Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: First ever structured exposition of Metasocionics alchemical socionics

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default First ever structured exposition of Metasocionics [alchemical socionics]

    What you see below is basically the first exposition of the alchemical socionics theory, which is for metasocionics and metaphysical applications. It is to be differentiated from the socionics most people have studied in the following ways:

    1.) Alchemical socionics is from a monist standpoint, not a dualistic one.

    2.) Alchemical socionics applies socionics further than just relationships between two or more people and into a holistic frame encompassing everything.

    3.) Alchemical socionics gives regular socionics a structure by which can strengthen the claims of current socionics research.

    4.) Alchemical socionics has the intention of allowing people to make better and more coherent decisions in typing individuals, or other things.

    5.) Alchemical socionics has given way to the creation of the metasocion[ the socion applied to a 360 degree circle], with seven natural laws.

    6.) Alchemical socionics can provide structure to understanding extremely refined details in the formulation of type relationships.

    7.) Alchemical socionics is about as close to alchemy as is possible without being based upon it, rather alchemy has been adapted to a socionics basis.

    With the above, the creation of the metasocion has occured. As is shown below:



    The following is an exposition of metasocionics and what it can offer.

    Alchemical laws that can be applied to a 360 degree circle:


    [1]Principle of Mentalism: infinite and finite working of the socion.

    [2]Principle of Correspondance: the chaining of functions into hierachies, above and below

    [3]Principle of Cause and Effect: the cause[function 1] and the cause[function 2] meeting to create an observable effection[resolution]]\

    [4]Principle of Rhythm: The swing of functions in the socion [360 degree circle]

    [5]Principle of Polarity: The distance in polarity between functions in the socion [360 degree circle]

    [6]Principle of Gender: Basically just Extroversion and Introversion, or Male and Female.

    [7]Principle of Vibration: Categorically where functions are at in the spectrum of both polarity and correspondance, as compared to other functions.

    Some of these are still probable divisions being formulated.
    The ones that are listed are already being worked upon.


    A probable division [division by 2]
    A probable division [division by 3]

    Quadras of the Socion [division by 4]
    These would be the same socionic descriptions as found from everywhere else.
    Quadra[1]: Alpha
    Quadra[2]: Beta
    Quadra[3]: Gamma
    Quadra[4]: Delta

    A probable division [division by 6]

    Secondary refined information elements [division by 8 and 16(chained)]
    These would be the same socionic descriptions as found from everywhere else.
    : - same description found everywhere else
    : - same description found everywhere else
    : - same description found everywhere else
    : - same description found everywhere else
    : - same description found everywhere else
    : - same description found everywhere else
    : - same description found everywhere else
    : - same description found everywhere else

    Primary raw source information elements [division by 12]
    These would be the same socionic descriptions as found from everywhere else.
    Quadruplicity: [1]Cardinal, [2]Ordinal, [3]Mutable
    : As [1] Extroversion, [2] Introversion, [3] Senseing
    : As [1] Extroversion, [2] Introversion, [3] Thinking
    : As [1] Extroversion, [2] Introversion, [3] Intuition
    : As [1] Extroversion, [2] Introversion, [3] Feeling

    The 16 types [division by 16]
    These would be the same socionic descriptions as found from everywhere else.
    [01]ESFj - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [02]ENTp - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [03]INTj - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [04]ISFp - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [05]ESTp - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [06]INFp - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [07]ENFj - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [08]ISTj - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [09]ENTj - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [10]ESFp - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [11]ISFj - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [12]INTp - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [13]ENFp - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [14]ESTj - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [15]ISTp - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics
    [16]INFj - same type descriptions as found everywhere else for socionics

    A probable division [division by 24]


    Tritary information elements [division by 36 - 360 degree circle]
    These are gradient descriptions which can refer to more than one type in close proxmity.
    Consult the color wheel below and you should see what this means.



    These descriptions have not been written entirely yet, but will resemble something close
    to the 36 strategems from china.

    These would be special descriptions that so far no one has written for socionics.

    NOTE: The above and below is not intended to ever be absolute or resolute, but variable so someone can use some descriptors to determine where someone or something is in the general Vincenty of the socion.

    01. INFj/ESFj - tritary description 1 - blue
    02. INFj/ESFj - tritary description 2 - blue
    03. INFj/ESFj - tritary description 3 - blue
    04. ENTp - tritary description 1 - blue
    05. ENTp - tritary description 2 - blue
    06. ENTp - tritary description 3 - blue
    07. INTj - tritary description 1 - blue
    08. INTj - tritary description 2 - blue
    09. INTj - tritary description 3 - blue
    10. ISFp/ESTp - tritary description 1 - green
    11. ISFp/ESTp - tritary description 2 - green
    12. ISFp/ESTp - tritary description 3 - green
    13. ENFj - tritary description 1 - yellow
    14. ENFj - tritary description 2 - yellow
    15. ENFj - tritary description 3 - yellow
    16. INFp - tritary description 1 - yellow
    17. INFp - tritary description 2 - orange
    18. INFp - tritary description 3 - orange
    19. ISTj/ENTj - tritary description 1 - orange
    20. ISTj/ENTj - tritary description 2 - orange
    21. ISTj/ENTj - tritary description 3 - orange
    22. ESFp - tritary description 1 - orange
    23. ESFp - tritary description 2 - orange
    24. ESFp - tritary description 3 - orange
    25. ISFj - tritary description 1 - pink
    26. ISFj - tritary description 2 - pink
    27. ISFj - tritary description 3 - pink
    28. INTp/ENFp - tritary description 1 - purple
    29. INTp/ENFp - tritary description 2 - purple
    30. INTp/ENFp - tritary description 3 - purple
    31. ESTj - tritary description 1 - blue
    32. ESTj - tritary description 2 - blue
    33. ESTj - tritary description 3 - blue
    34. ISTp - tritary description 1 - blue
    35. ISTp - tritary description 2 - blue
    36. ISTp - tritary description 3 - blue

