Information Metabolism by Dmitri Lytov

[xerx]

Information metabolism
© Dmitri Lytov, December 2006 - March 2007.

Information metabolism – one of the most key and at the same time one of the vaguest notions in socionics. The concept of “information metabolism” or “information-energy metabolism,” was borrowed from the Polish psychologist Antoni Kępiński, who, however, used it in a completely different sense from socionics. Kępiński used “information metabolism” to denote intellectual exchange. He used “energy” to denote a form of pressure (examples of “energy metabolism” often bore a negative connotation – for instance concentration camps, in which he was a prisoner).

Aushra Augustinavichiute placed Kępiński’s descriptive comparison in a central position in her theory; the psyche, which is similar to a stomach, is “fed” by information signals. Moreover some signals are useful, whereas others are harmful and exhaust the psyche. Augusta created model A in an attempt to combine together several phenomena: processes within the individual psyche, one's contact with other individuals, as well as information processes within society. The weakest part of this hypothesis is uncertainty and vagueness regarding the concepts “information” and “energy.” Yet another major weakness is that, being unable to investigate the nature of the Jungian mental functions, she attempted to substitute them with “aspects of information metabolism,” which supposedly have some fundamental philosophical basis (matter-energy, space-time, body-field, static-dynamic, etc).

Moreover, such contradictions in the theory of socionics gave birth to disorder and indecisiveness among socionists, including apropos the understanding of what constitutes a socionics type. Here it is possible to isolate at least two [four] (sic) opposite approaches.

“Informational" approach (Alexander Bukalov, Olga Karpenko, Vladimir Ermak and others, as well as the alleged “Antisocionics” of Shiyan). Its adherents refer to socionics types as “types of information metabolism.” Moreover, they consider this concept not only applicable to the human psyche, but – in a more global sense – to “information” in general. It is significant that these ideas are extremely similar to some eccentric views, but also to synergetics (the theory of self-organizing systems), having recently sprouted from the depths of cybernetics. Unfortunately, very little is known scientifically about the relation of socionics with synergetics and, in a broader sense, with cybernetics. There is also the matter that the Kiev international institute of socionics is highly sympathetic to a number of esoteric approaches, rejected by the scientific world.

The most radical supporters of this approach discuss the TIMs of inanimate objects or the integral types of nationalities.

“Sociological” approach (Victor Gulenko, Valentina Meged, Anatoli Ovcharov, Victor Antoshkin and others). Its supporters speak of a “sociotype,” which defines one’s mission in society as a carrier of some kind of social role. Accordingly, they consider information metabolism as a purely sociological phenomenon, i.e., as the transfer of initiative from the carrier of one role to the carrier of another role. The supporters of the “sociological approach” do not reject the hypothesis of integral types, but choose to examine it from a sociological point of view.

“Bio-psychological” approach (Ekatrina Filatova, Sergei Bogomaz, Dmitri and Marianna Lytov, Victor Talanov and others). The supporters of this approach consider “information metabolism” to lie in the plane of psychology, primarily in the theory of psychological compatibility, as well as the study of the nature of perception and other mental processes. Until we are capable of modeling the psyche by an approximate computational model, there is no sense in introducing “information” terms into socionics. They will be superfluous and not connected to real facts.

“Linguistic” approach (Eugene Shepetko, Vladimir Ermak, Elena Udalova, Vladimir Mironov, L.A. Kochubeeva and others). The supporters of this approach are convinced that vocabulary uniquely characterizes each element of information metabolism, which makes it possible to use lexical criteria in the determination of type. Articles which survey and critique this approach can be found in the section on socionics and psycholinguistics.

It should be noted that the term “energy-information exchange” became extremely popular by the end of the 1980s among supporters of different esoteric and eccentric approaches (“the theory of torsion fields”, “the theory of MEPV”, etc.). In the scientific world, completely substantiated and confirmed at every turn is the opinion that if the term “information” is not used by a specialist in computer science, and “energy” not by a physicist, then what lies before us is a clearly unscientific work. It is a pity that socionists neither consider nor respond to this trend.

[Smilingeyes]

A nice way to sum things up. While I don't agree with Lytov in quite a few things and don't like him as a person, I give him a lot of credit for creating generally material that is worth reading.

Also, personally, I would belong mostly to the sociological school in this categorization. Informational approach seems mostly silly to me. Linguistic and biopsychological approaches seem to me to be speculative and quite suspicious, though not entirely without potential.

[Waddlesworth]

Also, personally, I would belong mostly to the sociological school in this categorization. Informational approach seems mostly silly to me. Linguistic and biopsychological approaches seem to me to be speculative and quite suspicious, though not entirely without potential.

That is interesting. I find the Informational approach to have the most potential.

[Smilingeyes]

Oh, I agree completely with you, Waddles. The choice that has the lowest value always has the highest potential for rise of value. Based on that the potential for rise of value for the informational approach is AMAAAAZING!

[Creepy-male]

Deltacasm, Smilex! This is why I love you guys.

I thought the informational approach is what Socionics "is".

[Brilliand]

I'm skeptical of the Linguistic approach, due to the natural variation of language... though Labcoat seems to make much of it. I'm happy with the other three, but I think I'm closest to the Bio-psychological school.

The great potential of the Informational approach lies in that it isn't just about brains - it's about everything.

[Jarno]

“Informational approach”

The most radical supporters of this approach discuss the TIMs of inanimate objects or the integral types of nationalities.

I think Rick might belong to this group because of his discussion of integral types of nationalities, and since he's always very focussed on the information elements.

[Waddlesworth]

Socionics is developed from a information approach and most of the core terms are already informational.

I think Smilingeyes distaste for the informational approach is in no small amount brought about by ignorance of the computer science.

You seem to here to imply that the informational approach, when examined in the framework of socionics, is somehow inseperable from computer science. This simply is not true.

Socionics has its origins as an occult science. Make no mistake about it. I think that one would be walking on a fruitless path if they insist on grounding socionics in neural science or AI computer models.

The evidence that socionics has its roots as an occult science is plentiful and becomes obvious with the more searching one does.

[Brilliand]

Socionics has its origins as an occult science. Make no mistake about it. I think that one would be walking on a fruitless path if they insist on grounding socionics in neural science or AI computer models.

This does not follow. I think that while Socionics has roots in the occult (not sure; haven't studied the relevant material myself), it is best divorced from that. If we give Socionics back to the occult, then for consistency we will have to give genetics back to Christianity.

[Not A Communist Shill]

This does not follow. I think that while Socionics has roots in the occult (not sure; haven't studied the relevant material myself), it is best divorced from that.

I agree. Some people may be interested in the murky origins of Socionics, but that doesn't mean that Socionics as it is now cannot be explored along with proper modern sciences!

[Jarno]

Socionics has its origins as an occult science.

huh, where did you read that??

As far as I know, it has NOT it's origins as an occult science. Based on Jungs Types which was a scientific approach.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think Rick might belong to this group because of his discussion of integral types of nationalities, and since he's always very focussed on the information elements.

He may have done this, but it doesn't mean he extensively follows this approach - it's quite easy to make analogies between how a person acts and how a country acts...many of these categories easily overlap.

For example, I probably think that the Bio-psychological approach is a practical way to investigate Socionics for now, but I don't see why the Linguistic approach cannot be utilised in this, as boring as it is. (I believe the Big Five was draw up after an analysis of adjectives showed that there were five distinct dichotomies of human behaviour described in the English language).

[Waddlesworth]

huh, where did you read that??

As far as I know, it has NOT it's origins as an occult science. Based on Jungs Types which was a scientific approach.

The base of all of Jung's work is in the occult. And what is all this talk about the occult not being science? The Occult is the root of all science.

This does not follow. I think that while Socionics has roots in the occult (not sure; haven't studied the relevant material myself), it is best divorced from that. If we give Socionics back to the occult, then for consistency we will have to give genetics back to Christianity.

Socionics will always belong to the occult.

Some occult oriented people would claim that the power of The Christ will always be in our genes.

[Brilliand]

The base of all of Jung's work is in the occult. And what is all this talk about the occult not being science? The Occult is the root of all science.

What is "The Occult"? I suspect you're going to generalize it to cover all curiosity or some such thing, and while your sentence is true by that definition and I've seen the word used that way before, I think it's rather a stretch.

Socionics will always belong to the occult.

You can't keep it.

Some occult oriented people would claim that the power of The Christ will always be in our genes.

Now you're trying to steal from the Christians? Come on. Get your greedy little palms off our concepts!

[Waddlesworth]

What is "The Occult"? I suspect you're going to generalize it to cover all curiosity or some such thing, and while your sentence is true by that definition and I've seen the word used that way before, I think it's rather a stretch.
...

