Creator/Destroyer Types

[tcaudilllg]

Creator Types (known exemplars: Jim Carrey, Steven Colbert)

These types find meaning in what most of people of their IM type find irrelevant. This type is distinct not for defending their reasoning against irrelevant information (as most do when not in transcendence mode), but for asking what aspects of said information is in fact relevant. It is a fundamentally different way of thinking than is embraced by the majority.

"When a fictional person declares something news, is it responsible for you to agree? Isn't that interesting?" wonders Colbert. "But so many real people declare fictional news and the press agrees. For instance, the surge is a success, don't you think?"

Were not such a supposition made by someone who genuninely believed in its validity, who would consider the nature of absurdity itself? It is, after all, absurd, and that's all most people need to know about it.

What if you paid attention to the ways people try to control fate, and sought to create a fate for others that was found unobtrusive and acceptable? What if a person were take up the mantle of God, and to endevor to be the just, benevolent diety? The question is raised, how can one be God in a world in which energy can neither be created nor destroyed? The answer to that question just so happens to have been offered by quantum physics: one particle can vanish into the quantum foam without a trace, provided that in the same instant a new particle emerges from the foam at the same instant. Because there is no destruction apparent -- only a "relocation" (akin to teleportation) -- the law of conservation of energy is not violated with regards to time. Energy can be destroyed if a new creation takes its place, just as new relationships emerge from the ashes of the old. The phoenix is alive and at work below the threshold of temporal reality. Destruction and creation go hand in hand.

From an IM standpoint, this dynamic of justifying the existence of the subject upon the object (the "observer begets time" observation I discussed as being the necessary outcome of the co-dependence of relative vs objective time) can be seen in Steven Colbert's comedy. "Truthiness" is a truth (an objective reality) that is created from a subject's declaration of objectivity as resting on their own subjective perception. ("consensus reality" or "wikiality"). Only a creator type such as Colbert could entertain this notion without looking like a ham. (this because to him, it was a plausibly valid proposition).

But aren't we all creators? Cannot we all think in such terms? (though cautious not to base our reasoning on faulty principles?) The answer is yes, but not without transcendence as a means of self-validation. The details are not yet clear, however it appears that the substance -- heretofore unrealized -- of the actual generation of new ideas is in fact grounded on the validation of the subject upon the object and vice versa. It is merely the case that the creator type (notice the distinction between "creator" and "creative") prefers this mode of operation as a norm, rather than an awkward exception. When we ourselves conceive of new ideas, we are in fact emulating the examples of creator types who preceded us, and their energy.

That I can tell, the creator type makes use of the examples set by immanents in the process of transforming subjective relationships into objective ones (and vice versa) -- the transition of + to - and - to + (life into death, death into life; consciousness into unconsciousness, unconsciousness into consciousness) -- to determine what precepts are acceptable foundation for creation; (that is, only an objective idea that was once purely subjective in nature can be considered as creative fodder).

[crazedrat]

weird, i've been experimenting with this mentally. I started playing warcraft 3 again (yeah alot of my thoughts are derived from music and videogames) and I realized the reason I wasn't as good as top end players was because I did not do 2 things, both of which I find particularly relevant to what you have said here: 1: I did not understand all "races" in the game; I only played 1. 2: I did not make a plan on the fly, rather I came into the match with a specific strategy; and my primary focus had been on developing the ideal specific strategy, rather then adapt myself specificly to the situation in light of current events.
In order to develop an adaptive style of play, first it is necessary to have a coherent understanding of the games fundamentals. From there you can manipulate the fundamentals coherently without "going off track".. or creating a strategy which doesnt work / is irrelevant. That dynamic is kind of like what you said about the subjective merging with the objective. The subjective must be coherent- only then can it become creative. I've got to understand all four races in wc3 before I can become creative with one.
I've also been thinking about whether you become creative as you become a "good" person; and what exactly the definition of good is- is it that you entertain thoughts which are not self perpetuating? And more than this, that by being a "bad" person; by entertaining self perpetuating thoughts, you actively stunt your creative potential.
I was thinking this is a measure of the extent to which a person has developed an XXXx exertion type. That they are, when being "creative", an XXXx within the specific place of mind or situation where they are functioning... For example, now that I can see all four races in wc3 I am an XXXx exertion type in terms of warcraft 3. I still understand it all in INTp-Ni terms. I developed my understanding of warcraft 3 in an INTp-Ni fashion, = but my understanding is now different than before in that it is wide enough; or it covers all the relevant content / all forms. That it is "superficially XXXx".. XXXx from the eyes of reality, INTp-Ni from the eyes of myself. Kind of like the discussion we had in XXXx-an enduring mystery on learning spanish.
More generally, if I am a bad person in terms of warcraft 3... if I obsessively practice a single strategy, I lose my abilities.
Also comes to mind Einsteins definition of insanity- doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
... So yeah, I think you're tapping into the differences between an XXXx exertion type, and other exertion types closer to the IM type in form.