Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Masks, archetypes, subconscious legend and magic

  1. #1
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Masks, archetypes, subconscious legend and magic

    Woke up at 5 AM. My friend is waking me from my sofa for the Wake & Bake. He just drove here unexpectedly and came through the backdoor on his own.
    After the joint in the sauna and the general how-do-you-dos, he left. I, the extreme extrovert who has to define itself by its observers, was left alone and high. It got me thinking about myself, then socionics, then about posting.


    Most of you here grew somewhat over socionics and typing. Not to say it wouldn't be practiced here, but for the most of you it seems to be a certain kind of a toy; to play with, to play together with and, to all you, in various degrees, to be played by it. Yet these masks seem very real.

    Keep on reading the paragrafs below, the magic and legend in the thread name won't be referring to any of the fantasy stuff. Unless you really want to.


    Friend of mine told me about Gandalf being based on Väinämöinen, main character in Kalevala, the finnish national epic. It is true that Tolkien read Kalevala. In Finnish. In the old Finnish which is already incomprehensible to me, especially since the story is in poetry.
    Later, another friend declared that Gandalf mainly got it's inspirations on Merlin. Very plausible. Why were they so similar? ..Later on, came Albus Dumbledore.
    If you study any of the "good wise wizard" archetypes, they're always pretty similar.
    We're culturally trapped in archetypes.

    Did you know that the word "inspire" came from latin words which mean for the spirit(us), to step in. You are the well of spirits which affected to you. Be it from the primal source of inspiration (the organic and non-organic nature), self-conscious nature (the cultural creatures) or the inspiration wells made by the latter (art in all forms to a highly extended version of the word; literature, pictures, film) besides the reflections of culture (language, religion, myths, so forth).The simplifying, categorizing, optimizing human mind is very prone to making these symbols, set of characteristics and qualities in these subconcious icons. Even so far to take all of us with us to be influenced by these subconscius legends.

    We've taken a part in a play with many customized masks. Some of us forget that we have a face under them. I'm one of them. And highly aware of it.

    Your types are a new assortment of myths based on other myths. You were playing your part even before you knew about socionics. Now you're propably doing even more so with slightly changed formula. Hopefully you're doing it somewhat consciusly as the mind can mold itself while it is discerning of it's own mechanics. The observer watching the observer observing itself can be a self-undoing process, making room for building some new culture within.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Aquagraph; 11-20-2011 at 05:08 AM.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  2. #2
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I'll try to articulate some coherent thoughts in a bit.
    Same here. I was planning to write something about my inspired roles, especially in ILE and SLE.

    I'll be also expecting someone to try to retype me based on my writings.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think creating your own myth is better than reading about past ones.

  4. #4
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratPULSE View Post
    i think creating your own myth is better than reading about past ones.
    To be inspired by yourself without outer influence or to choose to be hacker of self and choose the traits to pursue and reprogram yourself?
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  5. #5
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is this completely too incomprehensible or something as I have to bump this to keep it alive?
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  6. #6
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It makes lots of sense, in fact it resonates very closely with my own theory of type definition. This is part of why I hold that types are not inborn, at least in their full manifestation; I think there is a chance that at least temperament is inborn, but when I see the obvious recurring scenarios in peoples lives and relations, most poignantly familial relations, and how often they seem to come to "archetypal" fruition, and how often socionics type reflects this in an expectedly fitting manner, you just kind of take for granted that the whole mess is moving along together.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  7. #7
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    [I][COLOR="#808080"]

    Your types are a new assortment of myths based on other myths. You were playing your part even before you knew about socionics. Now you're propably doing even more so with slightly changed formula. Hopefully you're doing it somewhat consciusly as the mind can mold itself while it is discerning of it's own mechanics. The observer watching the observer observing itself can be a self-undoing process, making room for building some new culture within.

    Thoughts?
    Actually Jung defined the type and the achtype as two distinct things... that one went beyond the other. But we assocciate(unfortunatly) masks of sorts with types as we stereotype and associate images with type which leads us to relate the types to archetypes in a way.

  8. #8
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't believe in this archetype story, I believe in the laws of nature. This faith makes a fallacious causal assumption in the existence of common causes of different types, inheritance that may be or may not be true, in different cases. If we meet alien species, they may likely share traits with us, some may have limbs like our terrestrial animals, some may have fins to swim: that doesn't necessarily imply that we inherit common traits from somewhere, but that we are all products of the laws of physics, laws which make certain imaginary phenomenae impossible, others very common. It is the same thing.