'The Occult' is something very specific and mainstream culture is naturally against it. But it is indeed very real.

You are conditioned to think in terms of mainstream science. Mainstream science is a very narrow in its view because scientists (and people in general) have very narrow consciousness. Scientific thought is constructed out of subconscious, animalistic drives. Modern science is sublimated animalism and manifests as competitive scientific industry.

I will give you a couple of hints about what 'The Occult' is. Sometimes, when people drink alot, they hallucinate. Many of these people can black out and talk in demonic voices. Some of these people claim to see "demons" or "monsters". Now it may sound like nonesense until you actually experience this. I have seen demons after extreme intoxication. The images are horrifying in their detail and are produced as if from a program entirely separate from conscious will. A similar thing occured when I had overdosed on diphenhydramine. Diphenhydramine also produced auditory hallucinations which foretold very specific and important events of my future. Diphenhydramine can take you to what some call the "Twilight Zone"

There are pseudo-occult movements which use drugs in order to induce these kinds of states. The use of drugs produces ultimately negative states and results in the degeneration of the person. There was a group called "The Order of the Golden Dawn" which apparently fell apart because of its eventual dependence upon all sorts of drugs that would induce hallucinations.

True occultism involves the use of the mind to consciously, without the aid of drugs, to experience evolution of the perception of reality. What becomes apparent when practicing true occultism (often called the 'esoteric path') is that extreme self-control is necessary. This self control, when perfected, leads to the development of what some refer to as "Saints" In order to become a Saint you must CHANGE and this requires superhuman efforts which have caused some very famous people throughout history to go insane. Dreams play a very important role in this process. Very few can take it.

Now you're trying to steal from the Christians? Come on. Get your greedy little palms off our concepts!

I will overstep my authority when I say this:

It is said that there is something inside of people called "the Christic force" and there is something called "the anti-Christ". Many people don't want to acknowledge that there is an anti-christ in them. Many people pretend to love jesus but they really just fear their own anti-christ.

The anti-christ is what Corrupted christianity to the point where it now is commonly believed that everyone who is Christian will be "forgiven" because "Christ died for our sins" and that those that accept Christ will be guaranteed a spot in heaven. This is not true. Most "Christians" will never know heaven. It is only those that walk the "esoteric path" and succeed that will be "saved".

[Smilingeyes]

I don't think these approaches are incompatible, but the informational approach is bottoms up and low level while the sociological approach is more top down macro level. I however think the information approach is not just the approach with the most potential but also the one with the most means of simulation and experimentation. The sociological approach requires social engineering, the biological approach has limitations due to our tools. The linguistic approach I think will work together with the information approach.

Bio-psychological approach is more or less already going computational, so it's stupid to ignore the terms when it's being used so heavily in neural science already. It's very compatible with information approach imo.

Linguistic approach provides grammar for simulation within a informational approach althrough this can be culturally sensitive.

Socionics is developed from a information approach and most of the core terms are already informational.

As a model of the human psyche, socionics is a model of the mind between psychology and sociology, which is one of the reasons it's called socionics.
The model is materialistic, positivist and provides a model of simulation and prediction. It's basically asking to be incorporated into a AI. Whether or not socionics can be used to create a strong AI is debatable, but I think at the very least it will allow the building of more realistic AI's. I think for truly strong AI's there still needs to be a great amount of sensory processing which is actually quite a bit harder comparatively.

I think Smilingeyes distaste for the informational approach is in no small amount brought about by ignorance of the computer science.

Sorry to have to tell you this you this but besides being a surgeon, I'm also a computer science major. Informational-based socionics could succeed in object-oriented programming but let me tell you this, despite what you may think, people do not work the same way as programs, try meeting some some day.

Also, I agree with most of what Waddles says above. I don't think of socionics in those terms but his case is IMO valid.

EDIT: Also, your analysis of everything is faulty, useless garbage.

[Jarno]

The base of all of Jung's work is in the occult.

Oke we've just found your error.

Pyschological Types is based on 20 years empirical evidence and an extention to known typologies at that time.

[Waddlesworth]

Oke we've just found your error.

Pyschological Types is based on 20 years empirical evidence and an extention to known typologies at that time.

"Oh really? That's it?"
No, not really. That isn't it.

[Brilliand]

'The Occult' is something very specific and mainstream culture is naturally against it. But it is indeed very real.

You are conditioned to think in terms of mainstream science. Mainstream science is a very narrow in its view because scientists (and people in general) have very narrow consciousness. Scientific thought is constructed out of subconscious, animalistic drives. Modern science is sublimated animalism and manifests as competitive scientific industry.

My conditioning is Pentecostal Christianity, in which demons are very real and very evil.

EDIT: I'm a denominational melange, really.

I will give you a couple of hints about what 'The Occult' is. Sometimes, when people drink alot, they hallucinate. Many of these people can black out and talk in demonic voices. Some of these people claim to see "demons" or "monsters". Now it may sound like nonesense until you actually experience this. I have seen demons after extreme intoxication. The images are horrifying in their detail and are produced as if from a program entirely separate from conscious will. A similar thing occured when I had overdosed on diphenhydramine. Diphenhydramine also produced auditory hallucinations which foretold very specific and important events of my future. Diphenhydramine can take you to what some call the "Twilight Zone"

Bleh... that's psychological chaos. Not even a true demon attack... foretelling your future can be explained by the fact that you control your own future to a large extent.

How does this compare:
The Dropping Dog

There are pseudo-occult movements which use drugs in order to induce these kinds of states. The use of drugs produces ultimately negative states and results in the degeneration of the person. There was a group called "The Order of the Golden Dawn" which apparently fell apart because of its eventual dependence upon all sorts of drugs that would induce hallucinations.

True occultism involves the use of the mind to consciously, without the aid of drugs, to experience evolution of the perception of reality. What becomes apparent when practicing true occultism (often called the 'esoteric path') is that extreme self-control is necessary. This self control, when perfected, leads to the development of what some refer to as "Saints" In order to become a Saint you must CHANGE and this requires superhuman efforts which have caused some very famous people throughout history to go insane. Dreams play a very important role in this process. Very few can take it.

So far, you've only mentioned things that are all in your head.

I will overstep my authority when I say this:

It is said that there is something inside of people called "the Christic force" and there is something called "the anti-Christ". Many people don't want to acknowledge that there is an anti-christ in them. Many people pretend to love jesus but they really just fear their own anti-christ.

Uh... stop stealing our connotations. I can well believe that people deny having an "anti-christ" inside of them; they don't know what you mean by that. Do you have a hyropenagoseziac inside of you? Yes, I mean your liver.

The anti-christ is what Corrupted christianity to the point where it now is commonly believed that everyone who is Christian will be "forgiven" because "Christ died for our sins" and that those that accept Christ will be guaranteed a spot in heaven. This is not true. Most "Christians" will never know heaven. It is only those that walk the "esoteric path" and succeed that will be "saved".

If that is what you believe, I'm wondering what you do with the Bible. You seem to simultaneously disagree with and rely upon it...

You seem very bent on turning our Christian concepts to your own ends. I can see why it would work, because there's a lot of connotation packed into Christian words even for unbelievers, and connotations work by association.

[Waddlesworth]

I would not say that socionics is inseperable from computer science, because as a human discipline practice by humans, it is certainly seperable by those that practice.

But how do you explain how Aushra first visited the Institute of Cybernetics when first formulating her theory of Socioncs. Aushra also became enamored with the occult in her old age, but that does not change the fact that computer science was a area, and one of the first area that she thought she should look when developing her theory.

Cybernetics was a bit different then from what it is now, but it seems we are pretty much in agreement here.

My conditioning is Pentecostal Christianity, in which demons are very real and very evil.

EDIT: I'm a denominational melange, really.

There is a difference between having a "coditioning" as you call it, and actually seeing, experiencing and sometimes actually fighting demons.

Bleh... that's psychological chaos. Not even a true demon attack...

Psychological "chaos"? It didn't look like chaos to me. Also, I personally would not call it an "attack" at the time because I was entranced by what I saw and believed the experience gave me powers(until I fully recovered); though that is open for interpretation.

foretelling your future can be explained by the fact that you control your own future to a large extent.

In a way perhaps it is true that I controlled the events that I perceived, though there is no way that it could be explained in conventional terms. This control would have to have been unconscious and have access to information very distant from me in space and time. This is because the voices spoke of specific names of people(who were complete strangers to me at the time), events and emotions of these people which I otherwise would not have had access to.

So far, you've only mentioned things that are all in your head.

Oh, is that where these things are? If that is so then what isn't in our heads? How can you prove that there is external, as it is perceived, at all? How is the internal reality unreal? Why do you give more relevance to your external reality? Why do you think that your internal reality is less relevant? Is it perhaps because you are afraid of it? Most people are indeed afraid of their internal reality.

Degenerates tend to be people that deny the power or relevance of the internal reality because their internal realities don't have power(helpful power, that is). They also cannot face their internal realities and as a result the internal has unconscious control of them.

If that is what you believe, I'm wondering what you do with the Bible. You seem to simultaneously disagree with and rely upon it...

I read the bible in a different way from most people, but in a way which makes sense(internal sense) and helps to induce in me genuine spiritual experiences rather than mere "belief".

You seem very bent on turning our Christian concepts to your own ends. I can see why it would work, because there's a lot of connotation packed into Christian words even for unbelievers, and connotations work by association.

I only care about the truth. All religions have their base in The Occult, as do all sciences. this is fact and can be researched because the information is still available. If you deny this then you are walking a false path. My advice? Research. I'm trying to help you.

You need to experience life more. You jump to conclusions about things and attack what you know nothing about. If you considered yourself "spiritual" then how can you possibly be satisfied by merely reading a book? Again, I am trying to help you.

[Brilliand]

There is a difference between having a "coditioning" as you call it, and actually seeing, experiencing and sometimes actually fighting demons.

Granted, I haven't done that; I was just countering your stroke about science conditioning.

Psychological "chaos"? It didn't look like chaos to me. Also, I personally would not call it an "attack" at the time because I was entranced by what I saw and believed the experience gave me powers(until I fully recovered); though that is open for interpretation.

In a way perhaps it is true that I controlled the events that I perceived, though there is no way that it could be explained in conventional terms. This control would have to have been unconscious and have access to information very distant from me in space and time. This is because the voices spoke of specific names of people(who were complete strangers to me at the time), events and emotions of these people which I otherwise would not have had access to.

Hmm, perhaps that is something beyond yourself. OK, you've experienced a legitimate occult.

Oh, is that where these things are? If that is so then what isn't in our heads? How can you prove that there is external, as it is perceived, at all? How is the internal reality unreal? Why do you give more relevance to your external reality? Why do you think that your internal reality is less relevant? Is it perhaps because you are afraid of it? Most people are indeed afraid of their internal reality.

My internal reality is under my control. I should not be surprised if it is capable of anything - anything, that is, that does not reach outside of me.

You cited nothing (except the telling the future) that involved even sensory input. There's nothing extraordinary about your imagination going wild, or your mind changing itself... but if you affect reality, our shared reality, then that is amazing.

Degenerates tend to be people that deny the power or relevance of the internal reality because their internal realities don't have power(helpful power, that is). They also cannot face their internal realities and as a result the internal has unconscious control of them.

Hey, I think you're insulting the extroverts. Both internal and external are necessary...

I read the bible in a different way from most people, but in a way which makes sense(internal sense) and helps to induce in me genuine spiritual experiences rather than mere "belief".

"Mere"? You and your connotations! Semantic mysticism!

Inducing spiritual experiences = an act of the mind upon itself. Mind you, such experiences can be wonderful and immensely helpful for the whole individual; but they are a poor determiner of external truth.

I only care about the truth. All religions have their base in The Occult, as do all sciences. this is fact and can be researched because the information is still available. If you deny this then you are walking a false path. My advice? Research. I'm trying to help you.

I'm pretty sure this is a tautology. There was a time when I would accept any tautology, but now I'm more aware of connotation... you're using words that carry connotations that simply can't be defined away. For semantic honesty, those words must be defined in keeping with their connotations. The Occult is not every form of curiosity; it is a particular (though very broad) class of spiritual solutions. It does not encompass curiosity about the physical world, therefore it does not encompass all sciences. It may be fairly defined to include Christianity, however; I'll grant you that. (Actually, I seem to be allowing it to be everything Introverted at this point.)

You need to experience life more.

Huh?

You jump to conclusions about things and attack what you know nothing about. If you considered yourself "spiritual" then how can you possibly be satisfied by merely reading a book? Again, I am trying to help you.

So do you, sir... I apologize for not using words that perfectly describe what I am, but I fear that there are no such words. I am by no means satisfied by the Bible alone - I have been searching about, but you strike me as someone trying to force everyone into the same mold: something that Socionics taught me the folly of!

[Smilingeyes]

One you admit that socionics could work in object oriented programming, so you're already proving my points more or less and I thank you for that.

