Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Pure Speculation: what if XXXx was real?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Pure Speculation: what if XXXx was real...?

    How would XXXx work? How would they choose which type to be? For what purpose?

    First of all, let's discuss a fictional account of type change.





    To begin with, I don't think most people can type change. The reason for this, I surmise, is that most people have an inner sense of their own duality. So long as they can get information, they can continue to "prop up" their functions. (or keep them in place, as the case may be, by cutting off their information flow). But what if you didn't think you could get duality from any place save one? What if you could be convinced that all the goodness in the world had been expunged? Without hope, what would you become?

    I surmise that your alter ego would take over, putting its most powerful element in the lead. I think that this would amount to dissociative identity disorder, or as we think of it here, type change.

    That's involuntary type change, the sudden loss of one's own personality, a loss of one's own self-identity and the creation of another. Think about it: how could you possibly reconcile having absolute confidence in an element besides that of your base? "Well, at one point I believed in this... then I believed in this." You couldn't, because you couldn't justify the foundation of your identity to that point. What if everything you knew about yourself was wrong? Thus, there would be nothing to keep you from assembling a new identity from the same base of information. (your memory) Yet, your identity would necessarily be different, because it would be anchored on a completely different set of axioms. It would follow that a socionics aware person would be in position to offer superior treatment for DID. (after receiving appropriate training).

    The next step is considering what would it be like for a person to voluntarily change their own function order. First off, this would be kind of stupid: we all know that the function order exists because each of the elements is tied to a function, and that if we try to use them out of order them we're going to make asses of ourselves. (and if it's in dispute, Huitzi is on hand to affirm it). At the very least, we won't have a whit of self-confidence in what we are trying to achieve. Granted, we don't know the details of how acting against type manifests (the wager of stupidity), but that's not the point of this discussion.

    Maybe the XXXx would be a really insecure person who felt that all of their functions had to be protected. Perhaps they would feel it necessary to shore up the integrity of any function at any notice. For example, if Ne is getting squandered, then wouldn't you want to use Si to nurture it? There's a great deal of lattitude for exploration down that particular road. It's also possible that there is an XXXx in each of us, and that by denying the constancy of type we are in fact getting in touch with that side ourselves. Perhaps XXXx is the observation that possessing type limits our capacity as individuals, and thus creates in us an instinctual urge to deny our limitations.

  2. #2
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The XXXx wouldn't be thinking in complexities in the first place . They would be living in direct union with whatever it was they were contemplating . Cavemen were XXXx . Dogs are XXXx . K ?
    INTp

  3. #3
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    It's also possible that there is an XXXx in each of us, and that by denying the constancy of type we are in fact getting in touch with that side ourselves. Perhaps XXXx is the observation that possessing type limits our capacity as individuals, and thus creates in us an instinctual urge to deny our limitations.
    I believe this to be true. But the question is: how many of us are capable of doing this?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuturututu View Post
    I believe this to be true. But the question is: how many of us are capable of doing this?
    Probably most of us. I don't think radicals can, because they are acutely self-defined. Radicals are more true to type than most people, insisting on the supremacy of their viewpoint and the villification of the opposition. But I think most of us feel a bit of an unease at being thought of as so limited, even if those limitations are legitimate. (and I believe they are). It's kind of like a window into the future of socionics' relations with the public. People will probably not ever buy completely into something which they feel limits their own being. Even if they do, they will strive to overcome it by seeking as much information as possible concerning those matters they are disadvantaged about. I myself hate to admit having weaknesses in my ability to understand anything.

    It's advantageous to cover your tracks. It's a part of our ancestral heritage and thus, a part of being human. Consider, fears about people being discriminated against on basis of their genes aren't really legitimate, but the notion is so frightening to many that laws protecting the privacy of genetic material have been passed anyway.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuturututu View Post
    Are radicals evil or not, what do you think?

    How do you define a radical? The link would be helpful.
    I think of radicalism as the thought pattern which underlies extremism. Therefore the question boils down to one of "is Osama bin Laden evil", "was Jerry Falwell evil", "was Neitzsche evil", "was Hitler", "was Saddam", etc. Basically anyone who has an idea that drones off the plateu of possibility -- and sticks with it even when everyone knows that they are wrong -- is a radical and taking those ideas to their logical conclusion ultimately results in evil when people who know better feel compelled, by necessity or by disbelief, to refute their reasoning.

    Basically, radicalism is that part of you which finds fault in others and demonizes them just because they don't have the same beliefs as you. Now you could say that radicalism creates a radical response -- and you would be correct -- but the alternative is seeing any semblance of common sense go bye-bye.

    It would be like embracing certain forum members' views on socionics here without reservation, if you catch my drift.... Perhaps you feel inclined to side with one view or the other, and to decry the opposing view as completely invalid, idiotic, etc. Then in that case, your champion begins to resemble to your mind something like a messiah, or a prophet who has come to bring the divine testimony of... the netherworld that you alone can be one of the favored few to have knowledge of "socionics". There is something missing in those people, a part of their conscience. It's like rather than when they have a doubt about something acknowledging that they themselves have doubt, they instead see the manifestation of that doubt as a recrimination leveled by their political opponents, a reminder of it. They apparently can't tell the difference. The opposite to the radical type, the saint, has the reverse perspective and sees even their opponent's words as self-critique, because in their view there is ultimately no difference between the "other" and self.

    Eckhart Tolle, a New Age spiritualist, talks of people who are part of an "outgoing mode of thinking" and others like him being where things are headed. The "outgoing" persons, I think, correlate to radicals, whereas the "incoming" like Tolle correlate to saints.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 10-01-2008 at 04:35 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuturututu View Post
    Eckhart Tolle says that living in the present(which is almost undefinable small part of time) is the way how to avoid a suffering. I believe that by doing this we are becoming a XXXx. Do XXXx suffer. According to this, I would say NO. What do you think?
    I would have to think that Tolle was referring to the tendency of radicals to aspire to the impossible. That said, the altego of a saint is radical, and although I don't think he intends it he's getting a little off-base with these aspirations. We are human after all and that means wrestling with the entire psyche day in, day out. Including the radical side in us.

    If there were no radicals then I think we would be tempted to draw out the radical sides in ourselves by creating "situational" pretenses for venting our idealism. Having radicals around may mean having a vessle for our villification -- a scapegoat, if you will--, but it also makes for a less tortured soul in that by rejecting the radical's ideas and methods we validate our own integrity. Without tests of our integrity, we may lose track of what it means to have integrity and so be consumed by self-doubt. Too much self-doubt could be a distraction from day-to-day business, and could lead to sustained depression.

    I don't know that XXXx actually exists. Perhaps in a mental ward there are examples of such. The existence of functions actually preclude the elements from being equally effective, but it stands to reason that a brain could be designed of sufficient structure as to have situational ties between the elements and the functions, rather than the concrete ties we experience. It'd be a good plot line for a sci-fi epic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •