Traits of the Extremist (confrontational immanent)

[tcaudilllg]

The chronic extremist is motivated by identification with the object. Therefore, they have a strong personal bias for '-' aspects. This bias leads to a spectrum of qualities.

- Fatalism (-Ni) and identification with its necessity
- identification with causation (-Ti)
- enforcement of objective demands (-Fi)
- determination to exclude and discriminate against those who do not align their motive's to the object's (-Fe)
- identification with absolute truth (-Te)
- identification with the constraint of human potential to that allowed by fate (-Ne)
- identification with forces independent of human will (-Se)
- identification with disharmony and conflict (-Si)

The religious would probably identify the extremist as the "hand of God" or "God's plan" due to their identification with the challenges faced by the human subject. Ironically, the same would also praise the passive immanent "messiah" type as an angel of God, or God proper. (as Christians have claimed for Jesus). Thus perhaps "the hand of the devil" would be a more fitting analogy.

[machintruc]

AAAAAAAAAAAGH !!! I'm an extremist !!! Shit !

[tcaudilllg]

AAAAAAAAAAAGH !!! I'm an extremist !!! Shit !

By "the same" I meant "the religious". I am in no way implying that all religious people are extremists.

[Rubicon]

- identification with causation - common sense
- enforcement of objective demands - common sense
- identification with absolute truth - common sense
- identification with forces independent of human will - common sense
- identification with disharmony and conflict - who doesn't??

.

[tcaudilllg]

.

I don't. I think you should look at those definitions a little more closely. For you to identify with any one of those would mean denying your own experience as a private observer, which is what the extremist does. They want to subsume private identity -- the subjective sense of self -- into the totality of everything else.

[Rubicon]

I don't. I think you should look at those definitions a little more closely. For you to identify with any one of those would mean denying your own experience as a private observer, which is what the extremist does. They want to subsume private identity -- the subjective sense of self -- into the totality of everything else.

Denying my own experience - in what way? I believe in absolute truth, in the sense that my subjective perceptions are not valid if they are not representative of the truth.

And what do you mean by 'disharmony and conflict' then? Because everyone can identify with them being that they've experienced them.

'Identification with forces independent of human will' - I believe in God, so yeah

[tcaudilllg]

Denying my own experience - in what way? I believe in absolute truth, in the sense that my subjective perceptions are not valid if they are not representative of the truth.

And what do you mean by 'disharmony and conflict' then? Because everyone can identify with them being that they've experienced them.

'Identification with forces independent of human will' - I believe in God, so yeah

Right, but you do not say "I am war" any more than you say "I am god". Over the course of their lives, a confrontational immanent may increasingly identify with either or those statements, depending on whether or not they are immanent in the functions respective to either. (the more they identify with the object, the sooner their identification will be completed).

[Joy]

My Mom's a SLE extremist. Which of those functions would apply to her?

AAAAAAAAAAAGH !!! I'm an extremist !!! Shit !

Obviously.

[tcaudilllg]

My Mom's a SLE extremist. Which of those functions would apply to her?



Obviously.

If she is indeed a chronic extremist, then could mean up to three things:
- she identifies herself with objective desire, and insists that personal desires submit themselves to the same. This is confrontational immanence in the +Fi element. Does your mother protest your private wants as selfish, even when you feel justified for having them?
- she believes that others should subvert their own ambitions and dreams to whatever is allowed by a set fatalism that only they can truely know. This is really unlikely in your mother's case because it would mean immanence of the 3rd and 5th functions; such people typically don't survive their midlife crises. They identify themselves with their own tragic fate, and may believe things like "you can't teach an old dog new tricks", or that people who make bad choices must be mastered by them completely, without challenging their outcomes for further control of their own destinies.
- she believes people should submit control of their own lives to objective concerns. In a +Ti vs -Ti situation, she will always side with -Ti. (I mean this in terms of aspects, not elements). For example, let's say that we determined that extremists should not be allowed to hold public office. Such a person would actually be fine with that if we could prove it to them that such an objective situation existed as to demand such regulation. This is where the extremely rigid, controlling aspect of extremism comes into play.

[Joy]

I'm not sure, it's hard to describe. I think she's just your typical religious extremist who believes she's not.

[Joy]

She's basically applying her religious beliefs (which she honestly believes are based on the bible) to everyone and not accepting that people have their own sets of values and that they can be right as well, even if their values contradict with her or each others, as long as no one tries to hold other people his/her own values.

Bleh that probably didn't make much sense. I should be in bed.

[tcaudilllg]

She's basically applying her religious beliefs (which she honestly believes are based on the bible) to everyone and not accepting that people have their own sets of values and that they can be right as well, even if their values contradict with her or each others, as long as no one tries to hold other people his/her own values.

Bleh that probably didn't make much sense. I should be in bed.

That may not be extremism, because it's a common sentiment of Christians. My own grandmother maintains that salvation from death is only to be had through Jesus, but I don't think she's an extremist. People tend to draw lines with regard to their religious beliefs, because that's a comfort zone. Especially from mid-life crisis onward. (it's usually the embrace of a religious belief that mitigates the mid-life crisis, but that's been known for a long time.)

But it's another thing to believe people should be compelled to accept one religion over another. That is indeed extremism.

A point worth making about religion in general: most every religious leader known about today has the trait which is opposite to confrontational immanence, that of passive immanence. Passive immanence exhalts the + over the -: the subjective experience of the person -- and everyone -- is held as of absolute importance. Passive immanents teach people how to hold their own views without unduly impressing them upon others.

There's also a third option: that of simply seeing another person's views as irrelevant, and holding to their own views without necessarily impressing them on others. They don't even try to understand others' views, and prefer to pretend they don't even exist. That just might be your mother. The question then is which functions she can't make work together, because it's simply the fact that she can't relate them successfully which leads to her dismissal of processing by those who can.

But the use of Fi, Fe, Ni, etc usually paints such a miserable world view that it seriously screws one up psychologically when they give too much thought into it. I just can't even begin to describe it other than paranoia, close-mindedness, anti-objectivity, hysteria, neuroticism, etc, etc.

I think a large part of their paranoia lies in the fact that they know a personal sort of armageddon is indeed coming their way.... Over the course of our lives the functions increasingly balance themselves out. If this process should come to an abrupt halt, then their enmity becomes increasingly disruptive until life itself cannot continue. They naturally project their own fears onto others and identify emerging movements and trends with them, especially if they perceive something about those trends they don't think they can deal with. (though let me be clear that I'm talking mostly about the latter type here: not the people who identify with the object, but the people who just can't change.)

The non-changing types tend to be more fearful and suspicious, whereas the confrontational immanent types are more inflexible and partisan. (for that matter I'd go so far as to say that they ARE partisanship proper, but I'm not yet ready to explain exactly how.)

[Joy]

That may not be extremism, because it's a common sentiment of Christians. My own grandmother maintains that salvation from death is only to be had through Jesus, but I don't think she's an extremist. People tend to draw lines with regard to their religious beliefs, because that's a comfort zone. Especially from mid-life crisis onward. (it's usually the embrace of a religious belief that mitigates the mid-life crisis, but that's been known for a long time.)

Most of the active christians I've known have been extremists. That's probably because they're from the same churches though, for the most part.

But it's another thing to believe people should be compelled to accept one religion over another. That is indeed extremism.

I think that's what she does in a way, though she's not forceful about it.

A point worth making about religion in general: most every religious leader known about today has the trait which is opposite to confrontational immanence, that of passive immanence. Passive immanence exhalts the + over the -: the subjective experience of the person -- and everyone -- is held as of absolute importance. Passive immanents teach people how to hold their own views without unduly impressing them upon others.

There's also a third option: that of simply seeing another person's views as irrelevant, and holding to their own views without necessarily impressing them on others. They don't even try to understand others' views, and prefer to pretend they don't even exist. That just might be your mother. The question then is which functions she can't make work together, because it's simply the fact that she can't relate them successfully which leads to her dismissal of processing by those who can.

Well, she did try to shelter her kids from ever hearing any point of views other than her own, and she's unwilling to truly listen to other people's views. She just stonewalls if you try to talk to her about it.

She's mainly been an extremist in the way she adapts her lifestyle to match her religion. It's like she's completely out of touch with what's normal and reasonable.

[Rubicon]

Right, but you do not say "I am war" any more than you say "I am god". Over the course of their lives, a confrontational immanent may increasingly identify with either or those statements, depending on whether or not they are immanent in the functions respective to either. (the more they identify with the object, the sooner their identification will be completed).

ok, so you're meaning more 'becoming one' with the object to the point where you find it hard to differentiate btwn yourself and the object - rather than identifying with it objectively

[tcaudilllg]

ok, so you're meaning more 'becoming one' with the object to the point where you find it hard to differentiate btwn yourself and the object - rather than identifying with it objectively

Right. They are opposed in this by the passive immanent, who becomes increasingly comfortable with the individuality of themselves and others. Most people reach a middle ground by identifying with causes important to them even as they maintain their own individuality.

Racism is a good case in point of the conflict between confrontational and passive immanents; particularly, Malcolm X vs MLK. Malcolm X identified himself with blackness; MLK. The one used the threat of a counter-oppression by blacks: riots, for example; the other insisted on demonstrations and marches alone. Somewhere in between those two extremes American blacks found a voice, because both riots and demonstrations were key to pressuring Congress to pass civil rights legislation. (contrasting what I know about Malcolm X with the theory of personality immanence I'm discussing here, I think Malcolm X may have identified himself with the work that was necessary to frighten the non-changing types into not protesting civil rights itself, which then left them open to embrace of MLK as a counter to X).

These are of course exceptional cases, in that both men were very self-confident leaders. Most confrontational immanents will follow after a cause they believe in, but keep it to themselves until the day of a planned protest or demonstration. (I think they are the majority of the picketers outside the courthouses, the meetings, etc.) The passive immanents are more likely to make their own utopian communes or live as far away from others as possible. (modern day hermit types) Although you can see them in the churches making subtle cases for their respective causes.

It's possible that there is an immanence element to the rise of gasoline prices on the futures market, with one or more confrontational immanents identifying with the cause of forcing changes in western consumption habits, changes that are opposed by the non-changing types. I think Matthew Simmons could be a case in point, because he certainly thinks that Americans must change their driving habits and he does have a lot of power. (enough to make $100 million off of oil speculation, apparently). He is also respected as the leading economic authority on oil. I think he feels that cultural change must be impressed upon cultural non-changing types, and that he must be the hammer that drives it. Of course there is a larger dimension to this than simply changing driving habits (inflation is set to skyrocket because petroleum is an ingredient in many, many synthetic materials, and Europe is facing an imposed change on a lifestyle that had been working quite well), but it's gonna take someone who has not yet appeared -- and may be reluctant to -- to bring some sanity to the oil market that yet respects the requirement that we use less of it.

My money is on this person appearing in Europe as opposed to the U.S..

[tcaudilllg]

After a lot of consideration, I've concluded that the chronic extremist sees the object as a subject apart from what we see. They see "the object" as having emotions, rules, ideas even. This is how they experience themselves while also identifying with the object: the self is to them a part of the object. They see people as having both selves as a part of the object, and as having subjective self. This is where it gets interesting: just as we attach a pathological projection to our experience of the object as a compulsive, potentially oppressive force, so does the confrontational immanent project a person's pursuit of self-interest as being self-defeating and threatening to the harmony of the objective whole. It's the exact opposite of what Christianity, which was founded by the passive immanent Jesus, believed: the personal experience is evil and the worldly experience is good, contrasted with Jesus' belief in the world as evil and the subjective experience of personal truth as ultimate goodness.