It's a spiritual system, a set of ethics; prescriptive.Originally Posted by bibliophile8
Such as?
It's a spiritual system, a set of ethics; prescriptive.
Such as?
[Stormy] [LII]
I incorrectly mentioned Phaedrus. I have scouring him on the brain, haha.
I don't know. I need to study you more. One thing: I don't understand what you mean by "I thought irrationals disliked repetition in their perceptions". Please explain.I think it has more to do with the possibility of Te as leading function. When someone suggests a type for me, my first instinct is rejection. But then I think about what they are saying and if I can prove them wrong. Usually, I don't think I can from my knowledge of Socionics, so then I'm like "well maybe you have a point" and I go back and do more reading to see if I can see myself as that type. I have only changed my type once, until now. And usually its because I read something that really seemed out of whack with what I was thinking or someone told me specifically that I may be this or this type and it was something I had not thought of before. (It may be worth noting here that phrasing things differently makes me think about them differently.) But, maybe you're right, maybe I am an irrational. I thought irrationals disliked repetition in their perceptions in which case I've read Wikisocion articles who knows how many times. If I was an irrational, which would you suggest?
Did you read my post, post #9?
Irrationals like to keep their perceptions moving not have things being "boring" in some sense, and I thought part of that was not seeing a need to repeat past experiences and that this was somehow related to them not having clearly defined constant interests. It's not entirely making sense to me now, to be honest, I just remembered reading it somewhere.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
There's a Reinin Dichotomy called Constructivism/Emotivism which might be what you're thinking of - http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._and_emotivist - specifically, the bit about constructivists preferring the same sensations/experiences and emotivists preferring new sensations/experiences.
ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
5w4 so/sx
"IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"
Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
Stickam music performances
"Machintruc" is French for "Phaedrus". Hence the confusion.
Anyway, I haven't read much about the Ennegram, but I'd like to because from what people have said here use of one appears to help people understand the other - like maybe they work well together.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I'd think so, I like what Ezra mentioned so maybe I'll take a look.
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
Yeah I was thinking partially of that, but there was also some different reasoning. I think I was considering why irrationals don't have clearly defined interests and I think part of the reason is because it requires them to experience the same things in the same ways with changes few and far between. So they don't like to repeat perceptions or at least hold constant ones, but now it seems that this is mostly dependent on their paradigm rather than on the actual experience. So maybe I'm just wrong.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
Okay. Well, you were speaking in present tense, so I assumed your view hadn't changed.
Why not? I think it describes me a hell of a lot better than socionics does.I don't think the Enneagram will describe everyone well, but I don't actually expect it to.
That makes it sound like there's no other alternative to socionics.What I was trying to say is that despite it not being "like" socionics, I still think it has value.
Right. What's the difference, then, if any, between a static SLE view and being Irrational?
I don't understand your question. What do you mean by an 'SLE view'? An SLE is a static irrational.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
I know. But you said SLEs, who are Irrationals, get bored with the same perceptions everyday, so they try to change them. But Statics have the same perceptions everyday, and are content with that; that's the definition of Static. Dynamics think 'everything moves, all the time; nothing is ever the same'. Statics think opposite.
Likewise, the same can be said about one's socionics type.
Fair enough.If you take it in context, I have clearly not said that. I just don't expect the same things of the enneagram that I do of socionics, and surely that is fair given that they are describing somewhat different things anyway?
I'm not sure how its a system of ethics, that seems to be taking it a bit far.
What I meant was that its hard to just type someone on traits because the types can act a lot like each other. Like a 1 and a preservational 3. Both are driven to achieve internal ideas of good, but for very different reasons (wanting to be perfect and wanting to be successful or liked). So its hard to type someone as either based solely on actions. I noticed other similarities between other types as well.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
It's basically prescribing what the most beneficial course of action is for a person in a variety of psychological states.
[Stormy] [LII]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote