PDA

View Full Version : The Phenomenology and Theories of Immanence



tcaudilllg
02-14-2008, 04:46 AM
If you fail any of the transcendent functions, then the subconscious will overtake consciousness. The meaningful question is if the takeover is purposeful or forced. If forced, then the person not only becomes absorbed in nihillism, but previously held an extreme viewpoint regarding the relationship between the functions considered. If purposeful, then the personality agrees to allow the subconscious to control consciousness in exchange for mastery of the subconscious itself: consciousness takes hold of unconscious and molds it in its own image. It is a question of whether consciousness willingly submits to the greater intentions of the subconscious or if it resists outside pressure to submit until the pressure becomes prohibitively great, allowing the subconscious to literally seize control of the person and drive them insane.

In the case of a failed transcendent function the polarities of the lead element are reversed between a function and its contrary. (Hitta's 32 types, recall.) In the case of INTj 1st transcendent function, the base element becomes +Ti, the (auxiliary) program element -Ti. This forced balancing of the psyche against +Te and -Te sets up a tremendous clash between -Ne and +Ne for their respective positions. (they were "left out" of the agreement) Reality cannot sustain these dueling creative energies for long.

Before losing themselves, the immanent person may profoundly influence their world by creating content that guides the mind towards their unstable viewpoint. Most religions exist on basis of this content and the unusual "conflict" mentality it creates in the mind: it brings the shadow directly to bear against the ego and keeps them in constant neurosis. (the christian devil vs. acceptance of Jesus is an example.)

Some people fail to acheive either transcendence or immanence. It is possible (as history attests) to die before reaching the developmental stage at which the personality has the option of transition. This eventually may be apprehended concretely (as in disease) or intuitively, and actively fought against. Transition failure is probably due to poor energy supply between dual functions.

Elro
02-14-2008, 03:40 PM
If you fail any of the transcendent functions, then the subconscious will overtake consciousness. The meaningful question is if the takeover is purposeful or forced. If forced, then the person not only becomes absorbed in nihillism, but previously held an extreme viewpoint regarding the relationship between the failed function. If purposeful, then the personality agrees to allow the subconscious to control consciousness in exchange for mastery of the subconscious itself: . It is a question of whether consciousness willingly submits to the greater intentions of the subconscious or if it resists outside pressure to submit until the pressure becomes prohibitively great, allowing the subconscious to literally seize control of the person and drive them insane.
One: 1
Two: 25
Three: 21
Four: 8
Five: 5
Six: 9
Seven: 13
Eight: 10
Nine: 5
Ten: 5
Eleven: 1
Twelve: 7
Thirteen: 4

Too much effort to do this for the other paragraphs.

UDP
02-14-2008, 05:20 PM
So what's the bottom line here, tcau?

tcaudilllg
02-14-2008, 07:35 PM
Well I haven't finished that colonated passage yet; but what it comes down to is an explanation of the stranger aspects of the human psyche. We have here an intuitive framework for the likes of say, Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King, even Jesus. We also have a framework for ******, many extreme figures of our time (including Al Qaeda, various ultra-right and ultra-left elements, neo-nationalists, cultural absolutists, etc.), and also I suspect for Neitzsche... maybe even Phaedrus who, like Nietzsche, has contempt for any suggestion of a god's existence.

I've noticed that Phaedrus tends to think he can tell me what I can and can't do... like I've got boundaries I should follow and such. I think he's projecting his own weaknesses onto me, thinking that if I go "too far" I may end up being overtaken by pathological thinking. I suspect he thinks himself vulnerable to this thinking and fears it could lead him to nihillism, which would be the effect, I intuit, of putting two polarly opposed incarnations of the same element against one another. (one would undo the other's work as soon as it was done.) This seems to me the psychological basis of nihillism and the self-destructive thinking which accompanies it.

Or... there could be more to Phaedrus' particular case. The way he talks about Ti and his "quest" to understand it... it's like he's chasing after something he can't have, ever... which would be a case of the latter scenario I mentioned: "not making it" to the transcendent opportunity. He wouldn't have to worry about that for a long time though, because Ti is his eighth function and that means he won't be facing transcendence failure until well into old age. It could mean despair, though.

If you notice, Phaedrus appears to be having a lot of Fe problems around here. He probably wants Ti awareness to shore up his Fe against attack. The problem is that Ti doesn't think it worthwhile to defend his positions. Perhaps he cannot see this: that the Socioncs/MBTI fight isn't worth waging. He's not helping Ti and thus, Ti is not helping him. (perhaps my own disagreements with him are reflective of this.)

krieger
02-14-2008, 09:14 PM
So according to your theories, there are people who acheive trancendence and become "leaders" and people who fail and become "immanents", fanatics. What of the "follower" contingent of the socion...?

What factors do you suppose play a part in the determination wether a person does or does not succeed to acheive transcendence? Do you suppose this is genetically determined?

tcaudilllg
02-14-2008, 10:07 PM
So according to your theories, there are people who acheive trancendence and become "leaders" and people who fail and become "immanents", fanatics. What of the "follower" contingent of the socion...?

What factors do you suppose play a part in the determination wether a person does or does not succeed to acheive transcendence? Do you suppose this is genetically determined?

The leadership theory is seperate from the transcendence theory: both followers and leaders have the option of transcendence.

I actually think so, yes. I'm still working out what all this means. As usual with my theories, it's just an explorative avenue bedrocked on an overarching principle. The point is that the phenomenon exists... it remains to us -- hell, to history -- to describe its many forms. I offer that it is intuitively useful to look for signs that a person is capable or incapable of eventual transcendence, because it gives you an idea of how far they are going to go in their opposition to you even after you meet them "half-way". To an extremist -- and that's what these transcendence-incapable people act like -- there is no moderation, no middleground; only capitulation. (not counting the voluntary submissive "good" extremists, of course.) I prefer to use "immanence" as opposed to "extremist", because immanence is a state and extremism is a behavior. But all chronically extremist-behaving people are immanent.

tcaudilllg
06-03-2008, 11:59 PM
Confrontational Form:
The confrontational immanent seeks to impress + aspects in such manner as to have them perceived as '-' aspects; they actively seek to oppress those they dislike. To understand why they dislike people at all, it is important to observe the interplay of aspects in Model B.

Information is validated by uniting both subjective attitudes of a given function. The threat of validating information, is that it just might condemn oneself on objective grounds. (it is a common theme in fantasy literature to pose the problem of a "false prophet", in which the hoped-for hero is accused of being an agent of the devil, and is haunted by the fact that it may be true). This is a threat to the personality's ego integrity and, if not properly checked, would force a dissociation of the person, because the personality is formed on the basis of having integrity to a given point of view, and the violation of the same disrupts the rationale for the person to maintain the character which rationalized the violation. The personality avoids this by balancing objective validity with subjective validity: yes, conclusion X applies to you because you did A, but you were justified because what you did was in self-defense of Y, and therefore served the greater good B. This is the logic beneath such publically troubling experiments as the electrocution test, in which subjects were asked to "electrocute" actors who pretended to be in distress from the "shocks". The subjects did not continue the seemingly cruel activity because they were told, but because they believed themselves in service to the greater good of completing the experiment. (similar to how German soldiers participated in the Holocaust on behalf of what they believed to be the "greater good" of the German state).

The confrontational immanent sees the very worst in subjective validation, because the fact yet remains that even though the person was serving what they perceived to be a worthy cause, from an objective standpoint they were still in the wrong. The confrontational immanent sees themselves as needing to right what they see as "self-delusion" by attacking the source of the delusion. (invariably, an objective cause that was colored subjective by the sacrifice of a passive immanent). Subjectively they validate themselves as being in service to this same greater cause of objective validation for the whole, and hardly practice what they preach. The confrontational immanent is torn by on the side their own subjectivity, and on the other their determination to free the world from the same: the sins they commit in service to their quest for freedom fuel their hatred of the "other" who they see as forcing them to commit misdeeds. Their destruction of the other, in their view, will grant them salvation from the otherwise unbearable torment of knowing that they are precisely that which they despise. It is this quest for salvation not only for others, but also for themselves, which leads them deeper into extremism and ideological fanaticism.

tcaudilllg
06-12-2008, 10:15 AM
Objective good I define as that which brings the four psychic domains closer together by direct means; that is, the use of the transcendent function whenever possible to bridge differences between the domains. It is the intention to live in harmony with those who have views different from one's own.

Objective evil I define as that which divides by direct intention the psychic domains. Note that a response to an evil act by thinking to move against another psychic domain in retaliation for an act against it is not evil if it leaves open the option for disarmament when the infringing domain relaxes its hostility to the other's existence. However an idealistic purge of the domain in its entirety, commited to action, is objectively evil.

How to judge objective evil as chronic to an individual? For that is truly the criterion on which the evil person may be classified in truth, and restrained by society. It is not so simple as to say, "the sociopath is evil", or that the extremist is evil. A stubborn passive immanent may resist any pressure to change their own methods, and so lead their entire ideology away from truth. Jung says many things about the shadow, primarily that he is "inferior", but also possessing a number of good qualities. We must not dismiss the shadow so hastily, or else needless understanding and personal tragedy will result.

The question is one of whether a person intends to use transcendent aspects as a weapon, or for reconciliation. When the object is converted into the subject, does it drive fear and hate into people's hearts, as did the Sept 11th hijackers, or does it assauge the experience of fear and bring hope for lasting peace? Does the conversion of subject to object create a vessal of war, or an object of admiration which bridges partisan lines? Does sacrifice bring war, or peace?

tcaudilllg
06-24-2008, 06:20 PM
Note: I am using the term "conflictor" in this case to denote a chronic state of conscious conflict between a person and the world about them. "Conflagration" may be a better term, but it doesn't have the same ring and is difficult to pronounce colloquially. (further, there is a question of whether overt aggression, or sustained retaliation and persecution, is a trait of the person; "conflagrational immanent" may only be suitable for the aggressive incarnation of the type. (we know these on the internet as "flamers")).

Consider the following:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/24/imus/index.html

We have in this case a person who has been accused of racism toward black athletes. The perception of him as a racist has stuck remarkably well; polls show a majority (and this person has had enough exposure to be recognized by most people in the U.S.) believe him to be a racist. Imus argues that people are "out to get him", and that he has been misunderstood.

Why would someone believe people are "out to get him"? It makes no sense in a world where most people only want to be left to their own devices, whether for their own completely subjective purposes (read: the joy of sewing a quilt for a loved one) or on behalf of the creation of concepts that have objective value. (the creation of a new theory, idea, technique, etc.) For Imus to believe this must mean that he has an a priori disposition to believe that other people are hostile to him. This disposition allows him on the one hand to interpret genuine hostility, and on the other to see chronic hostility where there is in fact only a situation-based suggestion of it. Someone who has heard that there are car thieves may well experience alarm at the sight of someone they do not know looking into their car, yet once a suitable explanation has been given (one that uses correct psychological and emotional cues -- judged as such because they reflect subconscious and automatic use thereof) they will relax their hostility. But a person who sees all hostility as of chronic origin cannot deduce that the momentary clash of intentions relative to instinct is only a situational affair; such a person sees any hint of hostility as permanent and sustained, even if it draws down to a single, almost irrelevant disagreement. Such a person will argue that it is best to agree to disagree and chide their opponent for refusing to do so, but only if they themselves do not feel they have the higher ground. If they believe they are in a superior social position, they will ruthlessly and coldly demonstrate the scale of their personal hypocracy by leveraging the entire weight of their position against those they disagree with. However, they mean such only to bend the debate to their own will; they do not intend to oppress because they themselves would not want to be oppressed. Once they sense capitulation, they will relent of their assault. (the "honorable warrior" mentality) The problem happens when either side has good arguments for their respective positions, in which case this type will gird for war and fight in it until the intervention of a dissatisfied power external to their argument recognizes that it has a stake of its own in the battle, and isolates the side it opposes. This stake will always emerge due the opening of a new front in the war by the conflictor, invariably an excessive response to momentary hostility by the uninvolved party. Over the lifetime of this person the scale, frequency, and ferocity of their conflicts intensifiies, as suspicion and fear of the person grows in the population; their past -- and their demonstration of inability to compromise even when their point is proven invalid -- continues to haunt them. The presence of external social stress arouses those mental mechanisms -- the four psychic domains/entity processors -- whose function is to process competing views; so to say, the subject finds itself defending itself against the object ("I'm not the one who's in the wrong here"), then transiting its defense into an offense ("you are in the wrong"), then back to the subject ("because you are wrong, I'm right"). The more people dislike the person, the more vociferous the internal recrimations and self-questioning in the person's mind. Eventually the self-torment becomes so great as to become unbearable, and one only desires an end to the conflict by any means necessary. However it is the personality of the person which perpetuates the conflict between the self and the world, thus only the destruction of the personality can bring about this peace.

With regard to Imus, the signals are clear. His laconic, almost expressionless face sends no signals as to whether or not he is serious or in jest, sarcastic or whatever. Similarly, he himself seems unable to register others' emotional cues, or he would be better able to deduce whether or not people were questioning their own hostility -- as in the case of a misunderstanding -- or comfortable with it.

tcaudilllg
09-10-2008, 11:02 PM
The theories of immanence and of shadow type turns concepts of definite morality on their head. Probing into their internal experiences, in their abject bleakness, forces a re-examination of modern concepts of morality. We have heretofore believed that it lied completely in the personal choice of man to perform morally, under pretenses of "free will". The shadow and immanence theories shoot down this precept nearly completely. Although we can absolutely hold the majoritarian "right minded" or "adaptationally sound" population segment to strict moral standards, these standards do not geniunely apply to the people who design immoral technique and practice itself because they cannot confidently think otherwise. We thus live in a world where we must look not only at our personal shadows, but also upon the biogenetic shadow of our collective existence -- what Jung called the "shadow of mankind". The existence of this shadow is indicative of a key distinction between the world of man and the wild: just because you win biologically doesn't mean you win consciously. A man can succeed in passing on his genes to the next generation even as he burns in the private hell caused by a diseased psyche -- the jihad practice of fundamentalist Islam is a manifest case of this principle in action. We do not tolerate the terrorist any more than we tolerate the criminal, and have created institutions for the detainment of either. Yet there is a problem of showing some sympathy for these troubled folk. I say jail the criminal who knows better -- he is an errant member of society who has shirked self-responsibility and is a self-chose blight to us all. Lock him up for a bit, and he'll sure as hell straighten out in probably no less than couple weeks or so. But the shadow type doesn't know any better necessarily -- they can be shown how to cooperate on conduct of social goals, but even then their tendency is to pervert them to their own ends. We need a new approach which respects these individual's special needs. If you think this entitlement, remember that most of us have relationships with these persons of some nature or another. We speak not the common criminal but of our troubled son or brother. We owe them a new social technology suited just for them.

To the radical we owe something more complex... I will be considering this issue in detail shortly....

tcaudilllg
01-12-2010, 07:42 AM
Do you want to know about it?

crazedrat
01-12-2010, 08:36 AM
yes, but try to keep your language as real and grounded as possible.

tcaudilllg
01-12-2010, 09:04 AM
The political type theory is the hypothesis that personal politics in a natural outgrowth of intrafunctional differences. What makes one INTj's Ne different from another INTj's Ne is also the factor which determines what political philosophies they believe in. If there is no difference between the two Ne's, then the INTJs will have the same political philosophy. If there is a difference, then they will have the same philosophy.

I want to the point that by "differences between INTj Ne functions" I mean ways in which the functions themselves appreciably differ. I am not referring to differences in their application (that's the domain of dual-type theory).

No function is perfect, as such, people are also imperfect. A function can never grasp the fullness of its element, only parts of it. Because of this, people will disagree over what an object is essentially about or what it is like, and develop differing concepts of it.

People respond to disagreements differently. Most are, through a sense of community togetherness, humbleness, and faith, able to integrate views that are different from theirs and complete their inner picture of what reality is like. However a minority are apparently so frightened of the totality of this picture, that they will deny that it can be more complete than what they themselves can conceive of.

edit 827/2011: typo

tcaudilllg
01-12-2010, 10:10 AM
If I'm getting you, you're saying that our political inclinations has connections to our sociotype. However, as you mentioned, 2 Ne-INTjs can have entirely different political preferences. This is an indicator that the function processing is imperfect, hence resulting in varying political biases.

Some people are able to integrate and solve disagreements caused by this imperfection in function processing, but there are others who are unable to and prefer to stubbornly stick to their point-of-view. And you have an insight into this phenomena and wish to convey it to us.

Yes, that's right.

ArchonAlarion
01-12-2010, 10:48 AM
Are INTj's (for instance) prone to a certain kind of political type, and if so, what is it?

tcaudilllg
01-12-2010, 11:22 AM
Are INTj's (for instance) prone to a certain kind of political type, and if so, what is it?

No, not at all. Individuals have politics because their functions can't get a complete picture of the elements they process, which leads them to develop an incomplete and biased viewpoint of reality.

tcaudilllg
01-12-2010, 01:04 PM
The functions do not capture everything because the individual refuses to accept everything they collect. Acceptance of the entire situation could be psychologically discomfiting, because the truth could in fact be more than inconvenient. This goes back to that psychiatrist who wrote a paper on belief (see the Articles section): not seeing the whole picture can be psychologically advantageous if the situation is indeed grim. If you were trapped in a cage with a bear, would your prefer to believe that you were going to survive the encounter, or that you were going to die as soon as the bear took a notion to eat you? The one belief gives you hope, while the other leads to immediate depression. (in most cases)

tcaudilllg
01-12-2010, 04:25 PM
A minority of people disbelieve in belief for any reason. These individuals will accept the likelihood of death and struggle to live with it. They stay focused when other people would lose their wits completely, and teach others how to do the same. Because they don't deny anything, their functions are able to assimilate all aspects of the situation with perfect clarity. However they pay the price for this in that they are completely separated from their shadows, and unable to assimilate to them. As a consequence of the separation, they have lesser self-concern and greater capacity for altruistic thinking. They have very limited egos because the superego has taken so much dominance over the id that there is no actual need for a "referee".



Also: If it is preferable to not accept the psychologically discomfiting truth, why not continue to do so?


Why not indeed? On an individual basis, it's of great psychological benefit. However, from a macro-social perspective someone must come to grips with difficult realities or else very real threats may go unheeded. Beliefs are connected: a harmless belief by one function can be the seed for a very maladaptive belief on the part of a weaker function, and you may hold on to the maladaptive belief for purposes of maintaining your faith in the less harmful belief.

tcaudilllg
01-12-2010, 07:03 PM
In the "Intratype Differences" thread, I proposed that the functions have sub-processors which process different "parts" of an information element. There is a problem of how to reconcile this notion with the "parts" concept used to describe the functions themselves. (for example, the "internal" and "dynamic" components of Ni and Fe). After thinking about it, it seems to me more likely that information metabolism is actually the lowest rung of information processing, rather than the highest, and that the brain organizes information aspects depending on what belief system they fall under. Some gamma Ni content presumes that times are changing, while other gamma Ni content assumes cultural continuity. The aspects themselves are processed through gleaning consciously imperceptible characteristics of objects perceived, which I call information components, and putting them together into something that can be consciously processed.

I believe that information processing has five layers, with concepts at the top and information metabolism at the lowest layer. Concepts (ideas) are the primary unit of thought. Beliefs are preconceptions we have about the nature of conceptualizations. Information aspects are what we use to understand relationships between concepts. Both beliefs and information aspects are made up of components of information processing.




Concept
|
|
Belief (example: "developing", "steady")
|
|
Belief component (example: internal, dynamic, group)
|
|
Information element (example: "internal statics of fields")
|
|
Information component (examples: internal, statics, fields)



There are six belief components which are paired into three dichotomies.


internal vs external
dynamic vs static
individual vs collective


Note: because it is very difficult to describe concepts without referring to them as either objects or groups of objects, I will be using the term "object" for clarity of understanding.

The internal component recognizes the extent to which one object is inside another; the external component recognizes the extent to which an object is outside of another. The dynamic component recognizes the extent to which the object is changing; the static component recognizes the extent to which it isn't. The individual component considers it as an individual, while the collective component considers it as a collective of constituents.

tcaudilllg
01-13-2010, 07:54 AM
Only a partial deception. It has some parts right, and others wrong. The trick is to rely on the right parts, which are always the minimum necessary for your survival.

tcaudilllg
01-13-2010, 03:21 PM
Information elements are unions of information components. Belief elements are combinations of belief components. Emphasis on the difference between union and combination: union means that the components form an indivisible whole; combination means that the components form a divisible whole.

The belief components can be understood independently of each other. However, the information components can only be understood by observing what information elements have (vaguely) in common with each other, because the components themselves are beneath our awareness.

tcaudilllg
01-14-2010, 11:03 AM
Can I use the analogy of colours to illustrate this? Green being a "union" of the primary colours of yellow and blue. Or white light being a "union" of the colours of the rainbow, and can only be seen through a prism.

