The metaphysical and alchemical origins of socionics

[Angel von Himmel]

The math is geometry, albeit fairly simple geometry to measure various degrees of the functions [as elements] by polarities.

Now hopefully what I am about to say here will make it simple so that you can go do your own research with little hassle.

-The first thing to know is that in socionics the PoLR and Ego functions of one type show the polarity of complete strength and total weakness. This is actually exactly word by word the way that the zodiac matches up the elements on a 360 degree circle of polarities. This actually shows that socionics and alchemy both have a high degree of correspondence even to the point of proving that they are the same thing, as is proven in the following.

-The second thing to prove from this that socionics and the zodiac are the same exact thing is quite simple, because the tattwas elements from india are actually the same exact thing as the functions in socionics ... square being earth, water being the L shape in socionics or the crescent shape tattwa, intuition being a triangle, and sensing being a circle. The tattwas have been around for 1000s of years and have had various usages, one of them being associated with "mental transmutation" philosophies that were adopted into warfare and civilian life, and made their way into religions such as buddhism, taoism, wicca, and etc.

-The second thing is that you need to understand which elements go with the signs of the zodiac and the qualities of mutable, cardinal, and fixed. You need to understand that mutable signs are androgynous and change into either male or female, fixed signs are female, and cardinal signs are male.

-The third thing you need to understand is that alchemically and socionically speaking male represents extroversion and female represent introversion.

-The forth thing you need to know and do is to take the tattwa elements, which look exactly like the functions in socionics and replace the signs of the zodiac with them. Match them up by their same element and by strong and weak polarities.

- The fifth thing you need to do is to make sure that you know that the mutable signs actually represent two male and female elements of the same element. If you line them up correctly based upon weak and strong polarity, you should get a zodiac/socion system of 16 and not the 12 found in astrology.

-The sixth thing you would need to know is that a study into the taoist based "art of war" and the "36 strategems from china" shows that whoever the people were who wrote both understood the western zodiac as it was adopted into taoism, as well as the tattwas. However, the 36 strategems are based on the zodiac 12 and not the socionic 16, which means that there are only one set of 3 strategems for both male and female elements when there should be 3 for male and 3 for female of the same element when you go with the socionics model. However, I also speculate that the 4 mutable signs as strategems actually just represent extroverted intuition, introverted thinking, introverted feeling, and extroverted sensing and neglect the other 4 functions.

- The seventh thing you would need to do is obtain a copy of the kybalion and read up on vibration and correspondence, as well as understanding the order of metals in alchemy. The sun and the moon by means of high vibration in a hierarchy represent spiritual superiority while the lowest one lead represents the darkness of supreme isolation. Take note here that there is also an ordering of the 36 Chinese strategems from superiority to confrontation, from attack to confusion, and from gain to loss. This corresponds heavily to the ordering of the metals in alchemy from superiority to inferiority and back. This is further supported by understanding what alchemical processes are involved with each sign and then comparing those to the sign associated with a certain set of 3 strategems. When done correctly the resemblance is uncannily noticeable.

- The other thing you need to know is that it could take you upwards to a year of off and on study of the various materials I have given to completely show that you have understanding, unless you have already studied similar material for a long time; then you would understand faster.

[Angel von Himmel]

First, I congratulate you on correcting your spelling of "hassle".

Second, you base the connection between socionics, tattwas, and astrology on the fact that their elements have similar shapes.

This is a false assumption (for more than the obvious reasons). Both socionics and the tattwas picked the figures that are easiest to draw and distinguish between. Any polygon with more than four sides looks similar to a circle and is harder to draw than a corner or a crescent shape, which is easily distinguishable. There is no connection between them other than simplicity (of element design).

That was the obvious reason; this one requires some knowledge: the socionics elemental symbols and the Indian ones do not correspond to each other by their definitions. If there is a link between astrology and the tattwas, there is no link between the tattwas and socionics. As I have told you before, the astrological symbol for the air element (a circle) in no way reflects the socionics sensing elements and is closer to describing the socionics concept of intuition. The astrological symbol for the ground element (a square) does not really describe the socionics elements of logic and better fits with the socionics concept of sensing. The astrological element for fire (a triangle) does not describe what we think of as intuition. It in fact can be attributed mainly to Fe. As per water, it can mainly be attributed to Fi. Logic is mostly lacking from the system.