    I don't think there's such thing as a "full manifestation" of a type. A Promethean liberal mindset in a Promethean authoritarian social context, both which come from our human nature, will likely end in Promethean fate, even if Prometheus never existed. Even these typical values emerged for definite reasons, authoritarianism was not there since the beginning of time, but it emerged from necessity: full unity to defend against a threat, when it is commonly perceived as such, as a common purpose. And unity for a greater power is not the only thing, but other things as well, one that comes to my mind is different necessary and simultaneous designations that obviously one individual can't be assigned alone.

    Walking down this case (authoritarianism, leadership), I'm gonna give you an example: playing an online battle multiplayer game, I reached the point of giving orders to the team I find myself into, when we loose constantly: "stick together!", "open the gate!". When I'm not doing that, and the necessity is stringent, often someone else does. Why? Because we loose, and because it's obvious how we can win, and because it's obvious that the ones who are united and disciplined win much more often (clans). So I don't need to be aware of and impersonate some big badass leader archetype, neither to enjoy that role, in order to behave that way - in fact I oppose unreasonable authoritarianism (for the sake of it or for the sake of tradition). Of course, someone can associate you with some Chinese master general for good reasons, that doesn't imply that you ever heard of him or his deeds, but merely that you had similar cognitive caracteristics, similar knowledge (likely experience), and faced similar circumstances.

    I do believe that personality type (not sociotype) is determined by both internal and external factors, in my opinion the absence of the latter (the NF style) is what eventually leads to the belief in that mysterious (spiritual, etc) or imaginary causal connection to an ancestor or sybling, since no material justification is allowed for this identity.
    ---

    - I know I switched my analysis from the type of an enlightener to the one of the leader, but that should be irrelevant.
    - I use type in its general sense, it may or may not be related to the sociotype. No model is employed for types and archetypes and their number is arbitrary. Types and archetypes are subjective, no consistent criteria are applied - different selections end up in different topologies - the emphasis on one or another is a matter of personal preference or cultural inheritance.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The self relates to others; the self typing eventually gives way to a dynamic use of functions. That doesn't abandon myths.. you take on the role of the hero. Dismissing myths is a mistake just like dismissing functions is a mistake. But the hero is the center of myths. I have become more open to other peoples points of view throughout this.. I was incredibly angry when I first came here, that's mostly gone now. The hero is what all the other mythical characters center around.. Functions are the same way, they all coordinate around eachother to form the self in a negative or positive aspect.

  10. #10
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @The Ineffable
    How does your basis exclude mine?
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  11. #11
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    @The Ineffable
    How does your basis exclude mine?
    First of all, directly connecting the archetypes to the sociotypes, direct link which I reject, for reasons in the bottom of my post. The answer to this question was already there.

    Then, I disagree with the assumption that human types of individuals are necessarily causally related, or related to archetypes, by cultural or spiritual means. I'm not excluding them, in some cases it may actually be the case (at least the cultural influence), however there are natural means to create similarities between them, which I am inclined to find more likely, but which your theory neglects. Moreover, in Socionics, the type is determined by a certain configuration of the psyche, it is not a role model that one inherits or follows. The sociotypes are presumably part of the human nature, neither accidental nor optional. Other than that, you may want to read this post that I just submitted.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  12. #12
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratPULSE View Post
    Functions are the same way, they all coordinate around eachother to form the self in a negative or positive aspect.
    Could you explain what you mean by "negative" and "positive"?
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  13. #13
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    First of all, directly connecting the archetypes to the sociotypes, direct link which I reject, for reasons in the bottom of my post. The answer to this question was already there.
    Among other things conventionally cultural, sociotypes form archetypes. When signals from an archetype are found in self, other such appear, as the archetype was born as a conventional set of stereotypical traits. In the abovementioned wise wizard archetype example, the wizard usually is knowledgeable thus usually not unintelligent, propably bookwise and has a beard since age is often associated with knowledge or wisdom.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Then, I disagree with the assumption that human types of individuals are necessarily causally related, or related to archetypes, by cultural or spiritual means. I'm not excluding them, in some cases it may actually be the case (at least the cultural influence), however there are natural means to create similarities between them, which I am inclined to find more likely, but which your theory neglects.
    This part caused confusion in me. What do you mean by these "natural means"?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Moreover, in Socionics, the type is determined by a certain configuration of the psyche, it is not a role model that one inherits or follows.
    My theories are:
    -Sociotype is inborn.
    -Sociotype can change after a severe psychedelic experience (thrauma, spiritual experience, etc).
    -Sociotype may change during in puberty.
    -Sociotype will be completely formed in puberty.
    -Sociotype will be completely formed in the early childhood.

    If any of the bolded ones are true, attractiveness of the archetype(s) might have effect.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Sociotype may change...
    Can it change after death or is it still there?

  15. #15
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    Can it change after death or is it still there?
    Totally there. I type people in the cemeteries and carve it on their tombstones.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Totally there. I type people in the cemeteries and carve it on their tombstones.
    Oh okay. Carry on.

  17. #17
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Among other things conventionally cultural, sociotypes form archetypes. When signals from an archetype are found in self, other such appear, as the archetype was born as a conventional set of stereotypical traits. In the abovementioned wise wizard archetype example, the wizard usually is knowledgeable thus usually not unintelligent, propably bookwise and has a beard since age is often associated with knowledge or wisdom.
    You equivocate the full behavioral profile with the sociotype (not only in this post, but as well before) and this is where I disagree and I think you're wrong too, since the sociotype is supposed to determine solely a cognition configuration from a set of limited possibilities. This is known to be a common mistake among beginners who come from MBTI. Even if you look into Jung's [1] psychological types, they merely offer the specifications to distinguish a limited set of templates, which are dry and describe no actual personality. In fact, more than Socionics' elders, Jung, with a remarkable caution, stood away from associating such a type with any specific person or role. The experience of Socionis showed that the decision to adopt such titles (i.e. "The Lyricist" or "Yesenin") and profiles (detailed type descriptions, with "what would an IEI do") is a double-edged blade: on one hand it makes it more accessible to the masses and easier to begin with - one doesn't need to know the whole technical background in order to get his/her hands dirty. On the other hand, it introduces the possibility for one to stick to these profiles, taking them literally as absolute references, mistake that experience with communities such as this confirms.

    What you should remember from all this is that the sociotype does not describe the whole personality, and that personality change does not necessarily mean sociotype change.
    ---

    [1] - who coincidentaly studied archetypes as well.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  18. #18
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    My theories are:
    -Sociotype is inborn.
    -Sociotype can change after a severe psychedelic experience (thrauma, spiritual experience, etc).
    -Sociotype may change during in puberty.
    -Sociotype will be completely formed in puberty.
    -Sociotype will be completely formed in the early childhood.

    If any of the bolded ones are true, attractiveness of the archetype(s) might have effect.
    Only the last two [1] IMO, which also mean that sociotype is an ideal set of personality traits, this ideal consisting in the completeness and/or full development of these traits. This means that the development of a type involves the accumulation and/or [2] strengthening these traits to the point they prevail over other configurations, in a certain individual. But to demonstrate that this view is incorrect is easy: Aushra postulated that the type is a complete set of discrete traits. That is, by definition, any trait that is optional and scalar is not a sociotype property.

    Consequently, a sociotype can be only and fully one of the Socion, and there is no such thing as an ideal representative of a sociotype, neither "underdeveloped" or "unhealthy" [3] type. Actual behavioral traits - the "type related" figures - correlate with type but do not define it. Any "Socionist" that denies these definitions is in the wrong, since that is what makes sociotypes (and what Socionics means), disputing them is a matter of whether sociotypes exist, and not a matter of whether those conceptions are correct. In my knowledge, neither Aushra was 100% certain that types cannot change, however if they do, it can only happen entirely.

    So based on these arguments, I conclude that sociotypes cannot be influenced as required to make a functional correlation to archetypes or any such kind of inventories.
    ---

    [1] - and the second bolded (third in the full list), in case it means it changes along a period of time, instead of some moment during that period.
    [2] - when considering the traits scalar, it may be the case that their absence to mean zero development.
    [3] - another misconception springing from the same misunderstanding, that wankers often speculate around. It should not be confused with unhealthy or underdeveloped personality correlated with type, which is acknowledged and is judged based on the social potential of a type that cannot be manifested, or it is manifested negatively. The judgment is purely value-based. Assuming an F type is supposed to end-up caring and empathetic, a bitter and cold representative is considered a consequence of a hostile informational environment, nevertheless, that doesn't change the type of that individual in the least, one can't say that type is "less F" or "more T" or anything like that.
    Last edited by The Ineffable; 12-06-2011 at 07:53 AM.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  19. #19
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    This part caused confusion in me. What do you mean by these "natural means"?
    I thought it is more appropriate to answer this question here.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  20. #20
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    You equivocate the full behavioral profile with the sociotype (not only in this post, but as well before) and this is where I disagree and I think you're wrong too, since the sociotype is supposed to determine solely a cognition configuration from a set of limited possibilities.
    I believe you've misinterpreted me and there has been a miscommunication. I might play with stereotypes, myths and other cultural heritages in socionics, yet I believe we all do that in every aspect of our life, at least in some degree. Denying such might confuse me in my quest for more precise theories or the so-called 'Truth'.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Even if you look into Jung's [1] psychological types, they merely offer the specifications to distinguish a limited set of templates, which are dry and describe no actual personality. In fact, more than Socionics' elders, Jung, with a remarkable caution, stood away from associating such a type with any specific person or role.
    More or less. Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    The experience of Socionis showed that the decision to adopt such titles (i.e. "The Lyricist" or "Yesenin") and profiles (detailed type descriptions, with "what would an IEI do") is a double-edged blade: on one hand it makes it more accessible to the masses and easier to begin with - one doesn't need to know the whole technical background in order to get his/her hands dirty. On the other hand, it introduces the possibility for one to stick to these profiles, taking them literally as absolute references, mistake that experience with communities such as this confirms.
    This was partly my point. Archetypes are highly accessible and socionics seems more appealing for those who read about 'Yesenin' or such and say to theirselves "Hey, I know the type of person!"
    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    What you should remember from all this is that the sociotype does not describe the whole personality, and that personality change does not necessarily mean sociotype change.
    Of course. Yet a sociotype would propably change some of the personality in question.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    [1] - who coincidentaly studied archetypes as well.
    Yes. Although I'm only vaguely familiar with his work, I found inspiration within those cultural symbolisms. I wouldn't be amazed if this study of archetype would have been a similar interest inspiring Jung to write the seeds to socionics.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Only the last two [1] IMO, which also mean that sociotype is an ideal set of personality traits, this ideal consisting in the completeness and/or full development of these traits. This means that the development of a type involves the accumulation and/or [2] strengthening these traits to the point they prevail over other configurations, in a certain individual. But to demonstrate that this view is incorrect is easy: Aushra postulated that the type is a complete set of discrete traits. That is, by definition, any trait that is optional and scalar is not a sociotype property.

    Consequently, a sociotype can be only and fully one of the Socion, and there is no such thing as an ideal representative of a sociotype, neither "underdeveloped" or "unhealthy" [3] type. Actual behavioral traits - the "type related" figures - correlate with type but do not define it. Any "Socionist" that denies these definitions is in the wrong, since that is what makes sociotypes (and what Socionics means), disputing them is a matter of whether sociotypes exist, and not a matter of whether those conceptions are correct. In my knowledge, neither Aushra was 100% certain that types cannot change, however if they do, it can only happen entirely.

    So based on these arguments, I conclude that sociotypes cannot be influenced as required to make a functional correlation to archetypes or any such kind of inventories.
    ---

    [1] - and the second bolded (third in the full list), in case it means it changes along a period of time, instead of some moment during that period.
    [2] - when considering the traits scalar, it may be the case that their absence to mean zero development.
    [3] - another misconception springing from the same misunderstanding, that wankers often speculate around. It should not be confused with unhealthy or underdeveloped personality correlated with type, which is acknowledged and is judged based on the social potential of a type that cannot be manifested, or it is manifested negatively. The judgment is purely value-based. Assuming an F type is supposed to end-up caring and empathetic, a bitter and cold representative is considered a consequence of a hostile informational environment, nevertheless, that doesn't change the type of that individual in the least, one can't say that type is "less F" or "more T" or anything like that.
    I'm afraid I have to refrain from making any comments on this, at least for now. Partly, because of the language barrier and partly since this was new information. I might want to digest this.


    Besides the last quote, almost all you have said are making me feel more and more that we actually don't disagree as much as we miscommunicate. You might be confused with my message as my past posts might have given a misleading picture of me, as I'm rarely serious and one part of me is almost always playing devil's advocate. I also try to be somewhat wrong in order to learn more. Also see my answer on your thread.
    Last edited by Aquagraph; 12-06-2011 at 06:28 PM.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  21. #21
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Yes. Although I'm only vaguely familiar with his work, I found inspiration within those cultural symbolisms. I wouldn't be amazed if this study of archetype would have been a similar interest inspiring Jung to write the seeds to socionics.
    That would be interesting to find out, just it seems like his theories on archetypes were developed later than the psychological types. I currently don't have reasons to view the two other than separate subjects, for the record.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Besides the last quote, almost all you have said are making me feel more and more that we actually don't disagree as much as we miscommunicate. You might be confused with my message as my past posts might have given a misleading picture of me, as I'm rarely serious and one part of me is almost always playing devil's advocate. I also try to be somewhat wrong in order to learn more. Also see my answer on your thread.
    I'm not trying to picture you and I understood that you're exploring hypothetical cases, especially in that last paragraph where you said "if". Without intending to judge your potential, I just said what I see wrong with the arguments themselves .
    ---