Therefore the characteristics of the colour green can only be vaguely understood through the mixture of blue and yellow, for we cannot examine green through yellow and blue individually, but only through its mixture.


That would be a very good analogy, yes.



As for belief elements and belief components, it would be akin to three plasticines of different colours sticking together. Of one, yet able to be individually taken apart and can be examined individually.

Question: Can I equate the prism through which the colours of the rainbow is visible with the functions/processors?

Sure. That's a good way of thinking about it. Very articulate.

Reuben
01-15-2010, 11:55 AM
Only a partial deception. It has some parts right, and others wrong. The trick is to rely on the right parts, which are always the minimum necessary for your survival.

How do you know the truth?

tcaudilllg
01-15-2010, 02:07 PM
As a general rule, you accept as true the proposition which results, when carried to its logical conclusion, in the least possible harm to everyone. You accept as necessary that which is necessary for the protection of yourself and those you care about, and not a step more; because anything more could be harmful to somebody else who has the opposite opinion and with it, the opposite optimal means of responding to it. Opposite opinion => opposite niche.

buckland
01-15-2010, 06:10 PM
Just going over this thread, isn't all this basically reiterating the fact that the end product of information metabolism is a resultant of your functions (elements/components or whatever you've created) and your previous experiences (belief components/elements)? And if that's the case, surely everyone knows that already.

On the belief part, belief component are your basic unit in terms of beliefs and a element is a combination of 2 (or more?) beliefs. That's fair enough. However, trying to divide the functions seems unnecessary. Why would the differences have to arise from these information components rather than elements? Continual division in something as qualitative as thought eventually leads to meaningless. When you divide an element into "internal, statics and fields", what does the internal component actually mean? These words are descriptors of the territory that a function operates in rather than of the function itself, more like directions rather than separate processes.

tcaudilllg
01-15-2010, 07:06 PM
Belief components are put together (mostly unconsciously) by belief processors into specific beliefs about what reality must be like. Each belief processor processes a single combination of belief components, which I call belief elements. Every individual perceives all eight belief elements, however they have varying degrees of ability with either. The most capable four are adopted by the ego, with the rest attributed to the shadow. The ego projects, similarly, of beliefs processed by the shadow's belief processors as being controlled by the shadow itself, giving rise to perceptions of good and evil.

The belief elements each have relation systems owing to definite relations between the belief components. Belief component relations are tiered: relations between higher tier components are processed as overriding relations between lower tiered components. Lower tier relations are only apparent when higher tier components are identical, hence a null relation at the higher tiers.


The 1st tier is internal vs external and is marked by irrelevance
The 2nd tier is static vs dynamic, and is marked by conflict
The 3rd tier is individual vs collective, and marked by complementarity


Some examples:

An internal static belief and an external dynamic belief will have relations of irrelevance, not of conflict, because 1st tier relations override 2nd tier relations.
An external dynamic individual belief and an external static collective belief will have relations of conflict, not complementarity, because the 2nd tier overrides the 3rd tier.
An external static collective belief and an external static individual belief have relations of complementarity.


In the event of a null relation, belief is of no practical consequence and other relational factors, such as those between sociotypes, hold exclusive sway.

The internal and external belief components have a special relation in that the processors for them may be either simple or complex. A complex processor is able to understand concepts, while a simple processor can only take them at face value. Although it is possible for the two components to switch processors, the individual must attain approx. ~60 years of age before the circuit will activate. Therefore throughout most of an individual's life they are constrained to understanding only half the world around them. The other half they must emulate understanding of by invoking cultural figures whom have/had the reverse configuration: although they do not truly understand the ideas of these figures (as per their instinct that such understanding is personally "irrelevant"), they can "get the gist" of their key arguments in so far as these arguments complement the concepts they find personally relevant. The invocation of these figures, the process of which was first identified by Jung, is akin to donning a mask, the resulting personality of which is termed alter ego or persona.

In practice, the individual identifies themselves first with those beliefs held by the ego which can be processed fully, and second with those ego beliefs which can only be processed simply. Thus individuals describe their beliefs in terms of two belief elements, although as they cannot understand their alter-ego beliefs their faith in those will be someone less than in the more complex system.

tcaudilllg
01-15-2010, 07:43 PM
When you divide an element into "internal, statics and fields", what does the internal component actually mean? These words are descriptors of the territory that a function operates in rather than of the function itself, more like directions rather than separate processes.


Precisely. It's likely that we know of the elements because of some kinda feedback loop in our mind in which aspect-sensitive systems are fed back into themselves, and the information elements themselves are simply supreme categories. But there is very good reason to divvy up the elements, because the elements themselves can be considered in a variety of contexts and uses. Although the hunt for the functions in the brain continues, the contexts have themselves already been located for the most part. I recently read about the research they have done into fly brains... which appear to be made of beta and delta functions, and hardly a hint of gamma or alpha.

buckland
01-15-2010, 07:58 PM
Belief components are put together (mostly unconsciously) by belief processors into specific beliefs about what reality must be like. Each belief processor processes a single combination of belief components, which I call belief elements. Every individual perceives all eight belief elements, however they have varying degrees of ability with either. The most capable four are adopted by the ego, with the rest attributed to the shadow. The ego projects, similarly, of beliefs processed by the shadow's belief processors as being controlled by the shadow itself, giving rise to perceptions of good and evil.

What is a belief processor. Are you using a different definition for the word belief? A belief is nothing more than an interpretation of information/knowledge. Why would this need a different processor to any other information. The rationalization that I use in mathematics is exactly the same as that applied in formation of my beliefs. The only difference is that beliefs would have an emotional taint that may dull/distort the thinking. The eventual recognition of "good or evil" is based on your environment, and extrapolations created from previous experiences.

The belief elements each have relation systems owing to definite relations between the belief components. Belief component relations are tiered: relations between higher tier components are processed as overriding relations between lower tiered components. Lower tier relations are only apparent when higher tier components are identical, hence a null relation at the higher tiers.


The 1st tier is internal vs external and is marked by irrelevance
The 2nd tier is static vs dynamic, and is marked by conflict
The 3rd tier is individual vs collective, and marked by complementarity


Some examples:

An internal static belief and an external dynamic belief will have relations of irrelevance, not of conflict, because 1st tier relations override 2nd tier relations.
An external dynamic individual belief and an external static collective belief will have relations of conflict, not complementarity, because the 2nd tier overrides the 3rd tier.
An external static collective belief and an external static individual belief have relations of complementarity.


In the event of a null relation, belief is of no practical consequence and other relational factors, such as those between sociotypes, hold exclusive sway.

I can't even pretend to know what you're going on about here.

The internal and external belief components have a special relation in that the processors for them may be either simple or complex. A complex processor is able to understand concepts, while a simple processor can only take them at face value. Although it is possible for the two components to switch processors, the individual must attain approx. ~60 years of age before the circuit will activate. Therefore throughout most of an individual's life they are constrained to understanding only half the world around them. The other half they must emulate understanding of by invoking cultural figures whom have/had the reverse configuration: although they do not truly understand the ideas of these figures (as per their instinct that such understanding is personally "irrelevant"), they can "get the gist" of their key arguments in so far as these arguments complement the concepts they find personally relevant. The invocation of these figures, the process of which was first identified by Jung, is akin to donning a mask, the resulting personality of which is termed alter ego or persona.

Firstly, 60 yrs sounds a bit arbitrary. Where is that coming from? And what do you mean by understanding half the world? There are so many mixed up concepts going on in here!

In practice, the individual identifies themselves first with those beliefs held by the ego which can be processed fully, and second with those ego beliefs which can only be processed simply. Thus individuals describe their beliefs in terms of two belief elements, although as they cannot understand their alter-ego beliefs their faith in those will be someone less than in the more complex system.

Yet again, either your or my LII typing has to be questioned.

tcaudilllg
01-15-2010, 09:03 PM
Yet again, either your or my LII typing has to be questioned.

I'm afraid I cannot explain it to you further. If you are insistent on maintaining your beliefs in spite of my thesis, then I must ask that you desist from further commentary in this thread.

As for the 60 year requirement... I recommend reading Jung's Stages of Life article, or waiting until I explain the idea further.

tcaudilllg
01-15-2010, 10:18 PM
Now why exactly are Buckland and I disagreeing? We'll get to that, but first we must investigate the differences between the belief elements.

The belief components work together from the top tier down. The 1st tier, internal/external, observes growth criterion, and a sense of limits. Intellectual growth in either component implies growth in the other; stagnation in either, likewise, implies stagnation in the other. The external component processes technology, method, technique. The internal component processes internal representations of phenomena. On the one hand, understanding phenomena is important to developing useful technology; on the other, adequate technology is essential for deepening one's understanding of phenomena. Although the two fields are necessary to one another's expansion, one needs only a face value understanding of either to expand the other. (hence the evolution of a simple processor) Yet as a consequence of this limited understanding, neither side can foresee what genies are being released with each step forward achieved, for they are lacking the wisdom which can only be achieved from absolute understanding.

The second tier components assess the comprehension of the 1st tier, assessing presence or lack for understanding of phenomena and processes. The static and dynamic processors operate within the internal and external processors, offering a sense of how much one is assimilated to the environment and how much more assimilation appears needed.


the internal static combination sees wholeness.
the internal dynamic combination sees incompleteness.
the external static combination sees persistence.
the external dynamic combination sees change.


Incompleteness is the lack for wholeness. Change is the lack for stability. Wholeness and stability are the ideals to which humans aspire. Focusing on incompleteness and change is their means of attaining them.

Belief processors assess our knowledge of objects. Enhancement of this knowledge requires understanding how 2nd tier component content can be transited from dissimilation to assimilation by leveraging the 1st tier. Growth in the 2nd tier of one first tier component facilitates the growth of the other 1st tier component's 2nd tier. Technology can be used to increase understanding of phenomena, and phenomena can be used to expand technology. Using technology, we can actively change the environment, and using phenomenal understanding we can better perceive the agents whose relations describe processes and compel these relations under controlled conditions. (the same being the definition of technology). The reverse is also true: we can abuse technology and obliterate our civilization, removing ourselves as far from the ideal as possible and catastrophically backtracking. We can process the means of creating a progressively better world for ourselves, or alternatively, process, and execute, the means by which to destroy it utterly.

Reuben
01-16-2010, 05:03 AM
It is possible to divide the 60 years of age by allowing yourself to suffer traumatic experiences.
i.e. exposing yourself to excessive super-ego supervision, releasing your id, constraining your ego, refusing your super-id etc.
If you short circuit yourself (like as in tcaud's post, lose sight of the goal and completley obliterate yourself), you may divide that age by a fraction, resulting in never being able to attain the ability to consciously switch processors, unless you live long enough for the wounds to heal, or if you bathe yourself in super-id i.e. dual. Doing so may actually reverse the division by a fraction (or multiplication, to apply occam's razor), resulting in a net division.

You can switch processors at a fairly young age.

Tcaudillg, are you able to? You seem to be able to see the switch.

tcaudilllg
01-16-2010, 10:58 AM
No I can't perform the switch. Nobody young can. You've gotta hit late adulthood first. You see, the ability to process wisdom is the essence of the wise man archetype. We can recognize wisdom when we see it... we can associate it with people. The image of the wise old man is ubiquitous because only old, wizened men are able to offer suitable personas. (granted the crone offers such wisdom as well, but then you have the legacy of male dominance coming into play... it's a cultural effect).

It goes back to that old saying "respect your elders".

I can see the switch because I have modeled it: I see the use of the simple processor in myself as my inability to make sense of higher math. I am a phenomenologist, not a technologist.

Generally we just don't give that much attention to the simple processor's belief domain. We always look at the simple processor's beliefs as... how to say it... "convoluted". We have a tendency to look at in-depth explanations of these beliefs and say, "in English, please." When forced to study it we will say, "It's all Greek to me." It really does look like an alien language. Worse, it's the preferred position of our shadow/id, which is of course simplistic and impulsive. We have a tendency thus to equate it with bestial or inferior behavior.

The only real explanation for the subjective divide between internal and external, is the existence of unevenly capable processors. The end result of the uneven capability, is a revulsion against the "convoluted expression" of what is personally believed to be a simple concept.

From here forward I will refer to the processors of complex and simple understanding as "depth processors".

I believe that the internal and external component processors can switch depth processors because according to Jung, a person begins to turn more attention to their culture after passing the third level of individuation (the mid-life crisis). Given Jung was a social liberal who himself took more interest in culture in the 2nd half of his life, it would make sense that he would assume this characteristic common to everyone. But what of the people who are interested in culture already? What would they learn to take more interest in, if not culture? Given that culture is a technological phenomena, it makes sense that holders of external belief philosophies would pay more attention to internal philosophies in the 2nd half of life -- Jung's proposition holds only in 50% of cases.

tcaudilllg
01-17-2010, 10:26 PM
I'm getting a sense people are confused.... Try not to read too much into my response posts. Just try to pay attention to my position posts, where I explain the fundamentals.

There are eight belief elements, each of which are combinations of three belief components. However, because the third tier components (individual/collective) have complementary relations, they form dyads of belief.

It might be easier to think of the comparative strength of the internal/external components as determining the domain of beliefs one chooses to focus on, and the strength of the dynamic/static components determining what your position on their character actually is. The strength of the third level components, individual/collective, determines what your preferred vantagepoint is in understanding these beliefs.

To put the third level into context, it's the mental "tool" you use to switch between seeing a whole as an individual, or a collection of parts. Its uses range from the theoretical, such as in wave-particle duality, to the comparison of an individual's wealth to that of their nation. However we do tend to neglect, on a personal level, one such view in favor of the other.

Before getting into the peculiars of why belief element strengths differ from person to person, let's review the elements themselves.


"internal static individual" -- sees an object's development as sufficient.
"internal dynamic individual" -- sees an object's development as insufficient.
"internal static collection" -- sees understanding of object relationships as sufficient.
"internal dynamic collection" -- sees understanding of object relationships as insufficient.
"external static individual" -- sees objects as stable.
"external dynamic individual" -- sees objects as chaotic.
"external static collection" -- sees objects' relationships to each other as stable.
"external dynamic collection" -- sees objects' relationships to each other as chaotic.


Basically, the richness/poorness/orderliness/disorderliness of objects considered as either individuals or collections.

The belief functions have functional components for each belief component. They relate beliefs to each other at the component level. The internal and external processors measure one's understanding and direct the choice between focus on either internal or external beliefs depending on what the individual feels they need to know more about. This allows the IM functions to discriminate between aspects they need to know about, and those they don't. Specifically, it is the role of the internal dynamic and internal static component configurations to make this call, based on whether or not things expected to be stable remain stable and things expected to be chaotic remain chaotic. (actually I just realized the (at least partial) truth of the preceding statement, and am going to have to reflect on it more to continue this aspect of the discussion. Suffice to say that the internal and external component processors work together to direct attention towards either learning facts or learning method).

The dynamic and static component processors work in the context of the internal and external component processors. They process the development and persistence of objects: unexpected behavior is seen as an indicator of poor understanding; expected behavior is an indicator of adequate understanding. The internal dynamic combination is stimulated by the unexpected; the internal static combination by the expected. Need to feel one kind or the other results in the strength of one over the other. The external dynamic combination is stimulated by frequent transition between the expected and the unexpected; the external static combination is stimulated when one or the other is frequent enough to be seen as "the norm".

In general, an external belief pole is stimulated when there is a reflection of that pole in the internal belief pattern. An internal belief pole is stimulated by a reflection of that pole in the external belief pattern. I understand this is very difficult to conceptualize of, and will try to think of an illustrative example.

Although we may experience a stimulus to believe one way or the other, we will frequently try to repress this stimulus in favor of further gratifying our need to believe in a specific way. Each belief processor has a preference for believing one way or another, being characterized by the desire to eliminate the presence of one belief element in favor of another. The dynamic element processors are very different from the static element processors in this regard.


the dynamic element processors try to eliminate their content by transforming it into static content
the static element processors try to prevent their content from being transformed into dynamic content


What this means is that you have, in practice, some people who are persistently trying to better themselves and some people trying to restructure their environs for great resiliency. In spite of this, you have some people who are trying to hold on to everything they have that makes them "whole", and some people who are trying to be prevent even the partial reform of their environments. You have, in the context of these competing goals, a recipe for conflict.

tcaudilllg
01-18-2010, 06:52 PM
On the national and international levels, the divide between the beliefs has definite consequences. We call these consequences politics, and the motivation to exalt one belief element over another the political type of an individual. (alternatively, one can use the word, "conviction type", as determination to hold a political view is the distinguishing factor of personal conviction). This is why attempts to consider political affiliation a phenomenon of the (misunderstood, poorly labeled) Reinin dichotomies fail -- politics is simply not sociotype related.

At about the same time I proposed the first draft of the political type theory (on this forum), a reporter by the name of Brian Patrick Mitchell produced a political science book that he had researched for several years, called Eight Ways to Run the Country: a New and Revealing Look at Left and Right. In this work, Mitchell identifies eight political positions which, he notes, have in common differences over the importance and interpretation of rank. My system, at the time, had four positions which, analysis showed, encompassed his eight. I sought to affirm whether the further divisions he emphasized were a cultural or disposed phenomena, needing of course an additional component dichotomy -- an additional choice -- to observe as the expression of disposition. (if that were the case). I found it in the phenomenon of wave/particle duality, and the problems of integrating a theory of fields like general relativity with a theory of particles are per QM. (the capacity for such requiring such mentality as to see either as just divergent perspectives of a single whole). So the third component dichotomy is defined by divergence over the interpretation of wholes.

It should be noted that upon reflection, the static/dynamic component dichotomy is equivalent to Mitchell's kratos/akratos. This because rank is the delta Te manifestation of static/dynamic belief.

My original system had two component dichotomies -- potential/kinetic and static dynamic. I later renamed potential/kinetic to internal/external because internal/external was more general and easier to conceptualize.

This table illustrates correspondences between the 2-component combinations and core political beliefs:

internal static == conservatism
internal dynamic == liberalism
external static == traditionalism
external dynamic == reform


Here are the belief element correspondences with Mitchell's system.


internal static individual == theoconservative
internal dynamic individual == radicalism
internal static collective == neoconservatism
internal dynamic collective == progressivism
external static individual == libertarian
external dynamic individual == individualist
external static collective == paleoconservative
external dynamic collective == communitarian


My system's encapsulation of Mitchell's is quite apparent.

tcaudilllg
01-18-2010, 06:54 PM
Is everyone with me so far? I know this is a lot to digest, but there's more to come and trust me, if you're getting confused by this the next bit is going to be soup by comparison.

If you need clarification on something, you may ask.

ArchonAlarion
01-18-2010, 07:01 PM
Couldn't static be described as potential and dynamic as kinetic?

tcaudilllg
01-18-2010, 07:36 PM
Couldn't static be described as potential and dynamic as kinetic?

No. Potential can be altered, and kinetic energy can be shifted. So no, they're not the same.

Kinda plays with your head, doesn't it?

ArchonAlarion
01-19-2010, 02:36 AM
But kinetic energy can really only be directed, because it would already be in motion as you adjust it. Changing something's potential energy plays with the energy in a detached way (before the fact). The variables that add up to potential energy are static because they are reduced to an objective value that treats input as simultaneous. Pe could be described as potential energy. Sensing the magnitude of an object's presence and its effects on spatial control with Se, and Intuiting the set of potential ways an object's surface form can change whilst keeping it's internal structure the same with Ne. Neither deals with action, just an accumulation of objective information about forms and states. Je would be best described as kinetic. Kinetic is not a very good way of describing Pi, although potential sort of still works for Ji.

tcaudilllg
01-19-2010, 03:26 AM
Even a change in direction would be a change.

It's tricky. It's the stasis of all the elements at once. It's about making everything completely predictable in some way. Routine. Granted I'm using Ni to describe it.... It's like a sound wave played over and over... yes there are changes from moment to moment, but that doesn't change the basic fact that the next soundwave will be exactly like every sound wave which preceded it.

It is its stability. The stability of an object. Not of its properties but of the object itself.



Se and Intuiting


That's your first mistake. Se NEVER intuits. It is the OPPOSITE of intuition. Which means you've got to discard your entire thought right there, because it is built on an invalid premise.

ArchonAlarion
01-19-2010, 07:54 PM
That's your first mistake. Se NEVER intuits. It is the OPPOSITE of intuition. Which means you've got to discard your entire thought right there, because it is built on an invalid premise.

*...with Se, and intuiting...

tcaudilllg
01-19-2010, 08:41 PM
*...with Se, and intuiting...

OK nevermind. Your sentence was difficult to interpret.

