Results 1 to 40 of 106

Thread: Moving High Ramblings Here

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,915
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ive been smoking pot and trying to make some writing contributions to this site while high as fuck. Despite some parts of them being incoherent, the underlying idea behind what I'm saying is completely legitimate in all of the ramblings, so I'm posting it here that perhaps an interested person will be able to interpret what I mean and, by miracle, connect to it in a sensible way.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow View Post
    Rant 1:This is a marijuana induced rambling and I'm gona teach you all something incredible. Let me take one more hit first..

    Alright took it. So I saw the mathematics for socionics thread, and although its a working mathematical system to describe socionics there's nothing meaningful about the math that connects it to socionics. So I'm gona show you the real math in this thread.

    One more puff... Ok took a big one.

    Alright, socionics is based on duality. Everyone gets that. Duality is a division of monism, and the reunification of functions is the basis for intertype relations. That's why duals get along.

    In mathematics the only true monism is infinity. So any mathematics for socionics has to be based on infinity, and breaking infinity down into complimentary parts. The first step for doing this- the only way it can be done, is with fractals which follow the fibbonacci sequence. They're the fundamental dimensional threads; 2 aspects of infinity themselves. For example is the universe infinitely large, is it infinitely small? It is both- this is a split view of infinity.

    Ok, so what is my point? Let me go piss and take 1 more hit and then some klonapin, and I'll tell you.

    First, that the fractal / exponential fibbonaci spirals are the basic field/object distinctions in math form. Fractal spiral is object, exponential spiral is field.

    I think this is obvious and can be taken at face value. Energy, radiation, relativism, the larger universe.. all disparate and expansive, all are qualitatively fields. Likewise for mass, matter, density, focus, atoms, microscopic examination.. all oriented at the object.

    The next dimensional separation is the static / dynamic property. Now you're probably thinking "ok, fractals... I get it, so you're gona compound fibonacci fractals and end up at 8 dimensions, then assign them names sequentially and that'll be the functions". No, it cannot work that way. And the reason is each dimension is unified through monism; using compound fibbonaci spirals you cannot represent the underlying monism in a unified way. Either all dimensions become relative... the object/field distinction is forgotten; or the pattern of dimensional progression becomes 2^2, where 4 is disconnected from 1 only a product of 2. That's a tiered progression, which ignores relativity. Both those patterns are flawed.

    Ok, so we agree it can't be compound fractals... The mathematics has to qualitatively demonstrate the dynamic / static property.. Let me take a drink and 1 more hit and I'll tell you what the next distinction is.

    Ok, + -, x & / distinguish statics from dynamics.
    x & / are dynamic, + & - are static. That's what defines them mathematically. - and + have no relative increase or decrease in outcomes as a result of compound influences of the numbers they're combining. - & + represent tiered progression and x & / relativism.

    This also redefines the object / field distinction. They present in these basic math signs, and it's pretty obvious when you look for it: + and x go up, - and / go down. Not really that hard to see the connection. Different properties, different context.

    So the two separately 'flawed' methods of progressing the dimensions I mentioned earlier are both present here qualitatively.

    Also these correspond with Ji/Je/Pi/Pe

    + = Ji static field
    - = Pe static object
    x = Pi dynamic field
    / = Je dynamic object

    [brief interlude and took a nap]

    Ok back. So yes, dynamic / static fields are distinct from fields. They're modified fields. This difference, alone, is represented by variables and the number scale.

    The number scale is an existential perspective on the fractal fibbonacci sequence. For example:
    1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 < all relative, the numbers are somewhat meaningless. But existentially:
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7< The sequence becomes a tiered progression, defined from an outside perspective (hence static fields are different from fields)
    And this allows for negative numbers as well, since the fibbonaci spiral is endless.
    -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.
    0 is significant in this context since it's another form of monism.
    [EDIT: The negative numbers may actually come a higher tier up, but at the least we can positive integers qualify. I'm undecided either way at this point, since positive and negative integers exist in the function y=mx+b (which will be discussed in a sec).]

    Numbers represent an objectification of value whereas variables retain the free variance and compound relativity of fields.

    A variable like X represents unknown cumulative values, which makes sense as an existential view of the exponential fibonacci spiral. Also, monism in this context is 1. X1 =X. X/X=1.

    So as you can see 1 and 0 are both significant numbers.

    All these functions are relations between variables or numbers. X + 2... Etc.

    The variability within the number scale differentiating 1 from 2, 3, 4, etc.; all cumulative values represent disparate unique clones of structure within infinity; i.e. (X1 = X1(1(1(1)))))

    Also, on a more general level, monism is represented by equality.

    Look at this equation:
    Y=MX + B
    The simple way of graphing a function. MX being variable allows a sort of divisional multiplication .. (typically M will be a fraction).. B can be positive or negative, anywhere on the number scale; essentially changing between addition & subtraction (mx + -B).

    K gona get some more weed then continue with this.
    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow View Post
    Rant 2:
    Today I'm high as fuck and I'm gona talk about the 16 sociotypes, describing them and how to spot them in reality through social contexts. Alright.. I can barely focus right now and I don't think I'm gona die, so let's get this on with.

    ESFp: probably was persecuted by her family for her sexuality. Wants to escape her family. Persecuted for what she wears, how she dresses, etc. for liking to try weed, for liking to make out with other girls, and for being, although loyal, sexually active which pisses off other members of the family who don't have any sex lives. Thinks if she can just form the connections with others she will be able to leave her family and live in the world of glamour which she is attracted to, independent from others who are pulling her down. Thinks her family members secretly desire her. She understands the utter depravity of the persecutors. She looks on to others with an air of disgust having suppressed their natural loving sexual instincts. Other people have no lives and it saddens her. What she sees is people empty of passion, and a power structure that, through neglect and apathy, is killing people lifeless.

    INTp: Sheltered, controlled child who was completely deprived of any fun or freedom or real power to make his own decisions in life. Instead he was given strong direction on what must be accomplished, what is acceptable achievement and what is failure. He conformed to this burden, thinking if he could act perfect he would please the powers lorded over him and they would back away and he would be free to act as he saw fit. Unfortunately this meant him, through self discipline, avoiding any kind of sex life or doing anything remotely natural to him; those actions only follow achievement. He tried to overcome this lack of any ability to be oneself through being the best. If he could control 100 percent the power structure, even outplan and create the rules himself- by understanding them in the greatest detail- that he could change and knowingly manipulate the rules, fulfilling his own desires. Thereby he would be able to get layed and do the things he was forbidden to do. Ultimately, if all the rules are in place and all rules are correct, sex is allowed since nothing is harmed.

    INFp: Has completely given up all hope for the social structure ever remotely surviving in the long run. There is no way the people, with their motivations and needs, are going to be able to hold together and move forward society as it is in its current state. Society is simply a degradation of mankind, and valiance is to ignore its confines through uncompromisingly preserving and exploring the animal within. His laziness is in actuality a refusal to further the enslavement of mankind. He looks as slacking off, undermining and ignoring the system as an understandable act of self preservation. He does no work, other people despise him because he isn't contributing anything to society. But he views these people lost in the delusion that what they're trying to accomplish actually has any purpose or meaning at all; and infact doesn't only further their pain and suffering. The unfortunate side effects of this attitude is he doesnt have any resources to get himself layed or meet the basic necessities for survival, so he has to leech off other people. He knows he is dragging others down, but wishes they would neglect the life they're living; and yet the reality he must sustain himself is inescapable. Feels some guilt for lack of achievement, despite it being justified in his mind. The inability to participate in society also creates loneliness and a negative view of peoples moral conditions- people reap the benefits of their sins, his suffering is like christ on the cross. Can become obsessed with martyrs and dreams of being a martyr, regaining respect by the final statement of the most pure and natural yell of man in the wild. His suffering justified, others will bow in respect to what he's shown them, perhaps even begin following him. Longs to be a part of a natural society where everyone is 100 percent themselves, and lives accordingly. This fantasy escapes him and he is left alone, desolate and resentful. Eventually builds a loyal following of true friends. Considers communication flawed, as any communication will compromise the purity of the message and the meaning of it. Has a long list of things he has to end get around to doing, but knows he will be fine eventually because knows just how much time he has to get it done at the last minute. Thus he succeeds socially but always feels the burden of unfinished obligations weighing down on him.

    ESFj: Person who, subdued by overwhelming forces, conformed to the social structure with entirely, even befriending it. Became a feigned participant in its enforcement. By befriending the powers that be, one will be rewarded with a share of their control. One can then use that control as one sees fit, even for the benefit of man; making exceptions, doing friendly deeds, keeping the personal spirit alive. Yet the concessions required for this power make her a hypocrite. Critical of non conformism, pictures a utopia of perfect behavior, everyone getting along. This woman will lock you in a cell then serve you a home cooked meal.

    Brief interlude, took a shit and then drank some tea

    Ok this is a tangent thought but I keep referencing the social structure. There are archetypes within the social structure identified by Jung. They reflect the typical family upbringing and social integration, though there are more archetypes I've not mentioned. I.e. the father and mother archetype, the joker archetype, and so on. What I've just shown here today is described that the self has a type, but that this type is completely connected to the power structure of those around oneself. So it then follows- what are these power structures enforcing, exactly? My proposal is that each social archetype- first and primarily the main archetypes- has its own type. The first and most important type is the persons type. The mother and father type are the next important. Then there are other jungian archetypes that should be explored, and a coherent social typing system should be overlayed to fully understand a person.

    The following are archetypes I keep consistently referencing within these descriptions, and ones I plan on exploring in the future:
    self
    father
    mother
    sex
    power
    achievement
    conformity
    rationalization
    boundary breaking / area of focus
    suppressed awareness

    break to take another piss and smoke a tad more
    Last edited by rat1; 09-27-2011 at 12:02 AM.

Posting Permissions

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