    EDIT: I just got done writting up the 36 descriptions:

    01. May want to do or say something before another will as an attempt to lead and make the other follow.
    02. May present themselves and others with two ways to get to only one real destination.
    03. May isolate those around close for the sake of those distant.
    04. May make assumptions about behavior and shake someone up just to see how they react.
    05. May stay comfortably still yet attempt to move someone stronger into a lower position.
    06. May throw out something small as an attempt to receive, hint at something greater.
    07. May make suggestions by useing one thing to represent another.
    08. May make assumptive impressions that things are a certain case and seek to solidify the notion.
    09. May be cordial as an attempt to impress someone, but in a way that catches them off guard.
    10. May equalize loss by taking something of value away from that which causes loss.
    11. May attempt to stay comfortably still in one place and let others do exhausting work, seemingly lazy.
    12. May present themselves and others with two alternate destinations where only one is actual destination.
    13. May motivate someone to do something or go somewhere by restateing a demotivator in warmer terms
    14. May use the motivation of one person to motivate more people for a cause.
    15. May judge worth, throws out junk and moves usable things from a minor place to a place of major importance.
    16. May mentally test people just to see where they stand and whether their position can be collapsed or not.
    17. May cause other people to underestimate self, then slowly adds value by acting as a reformed saint.
    18. May take something of little value, add value to it and pitch it as sometyhing more valuable.
    19. May take something very old, worn out and reinterpret it; makeing it more modern and stylish.
    20. May allow someone their space as an attempt to guide them into a certain position.
    21. May emphasize strengths or make strategic popshots at a leader's weaknesses in order to turn against.
    22. May take things in and out of their natural elements in order to create a known atmosphere.
    23. May make suggestions to lure someone or something into a certain position in order to lock them there.
    24. May borrow the help of others without their knowledge and then throw them away when mission is complete.
    25. May disguise something bad as something good in order to convey a disarming message.
    26. May use jealousy or and other feelings to divide and as a means to control a situation.
    27. May have an obsession with wondering about probable senerios"what if such and such happened ... what then?"
    28. May have nothing and use the slightest hint of ommision to grab a means to start something.
    29. May have a habit of waiting until the very last moment to continue on with what others have started.
    30. May choose to keep one thing over another when keeping both reduces the overall quality of something.
    31. May appear to be headed somewhere with something when the actual direction is somewhere else.
    32. May seem to act very cordial regardless of events even to those who are not on the best of terms with.
    33. May take the oppotunity to grab the smallest bit of value from someone or something and run with it.
    34. May be such an open and sincere person that it scares other people that someone can be that open.
    35. May attempt to make people think is worse off then he or she is and use that to his or hers advantage.
    36. May intentionally fail a few times as a means to get a feel of something and the right course of direction.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eventually there will be type and relationship descriptions with descriptors on how metasocionics is applied with socionics, stay tuned. I am pretty sure that the first one will be a 'relationship of benefit' with metasocionic descriptors demonstrating how the whole relationship works. Stay tuned for that one.
    Last edited by Angel von Himmel; 02-21-2009 at 08:55 AM.

  2. #2
    Ritella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    at your feet
    Posts
    2,092
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    history in the making, people. history in the making.
    EII; E6(w5)

    i am flakey

  3. #3
    ***el X Mercenary Nebuchadnezzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Socionix sleeper cell
    TIM
    Te-ISTp
    Posts
    1,413
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What a pointless waste of fucking time. I want to piss in the OP's mouth.

    "His feeling that this world is not his Fatherland, and that it does not represent his proper condition, so to speak—his feeling that, basically, he 'comes from afar'—will remain a fundamental element which will not give rise to mystical escapism and spiritual weakness, but rather will enable him to minimise, to relativise, to refer to higher concepts of measure and limit, all that can seem important and definitive to others, starting with death itself, and will confer on him calm force and breadth of vision." — Julius Evola

    SLI-Te | 5w6 sp/so
    Oldham Solitary

    Johari
    Nohari

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeAnte View Post
    What a pointless waste of fucking time. I want to piss in the OP's mouth.
    I hope the administrators and moderators now do not tolerate these sort of postings, cause I sure did not when I was an administrator.

