him on the one hand to interpret genuine hostility, and on the other to see chronic hostility where there is in fact only a situation-based suggestion of it. Someone who has heard that there are car thieves may well experience alarm at the sight of someone they do not know looking into their car, yet once a suitable explanation has been given (one that uses correct psychological and emotional cues -- judged as such because they reflect subconscious and automatic use thereof) they will relax their hostility. But a person who sees all hostility as of chronic origin cannot deduce that the momentary clash of intentions relative to instinct is only a situational affair; such a person sees any hint of hostility as permanent and sustained, even if it draws down to a single, almost irrelevant disagreement. Such a person will argue that it is best to agree to disagree and chide their opponent for refusing to do so, but only if they themselves do not feel they have the higher ground. If they believe they are in a superior social position, they will ruthlessly and coldly demonstrate the scale of their personal hypocracy by leveraging the entire weight of their position against those they disagree with. However, they mean such only to bend the debate to their own will; they do not intend to oppress because they themselves would not want to be oppressed. Once they sense capitulation, they will relent of their assault. (the "honorable warrior" mentality) The problem happens when either side has good arguments for their respective positions, in which case this type will gird for war and fight in it until the intervention of a dissatisfied power external to their argument recognizes that it has a stake of its own in the battle, and isolates the side it opposes. This stake will always emerge due the opening of a new front in the war by the conflictor, invariably an excessive response to momentary hostility by the uninvolved party. Over the lifetime of this person the scale, frequency, and ferocity of their conflicts intensifiies, as suspicion and fear of the person grows in the population; their past -- and their demonstration of inability to compromise even when their point is proven invalid -- continues to haunt them. The presence of external social stress arouses those mental mechanisms -- the four psychic domains/entity processors -- whose function is to process competing views; so to say, the subject finds itself defending itself against the object ("I'm not the one who's in the wrong here"), then transiting its defense into an offense ("you are in the wrong"), then back to the subject ("because you are wrong, I'm right"). The more people dislike the person, the more vociferous the internal recrimations and self-questioning in the person's mind. Eventually the self-torment becomes so great as to become unbearable, and one only desires an end to the conflict by any means necessary. However it is the personality of the person which perpetuates the conflict between the self and the world, thus only the destruction of the personality can bring about this peace.

With regard to Imus, the signals are clear. His laconic, almost expressionless face sends no signals as to whether or not he is serious or in jest, sarcastic or whatever. Similarly, he himself seems unable to register others' emotional cues, or he would be better able to deduce whether or not people were questioning their own hostility -- as in the case of a misunderstanding -- or comfortable with it.

[tcaudilllg]

The theories of immanence and of shadow type turns concepts of definite morality on their head. Probing into their internal experiences, in their abject bleakness, forces a re-examination of modern concepts of morality. We have heretofore believed that it lied completely in the personal choice of man to perform morally, under pretenses of "free will". The shadow and immanence theories shoot down this precept nearly completely. Although we can absolutely hold the majoritarian "right minded" or "adaptationally sound" population segment to strict moral standards, these standards do not geniunely apply to the people who design immoral technique and practice itself because they cannot confidently think otherwise. We thus live in a world where we must look not only at our personal shadows, but also upon the biogenetic shadow of our collective existence -- what Jung called the "shadow of mankind". The existence of this shadow is indicative of a key distinction between the world of man and the wild: just because you win biologically doesn't mean you win consciously. A man can succeed in passing on his genes to the next generation even as he burns in the private hell caused by a diseased psyche -- the jihad practice of fundamentalist Islam is a manifest case of this principle in action. We do not tolerate the terrorist any more than we tolerate the criminal, and have created institutions for the detainment of either. Yet there is a problem of showing some sympathy for these troubled folk. I say jail the criminal who knows better -- he is an errant member of society who has shirked self-responsibility and is a self-chose blight to us all. Lock him up for a bit, and he'll sure as hell straighten out in probably no less than couple weeks or so. But the shadow type doesn't know any better necessarily -- they can be shown how to cooperate on conduct of social goals, but even then their tendency is to pervert them to their own ends. We need a new approach which respects these individual's special needs. If you think this entitlement, remember that most of us have relationships with these persons of some nature or another. We speak not the common criminal but of our troubled son or brother. We owe them a new social technology suited just for them.

To the radical we owe something more complex... I will be considering this issue in detail shortly....

[tcaudilllg]

Do you want to know about it?