I don't really care too much about how much socionics represents a human being or their mind, no more then some physicists concern themselves with the complete nature of the world or how thermodynamics represents the actual working of a engine.

Socionics the theory is rather incapable of describing the whole of a person, because you would need every other avenue of knowledge to do that.

However socionics taken on a information path allows us to design yet unthought of structures and products like how physics allow us to create atom bombs and how thermodynamics allow us to design a engine and how all of our knowledge allow us to design these very instruments of our communication.

You might have studied computer science but you do not understand one of the fundamental nature of it and that is design, creation, and simulation. And in a way, the fundamental nature of man is differentiated from many of the other living things by this very ability to design, create and simulate at our level of magnitude which has transformed our world. And that is your ignorance which you have displayed and amount of credentials will correct this condition. However, the actual correction of the condition will make it all better.

Before opening your stupid ignorant mouth you might venture to find out some facts. Again, while I was studying comp sci I was also working in a lab that had as its managers professors of both psychology and technology. It was a Cognitive Science lab. In case those are too big words for you let me explain. The express purpose of the work we did was to study computer-human interaction on the social and neurological level and to design machinery that interacted with humans the way a human would. This design that you are talking about is something that I was very intimately connected with.

But if that is the area of value that you see in socionics, you are a narrow-minded loser. And that is now proven.

Socionics is fundamentally a study of social relations. When you get your head out from where the sun doesn't shine and meet a real human person for the first time in years, remember that. Dumbass.

EDIT:
While it's possible to create an artificial environment based on the parameters of socionis, it's not a proven fact that there's any use for it. It's possible to create an artificial environment based on anything, you can make a program intuitively simulating the principles of Vivaldi's Four seasons, but that artificial environment would have to be able to produce something and do it more effectively than some other set of programs that is actually tailored for the immediate use rather than to satisfy the urge of an anal-retentive programmer wishing to prove his cojones by programming art. Anyway, I don't think it's impossible that somewhere down the road hkkmr or someone aligned with him might produce something not worthless along these lines. But what he'd have to prove to win this argument would be that that creation whatever it is, is worth than all the better social relations, better human resource management and better understanding of human psyche that can be got from using socionics for what it already IS, a study of human social relations, as helped by linguistic-cultural and biological studies. That's a very low probability.

The point that oinks like hkkmr rile me up is completely separate. I'm going to put the loser on ignore since he never says anything worth anything anyway and then I'm going to withdraw from this argument.

[Jarno]

All religions have their base in The Occult, as do all sciences.

You are a liar:

The word Occult has many uses in the English language, popularly meaning "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable", usually referred to as science.

source: Occult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Bye.

[Waddlesworth]

My internal reality is under my control. I should not be surprised if it is capable of anything - anything, that is, that does not reach outside of me.

This is a bold statement. You'd be surprised by what is lurking deep beneath the surface.

You cited nothing (except the telling the future) that involved even sensory input. There's nothing extraordinary about your imagination going wild, or your mind changing itself... but if you affect reality, our shared reality, then that is amazing.

If you spend a few more years really exploring "The Occult" as we'll call it, you'll be more open and will realize the value that internal change has and also the ways in which this internal change affects the external world. This is something that can't be described for a variety of reasons but which is very real.

Hey, I think you're insulting the extroverts. Both internal and external are necessary...

I didn't say anything to insult anyone. By some definitions I am an extrovert. The boundary between I/E is not as clear-cut as you might think it is.

Inducing spiritual experiences = an act of the mind upon itself. Mind you, such experiences can be wonderful and immensely helpful for the whole individual; but they are a poor determiner of external truth.

Inducing spiritual experiences is not equal to an act of the mind upon itself.

I'm pretty sure this is a tautology. There was a time when I would accept any tautology, but now I'm more aware of connotation... you're using words that carry connotations that simply can't be defined away. For semantic honesty, those words must be defined in keeping with their connotations. The Occult is not every form of curiosity; it is a particular (though very broad) class of spiritual solutions. It does not encompass curiosity about the physical world, therefore it does not encompass all sciences. It may be fairly defined to include Christianity, however; I'll grant you that. (Actually, I seem to be allowing it to be everything Introverted at this point.)

When I was about your age there was something I discovered and that I used to call the "connotative wave". See, you're on your way. Pretty soon you might start acting just like me.

And your definitions are just strings of connotations; useless, really. But you know that already.

The only things of value are the experiences. Until you start having those you will not have the ability to argue meaningfully with me. When you do have them, you will see no reason to argue with me.

So do you, sir... I apologize for not using words that perfectly describe what I am, but I fear that there are no such words. I am by no means satisfied by the Bible alone - I have been searching about, but you strike me as someone trying to force everyone into the same mold: something that Socionics taught me the folly of!

No one can describe perfectly what they are. Why waste your time?

[Waddlesworth]

You are a liar:

The word Occult has many uses in the English language, popularly meaning "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable", usually referred to as science.

source: Occult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Bye.

No, you just don't know what you're talking about. You could you were a bit more brave though.

Good bye to you, too!

[Jarno]

No, you just don't know what you're talking about. You could you were a bit more brave though.

Good bye to you, too!

you abuse facts, don't use arguments, don't come with evidence or reliable sources. so... you're just a fantast at this moment. Which correlates nicely with your occult and religous believes.

[Waddlesworth]

you abuse facts, don't use arguments, don't come with evidence or reliable sources. so... you're just a fantast at this moment. Which correlates nicely with your occult and religous believes.

Fine, if that is what you choose to believe. I hope that changes for you at another moment.

[Brilliand]

This is a bold statement. You'd be surprised by what is lurking deep beneath the surface.

Well... I don't mean I'm actually controlling it. What I do mean is that it is all within my reach - if I hit upon the proper thought, I can do anything to myself - anything, that is (as I've already qualified) that does not extend outside my own mind. I don't think the same applies universally, as it would essentially be omnipotence in that case... I'm aware that it would apply to some things outside myself, but I'm not sure which.

If you spend a few more years really exploring "The Occult" as we'll call it, you'll be more open and will realize the value that internal change has and also the ways in which this internal change affects the external world. This is something that can't be described for a variety of reasons but which is very real.

Hmm... I'm not sure what to value right now; I guess I'll save that for when it happens, if it does. For now, I'm concerned with what's possible.

I didn't say anything to insult anyone. By some definitions I am an extrovert. The boundary between I/E is not as clear-cut as you might think it is.

I wouldn't accuse you of intentionally insulting anyone... I just thought you were neglecting the value of the external. Your entire statement about "degenerates" sounded needlessly prejudiced.

Inducing spiritual experiences is not equal to an act of the mind upon itself.

Why not? Can't the mind do that to itself?

When I was about your age there was something I discovered and that I used to call the "connotative wave". See, you're on your way. Pretty soon you might start acting just like me.

Whatever happens, happens.

And your definitions are just strings of connotations; useless, really. But you know that already.

Actually... I hadn't thought of that. Thank you for suggesting it. ...I'm not sure I can agree with it as it stands, though, because I don't think that it accounts for properly. Definitions, at least for me, are connotations with organization. (OK, I seem to be equating "connotation" with "Ne object" now...)

The only things of value are the experiences. Until you start having those you will not have the ability to argue meaningfully with me. When you do have them, you will see no reason to argue with me.

If there were no value to language, I'm sure it wouldn't exist. Such things are communicable...

[Waddlesworth]

I wouldn't accuse you of intentionally insulting anyone... I just thought you were neglecting the value of the external. Your entire statement about "degenerates" sounded needlessly prejudiced.

A degenerate is a person that behaves in an unconscious way that resembles the animal kingdom. Many behaviors necessitate or imply the development of further degenerative behaviors. The initial degenerative behaviors may be regarded at first as altruistic or progressive, but, in fact, they indicate the degeneration of the person/society. Some examples of this are anal sex and institutionalized gay marriage.

As you repeatedly have done, you have mistaken something that I have said as a feeling-toned insult. Degeneration is fact, not a matter of prejudice.

But there is no point in further discussing this matter because I have already told you what you need to know.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I didn't know the Animal Kingdom had institutionalized gay marriage!

[Jarno]

Fine, if that is what you choose to believe.

I don't believe, I observe.

[Waddlesworth]

I don't believe, I observe.

Now if only you could figure out a way to put your words into action...

I didn't know the Animal Kingdom had institutionalized gay marriage!

That is because you mistakenly believe that the society that you live in is made up of humans and not animals. That may be a bit of a contradiction in relation to what I have previously posted, but it is true.

[Brilliand]

As you repeatedly have done, you have mistaken something that I have said as a feeling-toned insult. Degeneration is fact, not a matter of prejudice.

Here's the definition of "degenerate" that I find troubling:

Degenerates tend to be people that deny the power or relevance of the internal reality because their internal realities don't have power(helpful power, that is). They also cannot face their internal realities and as a result the internal has unconscious control of them.

I disagree with your low opinion of those who deny the relevance of the internal reality, therefore your low opinion of those people is (as far as I'm concerned) mistaken. That's what a prejudice is.

I actually was referring to the impact of your words, not so much what you yourself meant by them...

[Waddlesworth]

Here's the definition of "degenerate" that I find troubling:

"Degenerates tend to be people that deny the power or relevance of the internal reality because their internal realities don't have power(helpful power, that is). They also cannot face their internal realities and as a result the internal has unconscious control of them."

I disagree with your low opinion of those who deny the relevance of the internal reality, therefore your low opinion of those people is (as far as I'm concerned) mistaken. That's what a prejudice is.

I actually was referring to the impact of your words, not so much what you yourself meant by them...

By that I meant that mental degeneration is implies or necessitates those behaviors, but those behaviors are not the entire definition of degeneration.

A symptom of mental degeneration includes a tendency for an individual or society to rely upon "external" means of perception through objects. The term "external" is deceiving because it only applies to the material body of vigil reality in relation to the ethereal bodies. But I am speaking in terms that make sense to the current level of understanding.

For example; our current society is heavily dependent upon external means of communication such as telecommunications through materialistic, technical modes. Society has forgotten and subconsciously avoids alternate means of telepathy and clairvoyance as a mode of communication. We have become dependent upon external means and neglect the latent capacity of mind(I do not mean 'brain' when I say 'mind'; these are separate concepts).

Consciousness grants us helpful means of "internal" power whereas unconsciousness produces the opposite. With unconsciousness we begin to worship and pursue objects in our "external" world as a means to compensate for our "internal" poverty.

[Brilliand]

For example; our current society is heavily dependent upon external means of communication such as telecommunications through materialistic, technical modes. Society has forgotten and subconsciously avoids alternate means of telepathy and clairvoyance as a mode of communication. We have become dependent upon external means and neglect the latent capacity of mind(I do not mean 'brain' when I say 'mind'; these are separate concepts).

Curious; I only recently came to accept the necessity of using external information. And now you are telling me the opposite!

Perhaps what you are proposing is not internal, in the sense that I use the word - it is not physical, but it is not you either; it is something spiritual beyond yourself. It is impossible to figure out anything of merit by being a closed system.

Let's make an attempt to apply Socionics terms to make this more clearly defined...

Se->external physical
Ne->external imaginary
Si->internal physical (physical context)
Ni->internal imaginary (imaginary context)

Te->external logical
Fe->external emotional
Ti->internal logical (logical context)
Fi->internal emotional (emotional context)

OK... I suspect that you describe Ne, which we share; this is external imaginary -> something beyond ourselves that is nonetheless not physical. (Perhaps I should refer to myself only, as your self-typing isn't clear.) In addition to Ne, I have Ti, which is internal - it works with what I know, not taking in external information directly.

Now, the catch to formulating it this way is that it applies that this 'external imagination' is type-related... hence my impression that you are (unintentionally) insulting other types.

[Waddlesworth]

Curious; I only recently came to accept the necessity of using external information. And now you are telling me the opposite!

Perhaps what you are proposing is not internal, in the sense that I use the word - it is not physical, but it is not you either; it is something spiritual beyond yourself. It is impossible to figure out anything of merit by being a closed system.

Let's make an attempt to apply Socionics terms to make this more clearly defined...

Se->external physical
Ne->external imaginary
Si->internal physical (physical context)
Ni->internal imaginary (imaginary context)

Te->external logical
Fe->external emotional
Ti->internal logical (logical context)
Fi->internal emotional (emotional context)

OK... I suspect that you describe Ne, which we share; this is external imaginary -> something beyond ourselves that is nonetheless not physical. (Perhaps I should refer to myself only, as your self-typing isn't clear.) In addition to Ne, I have Ti, which is internal - it works with what I know, not taking in external information directly.

Now, the catch to formulating it this way is that it applies that this 'external imagination' is type-related... hence my impression that you are (unintentionally) insulting other types.

Those are interesting formulations, but once you begin to grasp some of the underlying laws they become too fuzzy. They may work for you now, but they won't work for you later.

But this has gone on long enough and I have much work to do. I will be back to this forum in the coming months.