  5. #5
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is not metaphysics. Metaphysics does not hold monism as an axiom. Nor is this a level abstracted from Socionics; it is merely an extension of Socionics. Therefore, I don't think that you should use the prefix "meta."

    Wikisocion has a better definition of "metasocionics"



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    I don't think that you should use the prefix "meta."
    Wikisocion has a better definition of "metasocionics"
    When did that get added in? No biggie I just call this something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    This is not metaphysics. Metaphysics does not hold monism as an axiom.
    I do not ever think I implied that metaphysics ever used monism as an axiom. I do think I implied that a monist understanding comes from adding the 360 degree circle, where before most people just understood socionics as a dualists "Good versus Bad" slash "hey this type I am has conflicting types and friendly dual types" way of describing thing. Although, some of that is still there and obviously would not go away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Nor is this a level abstracted from Socionics; it is merely an extension of Socionics.
    Yeah ... I see no reason for a therefore here on account that it is an extension of socionics; because the whole thing is an extension of socionics. What else can a person say?

  7. #7
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    I hope the administrators and moderators now do not tolerate these sort of postings, cause I sure did not when I was an administrator.
    Yeah like when you pissed off for 6 months and hell was breaking loose here, like you posting disgusting images of dead cats all over the forum, and pm'ing videos of such things to forum users, like you deleting two weeks worth of posting. Like you spending the best part of the last two months telling people here how they are idiots with no life. Sure *****. You were such a good administrator, and your actions have all been above reproach.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see cyclops stated something that has nothing to do with the context of the thread. I am not necessarily saying what you said is not valid, I would just rather this thread be about this theory here. Thanks.

    I just got done looking at this link and actually what I am doing applies exactly with these additions and can used to be gauged exactly as is described for metasocionics.

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...=Metasocionics

    So, I am keeping the name metasocionics, I am just not going to say that I was the first to think of how this applies to socionics, just that I am making it much easier to make a metaphysical or metasocionic interpretations of things..

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Alright guys ... I just got done formulating what I think the 36 division aspects can be and also I added an aspect chart [borrowed from astrology, naturally] to figure out how the different degrees work with socionics in a 360 degree circle.

    Here are the 36:

    01. May want to do or say something before another will as an attempt to lead and make the other follow.
    02. May present themselves and others with two ways to get to only one real destination.
    03. May isolate those around close for the sake of those distant.
    04. May make assumptions about behavior and shake someone up just to see how they react.
    05. May stay comfortably still yet attempt to move someone stronger into a lower position.
    06. May throw out something small as an attempt to receive, hint at something greater.
    07. May make suggestions by using one thing to represent another.
    08. May make assumptive impressions that things are a certain case and seek to solidify the notion.
    09. May be cordial as an attempt to impress someone, but in a way that catches them off guard.
    10. May equalize loss by taking something of value away from that which causes loss.
    11. May attempt to stay comfortably still in one place and let others do exhausting work, seemingly lazy.
    12. May present themselves and others with two alternate destinations where only one is actual destination.
    13. May motivate someone to do something or go somewhere by restateing a demotivator in warmer terms
    14. May use the motivation of one person to motivate more people for a cause.
    15. May judge worth, throws out junk and moves usable things from a minor place to a place of major importance.
    16. May mentally test people just to see where they stand and whether their position can be collapsed or not.
    17. May cause other people to underestimate self, then slowly adds value by acting as a reformed saint.
    18. May take something of little value, add value to it and pitch it as sometyhing more valuable.
    19. May take something very old, worn out and reinterpret it; makeing it more modern and stylish.
    20. May allow someone their space as an attempt to guide them into a certain position.
    21. May emphasize strengths or make strategic popshots at a leader's weaknesses in order to turn against.
    22. May take things in and out of their natural elements in order to create a known atmosphere.
    23. May make suggestions to lure someone or something into a certain position in order to lock them there.
    24. May borrow the help of others without their knowledge and then throw them away when mission is complete.
    25. May disguise something bad as something good in order to convey a disarming message.
    26. May use jealousy or and other feelings to divide and as a means to control a situation.
    27. May have an obsession with wondering about probable scenarios "what if such and such happened ... what then?"
    28. May have nothing and use the slightest hint of omission to grab a means to start something.
    29. May have a habit of waiting until the very last moment to continue on with what others have started.
    30. May choose to keep one thing over another when keeping both reduces the overall quality of something.
    31. May appear to be headed somewhere with something when the actual direction is somewhere else.
    32. May seem to act very cordial regardless of events even to those who are not on the best of terms with.
    33. May take the opportunity to grab the smallest bit of value from someone or something and run with it.
    34. May be such an open and sincere person that it scares other people that someone can be that open.
    35. May attempt to make people think is worse off then he or she is and use that to his or hers advantage.
    36. May intentionally fail a few times as a means to get a feel of something and the right course of direction.
    And also here is the aspect chart:


  10. #10
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    I see cyclops stated something that has nothing to do with the context of the thread. I am not necessarily saying what you said is not valid, I would just rather this thread be about this theory here. Thanks.

    I just got done looking at this link and actually what I am fdoing applies exactly with these additions and can used to be gauged exactly as is described for metasocionics.