ArchonAlarion
01-19-2010, 08:43 PM
My apology.

tcaudilllg
01-19-2010, 09:21 PM
Let's continue.

Archon I will need time to examine your argument. Although I believe your premise invalid, until I understand the argument I will be unable to demonstrate its invalidity.

In the meantime, I assume that everyone's pretty much clear on what is being proposed. I understand that this is a very lengthy set of theses and as such I will attempt to clarify what is being proposed.

These are the propositions:

Apparently irresolvable arguments over the nature of the functions indicates that interpretations of the functions are divergent. That these arguments are intractible indicates that something permanent underlies the divergence. I propose that this is an as-yet discovered dimension of personality type, by which people can be classified according to innate beliefs.
The best way to understand the belief type is to presume the existence of belief elements made of belief components, at a level of information processing above information metabolism.
To understand information elements, one must understand each of the eight beliefs about them.
The belief elements have an ordering system which prioritizes the most reliably understood beliefs over the misunderstood beliefs, adopting the reliable beliefs as the person's innate beliefs. The shadow tends to be identified with one's own inferior belief elements.
When people meet other people who have the same innate beliefs, they organize into political parties. These fundamental parties have been described by Mitchell in his book Eight Ways to Run the Country.

And finally:
the belief element components have a tiered relation system which while useful for purposes on information prioritization (at a largely unconscious level), threatens to bias us and prevent us from understanding reality for what it really is.

tcaudilllg
01-19-2010, 11:30 PM
I would now like to discuss the fascinating ordering system for the belief elements. Although I call their organization system an "ordering" system, the truth is that a numerical system is superfluous when we have available a far older system for this purpose.

90 years older, in fact.

Because I like riddles, I will first lay out the system before revealing what its historical analogue is.

tcaudilllg
01-22-2010, 09:53 PM
The element belonging to the most complex and competent belief processor is the individual's dominant element. The individual observes it as their primary existential function and the means to an essential purpose.
The complement to the dominant element is held by the individual as an ultimate aim, to which all others seem subordinate.
The element belonging to the most competent and simple belief processor is the alter ego's dominant element. The individual observes it as the foundation for one's understanding of the dominant belief -- the state of the dominant belief is directly contingent upon the suggestions of the alter ego. To fully understand the dominant belief, one must understand this belief first.
the alter ego's complement is the mysterious goal which drives the development of the alter ego. It is the alter ego to the dominant's complement. The alter ego complement is seen as an important truth which nonetheless, seems nearly impossible to grasp. The individual is like to spend a great deal of time fumbling with contribution to this element; however because they scarcely understand it they can never know that their efforts will be worthwhile. Their relationship to this element is therefore mixed, and they rarely rely on it.


The other four elements are associated with the shadow and its various (and often threatening) competencies and incompetencies. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses associated with each shadow position allows that the positioning system be understood as a conscious set of choices on the part of the individual.


The dominant shadow element is always opposite the alter ego with respect to the character component; in all other respects it is the same. The individual deeply regrets the existence of this element, because it is the bane of their aspirations. An ideal world, in their view, is impossible because of it. However, the individual believes that one's position on the intractability of this element's existence is a dividing line separating good and evil: their acceptance of it is redeemed by their rejection of the possibility that it could be good, only necessary.
The complement to the shadow dominant is the purpose which the dominant serves. It is a vital element which is the anchor for the purposes which the individual holds dear; however, the individual sees it as routinely abused and misused.
The element which conflicts with the individual's dominant is seen as the engine which drives the corruption of the shadow dominant's complement. It is seen as somewhat mindless, repulsive, and hardly worth understanding. It is taken for face value and used as the anchor for the dominant element. Mindless pursuit of it is seen as the genesis for many of the world's ills.
The complement to the simple shadow element is seen as a barely perceptible alleged purpose which is seen as the "marring" factor of the shadow dominant complement. The individual believes individuals who exalt this function at all to be on shaky moral ground, if any. Individuals who revel in it are seen as so foolish as to befit a jester's hat. Their antics are seen as the fundamental engine of world misfortune, the production mechanism for evil itself.



In summary:

The individual's dominant belief element is well understood, fulfills the individual's self-purpose, and conflicts with the shadow's alter ego.
The individual's chosen alter ego belief element is somewhat understood, fulfills a purpose that is poorly understood, and conflicts with the shadow's dominant.
The complementary belief to the dominant is seen as the individual's existential purpose, and is well understood.
The complementary belief to the alter ego is seen as the explanation for the purpose, and is poorly understood.
The shadow's dominant belief element is seen as a necessary foundation for the validity of the alter ego's beliefs, and is well understood.
The complement to the shadow dominant is seen as the purpose served by the shadow's dominant, is the foundation for the explanation for the self-purpose, and is well understood.
The shadow's alter ego belief element is poorly understood, and is seen as the foundation for the individual's dominant.
The shadow alter ego's complement is poorly understood, is the foundation for the self-purpose, and is the explanation for the shadow dominant's complement.


Each individual has feelings with regard to each of the belief elements. These feelings cause them to prioritize and respond to beliefs in a self-regulated manner. Through emotional maturation, individuals learn to rearrange the positions of their belief processors and see how all of the belief elements can have the characteristics associated with any of these eight positions. The emotional maturation process happens in biologically fixed stages at definite intervals during an individual's lifetime, and is termed individuation. Passing an individuation stage enables a superior observation function which permits the reconciliation of conflicting beliefs.

tcaudilllg
01-24-2010, 12:08 AM
Jung's archetypes are cultural manifestations of the search for individuals that serve our needs to project the qualities of belief positions onto the belief elements which occupy them. To understand why the archetypes correspond to belief positions, it is necessary to first understand what individuals try to gain from each position.


The dominant belief is identified with the archetype of the self, and we try to gain self-knowledge and understanding from it. We look for a sense of self-identity from the example set by others who are also dominated by this belief.
The complement to the dominant is identified with the soul, which is seen as generative in that it fuels the growth of the dominant. It is the purpose to which the dominant aspires. However, it is also appears without a purpose in and of itself; thus we look for something in another who will make us their purpose and which serves our function.
The alter ego is identified with the archetype of the synnex. The synnex is seen as a person who has understanding of that which the individual does not, and moreover, is able to explain this understanding in terms that the individual can appreciate as relevant. For reasons we will discuss, only people past the age of 60 can fulfill this requirement.
The alter ego complement is the purpose of the purpose, and is represented by children and images of fertility: the "mother goddess" as it were. It is very frequently associated with religion, which is experienced as both purposeful and mysterious.
The shadow dominant is identified with the shadow, which we see as an essential accessory of our understanding. We only truly understand belief systems which combine our dominant element with our dominant shadow element. We look to people who represent the dominant as a kind of scapegoat, presuming them under the influence of the shadow alter ego. People onto whom this belief projects are thought of as unable to help themselves because they cannot shake their belief in the shadow alter ego. We cannot help but have a sympathy for these people, mindful that we could be placed in such situations ourselves.
The complement to the shadow dominant is experienced as abomination. Something that should not exist, something that must not exist. Something one must take responsibility for preventing. It is seen as something that could have been good, marred by the interjection of a malefic fool. It's existence is regarded as something as a cruel joke. We find in the abominable a reason to fight for our dominant beliefs.
The shadow alter ego is used to conceptualize of our rivals. Although we might think to stop the fool (see the next description) from going about their world-destroying business, our rival is always in the way, protecting the fool and thwarting us at every turn.
The shadow alter ego complement is the fool. The individual sees exaltation of this element as foolish, the height of idiocy. The logic for such a thing seems impenetrable, and always associated with misfortune, good intentions gone wrong, etc.. This archetype is also associated with demons, whose only purpose is to create abomination. We see our enemy in this element, someone we both rue and fear.

tcaudilllg
01-26-2010, 07:27 PM
Internal/External is of the first tier, and dissimilar (one external, the other internal). How does this example indicates null relations? Doesn't it only nullify when identical?

Irrelevancy =/= null relation. Irrelevancy is experienced as the idea that the beliefs have nothing to do with each other, in that the content of one does nothing for the other's purposes. You see this a lot in fantasy fiction, where you have one side up against another side, with no side. On the other hand, dramas tend to be built on the notion that internal and external beliefs tend to try to coerce each other into adherence to one another's goals. (for example, using hostages to make so-called "neutral actors" take sides in a conflict which doesn't directly concern them). You might say that internal dominants and external dominants are interlopers to each other.

Recall that everyone has two belief elements they are comfortable with, a well understood element and a poorly understood element. How a person uses their element depends on their culture. In the West, internal belief dominants rarely exalt their external beliefs at the expense of harmony between others who share their dominant belief. (for example, individualist progressives and social individualists do not fight, but have a deep respect for each other). External belief dominants, in contrast, schism in the West on basis of their internal beliefs and even at the expense of harmony with others who share their dominant element. You have a few, like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul (and who can forget Ross Perot?), who try hard to unite external belief dominants on basis of their conflictor relations, but these figures are not highly respected even by a majority of external belief dominants. Because the external dynamic and external static beliefs both split on basis of their alter ego beliefs, we have a two-party system in America instead of a four-party system.

In the command socialist East, Lenin's Leftism eventually gave way to the coherence of external beliefs around the common enemy incarnate in internal beliefs -- emphasis was placed on the quantity and sustainability of lives at the direct expense of median life quality. Indeed, the belief elements associated with command socialism in the East are very much associated with independents in America, in that they are external and the same -- the only difference is their cultural expression.

In the West, the big issue between external dynamism and external statism is immigration. Before explaining the importance of this issue, let me first explain the concrete differentiation of external beliefs.

The external belief component observes the externality of objects to each other. The external dynamic component combination observes changes in this externality: it observes movements of objects into each other (immigration) and outside of each other (emigration). The external static component, in contrast, observes object boundaries as impermeable: an individual is bound to their group and cannot leave it, nor can they join another group. If you were to capture the difference between these two elements in a few words, it would be "boundary" vs "no boundaries". External statists see boundaries; external dynamists see a world unbounded.

The conflict between the external statists and dynamists over boundaries takes myriad forms, immigration being only one. Because internal change can only be attributed to the encapsulation of one object by another, external statists are like to argue that either boundaries prevent change, or that boundaries should be respected and no change should be allowed. External dynamists, on the other hand, would like to advance internal development in a "communal" fashion where each object trades "parts" of itself in exchange for other parts which are of more use to it. (keeping in mind the right of parts to reject their wholes). The problem is that both sides are competing for control of the same objects, with either side believing that the growth and sustainability of the group is at stake. This is the fundamental ethnic problem, in that you have these two sides in any cultural group who are always struggling over the right of individuals to join and leave it. The struggle manifests as the cultural issues facing the group, whether the group is a nation struggling with matters of immigration and collective identity, or an internet community trying to deal with a constant influx of "newbies". Either is, at core, a problem of ethnic tolerance or intolerance -- only the internal definition of the group differs.

In the west, it is common for ethnic matters to be divorced from politics. The preoccupation with ethnic political issues is criticized as "identity politics", and is held as a potential threat to national stability. Immigration is a back-burner issue -- either party panders to one external pole or the other without really trying to do anything about it even when in office, arguing that external voters are "independents" who appear to be divided on the matter. Just as the command socialists argue against class in the east ("everyone ends up in the middle"), the democracies of the west dismiss external belief arguments as a self-conflicted "body politic". Additionally, age limits placed on public office holders require that external believers reach a certain level of maturity before reaching high office. By this time they frequently have wisdom enough to understand why open external politicking is disastrous for national stability, leading as it does ultimately to civil wars and secessions which would probably not be in their best interest. Another constraint against external political intervention is the cultural impact of World War II and the memory of the Holocaust. External statist recognition of the Holocaust's influence on their collective political potential is, in fact, their prime rationale for denying that it happened.

ArchonAlarion
01-26-2010, 09:21 PM
Indeed, the belief elements associated with command socialism in the East are very much associated with independents in America, in that they are external and the same -- the only difference is their cultural expression.

You've got my attention, please explain more about this.

tcaudilllg
01-27-2010, 06:20 AM
Command socialism is notable both for the impoverishment of the people it governs and the rate of their multiplication. This because it deals solely with existential threats, which are correlated with needs. Command socialism is notable for its stability through adaptation -- it represents a common ground and unity between both external belief poles. It observes the one thing that both have in common, the intent to animate the non-living, and also what either side has to lose, in that warfare will only result in the conversion of living matter to dead matter. It a triumph of the externally-oriented id, the ancestral urge to procreate and avoid death.

I mentioned that the external belief dominants break towards either liberalism or conservatism in the west based on the orientation of their alter egos. The main reason for this is the West's intolerance for sociopathic leadership, which we will discuss.

tcaudilllg
01-29-2010, 06:50 AM
I've been thinking about it, and I think the Tea Party represents a Western incarnation of command socialism. Consider this statement they put out last night.



State of the Union: We're Unimpressed, Mr. Obama

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

The Tea Party Express released the following statement in response to the president's State of the Union Address:

"Tonight was a night of hot air, delivered in a way too long speech that revisited pledges we've quite frankly heard from Barack Obama before.

"His comments in the State of the Union were similar in tone and substance to his comments made after he won the 2008 presidential election and during his inauguration.

"But actions speak louder than words, and this administration violated its promise for increased transparency. Lobbyists were appointed by the president to positions he swore would never be filled by former lobbyists.

"Worst of all, we've seen out-of-control spending, and an unparalleled growth in the size and power of government.

"We'll start to believe Barack Obama when his actions match his words. Until then, it's just more empty promises, and we've all heard far too many unfulfilled promises from the politicians in Washington.
"In our opinion, the best part of this speech was the end."



You can see that they have a distinctly unreasonable agenda -- the historical evidence suggesting the necessity of government intervention is being completely ignored. (type factors are probably in play here, come to think of it). The Tea Party represents a step beyond command socialism, however, because it is anarchic. We see both a preoccupation with growth and sustainability, and another element of non-obligation. They represent a push to reject organized altruism as a means of sustainable growth (to the extent that it surfaces through the state). That's what they have in common: they believe that altruism is not the domain of the federal government, because they see the government as a non-living institution, and not an agreement of people. (how could they, when they do not agree with it?)

A logical reading of their arguments shows that they are marked exaggerations. Government growth during the Bush years was many times what has happened in the first year of Obama's term. The antisocial part has revealed itself in the for-profit nature of the leading Tea Party organization -- the group is trying to capitalize on this discontent for personal gain. (reference: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/28/two-key-tea-party-convention-speakers-cancel/) The movement is distinct for its dismissal of altruistic propositions without offering alternative altruistic measures. It is the application of political rhetoric for private capitalist ends... in essence, no different than command socialism's functional state.

tcaudilllg
01-29-2010, 01:50 PM
We now move on to the discussion of individuation functions and their role in human social evolution.

The individuation functions permit us to break free of our habits of associating beliefs with archetypal images. They allow us to associate beliefs with more than one archetype. Without this function, we could neither believe in ourselves nor understand how people who disagree with us could possibly be right, even when we are wrong.

There are four individuation functions which trigger at certain periods in our individual development. Key to understanding individuation is the understanding that we do not complete all of our development inside the womb; rather, we continue to develop mentally throughout our entire lives.

There are four intervals of individuation, each permitting the belief functions to switch between certain component dichotomy poles.

The first interval lasts from the age of conscious attainment (about 3 years) to age 23, and ends when the individual accepts their id beliefs and assimilates them into themselves. This acceptance is permitted by the invocation of a physiological change which allows the shadow to move its belief elements into the ego's positions whenever a 1D function is criticized, displacing the ego into the subconscious until the criticism is answered on terms the shadow will accept. (I will refer to this condition henceforth as the "individuation trigger") This shift is effected through a general switch between static and dynamic components: the static processors becomes dynamic and the dynamic processors become static.
The second interval lasts from the end of the first to the midlife crisis period. The individuation trigger is unknown to me because I'm not yet in my late 30s/early 40s and the necessarily physiological conditions for its activation have not been met in me. Jung wrote a great deal about this function, saying that it represents a "marriage" between oneself and one's soul. I have gathered that this function is effected through an individual/collective component switch, effectively permitting the perception of the purpose one serves as a function of one's own purpose. It is, in a sense, the ability to give and receive. No wonder this function is associated with divorce.
The third interval lasts from the end of the second to late adulthood. The trigger is unknown. It permits a switch between the internal and external components. Through this function we becomes wise: we understand how our actions reverberate through the world, and learn to appreciate the depth of their consequences. Things that once mystified us and seemed impossible to understand, at last become clear. However it also becomes clear to us that the world we made in our youth has been irrevocably shaped, and that there is very little opportunity left to make a further difference. We concentrate instead on attending to necessary tasks, for death swiftly approaches and with it...
The close of the fourth interval. This function activates when the shadow senses its end, the oncoming of death. It softens the trauma of death by shutting down the projection system entirely, leaving one with a complete and very somber picture. One is able to see the practical significance of everything during this stage, in these final moments. It is a period of final reflection on a life lived, where one contrasts what one tried to be with what one had to be.


Jung was the first to propose such a system. He articulated the fight with the shadow (1st interval) and the encounter with the soul image. (2nd interval) He described the 3rd in some detail, characterizing it as increased preoccupation with culture. Today Jung's work in this field is mostly forgotten -- it is Erikson who is honored as having explained the stages of life experience. Erikson describes four stages -- childhood/adolescence, young adulthood, middle adulthood, and late adulthood. There is a pretty clear correspondence between the aspirations associated with each of Erikson's stages and Jung's archetypes. After postulating the belief elements and our tendency to project archetypes onto them (the pattern differing of course from person to person), it becomes quite plain that the new self-interpretations permitted through the rearrangement of belief components form the foundation for the attitude changes which permit advancement from one stage to the next. Moreover, I have experienced the resolution of struggle between myself and my shadow firsthand. I have discussed the later stages with people who have passed them already (or are seeking to pass them, in the case of the last), and their experiences have informed the outline I have offered herein. Yet it has come to pass that I have observed a troubling trend in some people, as though they cannot imagine what it would be like to observe the world without their projections, neither to appreciate the possible validity of others' projections. This brings us to the topic of failed individuation, which I call immanence.

ArchonAlarion
01-29-2010, 01:59 PM
You can see that they have a distinctly unreasonable agenda -- the historical evidence suggesting the necessity of government intervention is being completely ignored. (type factors are probably in play here, come to think of it). The Tea Party represents a step beyond command socialism, however, because it is anarchic. We see both a preoccupation with growth and sustainability, and another element of non-obligation. They represent a push to reject organized altruism as a means of sustainable growth (to the extent that it surfaces through the state). That's what they have in common: they believe that altruism is not the domain of the federal government, because they see the government as a non-living institution, and not an agreement of people. (how could they, when they do not agree with it?)


Whatever intentions the tea party has, the state is not contractually based.

Contracts are explicitly agreed to and voluntary. Unless the constitution (and other "social contracts") was signed by every property owner that fell under its jurisdiction, it can never be considered as anything else, than force-based.

We can make a functionally and consequentially meaningful separation between "force" and "contract" here, so it is extremely misleading to say they are the same.

tcaudilllg
01-29-2010, 03:26 PM
Right, it's a coerced contract. But if they want freedom, they are going to have to accept the existence of coercion, because people can't survive on their own and lead a modern life. Because we require interdependence to maintain our standard of living, we require control as a means of reducing our stress levels. Thus, we are apt to coerce others when 1) we don't think we can manage on our own and 2) no help seems likely otherwise.

It is vital that we regulate our stress levels. Without stress regulation we will succumb to disease.

By "obligation", I meant "concern for the weak". For example, you may feel an obligation to correct another person's logic if you think they are wrong. Not because you like correcting people, necessarily, but because you think it important for people to be informed, whether out of a sense of concern for the person or for the society in which they live.

Sociopathic Alpha NTs will often not bother to correct people, but will instead use another's poor logic to their advantage. For example, they may deliberately mislead or claim false evidence to create opportunity for themselves. Likewise a sociopathic ISFj may advocate the adoption of values that they themselves do not believe in, which is probably the case with the tea party organizers. Sociopaths use others' weak functions to their advantage.

tcaudilllg
01-31-2010, 01:07 AM
Immanence is a very complex topic. People who are afflicted with it justify themselves via attitudinal factors, and one cannot understand individual cases of it without understanding their justifications. The factors vary from person to person, however they are categorical and moreover, are the key to uncovering deeper layers of personality beyond those described in socionics.

Immanence is categorizable on four dichotomous dimensions. These dimensions are harmony, focus, entanglement, and ethic. The most important dichotomy is harmony, and has two poles concordant and discordant. Harmony is followed by ethic, which can be either teleological of deontological. The other dichotomies define peculiarities of approach to either.