[Angel von Himmel]

Is there at least one damn person who is going to seriously look into this besides my self or are the only people who are even going to bother say anything the ones who have absolutely ZERO things important to input at all.

If someone would just follow the directions I have laid out you can see what I am talking about.

[ooo]

These schemes are among the best things I've seen ever. You're just a genius.

I made this account just because I was raptured by this thread. Are you still around here? Would love to talk to you about all of this.

[Bertrand]

Jung illustrates the sctructure of intuition and its development through time in Aion, which basically explains how people construct models on the basis of recognizable patterns. patterns themselves are a product of intuiton which gives it its inherent structure over time, which is what the stuff in this thread seems like. in other words human psychology divided things up according to patterns but filled those patterns with more primitive content (the zodiac, etc) that developed over time (into the socion) as the symbols came to represent different things

the development and change of symbols reflects different cultures and values and ultimately empirical knowledge with the advent of science

i can imagine one day people thinking "SLE" is essentially Thor and some zany IEE still worshiping it 10,000 years after it stopped "living" in the culture

[rat200Turbo]

The chart at the top of the page is actually complete nonsense. The arrangement doesn't even follow the laws of duality with respect to the functions. It's just schizoid nonsense.
For example, why is delta Fi opposed by beta Ti? There is no dualistic connection between those functions within socionics whatsoever.
The elements could very well have inspired the socionics symbols, mysticism seems like something Augusta might have been into ... enneagram had similar underpinnings. Even so all she did was take Jungs functions and attach some shapes to them, there's really nothing that spectacular about it either.
The 2>4>8>16>32>64 (2^6) pattern is somewhat interesting but I think you are misinterpreting the patterns of socionics and overstating the significance of '64'.
Socionics has always had a strange structure to it inwhich the 8 functions were formed in the typical exponential manner (2^3), but those 8 functions are taken as a whole and scrambled / recombined into function blocks, quadra functions, then eventually 16 types... rather than simply further dividing the functions into sub-functions, etc.. I always thought this made no sense and it is a flaw in the way the system was set up. But it doesn't appear to perfectly correlate with the egyptian ideal arrangement of 2^6 which he is pointing to. It really more closely correlates with 2^4 (16) and alot of superfluous mess in between. This scrambling effect is part of why the zodiac diagrams at the top of this page are so out of order with respect to the laws of duality... the way he's dividing the functions just doesn't make any sense from a zodiac standpoint.
But even if socionics was inspired by this 2^6 egyptian pattern (which it isn't - it's 16 types, not 64 types), this is not that significant - the pattern itself has no significance to it... 2^6 (64) is not any more meaningful than 2^7, 2^9, 2^10, etc..
Frankly everything Augusta contributed to Jungs functions doesn't make sense and is really garbage, we could throw it all out and be perfectly content with ourselves. We could literally take the 8 functions, divided them up into 2 subtype functions, and arrived at 16 types - and we would have accomplished just as much as Augusta did with such a complex, messy knot of a system which doesn't even have a good logical basis for it. I really think she was intent on doing exactly that - dividing the 8 functions further down into 16 types, but she didn't know how to proceed so she got caught up in analyzing the functions in terms of every other function (she got sort of lost within the boundaries of the system she was familiar with), and so we have this complex wad of functional relationships leftover from augustas attempts to justify making that next step into new territory. But the number 64 in itself is really not relevant to socionics - the number is 16; we have 16 types.
If you wanted to reconcile all that mess into a diagram of the zodiac you'd need to place all the functions right next to one another - i.e. gamma Ni (ILI) right next to beta Ni (IEI), delta Te (ESTj) right next to gamma Te (ENTj), etc. These categories would just simply be further divisions of the 8 functions and nothing more - that is the correct way of doing it.