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...=Metasocionics

    So, I am keeping the name metasocionics, I am just not going to say that I was the first to think of how this applies to socionics, just that I am making it much easier to make a metaphysical or metasocionic interpretations of things..
    Well, I am addressing a point you made on your own thread so there's no need to be such a control freak really.

    Also, since you are trying to be smart, i've looked at your theory, and it's non-sensical. For a start, what I can see the only way to make it work is to not use alchemy or the zodiac at all, but to re-write them in a way which fits socionics. Ergo alchemy and socionics aren't the same thing. Am I correct in this?

    And that metaphysics addition has been in wikipedia for a while, and it's quite correct. So on the topic of your thread.. Are you having to re-write the definition of metaphysics in order to make it fit as well?

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also, since you are trying to be smart, i've looked at your theory, and it's non-sensical. For a start, what I can see the only way to make it work is to not use alchemy or the zodiac at all, but to re-write them in a way which fits socionics. Ergo alchemy and socionics aren't the same thing. Am I correct in this?
    Did you read my introduction at all? I think reading the introduction where I stated that this was as close to alchemy without being alchemy and with a socionics basis is rather straightforwards that your objection is exactly what is going on here.


    And that metaphysics addition has been in wikipedia for a while, and it's quite correct. So on the topic of your thread.. Are you having to re-write the definition of metaphysics in order to make it fit as well?
    No, I read over that entry and everything that is in there actually fits quite well with how this can be applied. For example in the link where it says:

    So an example of composed with would be how someone's understanding of health has changed over time
    Is exactly a way which this can be used and the laws especially are ways to describe this.

    Examples:

    Principle of cause and effect - plus connecting as a cause could effect to health or illness, but what are the factors of this?
    Principle of vibration - does plus raise any functions up above others in a psyche?
    Principle of polarity: - how close are and to each other [by degrees in a 360 degree circle]and how does the distance change the 'cause and effect' outcome... ?

    It really enriches the exploration of such concepts to have these laws to go by ...

  12. #12
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    When did that get added in? No biggie I just call this something else.
    12:22, 24 December 2007, judging from the history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    I do not ever think I implied that metaphysics ever used monism as an axiom. I do think I implied that a monist understanding comes from adding the 360 degree circle, where before most people just understood socionics is a dualists "Good versus Bad" what of describing thing. Although, some of that is still there and obviously would not go away.
    You have called this a metaphysical view of Socionics (hopefully you remember saying something like this; it was something from the two-week window that we never restored), and now you've laid out the distinctions between this and classical Socionics. This implies to me that monism is part of what you mean by "metaphysical view."

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    Yeah ... I see no reason for a therefore here on account that it is an extension of socionics; because the whole thing is an extension of socionics. What else can a person say?
    Meta concepts are not extensions, however; they are a level abstracted. To Wikipedia for a definition...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

    I favor the epistemological meaning, by which metasocionics is "socionics applied to socionics." It seems that some of what I think of as metaphysics is better called "epistemology."



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  13. #13
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    Principle of cause and effect - plus connecting as a cause could effect to health or illness, but what are the factors of this?
    Principle of vibration - does plus raise any functions up above others in a psyche?
    Principle of polarity: - how close are and to each other [by degrees in a 360 degree circle]and how does the distance change the 'cause and effect' outcome... ?

    It really enriches the exploration of such concepts to have these laws to go by ...
    Those are questions, not explanations.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

    I favor the epistemological meaning, by which metasocionics is "socionics applied to socionics." It seems that some of what I think of as metaphysics is better called "epistemology."
    Let us just say that this is an extension of socionics in order to make socionics more adaptable to making metaphysical and metasocionical applications.

    As far as monism and metaphysics is concerned, I am speaking more in terms that this would be more of a monist application as opposed to a dualistic one, where I see the most current and popular way of socionics using dualistic type reasoning, where this is more of a monistic type of reasoning.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Those are questions, not explanations.
    I am unsure exactly what is your objection with that? The whole theory obviously does not consist entirely of questions and answers, you should know that.

  16. #16
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    Did you read my introduction at all? I think reading the introduction where I stated that this was as close to alchemy without being alchemy and with a socionics basis is rather straightforwards that your objection is exactly what is going on here.
    OK, then perhaps you can explain how you've been telling people that they need to study alchemy for about a year to be able to understand how they are (all) the same thing as socionics? You told me before that I need to understand alchemy properly to understand how the war strategems are the same as alchemy, that wasn't true. Sorry, but why should I (or anyone really) get their hands dirty?

    You'll remember I said before you pulled the forum down, that the only way to make the war strategems fit was to re-write their definitions, which you agreed with me. Yet you've been saying they are all the same thing, I just don't understand how you are changing what you are saying so much and what part to even accept as valid even now.

    Also, you are going to have to re-write the war strategems to make them fit alchemy as well as socionics. Which one gets re-written first and why? Alchemy, war strategems, the zodiac? But then you have as I understood it spoke of dualism of all these topics, including black magic, presumably to find a correlation in the duality of socionics, but now you speak of monism, and how do they boil down to the same thing, and why should they? So I don't see why you're moving the goal posts or how these things are related at all, it seems like you are just concerned with throwing around gimmicky buzz words or catch phrases.