[crazedrat]

yes, but try to keep your language as real and grounded as possible.

[tcaudilllg]

The political type theory is the hypothesis that personal politics in a natural outgrowth of intrafunctional differences. What makes one INTj's Ne different from another INTj's Ne is also the factor which determines what political philosophies they believe in. If there is no difference between the two Ne's, then the INTJs will have the same political philosophy. If there is a difference, then they will have the same philosophy.

I want to the point that by "differences between INTj Ne functions" I mean ways in which the functions themselves appreciably differ. I am not referring to differences in their application (that's the domain of dual-type theory).

No function is perfect, as such, people are also imperfect. A function can never grasp the fullness of its element, only parts of it. Because of this, people will disagree over what an object is essentially about or what it is like, and develop differing concepts of it.

People respond to disagreements differently. Most are, through a sense of community togetherness, humbleness, and faith, able to integrate views that are different from theirs and complete their inner picture of what reality is like. However a minority are apparently so frightened of the totality of this picture, that they will deny that it can be more complete than what they themselves can conceive of.

edit 827/2011: typo

[tcaudilllg]

If I'm getting you, you're saying that our political inclinations has connections to our sociotype. However, as you mentioned, 2 Ne-INTjs can have entirely different political preferences. This is an indicator that the function processing is imperfect, hence resulting in varying political biases.

Some people are able to integrate and solve disagreements caused by this imperfection in function processing, but there are others who are unable to and prefer to stubbornly stick to their point-of-view. And you have an insight into this phenomena and wish to convey it to us.

Yes, that's right.

[ArchonAlarion]

Are INTj's (for instance) prone to a certain kind of political type, and if so, what is it?

[tcaudilllg]

Are INTj's (for instance) prone to a certain kind of political type, and if so, what is it?

No, not at all. Individuals have politics because their functions can't get a complete picture of the elements they process, which leads them to develop an incomplete and biased viewpoint of reality.

[tcaudilllg]

The functions do not capture everything because the individual refuses to accept everything they collect. Acceptance of the entire situation could be psychologically discomfiting, because the truth could in fact be more than inconvenient. This goes back to that psychiatrist who wrote a paper on belief (see the Articles section): not seeing the whole picture can be psychologically advantageous if the situation is indeed grim. If you were trapped in a cage with a bear, would your prefer to believe that you were going to survive the encounter, or that you were going to die as soon as the bear took a notion to eat you? The one belief gives you hope, while the other leads to immediate depression. (in most cases)

[tcaudilllg]

A minority of people disbelieve in belief for any reason. These individuals will accept the likelihood of death and struggle to live with it. They stay focused when other people would lose their wits completely, and teach others how to do the same. Because they don't deny anything, their functions are able to assimilate all aspects of the situation with perfect clarity. However they pay the price for this in that they are completely separated from their shadows, and unable to assimilate to them. As a consequence of the separation, they have lesser self-concern and greater capacity for altruistic thinking. They have very limited egos because the superego has taken so much dominance over the id that there is no actual need for a "referee".

Also: If it is preferable to not accept the psychologically discomfiting truth, why not continue to do so?

Why not indeed? On an individual basis, it's of great psychological benefit. However, from a macro-social perspective someone must come to grips with difficult realities or else very real threats may go unheeded. Beliefs are connected: a harmless belief by one function can be the seed for a very maladaptive belief on the part of a weaker function, and you may hold on to the maladaptive belief for purposes of maintaining your faith in the less harmful belief.

[tcaudilllg]

In the "Intratype Differences" thread, I proposed that the functions have sub-processors which process different "parts" of an information element. There is a problem of how to reconcile this notion with the "parts" concept used to describe the functions themselves. (for example, the "internal" and "dynamic" components of Ni and Fe). After thinking about it, it seems to me more likely that information metabolism is actually the lowest rung of information processing, rather than the highest, and that the brain organizes information aspects depending on what belief system they fall under. Some gamma Ni content presumes that times are changing, while other gamma Ni content assumes cultural continuity. The aspects themselves are processed through gleaning consciously imperceptible characteristics of objects perceived, which I call information components, and putting them together into something that can be consciously processed.

I believe that information processing has five layers, with concepts at the top and information metabolism at the lowest layer. Concepts (ideas) are the primary unit of thought. Beliefs are preconceptions we have about the nature of conceptualizations. Information aspects are what we use to understand relationships between concepts. Both beliefs and information aspects are made up of components of information processing.