Immanence is experienced at the component level, and its characterized by the inability either to project or to appreciate the need not to project. Recall at the beginning of the thread we discussed the utility of denial in the face of probable death. We return to that theme here. The person who refused to deny the severity of their circumstances did so because they thought it unhelpful to delude themselves at all, choosing the most accurate interpretation of the situation even at their own emotional expense. There was no free agency in their decision: the severity of the situation would have forced a person who was capable of genuine choice between the two positions to choose denial, because this would placate their emotional condition and increase their adrenaline. That these advantages are not exercised by the non-denying individual indicates failure to adapt -- the execution of an incorrect choice. It is not merely the reverse choice -- it is the lack of choice: there was sufficient internal justification to prohibit the selection of the correct alternative, the product of irresolvable internal conflicts associated with the exercise of projection. Immanence is characterized by something missing, which reduces the will of the individual relative to the non-immanent population.

There are strong arguments that immanence is a relic of a predecessor mentality to the modern one. Its genes are recessive -- high median life expectancies in developed countries indicate that disposition to premature death, the most common outcome of immanence, is uncommon. It may be that earlier humans lacked the component switch processors, and that these evolved due to natural advantage. What is clear is that there is a gene for this condition, and that it can be passed down by heredity.

I use the word immanence because it is distinct from transcendence. Jung was the first to propose a physiological trigger for individuation, which he called the "transcendent" function. People who cannot pass a given individuation interval lack this trigger and so are the opposite of transcendent, the "immanent".

The concordantly immanent refuse to harbor certain projections; the discordantly immanent refuse not to project. The concordantly immanent are harmonious and typically exceptionally gracious, humble, and kind. The discordantly immanent are belligerent, frequently hypocritical, and hateful towards any who disagree with them. When the concordantly immanent pass on, they are often remembered fondly; when the discordantly immanent pass, reactions range from mixed to jubilant. Historically the concordant have been praised as models of character to which all should aspire; the discordant, in contrast, have been remembered for their unfortunate fates, a warning to the rest of us.

tcaudilllg
01-31-2010, 02:30 AM
The first step to understanding immanence is understanding what the fuss is about. Essentially, this is about light and darkness.... Most of us are in the middle, trying to cobble together a compromise between our impulses to project and the necessity of avoiding projection when it is not necessary. The concordant utterly side with the non-projecting light, and the discordant live in the total darkness of projection. Not really that surprising is it? Who among us could seriously fill the shoes of Jesus, MLK, or Gandhi? Who among us could even follow them without doubting them even in the face of a baton? Not many, that's for sure. By the same measure, however, most of us would not condemn someone who merely disagreed with us either -- just because someone does something we dislike, or votes a certain way, doesn't mean we stop talking to them. Instead we try to strike a balance by asking whether someone has done something we dislike in the name of common ideals. You may disagree with the invasion of Iraq, or with Obama's continued commitment to Afghanistan, but you can neither argue that their intentions are not in the right place, nor that anyone is being forced to act against their will by their actions. If anything you probably disagree with the method, not the result.

But the method is not wholly questioned by the concordant, because it is not clear that the alternative cures would not be worse than the disease. While the discordant marched in the streets for or against, the concordant were remarkably silent, if not serving in the war themselves or calling attention to the plight of its victims. The rest of us have, of course, wafted and wavered as though caught between these two extremes, prisoners of our own indecisiveness. Caught "between light and darkness" as it were.

I use the words "light" and "darkness" instead of "good" and "evil" because good and evil are attributes of acts, not conditions. Living in light or darkness is a condition, because you are surrounded by either. People who are blinded by the brilliance of their own light can do evil, just as people who are immersed in their own projections can perform righteous deeds. It is the inability to choose which makes these traits maladaptive.

tcaudilllg
01-31-2010, 08:43 AM
Commentary? Questions? Anything else you'd like to say about it?

And most of all, what do you think about it? How does it make you feel?

tcaudilllg
02-01-2010, 01:45 AM
I stand by my use of the terms "light" and "darkness" because it's just Fe. Certainly bad behaviors and poor choices yield negative emotions and disappointments. Didn't we learn that from 2008?

Anyway let's review. From this outline, we can frame the political spectrum not only in terms of right/left, collectivism/individualism/, reformer/traditionalist, but also in terms of fringe and center. The discordant are the fringe, and the concordant are the center. Note that centrist =/= independent: some centrists are independents, but not all independents are centrists. In fact, in times when a nation is being governed completely by the center, the only people who identify as independent are the fringe.

There is a difference, however, between being the center and governing in its name. For example, JFK governed as the center; Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all have governed in its name. More about acting in the name of the center later.

tcaudilllg
02-01-2010, 06:37 AM
When thinking about immanence, I have a range of emotions which follow after each other in a pretty regular sequence. Immanence is closely associated with depression... trying to put yourself in the shoes of an immanent person is a non-starter. Mostly I feel regret for the loss of the concordant and mindful that they carrying our sins on their backs... try not to think about it too much lest I become self-loathing. Then you have the discordant (commonly referred to as assholes and extremists) who... well, it's kinda strange. You can play an RPG, and marvel at the scale of the personal tragedies of these "misunderstood" characters -- if only they had been treated more nicely, or if maybe they had seen the light or whatever. Especially the borderlines.

Actually I do kinda have a soft spot for borderlines, perhaps because they are so needy and clingy. (in an elastic sense, at least). On the other hand sometimes I also like my alone time... borderlines don't cope with "alone time" very well.

In general I really dislike the discordant. They are never fair and will not listen no matter how much you argue or what evidence they will offer... it just gets dismissed as "unreliable". As bad as they are in life, they are worse in death, leaving behind a lasting legacy of bad feeling and disappointment. My own grandfather was one of these people... the sobbing at his funeral didn't really begin until the pastor suggested that we could not be sure he didn't reach out to Jesus in that last moment. Although the pastor said this with a smile, the response was hardly what he intended, so sure was my family that our patriarch burned in hell.

Whether he is in hell or not I cannot say... I've come to settle on reincarnation as the most humane alternative. Another body, another brain... another chance. Honestly I don't know if their lives are any worse than the rest of ours. ****** lived quite a life for all the rage and hate he bore. Must have been fun at times. And despite all the horrors he perpetrated against everyone he ever knew or touched, he still managed to die with a sense of self-styled dignity. Not a bad run... if you were him.

tcaudilllg
02-02-2010, 08:21 AM
Four key attitudes underlie immanence -- it is a primarily Fe-driven phenomena. Each attitude is associated with a behavioral dimension. Although I know little about the fourth dimension in the set, I know that the first three are determinants of social potential. These dimensions are very important -- along with dual-type theory, they determine the career path of the individual, the skills they can demonstrate and what their placement in the social continuum will be. Social continuum is a kind word: in reality, there is a strict social hierarchy enforced by societal pressures and the individual's own willingness and unwillingness to think in manners requested of them.

These are the dimensions of social potential:

dualization: the response to criticism in the process of complementing another person's weaker functions.
combat: the individual's approach to adversity.
focus: the focus of the individual's attention and energy; what they feel is most important.


Dualization is the most complex dimension. It is defined by the response of the dominant belief element to the conflictor's complaint against its aid to the dominant complement. For example, say you notice that conditions are really bad and the Si environment has really gone to shit. You might feel inclined to request some assistance from people who are living in better conditions. (like, for example, the rich). Now let's say that these people refuse you. What do you do then?

At this point, its a question of what rights you believe you should have. The liberal subelement of Si needs support. Having been denied this, and unable by the limits of the system in which you live to improve your conditions yourself (seeing as you lack resources and obtaining them without the (withheld) permission puts you outside the law), you are left with a definitive choice of response to the probable resistance to your necessary self-assertion.


Be bold, and assert your rights unconditionally.
Be civil, and assert your rights only if they are also in the best interest of the adversary
Avoid crisis, and assert your rights only if the alternative will be a crisis regardless of the interpretation.
Appease the adversary and act within their boundaries. (likely continuing to suffer)


There are disadvantages to either choice: each represents a certain kind of strength for a certain kind of situation. If the two parties have something in common, unconditional assertion may not be the best move; instead it may be best to focus on the common goals and then assert only if the opposition refuses to cooperate at all. Wouldn't it be great if we could all agree on which response was best for each situation when our dominant beliefs are challenged? Well we could, except we have these problems of associating them with belief components. The associations vary from person to person and unlike most of the rest of the personality dimensions, they aren't self-regulating. The ego and the id are independently oriented in this respect and may have different or similar response criterion. There may be a more comprehensive regulating system somewhere deeper in the personality, but I've not uncovered it yet.

The orientation of this dimension is sustained by eight key emotions and their relative strength in the personality. Four are associated with the ego and four are associated with the id.

The bold action response is associated with a sense of dedication in the ego and loyalty by the id.
The civility-oriented "common ground" response seems to be associated with restraint in the ego and wrath in the id.
The crisis-oriented response is associated with patriotism in the ego and determination of the id.
The appeasement-oriented response is characterized by assurance in the ego and independence in the id.


What is threatening about the shadow is not its qualities, but the thought that those qualities could dominate over the entire personality. A person with a crisis-oriented shadow is like to see the worst they could become in someone like Barack Obama or Sarah Palin, either of which is crisis-oriented at both levels. We do not perceive of our shadows as merely qualities, but as cohesive internal characters, personalities in their own right. Same for the other archetypes, apparently.

People who are immanent at the first individuation level resist assimilating to their shadows, not for one reason but for many. The decisive reason is that fact that they see the shadow as not serving any good purpose at all. It is something to be avoided. People who pass this level have in common the ability to perceive that the shadow's purpose can be of utility to the purposes they believe in, and as such choose to accept its outlook with reservations. This precondition sets the stage for the second conflict, the struggle of the soul.

There is a certain process by which the shadow is assimilated. First, one must know the shadow. This requires an identification with it which is managed by questioning the wisdom of the rationale for avoiding it. For example, you might develop a skepticism towards the values with which you have been raised. This process is biologically enabled -- there is no trigger, only a development which allows for information to be processed differently. All of a sudden, you can question everything and, possibly, observe any hypocrisy which you may have been involved in. Whether you are consciously aware of the physiological change or not, you will develop a change in attitudes shortly thereafter which reflect your newly developed critical thinking skills.

Assimilation to the shadow begins in stages. First the dominant beliefs are assimilated, and then the complements. The component switch between complements is the centerpiece of the change, because it brings with it a spectacular new feeling of individual purpose. The purpose of the shadow is refined into one's own purpose by specializing it to only serve the purposes one believes in. In this way one gains a deeper understanding of self by means of integrating the shadow's beliefs, and also a renewed sense of purpose through the justification of purpose itself upon real evidence.

Without this sense of self-affirmed purpose, one is hostage to the purposes asserted by others. And one will, in fact, be more inclined to believe in an asserted truth than a demonstrated one; for the evidence for the demonstrated will seem circumspect, unprovable, and ultimately less emotionally satisfying than the "difficult reality" suggested by the evidence. This is a weakness of the youth: the more fanciful and appealing the idea, the more they will buy into it, because they are averse not only to provable ideas, but to evidence itself.

tcaudilllg
02-05-2010, 08:26 AM
The hostage purpose syndrome is like to be experienced in a variety of ways, but surely the most traumatic effect thereof is the tendency to experience a sense of romantic obsession. The aspiration to emulate successful psychological growth -- to reach beyond one's own cognitive ability and act in the same capacity as people who, unbeknowest to oneself, have attained greater ability -- leads to an attempt to obtain that which these more capable people have obtained for themselves. For example, trying to find true love in youth, without "living" first. Of course it is hardly apparent what is to be gained from "living" if the core of the person is not changed by the events they experience. Trying to explain individuation to the non-individuated is like explaining what red is like to someone who has never seen it -- the fullness of the experience cannot be conveyed. Of course the word "living", when discussed by the individuated, is a code for knowledge obtained by means of switching out conflictor beliefs. We'll return to that issue momentarily.

By trying to be more than they actually can, adolescents entrap themselves in an intractable emotive quandary, giving their all to their partner without asking for anything in return. They hold their partner as the sole purpose of their lives, unable to imagine actually demanding anything of them. This because they can neither assert the virtue of the purpose to which they aspire, nor comprehend that they can have value in and of themselves. It would be negligent not to observe the definite evolutionary function of the purpose ascription mechanism: it permits fixation on one person as a romantic interest and with it an altruistic commitment to family. It need not be explained how of an asset this trait would have been to our ancestors, given that it endows the individual with an aspiration to familial responsibility. Yet it was not enough: humans needed a means of criticizing each other, and moreover, of recognizing intent to harm in each other, and to this end the projection system evolved. The projection system is very ancient, however, and probably predates modern cognition. Even animals project -- animals may dislike each other, and cleave to packs. The mechanism of projection may be very old, as may the belief functions themselves, for what we call beliefs are only verbalizations of definite cognitive phenomena. Certainly altruism is very old, although I don't mean to suggest that all acts of altruism arise from an innate sort of "purpose" -- it is simply the case that human brain has evolved purposeful processors as vehicles for the processing of this vital community function.

A world without projections would be a very sensible and blameless world. People in such a world would be resigned to the necessity of the wrongs they committed against each other, if they had to do them. They would kill each other with a smile on their faces. "I just have to survive, you know? It's nothing personal. Gee, you're making this really hard, you know? Do you know how hard this is on me?" Most likely, mankind would fall into a pandemic of depression. Moral decay would ensue as people stopped blaming each other for wrongs done against them. The notion of "wrong" would itself probably disappear without the fire of condemnation, of discrimination. It is very unlikely that a world without projections would end outright -- people can, in fact, be more sensible without projections than they can with them. However a strain of humans who evolved without the ability to project would be cognitively impotent before a discordant strain which had mutated to destroy the species.

When we speak of the concordant, we speak of exactly such a strain.

To demonstrate the weakness of the concordant before the discordant, consider the archetypal case of the two leading gods in J.R.R. Tolkien's fictional mythology, The Silmarillion. (the prequel to The Lord of the Rings) In that work, the angel Manwe is appointed by Illuvatar (God) to keep peace on earth. His brother Melkor, disharmony incarnate, is jealous of this position and schemes to carry out his jealousies on the Children of Illuvatar which Manwe is charged with protecting. Time and time again Melkor commits heinous acts against the government of Manwe, and time and time again he is arrested and brought before Manwe for judgment. He is imprisoned for a while, and then after a time pleads for leniency and pardon. And it is always the case that Manwe, being himself utterly pure and untainted by malicious intent -- even incapable of having it -- grants him this pardon, enabling him to return to his armies and dungeons to raise still more havoc. In the sense of this telling, Manwe is a representative of the concordant who, lacking all ability to project and as such, lacking all personal experience with it, cannot believe that others actually do project and is thus unable to observe the seed of ill intent -- the notion of contempt -- when it is apparent to the non-concordant.

Can the concordant process projection? But of course; they demur from it not because they do not understand it, but because it is not sensible. Their reasoning is distinctive in that they will neither resist arguments that their dominant beliefs are deficient, nor arguments that their conflictor beliefs are valid. In the normative case, the projection system steps forward to defend the integrity and wisdom of the dominant belief, and to condemn the conflictor to the dominant. (this is the "ego integrity" principle). The concordant appear not to believe in ego integrity because it is a means to a masking of reality behind subjective interpretations. This is, in their view, not altogether sensible.

In recent times, the concordant have been on the move. Eckhart Tolle, for example, has been crusading against the "false ego" for several years now through books and television appearances. Of course, observing Tolle's behavior brings into question the notion that he cannot project, and if he can project, how it is that he can be concordant. The answer lies in the fundamental motive for individuation, the aspiration to higher purpose.

tcaudilllg
02-05-2010, 09:20 AM
It is simply the case that the abhorrent can be tolerated if it the means to a noble end. The resignation to the abhorrent is not the first stage in individuation -- it comes, in fact, after one perceives by means of component switching that one is already as abhorrent as that which was despised. (in the sense that one's dominant beliefs --are-- oneself). This in itself implies the conditional acquiescence on the part of the individual to demur from projection, that one can see deeper into the truth of oneself and the world. Thus, part of the process of transcending to the next individuation level is the development of a "deactivation circuit" for projection, the activation of which is made necessary by the component switch. The key difference appears to be the observation that dominant belief can also be privy to the shadow's abhorrent will. Before this observation is made one is not only hostage to the suggestions of individuals who exalt the id, but is powerless to cope with a number of issues as a factor of blindness to "the darkness within". (this because the origin of the issue is the pursuit of one's own dominant belief).

It is precisely in that each belief is tainted by the id that the concordant demur from projecting. The concordant do not find their purpose in the demonstration of the ineffectualness of one belief or another, but in the potential to obliterate wholly a vestige of sociopathic intent. They struggle not against an antagonistic philosophy, but against the perversion of philosophy itself. Erase the perversion, they argue, and the divisions separating the beliefs will heal and (negative) projections will disappear. (this argument, of course, ignoring the tendency to project as an end in itself). Then they can at last live in a world free of negative projections, where everyone can appreciate the goodness in every other heart.

Of course it's not so simple.

Not all immanent are alike with respect to their condition. Immanence is evaluated by the level of individuation which cannot be surpassed; as such, there are immanents of the first individuation level, immanents of the second, immanents of the third and even the fourth.

tcaudilllg
02-07-2010, 12:43 PM
The concordant individuate by a means of "reverse" individuation. Where the non-immanent individual lives terrified by the notion that they might be as abhorrent as what they imagined, for the concordant individuation means a sense of descent from their lofty pedestal to the world of mere mortals. "God becoming man" is the suitable analogy. Jesus' own mentality is instructive: according to the Bible, Jesus believed he had been sent by God to walk among men and learn to experience the fullness of mankind's suffering. This is a comfortable means of self-deluding oneself in the face of the fear which accompanies failure to project -- without projection, one can neither anticipate others' condemnation nor the behavior that follows after it. Although individuation is set in motion by the development of component switching, the concordant rationale for embracing this switch is notably distinct from that of the fully individuation-capable person. Understanding this rationale first requires understanding the motivations of the concordant, particularly their sense of duty.

The concordant, like most other people, find their purpose in others. (I say most because there is an exception to that rule which we'll get around to later). Unlike most, they believe that the best way they can honor their purpose is to resist projecting and in doing so, avoid the anger and misunderstandings that follow from it. However there is the difficult issue of being "in no-man's land". In the center, there are only other centrists. Although the concordant would like to bring more people to the center, there is this matter of trust. "Where does she stand? I don't really know." The concordant do not take sides and as such, place themselves in the uncomfortable position of being the sole bastions of justice who are simultaneously revered and hated by all. It is, a lot easier to respect a person on the other side of the isle who gives you due respect than to respect a moderate who is always criticizing everyone but themselves. This is the critical flaw in the concordant argument: they stand for truth and justice, yet they stand apart from the very people they are trying to assist. It is a decidedly one-way arrangement which leaves them giving and giving, and getting nothing in return.

The concordant, it is revealed, lack nothing for purpose but everything in love. An angel can, as it were, do naught but its duty: it cannot love but only serve those who can. Yet the concordant do want love, because whatever their personality may be they still hunger for the same basic emotions as the rest of us. It is in the name of love that they do, if they are capable, transcend from the 1st individuation stage to the 2nd. It is a compromise between their inner person and their sense of purpose, a coming to terms of their purposes as a social actor and as a living being: to help others they must help themselves, they must learn to project and live in the greater human world of love, trust, and even spite. And what if they do not? The wheel of self-development is... merciless: if one cannot remove oneself from its path, then roll it shall directly overtop of its roller; for the roller is driven to roll their wheel by external events, and as external events outpace the roller's ability to keep up the likelihood that they will stumble grows all the greater. Worse, the rolling of the wheel treads the gear which powers the environmental inertia ever so slightly: one is oneself a contributor to one's own self-consumation.

As mentioned, the concordant at the 1st individuation level lack the ability to love; indeed, they lack the ability to accept love. There is a strong connection between belief and love: if you cannot see your dominant complement belief element in another, you cannot love them. You must, at the last, imagine that they have some vestige of belief in that element as a prerequisite for your love; otherwise they are unworthy. The concordant do this but they do not see any love around them -- any attempt to love seems transient, unrewarded. I do not have the understanding yet to explain the relationship between projection and love, but suffice to say that the 1st individuation level concordant are not getting it, not receiving it... not partaking in the element of love that can only be given through the acceptance of love, simply because they do not create the bond of trust which enables a person to show their love for another. And yet for all this, the 2nd individuation level concordant include among them the most loved people in the history of the world if not THE most loved.

As it is said, "To love another you must first love yourself." The concordant and discordant are similar in that to either this statement holds a certain truth -- by denying the reality of one's inferior attributes, one dissociates oneself from these same attributes in others, and so is incomplete in one's love for them.

tcaudilllg
02-08-2010, 08:41 PM
(I'll have a diagram showing how I conceptualize of the political theory up in a few days.... I am exhausted after completing the final for my abnormal psyche class).