    Maybe that's the whole point, but I think you should question the validity of what your doing, and any practical means that you will derive from it.

    Although, perhaps instead, why don't you just re-write socionics? Maybe that is were you are going wrong. (half-serious).
    No, I read over that entry and everything that is in there actually fits quite well with how this can be applied. For example in the link where it says:



    Is exactly a way which this can be used and the laws especially are ways to describe this.
    I said metaphysics. You just seem to use the words metaphysics and metasocionics interchangeably, like you just did there.
    Last edited by Cyclops; 02-21-2009 at 07:38 AM.

  17. #17
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry, *****, but this is an incomprehensible load of junk. I'm sure it makes sense in your own head, but you need to find a way to make it more understandble for people that don't have access to your mind.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Sorry, *****, but this is an incomprehensible load of junk. I'm sure it makes sense in your own head, but you need to find a way to make it more understandable for people that don't have access to your mind.
    It was much that way before, this is just less so and more structured ...

  19. #19
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    I am unsure exactly what is your objection with that? The whole theory obviously does not consist entirely of questions and answers, you should know that.
    Sorry, I didn't quote enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    Is exactly a way which this can be used and the laws especially are ways to describe this.

    Examples:

    Principle of cause and effect - plus connecting as a cause could effect to health or illness, but what are the factors of this?
    Principle of vibration - does plus raise any functions up above others in a psyche?
    Principle of polarity: - how close are and to each other [by degrees in a 360 degree circle]and how does the distance change the 'cause and effect' outcome... ?

    It really enriches the exploration of such concepts to have these laws to go by ...
    You say you have descriptions, then you go on to give questions as examples... that doesn't make sense to me.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Sorry, I didn't quote enough.

    You say you have descriptions, then you go on to give questions as examples... that doesn't make sense to me.
    and together [I think] will cause 6 [looks to be a minimum of 8 actually] or more different type of effects, depending upon the polarity of the functions. I can not say exactly as I am still developing that part of the theory, and that was another reason I want help. There is a crap load of stuff to reverse-engineer, understand and write down. It is a lot of work.

    Edit: actually it may be 8 time 8 as the number of varying descriptions.
    Last edited by Angel von Himmel; 02-21-2009 at 07:45 AM.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    OK, then perhaps you can explain how you've been telling people that they need to study alchemy for about a year to be able to understand how they are (all) the same thing as socionics?
    That was how long it took me. I studied both alchemy and socionics, plus those strategems together for over a year before saying anything in the forum. Maybe someone else can learn it faster and do better with seeing how they all interconnect, but that was how long I took before saying anything.

    You told me before that I need to understand alchemy properly to understand how the war strategems are the same as alchemy, that wasn't true. Sorry, but why should I (or anyone really) get their hands dirty?
    Actually, to see what I did and how I did it that is true. I just may have been unable to convey correctly my own way of determining this.

    You'll remember I said before you pulled the forum down, that the only way to make the war strategems fit was to re-write their definitions, which you agreed with me. Yet you've been saying they are all the same thing, I just don't understand how you are changing what you are saying so much and what part to even accept as valid even now.
    I have rewritten them ... now I am just looking for other people's input. I think some can be rewritten much better.

    Also, you are going to have to re-write the war strategems to make them fit alchemy as well as socionics. Which one gets re-written first and why?
    Just socionics ... I am done with actual alchemy.

    Alchemy, war strategems, the zodiac? But then you have as I understood it spoke of dualism of all these topics, including black magic, presumably to find a correlation in the duality of socionics, but now you speak of monoism. So I don't see why you're moving the goal posts or how these things are related at all, it seems like you are just concerned with throwing around gimmicky buzz words or catch phrases.
    Maybe you have cued into a part of my personality that is surfacing. I do tend to use a lot of big words.

    Maybe that's the whole point, but I think you should question the validity of what your doing, and any practical means that you will derive from it.
    I have ... over and over ... and I keep refining it. What keeps me going is the intuition that I am onto something important.

    Although, perhaps instead, why don't you just re-write socionics? Maybe that is were you are going wrong. (half-serious).
    I have no plan to rewrite socionics, but I do plan to reverse-engineere various socionic type and relationship descriptions. So, technically it is still socionics, just that socionics has a visible framework people can go by and not this 'up in the air' not really seeing a consistant framework dualistic thing.

    I said metaphysics, slow coach. You use the words metaphysics and metasocionics interchangeably, like you just did there.
    My bad, any way I can answer your question better?

  22. #22
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel von Himmel View Post
    That was how long it took me. I studied both alchemy and socionics, plus those strategems together for over a year before saying anything in the forum. Maybe someone else can learn it faster and do better with seeing how they all interconnect, but that was how long I took before saying anything.

    Actually, to see what I did and how I did it that is true. I just may have been unable to convey correctly my own way of determining this.

    I have rewritten them ... now I am just looking for other people's input. I think some can be rewritten much better.

    Just socionics ... I am done with actual alchemy.

    Maybe you have cued into a part of my personality that is surfacing. I do tend to use a lot of big words.