[Bertrand]

We could literally take the 8 functions, divided them up into 2 subtype functions, and arrived at 16 types - and we would have accomplished just as much as Augusta did with such a complex, messy knot of a system which doesn't even have a good logical basis for it.

lol this reads like an ethical type subconsciously begging for their dual to carefully explain it to them

[rat200Turbo]

You read like a ******... and you missed the entire point. The point is about the structure of socionics and the fact that such a complex knot of relationships only produced a single increment of increased specificity in the typing arrangement; that the quadra / function block relationships are superfluous and cannot be considered part of the systems fundamental, tiered structure (such as with the chart at the top of the page incorrectly sorting functions by quadra associations). It's actually an indisputably true point, there is nothing to argue about.
This isn't the first time you've alluded to having important socionics knowledge which you can't be bothered to share while appealing to your "T type" status. You just sound like yet another insecure, masturbatory socionics obsessed autistic... Honestly it's pretty pathetic, I don't think anyone takes you seriously (I hope they don't)
I have already explained my thoughts on the topic very thoroughly.

[Bertrand]

yeah I'm sure you consciously made the decision (Te) to hang around a forum devoted to a theory and people you have contempt for (Fi) and attack it (Se)

if anyone is wondering this is what Fe/Ti looks like when its unhealthy

hopefully an alpha/beta logical can get in here and sort you out

[rat200Turbo]

I'm here because I've been off and on this forum for 8 years and I know some people here. I also can't stand alot of what I see here... and alot of people here can't stand me either. That's perfectly ok... Honestly this forum reminds me of the way I was living my life 5-8 years ago in many ways - many of you are completely pathetic in my eyes (and that's actually just because you are - the rest of the world agrees with me honestly). So if you want to know why I'm here, now you know.

On that note, I had thoroughly learned about and then grown out of socionics long before you even began learning about it. That's how long I've been here. There is nothing new you have to show me, nor have you said anything relevant or intelligent at all - which isn't surprising, since there is nothing to disagree with.
How about you just fuck off, ******?

[Bertrand]

the rest of the world agrees with me honestly

yeah Im sure you're a big hit in the rest of the world

[rat200Turbo]

At the prime of your life when you should be finding a woman to settle down with (assuming you're even straight which seems dubious judging by the way you interact with other men) you choose to obsess over how to categorize everything in this autistic manner while masturbating day in and day out over the internet... good decision? You'll find out eventually.

[Pallas]

At the prime of your life when you should be finding a woman to settle down with (assuming you're even straight which seems dubious judging by the way you interact with other men) you choose to obsess over how to categorize everything in this autistic manner while masturbating day in and day out over the internet... good decision? You'll find out eventually.

Bertrand likes to be ironic and genuinely likes a lot of people here, who seem to like him. Everything you say is unironic in proportion with its stupidity, and I don't think you genuinely like anyone here or vice versa. There's "the world", but that's not anyone. That's the kind of big claim with no weight people throw around when they have nothing left.

[Bertrand]

aw thank you wryd, even though it wasn't primarily for my benefit, but crazedrat. I genuinely hope you can reach him

a person is obviously suffering to be such a way

[Singu]

Bertrand can only resort to "Socionics ad hominems" when he has nothing to say... (which is quite a lot), which is pointless to those who have lost interest in Socionics a long time ago.

It must suck to be tied to such a shitty theory for the rest of your life.

[Pallas]

Bertrand can only resort to "Socionics ad hominems" when he has nothing to say... (which is quite a lot), which is pointless to those who have lost interest in Socionics a long time ago.

It must suck to be tied to such a shitty theory for the rest of your life.

He explicitly trolls a lot. Maybe he's going a bit overboard on the socionics for a lot of people, but I don't think people generally unironically end their posts with footnotes, especially after they've admitted it. People getting annoyed at others generally has more to do with them than the people annoying them, and I think you're still just taking socionics too seriously and assuming all others do.

[Bertrand]

yeah! you gave him the more intellectual version of u mad bro? u mad?

he mad [1]


























































[1] he maaaad

[ooo]

Thank you for your comments, I didn't mean to start such a war already lol

I'm sad to see the user who created this system was banned... not that surprised, best people don't stuck around lots, hopefully he moved onto something better. I've seen some of his threads around here and I bet they had caused much concern and bias, from who's not at the same amount of insight, yet.
I've just gone through the same in an astrology forum, where I'd be mocked by traditionalists, or just lazy peeps, who found nothing better to do for criticizing my views.