The mentality of a 1st level concordant person is one of utter uncertainty. The projection system gives one a sense of certainty by allowing you to maintain your beliefs in spite of what you don't understand. For example, say I'm a conservative who knows very well everything that is settled in my field of study. If it's beyond dispute, I know it. You could ask me anything about say, Model A, and I could tell you everything about it. But now say I tried to expand Model A -- how would I go about that? First I'd have to pay real attention to what isn't known and why. This would be a big issue, because it would come down to me needing to know all the competing ideas and where they differ. Then I could isolate the . But I'm a conservative, and so I really don't want to digress into where things aren't, because they just keeps making me angry. Whenever I see something undone or incomplete, it makes me upset. So I get lost in my anger and never can seem to concentrate on what the issue really is. I just can't stop criticizing them. Now what if I chose not to criticize because I want to stop feeling angry and realize that only when these things do get done will my anger end? Then I could fight the anger inside repeatedly by fighting the urge to get mad. In effect, I'm controlling my temper. However I still can't pay attention to the reasons things aren't getting done, only draw attention to the fact that they aren't done and show my appreciation to the person who finally does them. Because my progressive belief processor is linked to my anger, I can't hardly use it for anything. Thus, my understanding of progressive beliefs -- of the problems in the world -- is simplistic and undetailed.

Because I am angry at the incompleteness of the world, I am also angry at those who are not using the information I have to make it complete. I may even be angry at those who are using ideas that they haven't explained to me to make things better, if I don't know what those ideas are. The anger inside may be so great that I may choose even to deny that there is any "true" incompleteness in the world -- I may choose to believe that people choose to make it incomplete by ignoring the completeness and wholeness that is already there. I may claim to know the meaning of this completeness and wholeness, and may see fit to condemn those who disbelieve in me and my "truth". I may lead a crusade to eliminate the unbelievers....

Depending on whether I am able to tolerate my anger or not, my fate is so sealed. If I cannot resist my anger, I will be dominated by it. If I cannot tolerate it at all, I will be forced to grapple with the suppression of it forever. But if I can strike a balance between these two extremes, becoming angry only at those who do nothing while respecting those who are trying to improve the world in which we live, then I can channel my anger into a potent criticism which can clear the way for the leaders of tomorrow, and in so doing give myself a sense of lasting purpose.

The concordant conservative individual is frightened of their anger; frightened, that is, of their shadow. They look to the past of all the terrible things conservatives have done, which they reckon in the histories of persecution of those who "think differently". Afraid that they may stifle the next generation of progress, they refrain from criticism and keep an open mind. They are equally frightened of their potential to become a cruel oppressor of intellectual freedom and innovation. However because of this, they never respond with anger even when it is warranted. They end up doing all the work for everyone else to make up for the waste and laziness of others, becoming the backs who carry the world on their shoulders.

tcaudilllg
02-10-2010, 06:00 PM
I've noticed no one's been responding... I take it then that everyone is basically confused about this?



We can make a functionally and consequentially meaningful separation between "force" and "contract" here, so it is extremely misleading to say they are the same.


The state is a contract between groups, particular these eight "super groups" we're discussing. It is an agreement to find the center and to punish those who dissent from it. What the state really is, is a commitment to the unity of people who have different beliefs and are living in the same locality. That is the fundamental thesis of nationalism.

The state is basically glued together by the concordant. This idea is demonstrated by Lincoln's commitment to national unity during the civil war. Without the graciousness and good character of the concordant, there would be no one for people of conflicting beliefs to look at and say, "there is actually some good in these people."

tcaudilllg
02-11-2010, 05:37 PM
It's a lot to digest. But do go on. This is interesting.


The concordant is an immanent isn't he? Yet, how can it still be possible for him to transcend?

Immanence is relative to the stage. Say that I can't pass the 2nd individuation stage. In that case, I am unable to resolve the internal conflicts which are representative of that stage. (at least, not without dying). Yet I can resolve conflicts related to the 1st stage with no problem, because I was capable of passing it.

All concordant are immanent, but not all concordant have the same limitations.

It would seem that the concordant individuate by saying "OK I will accept these projections, but not THESE projections". That's actually the way most of us do it, but where the rest of us will make exceptions the concordant absolutely won't. When I was younger I made a point of avoiding projections of any kind. The only projections I did accept were those not made by me that seemed acceptable and well-reasoned, and all having to do with an association of the beliefs involved with the shadow. (that is, with sociopathic intent). But I had to be told of those associations; I couldn't really infer them myself. I always demanded evidence first, however, with a prerequisite that it couldn't be controverted.

I think what drives the concordant's downfall is that they refuse to project even when given good reason to. They see the people around them accept these reasons and come out the better, while they themselves abstain and are faced with the lesser returns and even a sense of guilt. This is, I think, the engine of their sense that they "can't improve". Some of the concordant only see that they are missing out; others see that they are in fact responsible for their mistakes and will seek to take responsibility. The concordant of the 2nd individuation stage and higher are usually able to see that they are the fundamental problem, and may arrange for their own destruction as the means of defeating both their external and internal conflicts.

tcaudilllg
02-11-2010, 11:18 PM
I had been pulling my punches, so as to create a semblance of respectability... however it doesn't appear that the world is ready to treat this notion with respectability as yet. Henceforth I'll throw the rules out and discuss case studies.

I'll be discussing both fictional examples and real examples. Real examples will be difficult to come by, because you've got to get inside a person's head to put their actions into context.

First off, I want to show you a makeshift diagram of the belief model. (this is how I typically conceptualize it)



+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| | |
| Self | Rival |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| | |
| Soul | Fool |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| | |
| All-Parent | Abomination |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| | |
| Synnex | Shadow |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+


Here's a diagram of my beliefs under this system. Because I'm a social progressive, I primarily identify with internally dynamic collectivism. (hence internally dynamic collectivism is in the "self" box)




+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| Internally | Internally |
| Dynamic | Static |
| Collectivist | Collectivist |
| | | Soul Fool
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
Self Rival | | |
| Internally | Internally |
| Dynamic | Static |
| Individualist | Individualist |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| Externally | Externally |
| Dynamic | Static |
| Collectivist | Collectivist |
Synnex Shadow | | |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| | | All-Parent Abomination
| Externally | Externally |
| Dynamic | Static |
| Individualist | Individualist |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+

tcaudilllg
02-12-2010, 12:19 AM
Now this next bit should put them in context as exhibit the severity of the projections. (this is why you need to know this stuff).




+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| | |
| Crazedrat | Dick Cheney |
| | |
| | | Soul Fool
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
Self Rival | | |
| | |
| Carl Jung | George Bush |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| | |
| Logos | Expat |
| | |
Synnex Shadow | | |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| | | All-Parent Abomination
| | |
| Gulenko | Discojoe |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+



Understanding the forces which guide your projections can help you master your beliefs and become a more responsive and effective individual. (not to say, a better person altogether)

It can be more useful to categorize projections by specific beliefs.



+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| | |
| Knowledge | The Unknown |
| | |
| | | Soul Fool
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
Self Rival | | |
| | |
|Human Condition | Diety |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+
| | |
| | |
| Survival | Fate |
| | |
Synnex Shadow | | |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| | | All-Parent Abomination
| | |
| Evolution | Nature |
| | |
| | |
+----------------+----------------+

discojoe
02-12-2010, 12:45 AM
lmao

tcaudilllg
02-12-2010, 02:05 AM
This next chart demonstrates one of the most useful applications of the belief model, the categorization of information aspects by belief.




+----------------+----------------+
| Illogical | Logical |
| | |
| (Internally | (Internally | Propositions
| Dynamic | Static |
| Collection) | Collection) | Soul Fool
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
Self Rival | The False | The True |
| | |
Relationships | (Internally | (Internally |
| Dynamic | Static |
| Individuals) | Individuals) |
+----------------+----------------+
| Transformation | Systemics |
| | |
Mechanics | (Externally | (Externally |
| Dynamic | Static |
Synnex Shadow | Collection) | Collection) |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Relations of | Relations of | All-Parent Abomination
| Causality | Principle |
| (Externally | (Externally | Regulation
| Dynamic | Static |
| Individuals) | Individuals) |
+----------------+----------------+



This chart depicts the eight component elements of Ti and the beliefs with which they are associated, all in the context of an individualist progressive personality.

tcaudilllg
02-12-2010, 03:42 PM
lmao

You actually fit the position quite well. You stalk my ambitions and appear inferior in most every way.

discojoe
02-12-2010, 05:29 PM
lmao

tcaudilllg
02-12-2010, 11:16 PM
Let's get to the point of what Discojoe's personality is. I mentioned the dichotomy of the concordant and discordant. The teleological dichotomy divides pole of the harmony dichotomy into "absolute" and "leaning", thus permitting the existence of concordants who lean discordant and discordants who lean concordant. How can this be? The answer is that they make "conditional projections" where they say that some beliefs are "good" and others are "half bad".

Let's consider the case of a 1st individuation level discordant. This person will always project when in doubt. A pro-teleological discordant will appeal to sentiments that concord can serve the cause of discord: concordance can be a means to discordance. Such a person will "kill with kindness", driving their enemies into a fury that they have plotted and orchestrated of their own volition. The idea is to use civility as a weapon by forbidding projection against select beliefs. (particularly their own) The teleological discordant will remain noticeably mute regarding projection against the beliefs which they negatively project onto. In effect they say, "it's OK for me to project against you, but not for you to project against me." They may cite recent scandals or historical instances where the beliefs they dislike went too far (hey, it can happen to any of them), and cite these as evidence that a particularly hard line should be taken against these them. Having successfully begun the vilification, they will then act brashly towards holders of these beliefs, with the intent of disquieting these persons and making them feel it necessary to "lash out" in their own defense. At this point the majority turns against the beleaguered group for breaking the "civility rule", all in accordance with the teleologist's design. Their facade of civility is dropped as they seize upon the moment to act on their hatred at last, forsaking all pretenses of fairness and restraint for a moment's indulgence in psychotic malice as they gleefully lead their foes real and imagined to the chopping block.

These individuals are easily noted for their brash behavior, which can come off as either crude or astoundingly presumptuous. They show the utmost in disrespect towards the people and beliefs they project onto: when faced with a fair argument for the merits of the beliefs they disfavor, they are like to respond with marked cynicism and a certain vapidity which may nonetheless curry favor for its humor and popular appeal. They are provocateurs, dressing in such manner as to deliberately offend. They may "talk trash" about people they dislike, often using exaggerated gestures such as rolling eyes or, alternatively, "varsity" chides. They come be known as loud, rowd, and singularly pathetic, for it invariably occurs that they overstep themselves in the height of their triumph, reaching beyond punishment to something more severe and savage, alienating their former allies bringing shame upon themselves and their beliefs. When at last the pendulum turns in the other direction, the impoverished and dilapidated state of these persons is like to be contrasted with the splendors of their former ascendancy, leading at once to the impression of someone both pathetic and pitiable.

discojoe
02-13-2010, 01:23 AM
lmao

ArchonAlarion
02-13-2010, 02:15 AM
The concordant sounds a lot like a phobic 6 fixation and the discordant like a counter-phobic 6...

tcaudilllg
02-13-2010, 06:52 PM
I have not yet described the non-teleological variant of discordancy.

What all the immanent have in common is that they have tragic flaws. Concordancy and discordancy are both characterized by a revulsion of accepting the shadow self, and as such live mostly incomplete, half-adaptive lives. They can neither see it all nor accept what they would see if they could see it.

tcaudilllg
02-14-2010, 07:13 PM
Having discussed the pro-teleological variant of discordancy, let's discuss the pro-teleological variant of concordancy. ...Reflecting, the term "teleological discordant" is somewhat of a misnomer because those persons internally justify their actions as punitive for teleological practice, as such taking the mantle of anti-teleology: they see themselves as the vengence of righteousness against those who would harm the innocent. Now this may seem at odds with how I portrayed them above, but notice that I only paid due to the role of projection -- I didn't explain the meaning of those projections, only that they existed and are over-relied upon by the teleological discordant. I hesitate to call these people "evil" -- I suggest only that they live in darkness, being crippled by information processing deficiencies.

Who are we talking about, really? You might be surprised: Beethoven, William Wallace, Achilles. I see it welling up in you already, the eternal wager of controversy which surrounds these people. I want to make the point that some people do aspire to goodness more than others... that's very much what sets these exceptional people apart from other teleological discordants... they did not merely project, but meant well in the doing. As such, they may have prioritized their projections a little moreso than would a person who placed less premium on doing good works and more on their desire to vindicate negative thoughts. Beethoven of course wanted an end to the aristocracy... but did he pursue this end for the good it would do, or for the sake of rebellion? The answer, in light of the possibilities, is mostly for rebellion, but a little for altruism. (this as a factor of his belief in goodness, which we shall explore in greater depth later).

Now as for the pro-teleologist concordants, they are dyed-in-wool consequentialists. These are people who mean well, but are caught in the vicious cycle of going too far to achieve their goals and in so doing, hurting the innocent. Such a person can always find a justification for cruelty. They may or may not be punished, depending on how well they can find sympathy with others of their belief type. (for example, Dick Cheney continues to evade prosecution for his role in numerous crimes, while Breaker Morant was killed for his murder of several innocents in the Second Boer War). The iconic portrayal of this type is Darth Vader, who twice justified the slaughter of innocent children, once for their being the children of those who tortured his mother, and again to protect the laws of the Republic from the chaos of a suspected Jedi revolt. Vader's complicity in the destruction of the Republic thereby is a case example of the ends being ruined by the means.

As for a real example? Consider Abu Ghraib....

It is quite apparent that these persons are very, very ironic in that to create certain "desired" forms of altruism they disregard and even assault altruistic beliefs they disagree with. (this where "the ends justify the means") But how do they choose which beliefs to Attack? By projection, of course: these people who can bridge the divide between their dominant belief and its rivals nonetheless show no tolerance for those who would unite the shadow with the persona. The idea is that you never can affirm whether those beliefs are good or not... so why take the chance? At the very least, never affirm the WORTH of those advocates for the darkly necessary. It's like looking upon a person who had turned away from a history of crime, and continuing to condemn them for their tattoos. Take all the good there is, and ignore it for that faint blemish below the cheek. These people will indeed do that, and as such it is difficult to justify them as being any appreciably better than the discordant.

Why are they as they are? Primarily because they are dominated by fear -- fear that the good in the world, and in their lives, will be destroyed. But by what? Invariably, the stupidity of misplaced altruism which bows before the unworthy shadow, creating a monster. It is precisely to protect the concord between rivals that the teleologist must take up the monster's own weaponry and kill it. The problem is not the killing of this monster -- that can be quite rational -- no the problem is reaching for a permanent settlement when none is available. To try to create the appearance of such a settlement, the teleologist may use extraordinary and violent means. This because acknowledging the permanence of the threat to oneself is difficult, if not unbearable.

discojoe
02-15-2010, 05:06 AM
lmao

tcaudilllg
02-17-2010, 05:06 AM
lmao

Somehow I knew the contents of your post even before I clicked the "view post" link.

tcaudilllg
02-17-2010, 05:59 PM
We now come to the discussion of the formal discordant. We'll talk about them using the other two dichotomies.

If anything could capture the essence of discordancy, it would be the word "delusion". These people are (apparently) hopelessly deluded. Everything you say goes into a filtering system which is barely conscious, and apparently impervious to reason. To really get a glimpse of how these people think, consider your own thought process. Think of all those times you had bad thoughts, impulses to think in a way that you knew was wrong. Of course instead of pursuing these erroneous beliefs, you discarded them out of hand, and instead tried to get a clearer sense of what was really going on.

Now think back to those very few times when you did listen to this darker, foolish side of yourself. What happened? It didn't turn out too well, did it? Now just imagine if you repeated those mistakes at every pivotal juncture in your life. Just imagine how badly your life would turn out. ...Or, would it turn out merely different? You might well say that the discordant are living out these alternative possibilities; although do not be deceived, it's not merely about living these alternative possibilities, but having the character flaws to willingly embrace them in the first place.

Having these people in your lives is a constant headache. Drama surrounds you. Napoleon was an exemplar of the type. Wait, wasn't he kinda an amazing guy? Yes, he was. But his personal life was a roller coaster, to put it mildly. His correspondence to his wife, Josephine, became the talk of the town when it was intercepted and her affair exposed by the French and British presses. This was a long time before tabloids existed... such an exposure amounted to amazing humiliation. In the years after his second abdication and exile to St. Helena, his legend grew and he came to be viewed as something of a spectacle by the press. People would send him letters and secret correspondences; there was, apparently, even a plot by the British to instate him as emperor of South America. He was, from his lonely station, the most popular figure of his day, a sublime superman who had become, whatever the ultimate outcome of his ambition, proof that any ambition, no matter how unrealistic, could be obtained through hard work and dedication. (never mind the fact that he had exceptional charisma and a predatory instinct; after all, most of his admirers had these for themselves!)

There is simply an aura of instability around a person who doesn't have a clue what the world is really about. It might seem an odd twist of fate that the man who campaigned against the conspiracy of nobles to "put shackles around the wrists of the free" himself landed in their prison AFTER having enshackled his own country in the chains he himself wrought for it. But absurdity is par for the course for the discordant.

To be fair, there are two wings of discordancy, the id driven and the society-driven. The id driven are sociopaths (two terms for the same phenomena, no less), while the society-driven are well-meaning psychotics who just can't stand it when somebody denies their beliefs. Either side is capable of spectacular cruelty and a progressively worsening misreading of their situation.

The engine behind these horrible states of mind is a sense of internal loss that cannot be replaced -- a sense of having put all one's eggs in one basket, and then having the bottom fall out of it from weak design of that basket and losing all of the eggs. Sure that can happen to anyone but, don't most of us learn to anticipate the worst happening and to plan around it? The discordant have a spectacular belief in the unimportance of their shadow's belief elements. Not their interpretation, mind you -- the WHOLE ELEMENT. These people are content to believe half the world does not exist, and as such avoid making contingency plans which account for factors of that half. You can imagine how well that works out. In those few instances where they do "acknowledge" the other half of reality, they are like to embrace "too good to be true" ideas whose inevitable failure only affirms their initial suspicions. The stability of this relation appears to be as rock solid as the socionics relationships themselves: intractible, inevitable, inexorable.

Those who look for the function of these people in the stream of society will certainly find it. If the concordant incarnate the ability to see nature as threatening, then the discordant incarnate the ability to see people and ideas as threatening. Just as the concordant are unwilling to perceive the malice of others and the threat it poses, so are the discordant unwilling to appreciate the perils of nature, let alone the fullness of their own! They are like to evolve themselves into phenomena in their own right, heedless of the wreckage they cause to themselves and those around them -- heedless, at least, of their role in it. No wonder it is required that great alliances be assembled to defeat these people, who turn pity and sympathy into a peril for society just as severe, if not more so, than the most catastrophic natural disasters. And an alliance is always required, because these people are never alone for long, currying favor through political appeal and common prejudices. But only a few of this number have that much bravado -- most, in fact, oscillate between feelings of self vindication and oblique depression. They lack for all ability to see themselves as a part of the problem: there is, they hold, always someone else to hold responsible for their misfortune. They may be depressed thus not for any perceived weaknesses of their own, but for the persistent failure of others to see the good sense in their ideas, the same limiting their potential for social change in the directions they favor. The majority, it would seem, just cannot comprehend the profundity of their brilliance. Routinely begging the impractical, even the outright indemonstrable, they find themselves hewing to the margins of society for as long as their wills hold out....

tcaudilllg
02-19-2010, 01:49 AM
Now let's discuss the engagement and focus dimensions of immanence.

The engagement dichotomy is described by engaging vs disengaging. The focus dichotomy is described as self vs opponent. Together, these dichotomies yield four variations:


self + engaging
self + disengaging
opponent + engaging
opponent + disengaging


Either of these four can be placed in the context of either a concordant or discordant attitude, depending on the orientation of the harmony dichotomy. I will discuss them in terms of each attitude and in pairs, because either combination is that more more striking in terms of its exact opposite. (just as conflictors' traits are all the more striking when compared and contrasted).

First let's define the meaning of the dichotomies. Engaging means "in contact with" or "in relation to". Self engaging people are very self-reflective and self-contemplative. They may meditate a great deal. Opponent engaging people concentrate on people who are different from them: they focus on disagreements and effective responses to those disagreements. Self disengaging people are introspective (introspective not meaning reflective in this sense) -- they may put a great deal of focus on their personal identities and who they are inside. Opponent disengaging people try to understand what their opposition thinks about them and their ideas.

The orientation of the harmony dichotomy defines the character of the engagement direction towards the focus. The concordant have a placid character, the discordant a hostile one. The three dichotomies in concert create definite compound attitudes which function as defining traits of the individual.

The self disengaging dichotomy is characterized by altruism in the concordant context, and denial in the discordant context. Concordant self/disengaged are very self-sacrificing -- they try not to see an enemy in anyone and as a direct consequence of that, are largely unable to defend their own interests. For them to do that, they would have to negatively project onto a person and create emotional distance. Instead they would, many of them, grit their teeth and starve rather than torture themselves over the plight of the hungry. Or so you might think -- actually only a few "supremely good" individuals in this group will go so far. Let me digress for a moment and explain the "pro-influential" and "anti-influential" dichotomy so as to get some things out of the way.

Some people feel an acute desire to be good. Others (most) have a greater desire to be true to self than to be good. These are not mutually exclusive aims, but neither are they interdependent aims from a cognitive standpoint. Those who aim to be true to self are less determined to be good, because they understand that being true to their own intentions and motives may not be in the interest of upholding the examples of society's "revered" figures. When they do try to be good, they may find their efforts crippled by their own lack of resolve in the face of determined resistance, especially if this resistance can pull a "string" and get them to back down. In the end, these people lack courage. Those who have desire to be good however, are spectacularly troubled by their consciences and will sooner bear the blow than betray their principles. As such, they do choose courage. Because these people tend to not only survive attacks by others, but come out the better for the sheer admiration they engender in those who had wanted to oppose their attacker, but lacked the courage. It's a difference between being true to one's ambitions, and true to one's convictions.

tcaudilllg
02-22-2010, 12:13 AM
Before getting into the differences between the concordant and the discordant, I mean to discuss what the fuss is about. And what the fuss is about, is the struggle over the definitions of good and evil. See there are two positions on that, one being that community and altruism is good, and another that self-reliance and selfishness are good. That is really what it comes down to: these two positions do not like each other. Now what the personality does is give one of these positions on good to the ego, and the other to the id. So now you've got two very different (contradictory, in fact) positions on good in the same person, one of which necessarily must be repressed. Now, aren't there points where a person can serve a purpose that is both altruistic and selfish? Of course, socialized health care is an example, no less: you pay into the system with your tax dollars, and when you need it it is there for you and your next door neighbor both. However to see this you first have to be comfortable with your shadow, which chooses as its beliefs...

Uh oh.

And who exactly are the poster children for selfish discordancy? ...

So it's pretty obvious what's going on. A person looks at ******, or Stalin, or Saddam, and says "I don't want to be like that". And at the same time, they are so uncomprehending of what led either of those three men on the paths they chose, because they never think about what it would be like to be them and to think like them, that they avoid even thinking about what it would mean to be selfish. Most of the war between the social and the asocial is institutionalized around these archetypal images of selfish people who rationalized hurting others. If only ... but the inability to do this is what immanence is all about. That said, it's only a tragedy in the case of the concordant; in the case, the incapacity for this union is a blessing for the rest of us. Pursuant to the war of the concordant against the delusionally selfish, the concordant are the highest moral authorities and people, no less, who institute the moral norms of a society. (we say moral norms as opposed to "ethical" norms, because as we are about to see moral positions do not always agree, and only one position can be maximally ethical at any given time).

Dividing the immanent between the social and the selfish yields four variants:

social concordant
selfish concordant
social discordant
selfish discordant


The following is a brief overview of these and their behavior.

The social concordant believes in the importance of cooperation and honoring obligations, and believes that the best way to honor obligations is to take an eclectic stance that incorporates as many views as are available, avoiding temptation to dismiss views to the extent they are not selfish or dismissive of generally agreed upon obligations. The social concordant is fixated on honoring all obligations expected of them and respecting others' senses of obligation.
The selfish concordant believes in the importance of self-reliance and being free from obligations. They believe they can best serve themselves by learning others' means of self-reliance and accepting these beliefs as matter-of-fact. They are attuned to the autonomous behavior of objects and groups, and are skilled in describing these.
The social discordant believe in cooperation and honoring obligations, but only in the context of their dominant beliefs. They believe the observations of the selfish concordant dismal and altogether too hurtful to acknowledge. They would rather choose to pursue impossible, idealistic achievements than take responsibility for their lives.
The selfish discordant disbelieve in society altogether. They believe in acting on their projections and pursuing ideological self interest in accordance with their dominant beliefs. They deplore the social concordant and their legacy of fairness and altruism. They desire that society regress to barbarism and brutality, which they believe is the true nature of humans.

tcaudilllg
02-22-2010, 08:08 AM
Chances are, there would be quite a few immanents on here as well.


Which is the problem.

The battle is felt as internal conflict, often associated . The immanent tend to have health problems, and extremely high levels of stress. Presumably, cutting down on stress will increase life span.

I think the main characteristic is removal from the superego and super-id functions, particularly an inability to believe in developing these functions to their fullest extent by getting as many perspectives on their aspects as possible.

I'll use your terms. "White" concordants associate selfishness with barbarity, I think because they see "black" (selfish) concordants as the fuel which drives the "white" discordants (is that how you meant it, the color system?), which in turn ... let me explain an extra detail.

I explained that most people are fully individuation capable, and that they get in touch with their (selfish) shadows as a means to individuation. Well, there is another side to the coin: not all of the individuation capable choose individuation as a means to great eclecticism. A small minority do, in fact, choose it to become capable of barbarity. For them, the idea is not to assimilate one's unconscious without losing one's link to concordancy; rather, the idea is to preserve their belief in their delusions, and the threat is seeing the complete picture. They figure they can do this by enlisting the aid of the barbaric and using violence (or more "civil" methods) to remove pressure on them to behave responsibly. That just for the "white" of this "transcendent" discordancy (though I prefer the out-and-out term "adversarialism") There's also a selfish variant which masks itself in the extremist movements of its day. I suggested earlier that a person can be transcendent at one individuation level and immanent at another. In the case of the discordant, all of their individuation is accomplished. (this was, for example, how ****** used German conservatism to mask his ambitions and facilitate his rise, and how Saddam used Iraqi socialism to facilitate his, and with Stalin, Lenin's communism -- though I think Stalin was completely transcendent, for the record).

That detail explained, the social concordant don't exactly want to see the social discordant turn completely over to damnation -- they're still trying to save their souls, after all. At the very least, they want to have as little involvement in the circumstances which the discordant cite as their rationale for using draconian methods as possible. See when the social discordant does enter the end of their final stage (the one at which they are immanent), they accept the necessity of the id and allow it to take over somewhat. In this state they can become barbarous in their bids to win a final settlement -- they may lose hope in a domestic solution and resort to violence and "unleash the hounds" as it were. "Victory at any cost", becomes the theme. This has happened to kings: Charles I of England dissolved Parliament and tried to force the acceptance of his absolute rule. This lead to his defeat and execution. The apparent reason for his dissolution of Parliament was money, of all things. This is an indicator that dismissal of eclectic analyses of self-interest was key to his downfall and the internal engine driving his barbarity.

tcaudilllg
02-22-2010, 10:17 PM
How would we know if we are experiencing this battle with the shadow? And for those who are already immanents, how would they know that they are indeed immanents?


Gilly is going through it right now. I think his recent behavior is part and parcel of that.

As for letting people know they are immanent? I don't know. Probably best that they don't know. The concordant seem to be haunted by dreams about it, visions etc. As for the discordant, in my experience it's best to observe the root of their flaws; get inside their head; and expose them in front of everybody WHEN they try to mobilize for barbarism. Experience teaches a person to pay attention to signs that a person isn't exactly going to make it all the way... an older person sees his friends die because they ignored his advice. He comes to recognize a lost cause when he sees it. You'll often see in movies, the elder tribesmen counseling their braves "not to get involved with" militant leaders, calling them "foolish" and "unwise". The wisdom of the elders is not their "hands-on" knowledge, but their experience with social failure.

Sometimes the elders do act against the fools. Sen. Joseph McCarthy was known for his "war on the Left" which he conducted under the guise of an attack on communists. The Republicans didn't try to interfere with his hearings -- they used them to their advantage, in fact -- until McCarthy expanded his attack to all semblances of left-wing thought. This lead naturally to an attack on Eisenhower's administration, because Eisenhower and his crew were traditionalists first and conservatives second -- they actually had a better grasp of liberal ideas than conservative ideas, having conservative personas and all. So then McCarthy overshot himself and the institutionalists all got together and arranged his destruction, which they carried out via a carefully planned script. They baited him into demonstrating his lack of compassion, and called him out on it. Social conservatives were appalled at his contempt for compassion -- a defining conservative virtue --, and he became shunned by his own party. He fell into depression and eventually died of complications from his alcoholism, which he had surrendered himself to following his censure.

tcaudilllg
02-23-2010, 08:48 AM
Basically to go through individuation means walking the Campbellian monomyth. One must become the hero with a thousand faces, not for others, but yourself. Individuation cannot be a public affair, although the struggles associated with it are often visible in the public eye. George W. Bush, for example, underwent it DURING the 2004 election, and experienced it as a climax of the struggle between public expectations and his own personal ambitions. Following this, he no longer felt the desire for public approval, having at last access to the liberal viewpoint par excellence, including its associated simple processing of conservatism -- he no longer had to rely on others to have a sense of worth and authority, because he now had it in him. And he showed the American people that in no uncertain terms.

Edit: I'd like to add that Mr. Bush may also have been ignorant of his own craving for authority and worth, especially in light of his recent motivational speeches where he has discussed popularity and experience of "chasing after" it. Certainly he exhibited wisdom in accepting the bailout of the banks, the same reflecting interventionist liberal logic. Although I do believe the 2006 Democratic takeover forced him to extend himself outside of his comfort zone somewhat, he nonetheless could have governed much worse than he did.

tcaudilllg
02-23-2010, 08:59 AM
Here's some evidence that Hugo Chavez is a social discordant.

Chavez opposition sees opportunity - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/02/17/venezuela.electricity/index.html)

Pay particular attention to the end:


Meanwhile, the heated protests and counterprotests between Chavez's detractors and supporters can be a problem in itself, Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue, told Amanpour.

"Both sides are at each other, and you can't manage an economy, you can't bring a society together if you have that level of confrontation, and that ... I think, is the core failing of Hugo Chavez," he said.

Shifter continued, "Chavez is popular because he has an emotional bond with a lot of Venezuelans, and he put his finger on a legitimate grievance in Venezuela, inequality and justice. The problem is, he can't solve the problem. He can't deliver results."

tcaudilllg
02-23-2010, 10:51 PM
Selfish concordant: "Humans are selfish. It's who we are. Don't blame anyone but yourself if you get taken advantage of. Protect yourself, but do not give into hatred for those who have wronged you. Just accept that they will be as they are. Believe in yourself and take responsibility for your own well being."

Social discordant: "All around us is selfishness. It is too hurtful to believe that people must always be this way, that I can never truly be safe! I don't want to believe it... I won't. There must be something I can do. ... People must be selfish because they believe they must be. Then, it is their beliefs that are at fault. I am a good person, I am not selfish. It is because of my beliefs...! YES! ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE MY BELIEFS!! Once this happens at last, there will be no more selfishness, and with it, no more fear! To rid myself of my own fear, I must rid others of their fear by changing their beliefs. This is my quest.. I MUST NOT fail!!!"

tcaudilllg
02-24-2010, 02:20 AM
Back to the main discussion, the matter of the self-disengaged immanents.

The social/denying type upholds their ego belief elements to the utmost. They disparage their shadow's elements because these people just cannot handle their own fear. Knowing the true nature of people, that people will inevitably wrong each other because of the necessities of living, fills them with dread... they would prefer to deny this truth altogether, even as so far as it extends to themselves. They see the goodness in their beliefs and believe themselves good, righteous people. However, their projections overrun them because they do not challenge their assumptions. Because they do not challenge their assumptions, they have no experience seeing the world from the view opposite their dominant, and as such have limited ability to sympathize with holders of that view. Thus they aren't able to self-criticize their projections onto either those views or the people who hold them. They just see naked self-interest behind each of these beliefs, and disparage them utterly, thinking them reflective of ethical and moral weakness. They are like to develop their thoughts in this respect to a very high degree: it is these people, no less, who are the authors of a million "-isms" and philosophies. Their philosophies are distinct in that someone is always to blame, and that which is to be blamed is always the pursuit of those beliefs which they poorly understand, particularly their confluence with self-interest. It is not that they have absolute contempt for beliefs processed by their weaker belief elements; they just cannot stand self-interest of any kind and although it is easy for them to distance themselves from it in their own belief system, they can scarcely do it with their weaker belief elements. Thus they have little to no faith in beliefs created with these elements, seeing them as infested with self-interest. Yet if only their own beliefs were truly pure... they exalt the beliefs of their teachers and forebearers ignorant of the seeds of evil laid within. Nor can they see the self-interest embedded in their own beliefs in all cases.

tcaudilllg
02-24-2010, 08:39 AM
I think I can show that borderline personality disorder is, in all cases, a consequence of teleological discordance.

From DSM IV


1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. Note: Do not include suicidal or self-injuring behavior covered in Criterion 5
2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation.
3. Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self.
4. Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., promiscuous sex, eating disorders, binge eating, substance abuse, reckless driving). Note: Do not include suicidal or self-injuring behavior covered in Criterion 5
5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, threats or self-injuring behavior such as cutting, interfering with the healing of scars (excoriation) or picking at oneself.
6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days).
7. Chronic feelings of emptiness
8. Inappropriate anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights).
9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation, delusions or severe dissociative symptoms


Last night I had a bit of a breakthrough in understanding teleological discordants. I realized their social function: it is not to bait people into becoming enemies of society (although some of them may do this), but to conceive of conflict itself, to recognize a threat for the first time, and to initiate combat against it. This because they perceive conflict in everything, and think in terms of its ultimate consequences. Their complements, the teleological concordants, cannot see these consequences clearly, and it is for this reason that they often go too far in protecting the good and fair: they cannot see the full depth of the conflict, and err on the side of taking too much action as opposed to too little.

What happens in the case of a borderline is that you've got this teleological discordant tendency which infects their relationships with other people. At every sign of a conflictor sentiment by someone they love, they immediately classify that person as a threat. Then once they've put distance between that person and experienced the pain of the estrangement, they feel compelled to revert back to the concordant viewpoint and re-establish relations with the estranged.... Then things are fine for a while, until another argument surfaces and....

What this means is that all chronic sufferers of BPD are immanent. It seems to me very likely that many Medal of Honor recipients are BPD/teleological discordants.

I think what I wrote before about teleological discordants only applies to selfish variants of the type. Definitely can't put history's "heroes" under the "bait-&-switch" banner. If anything the social variants exemplify the suffering that the immanent face.

tcaudilllg
02-24-2010, 08:57 AM
Actually I may have it backwards: it may be the BPDs who are the teleological concordants and the consequentialists who are the teleological discordants. Those two confuse the hell out of me. I have a strong grasp of what either appears to be but, what are the teleological relationships underlying their beliefs?


the BPDs go to war to win peace for all.
the consequentialists use the threat against peace to justify extreme measures.


It's clear they are both teleologists; however I think it's the BPDs who "live" the war. The consequentialists take pre-emptive measures against BPDs to prevent them from starting wars; however it is the use of these measures which convinces the BPDs that they are at war in the first place. The consequentialists do not make war but try to defend an existing peace.

The BPDs make war as a means to peace; the consequentialists use peace as a means to war. So I did indeed get it backwards: the consequentialists are the teleological discordants, and the BPDs are the teleological concordants. Except... discord and concord hardly capture people who essentially use both in equal measure.

What's your take?

tcaudilllg
02-25-2010, 02:27 AM
Teleology is always a gray area. Always will be for reasons we will discuss shortly.

tcaudilllg
02-26-2010, 09:16 AM
I believe that consequentialists are driven by a feeling that they are not safe. A feeling that someone is "after" them or those they care about. This creates a repressive mentality in them. What they aim for is an "all clear" sign -- a feeling that their enemy has been utterly vanquished.

The BPDs are driven by a fundamental distaste for conflict and hostility, and a desire to eliminate objects associated with this hostility, or at least remove them from their lives.

The consequentialists believe conflict is a necessary means to security, while the BPDs believe conflict can bring an end to conflict.

Self/disengaged BPDs focus on the concept of righteousness, and look for practical reasons by which to consider themselves righteous and justified for believing that intervention in a conflict is necessary. It would be proper to call them interventionists.

Self/disengaged consequentialists focus on developing the rationale for believing that the peace of the world is not safe. They stockpile a million reasons that we cannot rest on our laurels and we must be vigilant against those who would disturb the peace.

Moving on to the self/engaged immanents, we find peacemakers on the concordant side and obsessors on the discordant side. The obsessors reflect on the experience of combat: the adrenaline; the feelings of triumph (and defeat) and the pain of losing, the pain of loss. They are especially prone to feeling "victimized", particularly when they lose in a confrontation due to disadvantage. They will ruminate over these experiences for a (very) long time. The peaceniks believe in the resolution of conflict without using conflict -- they advocate the use of non-violent resistance.

I want to return to the matter of safety again: feeling "unsafe" is not the same as feeling fear. Feeling unsafe means that you observe the possiblity of facing fear, but do not feel fear yourself. The idea is to defeat all possible sources of fear, at which point one is allowed to be free from the possibility of fear and danger, as such to feel completely secure. The prerequisite for security is to be immune from all potential dangers which one is not sure one can overcome. (without injury or without incurring the loss of another).

tcaudilllg
02-28-2010, 02:02 AM
I want to tell you about something I saw on TV one time. It was a prison show which featured eye-witness accounts of what it was like to work in a penitentiary. One witness was a woman who had been beaten when her prisoner, a particularly violent man, took advantage of a security lapse to attack her. From this experience the woman developed an indiscriminate distrust and hatred for all convicts, and became a vocal critic of prisoner rights. Her persistent (if learned) lack of sympathy reflects, I think, a self/engaged discordant temperament.

Generally the self/engaged discordant fancies themselves as a victim, and is always trying to obtain some kind of vengeance against those who have wronged them. However they also make victims of others in their quest for vengeance, and as such sow the seeds of the own further victimization. This retribution brings about a further hardening of their attitude, which manifests as an intensified indifference and cruelty. They have a perverse complementarity to the opponent/engaged discordants, who are like to cite the righteousness of their vengeance as a pretext for initiating conflict.

tcaudilllg
02-28-2010, 10:02 PM
Opponent/engaged discordants are conflict initiators. They believe the world fundamentally embroiled in conflicts and as such, are always pining for advantage. They will stir a conflict if they believe 1) they can win it, 2) victory in that conflict will translate to advantage in a larger conflict. They are warriors to the core. Joseph McCarthy is the iconic incarnation of the type. ****** was a selfish variant, possessing as he did an unrestrained "berserker" mentality.

The opponent/disengaged discordants are born oppressors who are affixed to the perception of them by their enemy. Their aim is be respected: they want their beliefs and the fact of their willingness to back them up first and foremost in their opponent's mind. They are aware that they are looked upon as callous and cruel; as such, they harbor in themselves an image of a mentally tough person who has taken it upon themselves to protect others from their own stupidity. The egoism associated with dictatorial regimes reflects the primacy of this trait: Saddam Hussein, for example, had put up public posters of his likeness in every city in Iraq before he was deposed in 2003.

tcaudilllg
03-01-2010, 05:18 AM
I believe that the self/engaged concordants are remarkable chiefly for their refusal to cast blame. They are open to seeing both their suffering, and their opponent's suffering. The self/engaged teleological discordant (BPD sufferer) is willing to make their opponent suffer as a means to the end of eliminating the cycle of suffering. As such, the (non-selfish) teleological discordant approaches conflict from the standpoint of the "reluctant self defender" who does not want to fight, but is willing to do so as a means of bringing the senseless madness of their enemy to an end. The position of the self/engaged teleological concordant is one of instituting regimes of victimization as a means to the end of preserving peace -- it is the justification of social discrimination against a person or a group.

Opponent/engaged concordants have a mediatory temperament. They accept the necessity of conflict, but try to see all sides of it. With all goals in mind, they figure, a fair and satisfactory settlement can be achieved. The opponent/engaged teleological discordant believes in the necessity of "withdraw" from negotiation as a means of forcing a settlement in the face of unreasonableness.

Opponent/disengaged concordants seem to place a premium on eliminating projections -- they make every effort to appear as sympathetic to their enemies as possible. Martin Luther King, Jr. used the non-violence principle to great success in his bid to win civil rights for American blacks. It is worth remembering that towards the end of his life King became an advocate for issues he believed were "black centric" and this stance put him at odds with many people. King was always at his best appearing as a "race devoid" individual, and it has this strategy, no less, which has been most successful for American blacks. Consider Michael Jordan: he's black, but it's only apparent when you actually make the effort to notice the color of his skin. (unless you're black)

tcaudilllg
03-01-2010, 05:35 AM
I've been thinking about the differences between people who aim to be correct, if not necessarily "good", and people who put a premium on being good. I think the difference rests on divergent directions of fear. I believe that the "correct" majority fears others, but is not afraid of themselves. For the good, the great fear IS of themselves -- they are not particularly fearful of others, being brave and courageous. To the good, the fear is not of another killing them, but of facing such internal conditions as to drive them to suicide. These conditions are not to be confused with environmental conditions -- it is the actual realization that one has "lost the battle" which leads the good to their own destruction. Getting accolades from people whose lives they have positively impacted reassures the good that their belief in themselves as good people who are worthy of surviving is justified, the same warding off self-imposed suicidal pressure. The factor of self-exposure to suicidal pressure is a result of the good-aspirant person's projection onto others as evil -- they understand that their actions may result in the loss of will and suicide of people who they judge as negative influences, and as such they must be absolutely sure that what they are doing is right. In fairness, they must dare to ask if they are themselves a part of the problem, and this is the great internal "monster" which they must periodically face, to be renewed with every new judgment of the nature of evil.

tcaudilllg
03-03-2010, 10:07 AM
What I would like to discuss now is individuation; particularly, what it looks like.

A person individuates by subordinating their shadow to their self archetype. However, it is not an enslavement so much as a lifetime employment contract. The individual agrees to use the shadow to confront any and all overt aggression, and the shadow in turn agrees to subordinate itself to the self's judgment. Consciously, this agreement manifests as determination to protect oneself from aggression, but also to understand it.





+------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| Social Concordant |
| |
| |
+-----------------|------------------+
|
|
+-----------------|------------------+
| |
| |
| Selfish Concordant |
| |
| |
+-----------------|------------------+
|
......................|.......................
|
+-----------------|------------------+
| |
| |
| Social Discordant |
| |
| |
+-----------------|------------------+
|
|
+-----------------|------------------+
| |
| |
| Selfish Discordant |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+




Individuated thinking can be though of as having four layers, each representing a distinct perspective. At the bottom layer is the selfish discordant perspective, which is proactively violent. The social discordant perspective is above the selfish discordant and moderates its conflict into an observation of disagreement, divergent opinions. The selfish concordant perspective takes an introspective view: it recognizes both oneself and those with whom one disagrees as living beings with specific natures, and tries to understand what role these natures play, if any, in the disagreement. Once the role of nature has been understood, fear can be eliminated from the judgment and a rational decision can be made as to the veracity of the arguments presented. This decision is the basis for the social concord which points the way to the future.

By exploring one's own darker side, one comes to understand its virtues. Via introspection, one comes to understand that one is actually quite comfortable with various perspectives in certain degrees, so long one does not let any one of the three shadow perspectives overrun the original ego position. (normally social concordancy) By understanding that people have natures, one becomes a self-regulating individual apart from society's control; indeed, by self regulating one becomes society.

tcaudilllg
03-06-2010, 07:33 AM
How does immanent thinking differ from individuated thinking? In the case of a perfect immanent, the shadow is (mostly) cut off. A social immanent always has a selfish shadow, and a selfish immanent has a social shadow. In the social discordant, the shadow's sublimation manifests as a determination to disagree, but not necessarily to back up this disagreement with punitive action. This because they are always faced with temptation to exploit their power in the name of selfishness. Because they do not believe they can overcome this temptation, they intentionally keep themselves from power by avoiding activity that would place them in power. By vanquishing their enemy they would have power over their enemy, and as such resist vanquishing the enemy even when it is within their ability to do so.

tcaudilllg
03-06-2010, 06:36 PM
Boy did I have a brainstorm this morning. A million things (well, maybe 4 or 5) became suddenly transparent. I'll share this revelation in a bit, but first, let's continue our discussion until such point as we reach the proper context for the revelation itself.

EDIT: the more I think about the revelation, the more sick to my stomach it makes me. I'll go ahead and discuss it now.

We talked about individuation above, well it is plausible to possess a state of "pre-individuation". In this state, the individual always has their own self-interests in mind, however they believe these self-interests can be good for society as a whole. In general, they believe that people are primarily motivated by self-interest. Adam Smith's invisible hand hypothesis is, in fact, a special case of this belief system, for Smith was himself a pre-individuated individual. It is, however, more proper to term this disposition as one oriented to creativity, for reasons we should now entertain....

When a person individuates, two things happen. First, they come to accept their shadow selves, and observe conflict as a means to understanding others. However, there is a second feature which is a direct consequence of the resolution between the self and the shadow. This is the capacity for validation, made possible by anchoring information respective to a given information element on corresponding information respective to its contrary. It is purely a feature of information metabolism, which Hitta describes it in great detail in the Model B thread. Before a person individuates, they are mostly locked into a Model A-compliant state and can't actively use the functions in the way Hitta articulates. They can emulate the usage of the functions in such manner if they've learned it, but they have difficulty expanding on the concepts themselves in an original way because understanding the mentality which drove the creation of the idea requires an understanding of the nature of its creator. Such understanding requires individuated thinking, which necessitates questions of self-reliance and independent, relativistic action. The problem before the non-individuated is a moral one: should one even be thinking in such terms, especially with the social immanents, concordant and discordant, preaching with all their energy against the mere expansion of autonomic cognition? To rise above and see the world for what it really is, one must truly walk the tightrope between light and darkness, respecting either yet giving your soul to neither.

The pre-individuated do not fear to "open the door", no matter what fear may lie beyond it. As such, they are hardly troubled by ethical mores. Adam Smith explicitly argues in his defense of the invisible hand hypothesis that acting out of pure benevolence, as the social immanents do, does little good for anybody. It's worth noting the context in which he offered this opinion, the age of mercantilism. Mercantilism, as it were, is an economic philosophy in which foreign production is relied on as the means to economic growth. It is, as such, purely exploitative and closely related to the justification of force. According to mercantilism, it is the way of states to try to exploit each other (without allowing themselves to be exploited), and as such conflict between them is not only to be expected but is, in fact, wholly justified. The Roman Empire did it and, 250 years after Smith, ****** used the same argument as his justification for World War II. (World War I exclusively concerned mercantilist pursuits). We can thus reckon mercantilism as an essentially selfish discordant philosophy. There is a certain connection between the creative spirit and caring for others -- although the pre-individuate/creator-type person is motivated by self-interest, they steadfastly refrain from all but the most necessary conflicts. (though they can be quite flexible in this regard). The non-adversarial variants dislike negativity in all of its forms, seeking positive, uplifting emotions. For this reason they are often perceived as hyperactive and exuberant. Their most peculiar characteristic, however, is their striking capacity for innovation. Socionists and MBTI theorists alike have largely erred in correlating the ENTp type directly with innovation, particularly at the expense of failing to appreciate innovation as a type-independent trait. Creator types are achievers -- they can manage intellectual feats far beyond their years through their willingness to use unreliable valedictory technique. It is not that they do not succeed in creating a feasible and realistic product -- it is that they do not perceive how others will react to its emergence, particularly people opposite them on the political spectrum. Thus innovation is always associated with a certain risk, in that the leading innovators, these exuberant, high-achieving people, can never be sure that the fruits of their labor will be well received. With the exception, that is, of the immanent variants, whose creative fire is tempered by an unconquerable sensibility and self-control. The most notable example of such is the late Michael Jackson, who used his exceptional talents to become an amazing success. Creator people can individuate, although differently and for different reasons than normative individuates. To the creator, individuation means taking responsibility not only for others' well being, but also for one's role in their failures. Having as they do a certain selfish slant, the creative individual is like to exploit others to a significant degree by creating a sense of "faith" in their product. On the one hand this "faith-based" product yields an alternative to the example of the immanent in the quest for self-reconciliation -- selfishness can play a positive role in one's own livelihood. And yet being selfish, there is also that need to fear the self-same selfishness of the teacher! One looses a certain amount of compassion for Jackson after hearing about his deplorable investment in music copyrights, the same which brought him to ruin. And of course he paid dearly for his Pepsi stunt, which set his hair aflame and set him on the spiral which culminated in his death last year. That he did drive himself to the edge of suicide, if not completely over into it as a factor of his own volition, seems to me his way of taking responsibility for these sins. The creator's shadow is oriented, as one might expect, to destruction, which they may risk in an all-out bid to exceed expectations and in penance to past misdeeds. The creator may keep the full extent of the risks to themselves, if only to make the sense of internal atonement all the more profound.

Man, MJ seems way less sympathetic after apprehending all this. Leading the hopeful like a Pied Piper, and all in the name of his own selfishness.... Tremendous personal success has tangible costs, measured in the failure of others who would have otherwise attained modest success. It is those to people whom MJ must ultimately atone.

Additionally, I cannot help but observe on the one-hand just how lopsided an advantage the invisible hand philosophy is for these creator-type people, and on the other how much they must revel in every mention of lassie fare economics. Yes, lassie fare will indeed permit a invisible hand to lead the markets, although if one looks closely enough the hand leading the people is in fact visible enough. There is a reason that software "wiz kids" are able to wow others with such achievements as Winamp, which was, if I recall, designed by a 17 year old. (and released as shareware, no less!) There is also a "reason" that this same individual found himself clashing with the big wigs at AOL and even his own girlfriend at the time. ("she was really upset about the money", he later confessed). In the end, the creator offers nothing truly novel, just an extraordinary accomplishment by taking stock of the productive paralysis created by controversy, and offering a product in spite of it. They rise above the controversy by ignoring it and paying their attention to the void in the market created by continuance. Although they surpass the controversy, they also tend to play a role in the furtherance of the controversy itself and its paralysis factor, thus requiring people to be more like them if they are to break through the paralysis.

tcaudilllg
03-07-2010, 08:11 PM
This chart illustrates pre-individuate cognition. The line running from selfish discordancy to social discordancy is severed, illustrating the refusal of the (socially concordant-aspirant) pre-individuate person to rationalize ill will towards others.




+------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| Social Concordant |
| |
| |
+-----------------|------------------+
|
|
+-----------------|------------------+
| |
| |
| Selfish Concordant |
| |
| |
+-----------------|------------------+
|
......................|.......................
|
+-----------------|------------------+
| |
| |
| Social Discordant |
| |
| |
+-----------------|------------------+
_
_
+-----------------|------------------+
| |
| |
| Selfish Discordant |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+



Contrast the pre-individuate schema with that of a "not yet" individuated person.

This chart illustrates pre-individuate cognition. The line running from selfish discordancy to social discordancy is severed, illustrating the refusal of the (socially concordant-aspirant) pre-individuate person to rationalize ill will towards others.




+------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| Social Concordant |
| |
| |
+-----------------|------------------+
-
-
+-----------------|------------------+
| |
| |
| Selfish Concordant |
| |
| |
+-----------------|------------------+

..............................................

+-----------------|------------------+
| |
| |
| Social Discordant |
| |
| |
+-----------------|------------------+
_
_
+-----------------|------------------+
| |
| |
| Selfish Discordant |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+



As a factor of their selfishness, the creators have a substantial advantage over the normative group. The normative group has comparatively less valedictory skill as a factor of their anxiety (the quest to emulate the social concordant), which the creators do not abjure. Although the creator's valedictory prowess is less than that of an individuated person (owing to their sublimation of the discordant shadow and with it, a certain ignorance of the valedictory theses of the shadow's beliefs), they nonetheless are able to "break out" of situations which appear to offer limited opportunity, transforming the situation into an advantage for their own belief systems. Invariably this advantage lies in inflicting a destructive blow against their shadow's beliefs, which is like to gain them as many enemies as admirers.

As for the immanents, their chart is remarkable in that there are NO connections at all between any of the perspectives. One perspective is always upheld in spite of each of the other three.




+------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| Social Concordant |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+


+------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| Selfish Concordant |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+

..............................................

+------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| Social Discordant |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+


+------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| Selfish Discordant |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+




The reason for the anxiety of the concordant-aspirant (and their counterparts, the discordant-aspirant) with regard to the shadow is for the fact that they use a third of it already. It is nothing for either the adversarials or the concordant aspirant to take either the concordant or discordant positions, although they have clear preferences for one or the other. The problem is that they fear their own unknown faces. The temptation to sample the shadow is not unlike the temptation of eat of a forbidden fruit, from which innocence is lost forever. We have the social concordants and social discordants, respectively, to thank for either scenario: concordant selfishness and discordant selfishness are routinely confused by our culture, all thanks to the weakness of the social concordant in trying to reach out to the social discordant. It's not that social concordants have anything against concordant selfishness, but that the social discordants do and the condemnation of selfishness in all of its forms seems to the social concordants the most "concordant" option. (of course, no one suffers more from concordant "moral tyranny" than creator types). As a consequence of moral rule, the individuation capable are unable to differentiate between selfish concordance and selfish discordance, because either is "bad". It's like saying that the ego needs the id to function, but it also has to respect the superego's input. To make use of the id, the ego must first subordinate the superego, in effect becoming a superego unto itself.

tcaudilllg
03-12-2010, 11:41 AM
I would classify the "wunderkinds" (like Mozart) as pre-individuated individuals. There is a definite link between pre-individuation and extraordinary IQ.

tcaudilllg
03-21-2010, 12:47 AM
The counterpart to the creator is the destroyer. Like the creator, the destroyer is pre-individuated. Their emotions are a stark contrast to the creator's, centering around feelings of withdraw. The creator is, no less, like to see a certain complementarity in the destroyer, and it is the projection onto others that they are unnecessarily withdrawn that is the fuel for the creator's bombast and attentiveness. To the creator, the world is a barren, lifeless place just waiting to be infused with new life. The destroyer sees it differently: to them, the world is overflowing with life already, and it is all they can do not to step on the flowers. The destroyer is plagued by negative emotions, seeing themselves as an obstacle, a wretch, and a hinderance all who would be foolish enough to draw close to them. The destroyer has an affinity for justified violence, the sheer destructive impulse which is like to arise when political parties become too affiliated with their extreme wings. As such, they often find a home in the shadows of political discourse as shadowy, menacing figures. In medieval times they found employment as assassins, the silent hand of established interests and rebel causes alike. They are difficult to detect: their manner is elusive and their appearance sudden, "out of the shadows". Their body language is distinctly unremarkable, unnoticeable, and non-threatening, for their withdraw from society is complete and, possibly, practiced. The social variant is characterized by a slightly downcast tilt of the head, exhibiting humility and deference, but contrasted by eyes that stare straight ahead, giving a impression of derangement. The selfish variant is of a particularly psychopathic character; indeed, to refer to any person simply would not be correct. Concordant psychopaths have a characteristic appearance, a certain tendency to avoid eye contact masked by an apparent bounciness and exuberance. (think Ted Bundy) Discordant psychopaths are more outwardly menacing than their concordant counterparts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlKgqTRNjcU

In this video, several characteristics of psychopaths are observable. One is the downcast gaze, amid signs of personal withdraw. The other is a salacious contemplativeness, reflecting the selfish fixation on escaping limits. The psychopath is unlike the merely selfish in that they are willing to destroy to achieve satisfaction. Apparently, not having a conscience was a helpful evolutionary trait to this end. Bundy's fixation on women was a factor of his age, for reasons we will discuss shortly.

Psychopaths are of course rare, and most destroyers do, in fact, live in relative harmony with others. As they get older, they mature and become warmer, having learned to see, in some cases, that they can do good for others. They are typically goth, and live characteristically "alternative" lifestyles. Those with programming skills are like to become hackers, especially virus makers. There are several profound works which have emerged in the console emulation scene which are notable for their striking complexity, and each one is packaged with a dark and cryptic note by an equally dark and mysterious author.

tcaudilllg
03-24-2010, 09:39 AM
Underlying immanence is a handful of beliefs. Each immanent individual exalts one belief completely at the expense of the other, and they are very strict about it. However it's not so much a self-regulated strictness as a problem of failure to feel justified in exercising the prohibited belief. The following is a list of the immanent variants and their core beliefs.


Social Concordant (non-teleological): "I must never hurt anyone."
Social Discordant (non-teleological): "I must be selfless."
Selfish Concordant (non-teleological): "I must look out for myself."
Selfish Discordant (non-teleological): "By hurting others, I can become powerful."
Social Concordant (teleological): "By hurting others, I can keep people I care about from getting hurt."
Social Discordant (teleological): "By being selfish, I can be selfless".
Selfish Concordant (teleological): "By being selfless, I can be selfish."
Selfish Discordant (teleological): "By keeping others from getting hurt, I can hurt people I disagree with."


It may seem like the beliefs of social discordants are positive, but again, consider the projection factor. The social discordant fall into arrogance not because they are selfless in themselves, but because they fail to respect the selflessness of those with whom they disagree.

Compare these beliefs to the normative universal belief set, which is used when considering the consequences of engaging in immanent-style thinking:


Social Concordant (non-teleological): "By being selfless, I can avoid hurting anyone."
Social Discordant (non-teleological): "By avoiding hurting anyone, I can be selfless."
Selfish Concordant (non-teleological): "By gaining power, I can be selfish."
Selfish Discordant (non-teleological): "By being selfish, I can gain power."


Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it? This is what you're taught in preschool, of course. And of course, we of the 80s generation were drilled about it incessantly. These days, the media has changed somewhat and as such, kids are exposed to adult-level thinking more often, which helps them make better choices.

Note that the social motives are justifications for each other. Being selfless is honorable because selfless people avoid hurting anyone, avoid being "bad". But how does one become "selfless"? By not defending oneself, of course.

The relationships between the selfish beliefs are nothing new! Want to become rich? Become powerful! Want to become powerful? Get other people's money! The rich get richer and the poor get poorer!

Everyone starts at these four fundamentals, then chooses between social or selfish. Immanence comes in when you get an example that reaches beyond this level, in which case you will either try to balance it with its antithesis (if one is available, else defer till later) or draw an immediate decision about it. Those who tend to draw immediate, unbalanced decisions will often try to "frame" the position in terms of a more general principle. For example, consider the torture of Al Qaeda detainees by the CIA. It was a completely teleological move: "to protect the people, we must hurt those who would hurt them." The counter-argument was decidedly deontological and concordant: "we should not hurt others." This argument was codified as a general moral perogative "we do not torture." Although the question of whether any necessary means should be used to extract information is rather difficult to generalize (is it not potentially both bad and good?), the dictum "we do not torture" is much more stark, in that torture involves harm, which is bad, and is also associated with selfishness (for wanting to live at any price?), which leads (as per normative belief structuring) to being "bad".

As for the adult response (measured by the super-majority response in opinion polls), the failure to obtain information suggested that the Bush Administration (and the CIA) had leaned too far right, and as such had made the common conservative mistake of asserting the existence of something that doesn't actually exist without checking the evidence first. Although this was an embarrassment to both institutions (particularly the CIA), the primary damage was political in that it signaled the Administration would not take responsibility for its own accuracy, and was in need of oversight. Had real, actionable intelligence been obtained, however, the response might have been different. The shift towards oversight reflected not public intolerance for torture of terrorists, but that the decision to use torture against the advice of experts was an indicator Bush's government was losing touch with objective reality.

tcaudilllg
04-16-2010, 11:35 PM
I've reached some general conclusions about the social concordant:

They are obsessed with death. However, they are likely to talk about it in publicly relevant way. Perhaps obsessed isn't the right word: "fixated" would be more appropriate. Public concordants discuss others' deaths and the general topic of death; private social concordants are attentive to their own deaths. Christianity, founded by the social concordant Jesus and the social discordant Paul of Tarsus, has emerged as a vehicle for the social concordant and social discordant alike. The social concordant Christian talks more of heaven and forgiveness, the social discordant of sin and hell.
Their selflessness enables them to believe in that for which there is no evidence. They are like to develop beliefs that give comfort to others, and to themselves. This tendency is both a blessing and a flaw, and requires the social discordant as a check.


Sigmund Freud was known for making unjustifiable claims. They were often controversial. However it is known that he confided to Jung that his chief aim was to create "a bulwark" against the psychiatry practices of the previous century. "The black tide of mud", he called it. It was not necessarily the discordant alone who developed these practices... anything that could give hope where there was none would have seemed preferable to doing nothing, even if it involved drilling holes in the skulls of the mentally ill. Despite that Freud was incorrect on some points, the alternative he offered was far more humane than previous methods. (but to be fair, he was also only discordant at the last level of individuation, which merely inhibits one's overall capacity to admit being wrong ;) ).