Concept
|
|
Belief (example: "developing", "steady")
|
|
Belief component (example: internal, dynamic, group)
|
|
Information element (example: "internal statics of fields")
|
|
Information component (examples: internal, statics, fields)

There are six belief components which are paired into three dichotomies.

• internal vs external
• dynamic vs static
• individual vs collective

Note: because it is very difficult to describe concepts without referring to them as either objects or groups of objects, I will be using the term "object" for clarity of understanding.

The internal component recognizes the extent to which one object is inside another; the external component recognizes the extent to which an object is outside of another. The dynamic component recognizes the extent to which the object is changing; the static component recognizes the extent to which it isn't. The individual component considers it as an individual, while the collective component considers it as a collective of constituents.

[tcaudilllg]

Only a partial deception. It has some parts right, and others wrong. The trick is to rely on the right parts, which are always the minimum necessary for your survival.

[tcaudilllg]

Information elements are unions of information components. Belief elements are combinations of belief components. Emphasis on the difference between union and combination: union means that the components form an indivisible whole; combination means that the components form a divisible whole.

The belief components can be understood independently of each other. However, the information components can only be understood by observing what information elements have (vaguely) in common with each other, because the components themselves are beneath our awareness.

[tcaudilllg]

Can I use the analogy of colours to illustrate this? Green being a "union" of the primary colours of yellow and blue. Or white light being a "union" of the colours of the rainbow, and can only be seen through a prism.

Therefore the characteristics of the colour green can only be vaguely understood through the mixture of blue and yellow, for we cannot examine green through yellow and blue individually, but only through its mixture.

That would be a very good analogy, yes.

As for belief elements and belief components, it would be akin to three plasticines of different colours sticking together. Of one, yet able to be individually taken apart and can be examined individually.

Question: Can I equate the prism through which the colours of the rainbow is visible with the functions/processors?

Sure. That's a good way of thinking about it. Very articulate.

[Reuben]

Only a partial deception. It has some parts right, and others wrong. The trick is to rely on the right parts, which are always the minimum necessary for your survival.

How do you know the truth?

[tcaudilllg]

As a general rule, you accept as true the proposition which results, when carried to its logical conclusion, in the least possible harm to everyone. You accept as necessary that which is necessary for the protection of yourself and those you care about, and not a step more; because anything more could be harmful to somebody else who has the opposite opinion and with it, the opposite optimal means of responding to it. Opposite opinion => opposite niche.

[buckland]

Just going over this thread, isn't all this basically reiterating the fact that the end product of information metabolism is a resultant of your functions (elements/components or whatever you've created) and your previous experiences (belief components/elements)? And if that's the case, surely everyone knows that already.

On the belief part, belief component are your basic unit in terms of beliefs and a element is a combination of 2 (or more?) beliefs. That's fair enough. However, trying to divide the functions seems unnecessary. Why would the differences have to arise from these information components rather than elements? Continual division in something as qualitative as thought eventually leads to meaningless. When you divide an element into "internal, statics and fields", what does the internal component actually mean? These words are descriptors of the territory that a function operates in rather than of the function itself, more like directions rather than separate processes.

[tcaudilllg]

Belief components are put together (mostly unconsciously) by belief processors into specific beliefs about what reality must be like. Each belief processor processes a single combination of belief components, which I call belief elements. Every individual perceives all eight belief elements, however they have varying degrees of ability with either. The most capable four are adopted by the ego, with the rest attributed to the shadow. The ego projects, similarly, of beliefs processed by the shadow's belief processors as being controlled by the shadow itself, giving rise to perceptions of good and evil.

The belief elements each have relation systems owing to definite relations between the belief components. Belief component relations are tiered: relations between higher tier components are processed as overriding relations between lower tiered components. Lower tier relations are only apparent when higher tier components are identical, hence a null relation at the higher tiers.

• The 1st tier is internal vs external and is marked by irrelevance
• The 2nd tier is static vs dynamic, and is marked by conflict
• The 3rd tier is individual vs collective, and marked by complementarity

Some examples:

• An internal static belief and an external dynamic belief will have relations of irrelevance, not of conflict, because 1st tier relations override 2nd tier relations.
• An external dynamic individual belief and an external static collective belief will have relations of conflict, not complementarity, because the 2nd tier overrides the 3rd tier.
• An external static collective belief and an external static individual belief have relations of complementarity.

In the event of a null relation, belief is of no practical consequence and other relational factors, such as those between sociotypes, hold exclusive sway.

The internal and external belief components have a special relation in that the processors for them may be either simple or complex. A complex processor is able to understand concepts, while a simple processor can only take them at face value. Although it is possible for the two components to switch processors, the individual must attain approx. ~60 years of age before the circuit will activate. Therefore throughout most of an individual's life they are constrained to understanding only half the world around them. The other half they must emulate understanding of by invoking cultural figures whom have/had the reverse configuration: although they do not truly understand the ideas of these figures (as per their instinct that such understanding is personally "irrelevant"), they can "get the gist" of their key arguments in so far as these arguments complement the concepts they find personally relevant. The invocation of these figures, the process of which was first identified by Jung, is akin to donning a mask, the resulting personality of which is termed alter ego or persona.

In practice, the individual identifies themselves first with those beliefs held by the ego which can be processed fully, and second with those ego beliefs which can only be processed simply. Thus individuals describe their beliefs in terms of two belief elements, although as they cannot understand their alter-ego beliefs their faith in those will be someone less than in the more complex system.

[tcaudilllg]

When you divide an element into "internal, statics and fields", what does the internal component actually mean? These words are descriptors of the territory that a function operates in rather than of the function itself, more like directions rather than separate processes.

Precisely. It's likely that we know of the elements because of some kinda feedback loop in our mind in which aspect-sensitive systems are fed back into themselves, and the information elements themselves are simply supreme categories. But there is very good reason to divvy up the elements, because the elements themselves can be considered in a variety of contexts and uses. Although the hunt for the functions in the brain continues, the contexts have themselves already been located for the most part. I recently read about the research they have done into fly brains... which appear to be made of beta and delta functions, and hardly a hint of gamma or alpha.

[buckland]

Belief components are put together (mostly unconsciously) by belief processors into specific beliefs about what reality must be like. Each belief processor processes a single combination of belief components, which I call belief elements. Every individual perceives all eight belief elements, however they have varying degrees of ability with either. The most capable four are adopted by the ego, with the rest attributed to the shadow. The ego projects, similarly, of beliefs processed by the shadow's belief processors as being controlled by the shadow itself, giving rise to perceptions of good and evil.

What is a belief processor. Are you using a different definition for the word belief? A belief is nothing more than an interpretation of information/knowledge. Why would this need a different processor to any other information. The rationalization that I use in mathematics is exactly the same as that applied in formation of my beliefs. The only difference is that beliefs would have an emotional taint that may dull/distort the thinking. The eventual recognition of "good or evil" is based on your environment, and extrapolations created from previous experiences.

The belief elements each have relation systems owing to definite relations between the belief components. Belief component relations are tiered: relations between higher tier components are processed as overriding relations between lower tiered components. Lower tier relations are only apparent when higher tier components are identical, hence a null relation at the higher tiers.

• The 1st tier is internal vs external and is marked by irrelevance
• The 2nd tier is static vs dynamic, and is marked by conflict
• The 3rd tier is individual vs collective, and marked by complementarity

Some examples:

• An internal static belief and an external dynamic belief will have relations of irrelevance, not of conflict, because 1st tier relations override 2nd tier relations.
• An external dynamic individual belief and an external static collective belief will have relations of conflict, not complementarity, because the 2nd tier overrides the 3rd tier.
• An external static collective belief and an external static individual belief have relations of complementarity.

In the event of a null relation, belief is of no practical consequence and other relational factors, such as those between sociotypes, hold exclusive sway.

I can't even pretend to know what you're going on about here.

The internal and external belief components have a special relation in that the processors for them may be either simple or complex. A complex processor is able to understand concepts, while a simple processor can only take them at face value. Although it is possible for the two components to switch processors, the individual must attain approx. ~60 years of age before the circuit will activate. Therefore throughout most of an individual's life they are constrained to understanding only half the world around them. The other half they must emulate understanding of by invoking cultural figures whom have/had the reverse configuration: although they do not truly understand the ideas of these figures (as per their instinct that such understanding is personally "irrelevant"), they can "get the gist" of their key arguments in so far as these arguments complement the concepts they find personally relevant. The invocation of these figures, the process of which was first identified by Jung, is akin to donning a mask, the resulting personality of which is termed alter ego or persona.

Firstly, 60 yrs sounds a bit arbitrary. Where is that coming from? And what do you mean by understanding half the world? There are so many mixed up concepts going on in here!

In practice, the individual identifies themselves first with those beliefs held by the ego which can be processed fully, and second with those ego beliefs which can only be processed simply. Thus individuals describe their beliefs in terms of two belief elements, although as they cannot understand their alter-ego beliefs their faith in those will be someone less than in the more complex system.

Yet again, either your or my LII typing has to be questioned.

[tcaudilllg]

Yet again, either your or my LII typing has to be questioned.

I'm afraid I cannot explain it to you further. If you are insistent on maintaining your beliefs in spite of my thesis, then I must ask that you desist from further commentary in this thread.

As for the 60 year requirement... I recommend reading Jung's Stages of Life article, or waiting until I explain the idea further.

[tcaudilllg]

Now why exactly are Buckland and I disagreeing? We'll get to that, but first we must investigate the differences between the belief elements.

The belief components work together from the top tier down. The 1st tier, internal/external, observes growth criterion, and a sense of limits. Intellectual growth in either component implies growth in the other; stagnation in either, likewise, implies stagnation in the other. The external component processes technology, method, technique. The internal component processes internal representations of phenomena. On the one hand, understanding phenomena is important to developing useful technology; on the other, adequate technology is essential for deepening one's understanding of phenomena. Although the two fields are necessary to one another's expansion, one needs only a face value understanding of either to expand the other. (hence the evolution of a simple processor) Yet as a consequence of this limited understanding, neither side can foresee what genies are being released with each step forward achieved, for they are lacking the wisdom which can only be achieved from absolute understanding.

The second tier components assess the comprehension of the 1st tier, assessing presence or lack for understanding of phenomena and processes. The static and dynamic processors operate within the internal and external processors, offering a sense of how much one is assimilated to the environment and how much more assimilation appears needed.

• the internal static combination sees wholeness.
• the internal dynamic combination sees incompleteness.
• the external static combination sees persistence.
• the external dynamic combination sees change.

Incompleteness is the lack for wholeness. Change is the lack for stability. Wholeness and stability are the ideals to which humans aspire. Focusing on incompleteness and change is their means of attaining them.

Belief processors assess our knowledge of objects. Enhancement of this knowledge requires understanding how 2nd tier component content can be transited from dissimilation to assimilation by leveraging the 1st tier. Growth in the 2nd tier of one first tier component facilitates the growth of the other 1st tier component's 2nd tier. Technology can be used to increase understanding of phenomena, and phenomena can be used to expand technology. Using technology, we can actively change the environment, and using phenomenal understanding we can better perceive the agents whose relations describe processes and compel these relations under controlled conditions. (the same being the definition of technology). The reverse is also true: we can abuse technology and obliterate our civilization, removing ourselves as far from the ideal as possible and catastrophically backtracking. We can process the means of creating a progressively better world for ourselves, or alternatively, process, and execute, the means by which to destroy it utterly.

[Reuben]

It is possible to divide the 60 years of age by allowing yourself to suffer traumatic experiences.
i.e. exposing yourself to excessive super-ego supervision, releasing your id, constraining your ego, refusing your super-id etc.
If you short circuit yourself (like as in tcaud's post, lose sight of the goal and completley obliterate yourself), you may divide that age by a fraction, resulting in never being able to attain the ability to consciously switch processors, unless you live long enough for the wounds to heal, or if you bathe yourself in super-id i.e. dual. Doing so may actually reverse the division by a fraction (or multiplication, to apply occam's razor), resulting in a net division.

You can switch processors at a fairly young age.

Tcaudillg, are you able to? You seem to be able to see the switch.

[tcaudilllg]

No I can't perform the switch. Nobody young can. You've gotta hit late adulthood first. You see, the ability to process wisdom is the essence of the wise man archetype. We can recognize wisdom when we see it... we can associate it with people. The image of the wise old man is ubiquitous because only old, wizened men are able to offer suitable personas. (granted the crone offers such wisdom as well, but then you have the legacy of male dominance coming into play... it's a cultural effect).

It goes back to that old saying "respect your elders".

I can see the switch because I have modeled it: I see the use of the simple processor in myself as my inability to make sense of higher math. I am a phenomenologist, not a technologist.

Generally we just don't give that much attention to the simple processor's belief domain. We always look at the simple processor's beliefs as... how to say it... "convoluted". We have a tendency to look at in-depth explanations of these beliefs and say, "in English, please." When forced to study it we will say, "It's all Greek to me." It really does look like an alien language. Worse, it's the preferred position of our shadow/id, which is of course simplistic and impulsive. We have a tendency thus to equate it with bestial or inferior behavior.

The only real explanation for the subjective divide between internal and external, is the existence of unevenly capable processors. The end result of the uneven capability, is a revulsion against the "convoluted expression" of what is personally believed to be a simple concept.

From here forward I will refer to the processors of complex and simple understanding as "depth processors".

I believe that the internal and external component processors can switch depth processors because according to Jung, a person begins to turn more attention to their culture after passing the third level of individuation (the mid-life crisis). Given Jung was a social liberal who himself took more interest in culture in the 2nd half of his life, it would make sense that he would assume this characteristic common to everyone. But what of the people who are interested in culture already? What would they learn to take more interest in, if not culture? Given that culture is a technological phenomena, it makes sense that holders of external belief philosophies would pay more attention to internal philosophies in the 2nd half of life -- Jung's proposition holds only in 50% of cases.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm getting a sense people are confused.... Try not to read too much into my response posts. Just try to pay attention to my position posts, where I explain the fundamentals.

There are eight belief elements, each of which are combinations of three belief components. However, because the third tier components (individual/collective) have complementary relations, they form dyads of belief.

It might be easier to think of the comparative strength of the internal/external components as determining the domain of beliefs one chooses to focus on, and the strength of the dynamic/static components determining what your position on their character actually is. The strength of the third level components, individual/collective, determines what your preferred vantagepoint is in understanding these beliefs.

To put the third level into context, it's the mental "tool" you use to switch between seeing a whole as an individual, or a collection of parts. Its uses range from the theoretical, such as in wave-particle duality, to the comparison of an individual's wealth to that of their nation. However we do tend to neglect, on a personal level, one such view in favor of the other.

Before getting into the peculiars of why belief element strengths differ from person to person, let's review the elements themselves.

• "internal static individual" -- sees an object's development as sufficient.
• "internal dynamic individual" -- sees an object's development as insufficient.
• "internal static collection" -- sees understanding of object relationships as sufficient.
• "internal dynamic collection" -- sees understanding of object relationships as insufficient.
• "external static individual" -- sees objects as stable.
• "external dynamic individual" -- sees objects as chaotic.
• "external static collection" -- sees objects' relationships to each other as stable.
• "external dynamic collection" -- sees objects' relationships to each other as chaotic.

Basically, the richness/poorness/orderliness/disorderliness of objects considered as either individuals or collections.

The belief functions have functional components for each belief component. They relate beliefs to each other at the component level. The internal and external processors measure one's understanding and direct the choice between focus on either internal or external beliefs depending on what the individual feels they need to know more about. This allows the IM functions to discriminate between aspects they need to know about, and those they don't. Specifically, it is the role of the internal dynamic and internal static component configurations to make this call, based on whether or not things expected to be stable remain stable and things expected to be chaotic remain chaotic. (actually I just realized the (at least partial) truth of the preceding statement, and am going to have to reflect on it more to continue this aspect of the discussion. Suffice to say that the internal and external component processors work together to direct attention towards either learning facts or learning method).

The dynamic and static component processors work in the context of the internal and external component processors. They process the development and persistence of objects: unexpected behavior is seen as an indicator of poor understanding; expected behavior is an indicator of adequate understanding. The internal dynamic combination is stimulated by the unexpected; the internal static combination by the expected. Need to feel one kind or the other results in the strength of one over the other. The external dynamic combination is stimulated by frequent transition between the expected and the unexpected; the external static combination is stimulated when one or the other is frequent enough to be seen as "the norm".

In general, an external belief pole is stimulated when there is a reflection of that pole in the internal belief pattern. An internal belief pole is stimulated by a reflection of that pole in the external belief pattern. I understand this is very difficult to conceptualize of, and will try to think of an illustrative example.

Although we may experience a stimulus to believe one way or the other, we will frequently try to repress this stimulus in favor of further gratifying our need to believe in a specific way. Each belief processor has a preference for believing one way or another, being characterized by the desire to eliminate the presence of one belief element in favor of another. The dynamic element processors are very different from the static element processors in this regard.

• the dynamic element processors try to eliminate their content by transforming it into static content
• the static element processors try to prevent their content from being transformed into dynamic content

What this means is that you have, in practice, some people who are persistently trying to better themselves and some people trying to restructure their environs for great resiliency. In spite of this, you have some people who are trying to hold on to everything they have that makes them "whole", and some people who are trying to be prevent even the partial reform of their environments. You have, in the context of these competing goals, a recipe for conflict.

[tcaudilllg]

On the national and international levels, the divide between the beliefs has definite consequences. We call these consequences politics, and the motivation to exalt one belief element over another the political type of an individual. (alternatively, one can use the word, "conviction type", as determination to hold a political view is the distinguishing factor of personal conviction). This is why attempts to consider political affiliation a phenomenon of the (misunderstood, poorly labeled) Reinin dichotomies fail -- politics is simply not sociotype related.

At about the same time I proposed the first draft of the political type theory (on this forum), a reporter by the name of Brian Patrick Mitchell produced a political science book that he had researched for several years, called Eight Ways to Run the Country: a New and Revealing Look at Left and Right. In this work, Mitchell identifies eight political positions which, he notes, have in common differences over the importance and interpretation of rank. My system, at the time, had four positions which, analysis showed, encompassed his eight. I sought to affirm whether the further divisions he emphasized were a cultural or disposed phenomena, needing of course an additional component dichotomy -- an additional choice -- to observe as the expression of disposition. (if that were the case). I found it in the phenomenon of wave/particle duality, and the problems of integrating a theory of fields like general relativity with a theory of particles are per QM. (the capacity for such requiring such mentality as to see either as just divergent perspectives of a single whole). So the third component dichotomy is defined by divergence over the interpretation of wholes.

It should be noted that upon reflection, the static/dynamic component dichotomy is equivalent to Mitchell's kratos/akratos. This because rank is the delta Te manifestation of static/dynamic belief.

My original system had two component dichotomies -- potential/kinetic and static dynamic. I later renamed potential/kinetic to internal/external because internal/external was more general and easier to conceptualize.

This table illustrates correspondences between the 2-component combinations and core political beliefs:

• internal static == conservatism
• internal dynamic == liberalism
• external static == traditionalism
• external dynamic == reform

Here are the belief element correspondences with Mitchell's system.

• internal static individual == theoconservative
• internal dynamic individual == radicalism
• internal static collective == neoconservatism
• internal dynamic collective == progressivism
• external static individual == libertarian
• external dynamic individual == individualist
• external static collective == paleoconservative
• external dynamic collective == communitarian

My system's encapsulation of Mitchell's is quite apparent.

[tcaudilllg]

Is everyone with me so far? I know this is a lot to digest, but there's more to come and trust me, if you're getting confused by this the next bit is going to be soup by comparison.

If you need clarification on something, you may ask.

[ArchonAlarion]

Couldn't static be described as potential and dynamic as kinetic?

[tcaudilllg]

Couldn't static be described as potential and dynamic as kinetic?

No. Potential can be altered, and kinetic energy can be shifted. So no, they're not the same.

Kinda plays with your head, doesn't it?

[ArchonAlarion]

But kinetic energy can really only be directed, because it would already be in motion as you adjust it. Changing something's potential energy plays with the energy in a detached way (before the fact). The variables that add up to potential energy are static because they are reduced to an objective value that treats input as simultaneous. Pe could be described as potential energy. Sensing the magnitude of an object's presence and its effects on spatial control with Se, and Intuiting the set of potential ways an object's surface form can change whilst keeping it's internal structure the same with Ne. Neither deals with action, just an accumulation of objective information about forms and states. Je would be best described as kinetic. Kinetic is not a very good way of describing Pi, although potential sort of still works for Ji.

[tcaudilllg]

Even a change in direction would be a change.

It's tricky. It's the stasis of all the elements at once. It's about making everything completely predictable in some way. Routine. Granted I'm using Ni to describe it.... It's like a sound wave played over and over... yes there are changes from moment to moment, but that doesn't change the basic fact that the next soundwave will be exactly like every sound wave which preceded it.

It is its stability. The stability of an object. Not of its properties but of the object itself.

Se and Intuiting

That's your first mistake. Se NEVER intuits. It is the OPPOSITE of intuition. Which means you've got to discard your entire thought right there, because it is built on an invalid premise.

[ArchonAlarion]

That's your first mistake. Se NEVER intuits. It is the OPPOSITE of intuition. Which means you've got to discard your entire thought right there, because it is built on an invalid premise.

*...with Se, and intuiting...