Rage apart, I can understand your view pretty weel, crazed. The more I've been delving into such systems, the more I understood they were just, let's call them "structures", and if you know them, define them, then you can escape them. Most people will go through life with a very high level of self-unawareness, never questioning why they do/work/think/feel/everything. And that's probably the best, lol. For who question things things are never easy, I guess you know that well too. It's a constant challenge, and coming to realize that a the system we live by, doesn't work is as liberating as it is unsettling.

I think it makes sense to oppose the Ti of beta squadra to the Fi of the delta, because in the PolR you will never meet those two elements together, ie. one excludes the other= total opposite. There are different level of duality both in the socionics and in astrology, and they always have to be blended.
I can't get into detail further because I'm not really an expert in socionics, I' d like to grasp the concepts better before commenting further on your points.

Bertrand, intuition is rather fascinating, yeah. It has been associated to the fire, the element that for many astrological/philosophical schools represented the essence of God. Because of this, and because I believe that the truth always hides from the eyes, I find it so beautiful to see that all these systems and structures are always talking of the same thing: polarities, oppositions, subconscious balance to create a balanced reality, you can find this concept everywhere: daoism, mandalas, astrology, alchemy, socionics...

Deeper than the personal unconscious lays the collective one, which Jung described as inherited by the entirehistory of human kind, you can trace it back to the Super ID block of the Model A. The deep part that is so deep and influences everything we do, because of how uncomprehensible it is...
I think that part, so determinated, so ungraspable, has lots to do withe the sky influences, that only the hypothalamus of our brain is able to detect...

Do you people know where Angel could be?

[Singu]

He explicitly trolls a lot. Maybe he's going a bit overboard on the socionics for a lot of people, but I don't think people generally unironically end their posts with footnotes, especially after they've admitted it. People getting annoyed at others generally has more to do with them than the people annoying them, and I think you're still just taking socionics too seriously and assuming all others do.

I don't think Bertrand "trolls" as much, he just doesn't realize that he's being more dishonest than he thinks when he's arguing.

On the contrary, I wish that people would start taking Socionics less seriously, because it makes people make a lot of assumptions based on unproven stuff. But that kind of "psychoanalysis" is the exact problem that I have (with a culture of a forum like this). I could just say that you assume that I think I take Socionics too seriously because you take Socionics too seriously or something like that. You could say that me arguing against it is "proving" that I'm being "defensive", and therefore it must be true. And it goes on and on as to assume what or how I "really" think. But there is no proving that of course, because we don't really know how each other really think. So my honest reply to that is I don't really even think about Socionics that much anymore... and even if I did, it would quickly be dispelled because I realize the ridiculousness of the whole thing. It's like this... how do I even know that anything that I think about Socionics is even correct? Not even my own "typings" of others can be certain. How do I know that this person is actually this type or that type? Somebody else is easily going to come up with another typing, and there's no way of proving any of us are correct. For all we know, types don't really exist... and well if I explained my thought processes than it just goes on and on like this, but you get the point...

[Bertrand]

how can you be "more dishonest than you think"..?


not only that but in the same breath criticize socionics for contributing to "psychologizing" people

your thought process seems to be socionics could be the basis for some degree of emotional discord ergo it is overdone, which is perhaps true. to the degree that it causes negative emotions it is counter productive in some sense. but you have to understand the only way we get through this to the other side is via greater understanding not less. the idea that things would be better if we just dispensed with thinking and psychologizing seems hopelessly naive. it is fundamentally predicated on the assumption that just because you have failed to achieve success by your own metrics with it no one else can either and needs to adopt a similar approach in rejecting it to the same degree you have. which is really predicated on the assumption that no one can surpass you and hence you set the standard for what is allowed on the basis of your own success or failure, which is egotistical beyond belief

also the world will keep correcting you for as long as it takes so strap in if you're committed to this way of thinking

[rat200Turbo]

Error... does not compute.... operating system corrupted, brain overheat imminent!

His criticism, which has been his criticism for a while now, is that socionics is totally absract and it is more useful and better just to apprehend information directly... which is actually just obviously true. You're just placing a worthless buffer between yourself and the information - a buffer which is only there to make you sense you're in control and have a handle on things, but which was derived entirely from your mind and has no grounding in reality. You literally cannot be correct in this endeavor - the system never touches reality, nor could it ever come even slightly close to doing so. I don't know how you manage to argue that opening your mind directly to the world and letting go of this little bubble you've constructed for buffering your perceptions is somehow supremely egotistical, you have that completely backwards... socionics is very tied in with your ego, this is why you use it to prop up your ego constantly.
That is closer to what his criticism is.

hybris: the correct arrangement of the functions throughout a zodiac would have, as I described, gamma Fi opposite gamma Te; beta Ni opposite beta Se, and so on.

and I don't think you genuinely like anyone here or vice versa.

And why should I care what "you think"? Your opinion has no significance whatsoever. Lol.

's "the world", but that's not anyone. That's the kind of big claim with no weight people throw around when they have nothing left.

People living in the real world take one look at your existence and they laugh at how pathetic and sad it is, if you're not aware of that maybe you should step outside.

[ooo]

Hm, but by finding your "opposite" element in the opposite side (=of the astro wheel), you're changing quadra (in socionics).

Thanks to socionics we know the PolR is inside our own quadra though. There's not just one way to see a polarity, you can as well find it by being it extrovert/introvert for your same elements (look-alike/contrary) as well as extrovert/introvert for your opposite elements (contrary/conflict), too. And that will be in your opposing quadra, if you had to represent in on a wheel.

[rat200Turbo]

hybris: No, they aren't. Dual functions are opposite functions, period. There are multiple levels of polarities within the functions (the information aspects), but for 2 functions to be true opposites every level of polarity must be opposing - this condition is only satisfied by the dual functions. This is why they are called dual functions.
Polr does not mean "polar", it means "place of least resistance". The polr function is not a "polar" function, it is not the dual function, at all. Not at all. Ok?
As I explained earlier, Quadras are basically non-material ways of thinking about the functions.. same with function blocks, etc.. these are relationships and configurations, not fundamental structural components.
They're a scrambled way of relating and arranging the functions in order to break them down for analysis, basically...
We have 8 functions and 16 types - that is the material structure of the system, and quadra has nothing to do with that.
Here is the correct and logical way of relating the functions and the zodiac:
SOCIONICS_ZODIAC.png

[ooo]

The scheme presented by Angel has one thing that doesn't match to my reasoning: T and S should be inverted, that is, S should be for earth types and T for air. In which case, I agree with your point. In general. But to me things are a bit more complex, because astrology has not 8, but 12 elements, to be combined.
This means that I won't find my dual elements on the other side, just my opposites (contrast part).

Thanks for the clarifications, I really need those!

[rat200Turbo]

dual literally means opposite.
You can divide the sky up into 8ths, 12ths, 16ths... 27ths... however you want (and there are systems for astrology that use 13, 27, 18, 9, 24, 36, and others). Your dual "sign" will always be exactly opposite your sign. That is just how it works.
If you divide the sky up into 27ths, and your asc is at 6.2 degrees aries, your perfect duals asc will still be perfectly at 6.2 degrees libra. That's just the definition of duality.
If you don't appreciate that you really have abandoned all basis you have for thinking rationally about spatial relationships.

[rat200Turbo]

hybris, this is the correct model:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...al-explanation

[Bertrand]

which was derived entirely from your mind and has no grounding in reality.

the entire psychoanalytic premise is that "reality" is a reflection of the cognitive framework that shapes our individual experience... to say that socionics has no grounding in reality because it was derived from mind is to miss the entire point of socionics which is to say you can infer reality based on the picture the 16 different TIMs comprise. the alternative is that you think your specific ego somehow captures reality better than the idea that we each only have a piece of the picture, which really is, literally, egotistical. the idea that i use socionics to prop up my ego is backwards. I actually use it to destroy my ego... the idea that I use it as an extension of the ego to "prop it up" seems like pure projection. it may be true that it serves to enlarge the ego by appropriating the unconscious contents of the self, but that is a qualitatively different process than what I see people like you and singularity doing which is a refusal to admit unconscious content into your ego and thus give off the distinct impression that rather its controlling you [1], hence the fits of impotent aggression etc