    I found some relevant sources:
    http://translate.google.com/translat...v-comment.html
    http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  22. #22
    under the bridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aquagraph, were you partially making the point that a majority of the population's personas, or the 'mask' we convey to society, are influenced and formed by our perception of our culture's legends/myths that our previous generations' personas essentially created? If that was the case, I agree with that. However I think that the 'legends of our culture' are but a single influence out of many; a single brushstroke making up the larger picture.

    If I understand him correctly, I've come to many of the same conclusions as The Ineffable. I believe our personality is a manifestation of the amalgamation of an innumerable amount of internal and external processes and factors working in tandem. Some of the factors contributing to our overall personality are the behavior we exhibit, our environment(a vast number of influences here, of course), and what most here know as our Sociotype(thought The Ineffable phrased it very fittingly as 'the determination of a cognition configuration from a set of limited possiblities').

    While a gross oversimplification, here are some examples of things that are included in these factors.

    Behavior- a combination of the following processes:
    *our perspective of reality(knowledge and experience affecting this aspect)
    *motivations for making decisions/taking action(could be based off of values/morals and goals we've set but, in the end, the reward system[of the brain] probably determines most of it)

    Environment- a fraction of the aspects that make this up:
    *ideas, emotions, and lifestyles of our peers(friends, family, mentors, etc)
    *culture's current form(influencing via society's standards of how your gender/ethnicity/age/etc. should behave and as you said, Aquagraph, "art in all forms" & "religion, myths, so forth")
    *education(formal education, common sense, 'street smarts', critical thinking skills...)

    Sociotype- the phenomenon going on within our cognition which so many have tried to define in various ways over the ages. I agree with The Ineffable in that the traits that make this up are scalar and, to reiterate what he said, "the development of a type involves the accumulation and/or strengthening [of] these traits to the point they prevail over other configurations". What exactly these traits are has yet to be determined, but I think our current understanding of the spectrums such as I/E(focus directed inward/outward), S/N(here & now/abstract), and T/F(logic, justice/mercy, emotion) gives a good impression of how our internal processes relate to one another. We're similar in that we all(for the most part) have access to these traits, but the differences in individuals are pronounced partly due to their preference of said traits and the amount of practice they invest in these them(commonly the intrinsic set we use) resulting in the reinforcement of their unique thinking patterns.

    These items all simultaneously affect one another and come together to weave the complex fabric that is our personality. Again, these are just a small part of what make up our personality, but that is the best I can explain my understanding at the moment. Aquagraph, I also hope that people make it a habit to step back and bring these realizations to the forefront of their mind in order to utilize that knowledge in aims of shaping themselves. Although we can never manipulate it entirely, I believe we can attain a semblance of control over our personality. This is through increasing our awareness and understanding of ourselves, altering(what we can to the best of our ability) our behavior and/or parts of our environment, and practicing our strengths.

    To summarize, personality is constantly changing, the pace dependent on the aforementioned factors. I think a good question to ask is if we're navigating down the river that is called life, or are we simply allowing ourselves to drift aimlessly downstream?

    All in all, excellent discussion. I enjoyed the opportunity to elucidate my current understanding of the topic. If clarification on any of this is needed, let me know.

  23. #23
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by under the bridge View Post
    Sociotype- the phenomenon going on within our cognition which so many have tried to define in various ways over the ages. I agree with The Ineffable in that the traits that make this up are scalar and, to reiterate what he said, "the development of a type involves the accumulation and/or strengthening [of] these traits to the point they prevail over other configurations". What exactly these traits are has yet to be determined, but I think our current understanding of the spectrums such as I/E(focus directed inward/outward), S/N(here & now/abstract), and T/F(logic, justice/mercy, emotion) gives a good impression of how our internal processes relate to one another. We're similar in that we all(for the most part) have access to these traits, but the differences in individuals are pronounced partly due to their preference of said traits and the amount of practice they invest in these them(commonly the intrinsic set we use) resulting in the reinforcement of their unique thinking patterns.
    If I understand you correctly, that's the opposite of what I intended (underlined). What I said there is that those characteristics would have been a necessary consequence of the suppositions listed by Aquagraph, consequence that would break the definition of the types, whose attributes are fully determined and discreet (instead of cummulative and scalar).