    I have ... over and over ... and I keep refining it. What keeps me going is the intuition that I am onto something important.

    I have no plan to rewrite socionics, but I do plan to reverse-engineere various socionic type and relationship descriptions. So, technically it is still socionics, just that socionics has a visible framework people can go by and not this 'up in the air' not really seeing a consistant framework dualistic thing.

    My bad, any way I can answer your question better?
    Well, I just typed a bunch of stuff which the internet lost. Damn.

    Suffice it to say, this is the first time I recall you showing a bit of humility which is a good thing. To be honest i've been somewhat concerned about giving you positive criticism or feedback because i've been unsure of how you would respond to it, which could mean a reasonable amount of effort by me would essentially be for nothing, in terms of trying to help you/flesh this out. Whether this is a genuine thing by you or another tactic, i'm not entirely sure.

    I think you really do need some help fleshing this out, removing the "impurities" and making it constructive, which on a simple level, if you're really Ne dominant, Ne dominants types tend to have the ideas and Si types make them "reality", actually work.

    So i'll try and take a look at some of this later, in a little more depth, (I have to go just now) and see what I come up with. Whether it's helpful or not remains to be seen lol.

    Also, are you aware that Jung did quite a bit of studying into alchemy? I think he derived his archetypes from them (or something like that) Anyway i'm not trying to put new ideas into your head (!), i'm just saying incase you don't know, it may be possible for you to read up on his study of it somehow, even though you've put alchemy on the back burner for now.

    Man there's a lot of stuff you've put out, and it takes a lot of work to decipher then to see what's correct or otherwise!

    Maybe you could use some of what you write as templates, like the idea of the war strategems could be a basis for writing what sort of strategies a type tends to take on board when doing things, in a socionic context. So then it's no longer chinese war strategems at all really. And who knows if it's possible or sort of been done already. I guess I could see how that would be like an inspiration to begin with, whether they are the same thing or not is still a long way away! (as you've said one needs to understand alchemy first to see how socionics and chinese war strategems are the same..which is a bit of a stretch.) Just seems like a lot of work needing done. It really does appear to be strangely incoherent, maybe got carried away a little bit in your attempt to correlate it all..

    Another thing, in the context of duality, war strategems would technically be those adopted by the duals to complement each other, perhaps in theory being able to solve all possible issues/situations. But quadras focus on other things so whether they would all, the duals complete strategems would neutralise all the other duals strategems, or have different spheres of focus, is another thing.

    But.. I feel you need Ti and Te here at the moment! What type are you really? (just curious)

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Well, I just typed a bunch of stuff which the internet lost. Damn.

    Suffice it to say, this is the first time I recall you showing a bit of humility which is a good thing. To be honest i've been somewhat concerned about giving you positive criticism or feedback because i've been unsure of how you would respond to it, which could mean a reasonable amount of effort by me would essentially be for nothing, in terms of trying to help you/flesh this out. Whether this is a genuine thing by you or another tactic, i'm not entirely sure.

    I think you really do need some help fleshing this out, removing the "impurities" and making it constructive, which on a simple level, if you're really Ne dominant, Ne dominants types tend to have the ideas and Si types make them "reality", actually work.

    So i'll try and take a look at some of this later, in a little more depth, (I have to go just now) and see what I come up with. Whether it's helpful or not remains to be seen lol.
    Also, are you aware that Jung did quite a bit of studying into alchemy? I think he derived his archetypes from them (or something like that) Anyway i'm not trying to put new ideas into your head (!), i'm just saying incase you don't know, it may be possible for you to read up on his study of it somehow, even though you've put alchemy on the back burner for now.
    The 16 types that Jung had were directly derived from western forms of alchemy. I would consider the strategems themselves to be more or so archetypes of behavior, and that is the way that I want to make the 36 descriptions. So, you can say archetype instead of strategem, and actually archetype would be more accurate taking that the descriptions are more determiners of a type and not intended to be an adaptation to take on a specific form, such as a strategem would be.

    Man there's a lot of stuff you've put out, and it takes a lot of work to decipher then to see what's correct or otherwise!
    I cut out the majority of non-socionic seeming crap and everything in there should be relevant now to socionics 100%.

    I think the main challenge is understanding what I wrote in the way I understand it ...

    Maybe you could use some of what you write as templates, like the idea of the war strategems could be a basis for writing what sort of strategies a type tends to take on board when doing things, in a socionic context.
    Right now I just want 36 socionics sounding type descriptions written in the same style as the 36 strategems for all types. They do not have to be the 36 strategems, but they do have to be associated with the types.


    Another thing, in the context of duality, war strategems would technically be those adopted by the duals to complement each other, perhaps in theory being able to solve all possible issues/situations. But quadras focus on other things so whether they would all, the duals complete strategems would neutralise all the other duals strategems, or have different spheres of focus, is another thing.
    That was how I began figureing out where the strategems were suppose to go and what types they belonged too, by which ones neutralized each other and as I found a predictable pattern, then compared that to the alchemical processes I found enough corellations to qualify my suspecions as valid.