[1] the self, its unconscious contents, exerting control over the ego (the basis for projections: a recipe for behavior that seems pretty clearly "out of control"); vs the ego appropriating the unconscious bit by bit and thus learning to control the self... we would call this wisdom or temperance or something to that effect, inasmuch as we're successful at this process

[rat200Turbo]

That's actually his criticism (I do agree with but it's his argument). I just want to make clear what the argument is... I'll let him respond. Though I think he'll probably simply say you go too far with it - you let it completely decide what reality is and shut out information to the contrary... you are too caught up in your unconscious biases. That isn't to say you should never use your mind or use abstractions, just that you use this theory (which isn't even that great of a theory - it rarely even describes data in all that much detail) to explain literally everything to such a degree you are interfering with otherwise natural thinking processes. But again that is his argument and it's a valid argument.

[Bertrand]

why is it unidirectional again?

Jung said psycho analysis was synonymous with moral effort... in the sense that I would like to improve and learn and become better than I was yesterday, yes I want to be the living embodiment of psychoanalysis. its also because Im a Christian and that is what Christ represents. This sort of thing is the ideal by definition. from the broadest perspective rejection of it is as close to a characterization of evil as we have, which is essentially, refusal to correct mistakes and make improvements, in principle... we might call such a thing demonic which is interesting because it intersects nicely with the idea of being "possessed" (by the unconscious) which is entirely how you come across, which is probably why you drive people away, because they sense that on some level and want nothing to do with it

[rat200Turbo]

Well it's not like real life is jumping out at you and saying: "look, a glove... it's ISFj because it likes to hold on to things!".

I don't see what is gained by the effort, Bertrand. Let's say you get so good at typing things that you walk past that glove and immediately your mind says: "boom! ISFj - holds things.. makes sense". I don't see what the point is.

Let's even take it further. You say hello to a woman, she says hello you... you immediately say to yourself: "boom! She's ESFj" (a statement which fundamentally can never be true, but probably the best case scenario for usefulness of this theory in real life). Well, what does this really do for you? At best it would open up your mind to possibilities and help you understand her viewpoints as you got to know her. Sure, you can argue over whether that's useful... I actually might argue you don't even need a theory like that to help you in those situations.. but that's best case scenario. How much effort is required to achieve that? Not really that much. You take things to a level far beyond that,

[Bertrand]

the things that guide our actions are more real than the things our actions play with in carrying out the principles that control them

because those principles persist through time, objects simply exist as furnishings of space for those principles to act themselves out and transform themselves... when the objects pass, the principles will persist at least until the last human dies and then it wont matter anyway

perhaps that's an overstatement, but its at least 50/50. you need both in order for existence to be something other than a static array of objects, just as pure spirit wouldn't seem to have much to do in of itself. to say spirit in some sense is not real or differentiated or able to be understood is just to allow it complete unmitigated control over you

if people want to live an animal existence there's not much I can do about it, but its not for me, and I won't say its the best course of action either

[rat200Turbo]

Besides, you're not denying that the theory is just never correct, and not even close. You want to try your best to get as close to reality as possible. This theory doesn't do that.
Almost anything you can come up on the fly with will be a better theory.

[Bertrand]

yeah I guess if you're Ti polr its all basically the same in regards to its personal usefulness

[rat200Turbo]

That's exactly what you do right there.
It's actually his criticism, and it's completely valid... and I agree with it... I'm just laying out the point. I indulge in pure theory all the time despite knowing how pointless it is... my criticism is really that the information metabolism is completely incoherent, The theory sucks... Augusta was simply a rambling lunatic, the only reason she's recognized is she stole Jungs work then put together the 16 types into a nice package and people ate it up... That and she confuses the shit out of people to such a degree they think "there's gota be something here"... they end up batshit for the next 5 years trying to make sense out of the whole maddening thing. If they don't turn out permanently like yourself.