    I make a strict difference between the type attributes or traits [1], and the unlimited number of personality traits that can be associated with the said type. I recognize the latter as scalar and used in the recognition of a representative (of a type), but as exemplified in my bottom comment - the hypothetical simplistic correlation between empathy and F Ego -, they are not what make it up. Although typical, these traits may be found more or less pronounced, sometimes missing, for instance in a limiting environment, that does not affect the type of the individual with anything, since the cognition in respect to the Model A is a different thing.

    (all the instances of "type" in this post refer to the Socionics type)
    ---

    [1] - the arrangement of functions and everything that directly emerges from it, including high-level dichotomies.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  24. #24
    under the bridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for elaborating, I understand your position now. I do agree with how you view personality traits, but I am still up in the air as to whether or not type attributes are 'set in stone'. One thing that leads me to question is my observation of people that are forced to think and behave in ways contrary to their nature from a young age(not saying this proves anything, but it makes the issue muddy from my perspective). You definitely make sense in stating your views(and I'm inclined to agree with you) but I'm still undecided here and probably will be until we have more advances in brain research and such. Making Sense of People: Decoding the Mysteries of Personality is a book that contributed to my opinion regarding how the brain forms(it didn't go into incredible depth, but it touched on the research that has been done so far) and I found it pretty interesting. If you have any books that go in deeper on the subject I'd be happy to hear what they are.

  25. #25
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by under the bridge View Post
    Aquagraph, were you partially making the point that a majority of the population's personas, or the 'mask' we convey to society, are influenced and formed by our perception of our culture's legends/myths that our previous generations' personas essentially created?
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by under the bridge View Post
    However I think that the 'legends of our culture' are but a single influence out of many; a single brushstroke making up the larger picture.
    When I said "legend" or "myth", I meant all sorts of archetypes, norms, subconsious images in culture.
    Quote Originally Posted by under the bridge View Post
    I believe our personality is a manifestation of the amalgamation of an innumerable amount of internal and external processes and factors working in tandem.
    Well said.
    Quote Originally Posted by under the bridge View Post
    Aquagraph, I also hope that people make it a habit to step back and bring these realizations to the forefront of their mind in order to utilize that knowledge in aims of shaping themselves. Although we can never manipulate it entirely, I believe we can attain a semblance of control over our personality. This is through increasing our awareness and understanding of ourselves, altering(what we can to the best of our ability) our behavior and/or parts of our environment, and practicing our strengths.
    Have you ever tried calling things with different names just for the effect on your self?

    Me and my friend (not such close friend) decided that we are going to start dating officially. We were drunk. In fact, we have never kissed, had sex or any of those things couples do. Nor did we even see one another that much. And we weren't 'loyal'. Nevertheless, we referred to one another as "my boyfriend/girlfriend". It was very nice and heartwarming as I have troubles committing. Then she started dating with a boy and we stopped doing it. I was a bit heartbroken.
    Point being that words have tremendous effect.

    Also try chaos magic. It's basically the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by under the bridge View Post
    All in all, excellent discussion. I enjoyed the opportunity to elucidate my current understanding of the topic. If clarification on any of this is needed, let me know.
    You were clear. Good to hear.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  26. #26
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aquagraph: have you read about this?



    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Me and my friend (not such close friend) decided that we are going to start dating officially. We were drunk. In fact, we have never kissed, had sex or any of those things couples do. Nor did we even see one another that much. And we weren't 'loyal'. Nevertheless, we referred to one another as "my boyfriend/girlfriend". It was very nice and heartwarming as I have troubles committing. Then she started dating with a boy and we stopped doing it. I was a bit heartbroken.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  27. #27
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by octo View Post
    Aquagraph: have you read about this?
    Now I have. Thank you.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  28. #28
    under the bridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Have you ever tried calling things with different names just for the effect on your self?
    Interesting experience on your part. I haven't consciously used this particular method of altering my perception of reality, but I am aware of that potential our minds possess and have been unknowingly under the effect of that 'spell' in the past. It's incredible to think of the power that sits inside of our heads and how we can manipulate it.

Posting Permissions

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