    But.. I feel you need Ti and Te here at the moment! What type are you really? (just curious)
    Got me ... probably a feeler type or perception dominant.
    Last edited by Angel von Himmel; 02-21-2009 at 09:12 AM.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I changed the first post a little [by changing metasocionics to alchemical socionics] to avoid confusion over any existing information out there.

  25. #25
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Duality turns into monism when both polls are seen together. Socionics lingo already accounts for monism. Se&Ni together are a monism, as is S/N, subjective/objective; but never explicitly "the atomic object, the singularity" .. we're just looking at one addition in lingo, that is all .. Acknowledging monism in its own right, instead of glimpsing it from the eyes of what has already been divided. There's only a very slight difference between that, and what we already have.

    As for rewriting socionics, what you have here on division from monism is good. One problem with it all, though, is you are too vague. If a person wanted to notate metaphysics, what they'd need to do is actually start with monism; with "the singularity, the atom" and, moving up one dimension at a time, describe the intricacies of each dimension in terms of atomic objects and elemental relationships. Then you can take these 'dimensional description templates' and apply them to any working system you see. I've been working on these descriptions for the past year or so and have up to dimension 5 & -5 written out. There are a few things you haven't yet realized, and which your system doesn't account for:

    1) Lopsided metaphysics.
    Imagine you have a group of six people (think of them all as dots), and three of them know eachother. So there are three dots forming kind of like a triangle. Then the other three know eachother, so that's a second triangle. Now, one person in between both triangles knows the other.. the rest don't know eachother. So you have two triangles connected by one line; but with your model, six is automatically assumed to be a hexagon with lines drawn in between every dot. Everyone automatically knows the others.
    For example, with the '36' (the strategems) .. this doesn't automatically imply it's been equally divided 36 times. It may be divided by 6; three of those further subdivided by three; and the other three further subdivided by nine; altogether creating 36; but a lopsided 36. Right? So that needs to be accounted for, too.. and that gets exponentially complicated as you increase the number of elements you're looking at.

    2) A metaphysical system within another metaphysical system.
    For example if you see two girls standing together talking in a club. Together they form kind of like two dots with arrows in between them. Then you walk up to them and you try and start a conversation with both of them, making a triangle. What is happening now is the girls have to balance their friendship with one another, AND their new conversation with you, at the same time. There is a 3 dot triangle happening, and there is also a two dot relationship going on. Both these 'metaphysical systems' are happening simultaneously. A change in girl A and Bs relationship, will simultaneously mean a change in the triangle. But then, you have to make sure girl A knows girl B is entertained. Her being entertained isn't enough. The triangle may be working right, but if it doesn't match up with the girls relationship, you're out. So this is kind of like a 'compound complex'.

    Altogether things like this make metaphysics into an overwhelming web of confusion.. without working these things into the theory you're using, you will end up with flawed conclusions.

    Lastly, there is no distinguishment between metaphysics and 'metasocionics', other than that you're taking metaphysics and applying it to particular aspects of alchemy and socionics .. I think these sorts of applications can be incredibly useful for day to day activities.. working out sophisticated strategies for doing whatever it is you want. And detailing these applications is certainly worth your time. But it doesn't really make sense to claim you 'discovered' metaphysics. Right? Founded metasocionics? Even then, I'm not sure.. there have been tons of things written on the subject already. Now if you were to come up with sort of a 'grand metaphysics theory' and then apply it to socionics, that would be something. But .. you aren't there yet, and like I said you would be amazed just how much detail that requires.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 02-21-2009 at 12:08 PM.
    INTp

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat View Post
    duality turns into monism when both polls are seen together. Socionics lingo already accounts for monism. Se&Ni together are a monism, as is S/N, subjective/objective; but never explicitly "the atomic object, the singularity" .. we're just looking at a change in lingo, that is all .. acknowledging monism in its own right, instead of glimpsing it from the eyes of what has already been divided. There's only a very slight difference between that, and what we already have.
    As for rewriting socionics, what you have here on the nature of division from monism is very good. One problem with it all, though, is ~you don't actually have anything other than pictures and vague comments~. What you need to do is actually start with monism and, moving up one dimension at a time, describe the intricacies of each dimension in terms of atomic objects and elemental relationships. Then you can take these 'dimensional descriptions' and apply them to any working system you see. I've already been writing these 'dimensional descriptions' for the past year or so
    Wow ... great comment, thanks.

  27. #27
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    I'm not sure either of you are using monism in a context I would use it. Monism can be taken as all things boiling down to be the same thing. As I understand it ***** is saying that monism in this context is that socionics, alchemy, war strategems are the same thing. Well he has been saying this but seems to (maybe) be changing it now.

    Socionics and monism seems to be what you are now saying that Ne and Si come down to the same thing. Not really as they are typically regarded as two halves of the same thing, as is the dual-dual psyche. I guess it could be like a lock and key or maybe making a whole from two seperate things..which technically there is probably a philosophical distinction there. Is it reductive or not etc. So I think the monism context is in the different "disciplines" being the same..which I think you're trying to prove or sort of achieve.