The social discordant give "fire to the core" -- they strive to offer beliefs that eliminate violence and aggression, particularly against oneself. However, their method of eliminating violence may be violence. The feeling of regret from their own violence just reinforces the point more and more that violence must be eliminated by any available means. Social discordiantism isn't in itself bad... only aggressively assertive. It's when it gets fused with selfish discordiantism that it becomes negative. Experiencing justification for selfish discordancy can transform a discordant person in the most negative way imaginable.

tcaudilllg
04-18-2010, 11:22 PM
This stuff is inhuman. Premature death should be defeated.

tcaudilllg
04-24-2010, 05:42 AM
Today I'm going to discuss the human soul. The soul is a system of state interdependencies between dual information elements. The soul is a relative concept: each person has their own soul, which defines how they interact with the world. The soul is comprised of subjective and objective elements, things respective to oneself and things outside of oneself with which one has a relation.

Each person has a soul system, a set of traits which they seek to arrange the world in such manner as to reduce their importance. The soul traits are very weak and considered something of an obstacle. It is desired to interface with a soul image, human or otherwise, that can deal with the information processed by the soul traits.

To understand the soul, consider the story of Faust. Faust makes a contract with the devil (his shadow) and is enabled to escape his weaknesses. He employs the partisan world of assertion (which Jung identifies with the devil or "pointy-bearded employee") and although he is enabled to use his personality without restraint, the disagreements thus incurred between him and his opposition take their toll. Eventually, Faust is required to commit harm to others in the name of his assertion, and the price is exacted upon the state of his higher functions. Using the shadow too much degrades one's sense of truth, until even the most basic truisms become questionable. Via the EM functions, quality itself degrades until workmanship is unable to stand up to the objective world of nature. Gradually, increasingly, one's worldview is consumed by the shadow, until one is left dangerously out of touch with either reality or what it requires of one's own intelligence. This is the meaning of the darkening of Faust's mirror, the gradual degradation of one's relationship to the world.

As one's intellect and works degrade/polarize, so does one become an intensifying poison upon society. Indeed, an entire society can catch itself up in its own shadow (by way of a trend), its grip on reality only remaining intact by the unshakable objectivity of the concordant. (and if an entire generation's concordant leadership should perish, kiss the social fabric goodbye).

Note: I don't think that objectivity is in itself an effect of concordancy. Rather, I think it's a relationship between the creator mentality and concordant absolute centrism. Concordancy itself only yields emphasis on death, because the shadow's belief elements are seen as a stalking predator which cannot be sensibly ignored. You can have both mentalities in the same person, of course, although this is rare.

To avoid polluting society with half-truths at the expense of truth, it is necessary to gauge the pollution level. This requires a special function that checks to see if a new idea does residual damage to an existing idea spectrum. It's a question of whether the idea is and end in itself, or a new beginning. Rather than trying to get to the destination, this function, the soul function, tries to determine which destination is next.

And therein lies the secret of the soul: it's 5-dimensional, a function that stacks 4D perspectives on top of each other, and asks how they relate. It does not build ideologies, as the 4D functions do, but compares and contrasts them, and observes how they interfere with and inhibit each other. It looks at the world of a single mind, and asks how that would cohabits with another mind. I've got my view and you've got your view, but can we work it out? The soul function activates at mid-life, and this is why relationships change so much during that time. There comes a real question of "does this person work with me" and "will they allow me to grow as a person?" The 5th dimension looks beyond evidence -- it looks for actual interference between minds. Such a perspective requires the integration of all eight belief elements, because all eight elements play a role in shaping an individual soul. Your soul is your personality and your experience, your acknowledgments and your denials. It is carved in no small part by the deaths of those around you, the voids in the subjective self and memories of those who have passed on. The human mind does not deal well with death and the adult mind in particular will seek to deny it. (hence the term "pass on") The closer you are to the dead, the more their deaths will affect you. Death changes people, sculpts their souls. In personal terms, the 5th dimension is used to judge personal compatibility. Applied indirectly, it is attentive to "problem souls", people who have been so transformed by circumstance that they are become a threat to society. It judges whether a person can or cannot fit in to a given ideology, especially a dominant one.

tcaudilllg
05-01-2010, 08:03 PM
Why does immanence exist? From an evolutionary standpoint, it fulfills a specific function. It allows people to deal with the possibility of death. It creates discussion about it and the things that cause it. Although the immanent tend to develop terminal illness, not all people who are immanent die of terminal illness. Why the discrepancy? Given that many terminal illnesses are related to problems of the immune system, I suspect that immanence causes terminal illness, as opposed to the other way around. The immanence gene most likely figures in the presence of many terminal illnesses, and quite possibly releases the potential for having those illnesses. Take out the gene, and those illnesses would probably fail to manifest.

So to say, by treating immanence we can probably create immunity to certain terminal illnesses. However, how would one "treat" immanence? Gene therapy, but at what cost? Because immanence is a personality quirk born of genetic disposition, you can't change it without changing the brain. On the one hand, we need to identify existing immanent individuals and get them the help they need. On the other, we need to develop pre-natal therapy to defeat immanence before life even begins. This will help us create a generation of the non-immanent who are free from the travails discussed in this thread.

tcaudilllg
05-15-2010, 08:32 AM
I will be discussing the immanent types in this thread, with attendant thinking styles, mannerisms, and behaviors.

Social Concordant Type - "Altruist"

This type appears to be motivated by a belief that they are not as important as other people. They will find humility where others would not expect it, and when doing a good turn for others will put in just enough extra effort to offer the impression that they really do think their beneficiary more important than they. This leaves a lasting impression on the lives of those they touch: the beneficiaries of the social concordant feel overwhelmingly that they "owe something" to the concordant, a debt that can never be fully repaid. The social concordant may use the knowledge of these feelings of debt to involve their peers into something distinctly bigger than themselves, to renew the sense of obligation of people to each other.

Social concordancy most sharply differs in style along the introversion/extroversion axis. The extrovert concordant may appear overwhelming open and kind, with a deep and overriding concern for others that is expressed in the questions they ask. They will show this concern even to perfect strangers, and will do a good turn for someone without asking for anything in return. However for this they are usually quite respected in their communities and for that reason are successful and even influential.

The introvert social concordant is more reserved than the extrovert, and less likely to directly inquire about the welfare of the people around them. Instead they will try to infer it, creating a certain ideology about how best to take of the people important to their lives. They have a problem that the extrovert social concordant does not, in that their help is not as informed and as such, often goes unappreciated. However, they make up for this by having a certain profound fairness and sensibility, which they use to great effect by declaring their independence from the crowd at vital moral junctures. This well spoken, imminently fair and respectable dissent can bring a mob of disaffecteds to their senses, collapsing the initiative to violence and alarm and restoring a sense of civility. Introvert concordants frequently live impoverished, humble lives, which they think respects the challenges faced by those who cannot succeed and reminds the successful of the same.

Visually, the concordant seem to have a sense of thoughtfulness and ineffable calm. They are rarely, if ever, temperamental, and exhibit an enormous amount of restraint. They may seem to "have all the answers", which they may offer in the form of a sagely reminder or anecdote. They will often make a special effort to "make a difference" in someone's life.

Social Discordant Type - "Idealist"

The social discordant is a fancifist who refuses to acknowledge the validity of belief elements which they disfavor. They believe that utopia is just around the corner if only people would stop believing in these silly notions that the world actually is any way other than they say it is. They live in a world of "shoulds": even if they are wrong, they argue, they should be right. They are plagued by insecurity: they know from experience that their predictions rarely turn out correct, that they are wrong more often than right, and this makes them want to escape into a fantasy that if only they had power, they could make the world be what they want it to be. It is the failure of people, not of reality, which the Idealist holds as the primary ill facing the world. If people would only change their ways and their views, the idealist argues, the world would become perfect.

Although the Idealist desires power, they refrain from using it because they respect the right of people to choose their beliefs. The Idealist believes it their duty to tirelessly work towards persuading people to their view. The Idealist will only employ power in the defense of their beliefs, and then only as a last resort. However, it should be noted that they will not use their power to protect people, only their beliefs. In fact, they are like to use what power they have to force others to defend their beliefs, using the force of their authority to compel people to honor their cause whether or not they agree with it. In the face of dissent they can be ruthless, possessing a singular lack for empathy. The social discordant is in truth a person who lacks empathy of any sort save that which they learn through the examples of others. (particularly the social concordant) People are, in their view, tools -- if not weapons -- in the fight for a perfect world. Once the fighting is over, the blessed kingdom will have arrived and all will be fair and just. But for sake of this glorious appearing, any act, no matter how cruel or callous, may be justifiable.

There is at once something rational to their eccentricity, a method to the madness: the idealist has anxiety not for the loss of their opportunity to realize a better world, but for the permanent loss of self-identity. They hold this anxiety, moreover, not for themselves but for their more moderate political allies, whom they regard as essentially lacking for a strong sense of the principles necessary to survive. What the idealist fights for is the survival of their values system, which they uphold as vital to the success of their society. But because they believe all people should uphold these values, they feel a pressure to fight against those who marginalize them or who cannot see their importance, fearful that the "ignorance" may spread. It is not in hatred that the idealist fights, but out of a misplaced sense of grave concern for the intellectual and moral welfare of society. Tragically, they may believe empathy a luxury ill-affordable in the face of this seemingly endless struggle to maintain social awareness of these vital values and beliefs.

Idealists have a distinctive, uncompromising appearance. They are like to use "barrier" gestures, such as crossing their arms against their chest, and appear standoffish and obstinate. Their faces may be turned into a frown, a reflection of their grave disappointment at the direction their society is headed. They may seem driven by an unearthly zeal and determination, a willingness to walk a hard, difficult path "into the wilderness" if need be. Their eyes reflect a grave apprehension, and in moments of self-reflection they may exhibit a profound apathy.

Selfish Teleological Concordant Type - "Distractor"

The selfish teleological concordant is a person who uses conflict to look out for their own interests. They desire power because they think it will help them achieve personal goals. They are decidedly amoral, often seeking to rationalize their complicity in immoral activities. Their instinct is to deflect criticism -- they are highly keen to the moral failings of others and will seek to distract critics by refocusing attention on their critics' misdeeds. They are like to invent a new rationale for the judgment of impropriety where previously none existed. Although their judgment of impropriety may be reasoned as rational by their peers, the purpose of their invention is always to draw attention away from their own impropriety, which they do not acknowledge as such.

The Distractor has a characteristic "wily" appearance. Their faces seem to evoke a belief in their own indemnity by mere virtue of their accuser's own unworthiness to judge. Their eyes betray a sustained incredulity, a sense of bemusement at the hypocrisy which, they would argue, surrounds them utterly. However it is not a concrete hypocrisy which they allege, but a greater moral deficit in their opposition. They have a certain killer instinct regarding their critics: to them, it's all a blame game, and if you don't want to get bogged down in scrutiny of your own misdeeds then you'd better find a way to deflect attention onto someone else. To their betters, whom they are not wholly opposed to be being defeated by, they have the following bit of sound advice: "if you want to hold me responsible for what I've done, you'd better quit with the moping over your own shortcomings, and keep your eye on the ball, because I'm not going to make it easy for you."

Although their motives may seem inscrutable, it all comes down to the legacy question: how best to provide for my family's future? And in service to this question we have been offered two distinct answers, capitalism and socialism. This brings up the question of taxes, which Distractors on both sides fight over endlessly. Like Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham, the socialists and capitalists take turns "robbing" from the rich and the poor alike. The socialist "Robin Hoods" redistribute the wealth with enormous taxes, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. The capitalist "Nottinghams", when they get the opportunity, reduce social safety nets and reduce regulations, so that the rich can use their control of resources to take advantage of and impoverish the poor. Either side, meanwhile, is blind to any of the effects an advantage to their side holds over the other, because it's always the other side that's "in the wrong". Yet it comes down to the simple question of how a person provides for their family in an uncertain world, and in that vein capitalism and socialism offer two very different answers. Under the capitalist system, you try to succeed as much as possible, in the hope that you will become wealthy and able to provide for any of your children/grandchildren/great grandchildren/etc. who cannot provide for themselves. This is why it is important to create an aristocratic, wealthy family. The socialists argue instead for entitlement programs which provide a modicum of comfort for the physically, mentally, emotionally, or morally disabled and their immediate families.


Examples of distractor types (real):


Ann Coulter (columnist, author)


John Bohner (U.S. Congressman)

In a case example of distractor ingenuity, Bohner used his advance knowledge of the U.S. financial panic of 2008 as justification for selling over $50,000 in stocks he owned. Although his use of this information constitutes insider trading, it was not illegal because it was not anticipated that a congressman would use classified information in this way. Bohner's impropriety did not stop him from attacking Democrats who received special treatment from companies with whom they had strong ties.

(source: Lawmakers' inside advantage to trading | Marketplace From American Public Media (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/17/pm-inside-dope/) )


Fictional:

Vayne (Final Fantasy XII)

Sephiroth (Final Fantasy VII)

J.R. Ewing (Dallas)

Kimberly Joyce (Pretty Persuasion)

Heart Gear (Maetel Legend)


When acting, distractor types enjoy playing the villain.

tcaudilllg
05-15-2010, 02:48 PM
Updated with description of the selfish teleological concordant "Distractor".

Crispy
05-15-2010, 06:00 PM
Is this a dichotomy for dual-types? I'm pretty sure I'm far on the Distractor side. This isn't just a copy of Democratic/Aristocratic is it? That would confuse me.

tcaudilllg
05-16-2010, 01:17 AM
Is this a dichotomy for dual-types? I'm pretty sure I'm far on the Distractor side. This isn't just a copy of Democratic/Aristocratic is it? That would confuse me.

No, this is completely different dimension of personality from the dual-type system. Immanence is a factor which limits personal growth over the life span, and affects judgment.

In short, it affects how the functions manifest, how you use them, and for what purposes.

tcaudilllg
05-16-2010, 05:17 PM
Most people are not immanent. However, that doesn't mean they are psychologically balanced, either. Having a strong relationship to an immanent person of one type may unbalance you ideologically if not countered by a relationship with the opposite type. In fact, you may not even be consciously aware of the bias.

I'm still working to describe the immanent types (there are eight), so it's not clear from this list yet what the lines of opposition between them actually are.

tcaudilllg
05-16-2010, 10:18 PM
I'd like to draw your all's attention to a very special event that is underway in Pennsylvania: the defeat of Democratic (formerly Republican) Senator Arlen Specter.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/16/i-had-a-clear-shot-at-re-election-specter-says/?fbid=PM_UfaA1fDF#comments

Specter is a social concordant type: by his own admission, he ran as a Republican to try to keep the party from lurching too far right. He suffered the derision of the people with whom he would otherwise be closest in the name of that pursuit. He did it all for his country, to make sure that the Republican party did not lose its soul.

Now that the party has lost its soul (to the selfish adversarialist Sarah Palin and the Tea Party), he sees no reason to continue on with it. Although he does not yet realize it, Specter is completing his destiny as a concordant individual: he is foregoing self-interest for the benefit of the younger generations he fought so hard to protect.

I'll refrain from saying any more until after the event, and after a professional columnist has had time to weigh in with the valediction.

tcaudilllg
08-27-2011, 02:23 PM
Bump

Reuben
08-27-2011, 05:39 PM
So this is the one? I'll read it and get back to you soon. I'm too tired tonight.

*(Below posted on 28th Aug)*

Hey, this stuff is really heavy lol. I'm only on the second page and I tend to get distracted doing other stuff. Try to read this finish by tomorrow! By the way, I will be interested in learning how to flip the switch (at page 1) at an early age. Maybe I'll talk to you about Jung's theory on that aspect as I'd like to hear your opinions on it.

Reuben
08-30-2011, 06:51 AM
Tcaud, this is the best stuff I've ever read on this forum, and it's also the best stuff I've read on socionics.

I'd like to discuss this with you immediately, or ASAP, and I'd like to have your IM, or whatever to have quick discussions. This thread is an alright platform, but it's pace can be too slow for my taste.

I believe there may be some ways to 'cure' immanence post-natal, but it will be very, very hard.

tcaudilllg
08-30-2011, 03:43 PM
Tcaud, this is the best stuff I've ever read on this forum, and it's also the best stuff I've read on socionics.

I'd like to discuss this with you immediately, or ASAP, and I'd like to have your IM, or whatever to have quick discussions. This thread is an alright platform, but it's pace can be too slow for my taste.

I believe there may be some ways to 'cure' immanence post-natal, but it will be very, very hard.

I personally think it puts a whole different spin on the abortion issue. Not that all immanent people should be aborted... I think it should depend on their individuation potential.

Why not join the Supersocion Society? http://www.facebook.com/groups/233820159983032/

tcaudilllg
02-16-2012, 01:37 PM
A chance moment of inspiration helped me understand the reward systems underlying immanence. The conflict-avoidant and conflict-seeking variants, and the two middle grounds between these extremes (the so-called "teleological" perspectives), all obtain reward from exposure to specific kinds of information.

Conflict Avoiders

Conflict avoiders diverge into subtypes, active avoiders and passive avoiders.

Traits of active conflict avoiders:
Unable to tolerate external conflicts, but willing to bear internal conflict to avoid creating external conflicts
feel reward from failing to meet expectations, and demonstrating humility


The positivist/negativist (right/left) political dimension plays a role in what opportunities are sought after for demonstrating humility. Negativists work to increase the presence of humility in the conversation (the ministry of Jesus is a good example). Positivists will try to exceed the advise of the negativists by demonstrating unworthiness, thus creating, ultimately, more opportunities for humility. Negativists intentionally try to increase their worthiness quotient. While negativist active avoiders are rewarded by humility, they are also rewarded by feelings of worthiness, feeling it a more suitable goal. Positivists generally do not seek worthiness, having "succumbed" to the "temptation" to humility.

Traits of passive conflict avoiders:

feel burdened by internal conflicts and external conflicts alike, but can manage both. Believe in resolving external conflicts to resolve internal conflicts.
feel reward from surpassing another (exceeding expectations, demonstrating superiority), thereby surpassing the others' ability to contest.


Positivists and negativists in this group have an interesting -- almost symbiotic -- relationship. The negativists excel in the direction of their dual-type, exalting their strengths and shunning their weaknesses. They learn fast and try to push beyond what they have learned. They are critical of society and its expectations, taking an "overman" approach to excellence. The positivist passive avoiders seek out their negativist brethren for their superior instruction, and once they have learned all that they can learn, are swayed by the illusions cast by their weaker functions -- and feelings of deep responsibility -- to reach beyond, for the impossible dream that lies at the edge of their master's suggestion. The hypothetical gains to be obtained by achieving this feat are the fruit of rationalization for all that comes after.

A key example of the relationship between positivist and negativist passive avoiders is to be found in Star Wars, between Darth Vader and Obi Wan. Obi Wan is the negativist heavily self-balanced social democrat who pushed to the top and proved himself. Vader (Anakin) is the journeyman disciple who was drawn to Obi Wan's example, and found the top unsatisfactory, even though the "top" represented the extremes of feasibility. Obi Wan sought life after death; Anakin wanted to prevent people from dying and maybe even to bring the dead back to life. Vader's determination to perform the impossible made him ethically blind, thus making possible his turning to the Dark Side.

A real example of this dynamic can be found in the relationship of Bill Gates (positivist) to Steve Jobs (negativist), and in the general effort by PC makers to ape Apple. However, Gates resisted trying to surpass Jobs, instead being content to emulate him and to let external forces shape the emulation.

Conflict Seekers

Traits of active conflict seekers:
Unable to tolerate internal conflicts, but willing to bear external conflict to avoid creating internal conflict
feel reward from achieving conquest


Active conflict seekers like to fight. They do not wait for battle, as do the passive conflict avoiders, but seek it out. The negativists learn fast, and seek out those who hold archaic views with the intent of demonstrating the superiority of modernity. The positivists respond obstinantly, arguing that modernity transgresses "sacred" boundaries of reasoning that must be respected at all cost. This is "key" to dismantling the view of the negativist and defending the archaic viewpoint.


Traits of passive conflict seekers:
Unable to tolerate either external or internal conflict; will offer the elimination of internal conflict to resolve external conflict.
feel reward from achieving another's respect


Passive conflict seekers enjoy the feeling of ending conflict. Negativists are astute cultural critics who see the status quo as an impediment to par achievement. They feel they (or others) are unfairly marginalized, and observe the role of self-serving forces in precluding the arrival of a new era of fairness. They are given to fighting these forces, who resist the call of the high principles for which they stand, until their goals are met. They see distancing themselves from the values of these forces to the highest degree as the means to a resolution. The positivists act as a balance to the balance, pushing back in the name of the status quo and adopting a conversely radical ideology in support of it. They may, for example, critique the "selfish ends" of the negativists and argue the proposed regime just as or more unfair as the existing one. This leads to the path of moral and ethical corruption, as the positivist self-corrupts to attain polarity with the enemies of the negativists.

tcaudilllg
02-16-2012, 07:37 PM
Updated the passive conflict avoider description.

tcaudilllg
02-16-2012, 07:43 PM
Food for thought: was Saif Gaddafi a conflict avoider, or a conflict seeker?