    In view of everything, including what's being said here and *****'s overall (continued) conduct with others, and at times myself, the typical, what I see as the "flavour" of the posts here too, I withdraw my contribution from this for the time being, for what that contribution is or would be worth anyway.

    Heh, I feel I already contributed something just there..but..in any event permission to use my posts hasn't been granted from me anyway.

    (Eh, I mean this seriously, take a break *****, all this stuff will still be here when you get back from that break. Anyway, I don't want to repeat that like a broken record. Good luck with it all.)

    Laters to this thread :-)

  28. #28
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All you just said was that monism can be achieved through the reunification of parts... right? Yeah, old news. lol
    INTp

  29. #29
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat View Post
    All you just said was that monism can be achieved through the reunification of parts... right? Yeah, old news. lol
    You're a big reason as to why I wouldn't want to contribute anymore. You're what I refer to as the flavour, and it's difficult to get any sense out of you. Although you probably like being an asshole, asshole.

    And no I'm saying that the different disciplines are not the same thing, and that duality in socionics are probably not the same thing either, because they are seperate entities in their own right which only work well together, ergo my reductive point, are the sum of the parts equal to the whole or is the whole greater than the sum of the parts. Monism isn't just one thing, it's all things. However all of this seems to go over your head you ascerbic prick. Even if I was wrong, laughing at people who contribute isn't going to want to make them contribute anymore. so I think you helping will probably do more harm than good since you just appear to want to or just do annoy people.

    Goodbye and good luck *****.

  30. #30
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeAnte View Post
    What a pointless waste of fucking time. I want to piss in the OP's mouth.
    While I don't see anything wrong with the "pointless waste of fucking time" comment, the pissing part is a bit over the top. Please try to keep it somewhat civil.
    INFj

    9w1 sp/sx

  31. #31
    07490's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    there
    Posts
    3,047
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Sorry, *****, but this is an incomprehensible load of junk. I'm sure it makes sense in your own head, but you need to find a way to make it more understandble for people that don't have access to your mind.
    Agreed, It might as well be a truly profound concept that you have in your mind. If you can corherently connect one idea to another. If not, it is just a random idea with no potential.
    (D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    1)
    A girl who I want to date, asks me: well first tell me how tall you are?
    My reply: well I will answer that, if you first tell me how much you weigh!

    2)
    A girl I was dating said she was oh so great at sex etc, but she didn't do blowjobs.
    My reply: Oh I'm really romantic etc, I just will never take you out to dinner.

  32. #32
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    You're a big reason as to why I wouldn't want to contribute anymore. You're what I refer to as the flavour, and it's difficult to get any sense out of you. Although you probably like being an asshole, asshole.

    And no I'm saying that the different disciplines are not the same thing, and that duality in socionics are probably not the same thing either, because they are seperate entities in their own right which only work well together, ergo my reductive point, are the sum of the parts equal to the whole or is the whole greater than the sum of the parts. Monism isn't just one thing, it's all things. However all of this seems to go over your head you ascerbic prick. Even if I was wrong, laughing at people who contribute isn't going to want to make them contribute anymore. so I think you helping will probably do more harm than good since you just appear to want to or just do annoy people.

    Goodbye and good luck *****.
    The problem with that is it is written into the definition of, for example Ni, that Ni is splintered away from monism. Just like subjectivity cannot exist without objectivity; Ni cannot exist without Se. Time is a series of situations. Without the existance of a situation, how can there be time? The subject consists of impressions of the object.. it can't exist without the object. That is what prevents you from viewing Ni for example as a monism, or subjectivity as a monism.
    What is true is that you can falsely treat Ni as a monism. Or you can falsely treat 'air' as a monism; or whatever it is which is common to earth air fire and water; 'elementalism', as a monism. And those sorts of applications are flawed, because they can always be undermined and reunited into something greater. But ultimately there IS a final 'monism', and that is the definition of monism itself: the singularity, the atom; which is why I told ***** to first write 'atomic, elemental descriptions of the dimensions and then apply them to whatever one wishes as a template'. Basically, in order to look at something you have to make an assumption, and that assumption is your 'monism'; but that assumption can always be undermined until you reach 'the existence of everything and nothing'
    Last edited by crazedrat; 02-21-2009 at 12:35 PM.
    INTp

  33. #33
    ***el X Mercenary Nebuchadnezzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Socionix sleeper cell
    TIM
    Te-ISTp
    Posts
    1,413
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tereg View Post
    While I don't see anything wrong with the "pointless waste of fucking time" comment, the pissing part is a bit over the top. Please try to keep it somewhat civil.
    Sure thing, tereg.

    "His feeling that this world is not his Fatherland, and that it does not represent his proper condition, so to speak—his feeling that, basically, he 'comes from afar'—will remain a fundamental element which will not give rise to mystical escapism and spiritual weakness, but rather will enable him to minimise, to relativise, to refer to higher concepts of measure and limit, all that can seem important and definitive to others, starting with death itself, and will confer on him calm force and breadth of vision." — Julius Evola

    SLI-Te | 5w6 sp/so
    Oldham Solitary

    Johari
    Nohari

  34. #34
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    what da fuck iz this shit
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

Posting Permissions

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