"Those who don't feel this Love pulling them like a river, those who don't drink dawn like a cup of spring water or take in sunset like supper, those who don't want to change, let them sleep. This Love is beyond the study of theology, that old trickery and hypocrisy. If you want to improve your mind that way, sleep on. I've given up on my brain. I've torn the cloth to shreds and thrown it away. If you're not completely naked, wrap your beautiful robe of words around you, and sleep." - Rumi
.Security ... what does this word mean in relation to life as we know it today? For the most part, it means safety and freedom from worry. It is said to be the end that all men strive for; but is security a utopian goal or is it another word for rut?
Let us visualize the secure man; and by this term, I mean a man who has settled for financial and personal security for his goal in life. In general, he is a man who has pushed ambition and initiative aside and settled down, so to speak, in a boring, but safe and comfortable rut for the rest of his life. His future is but an extension of his present, and he accepts it as such with a complacent shrug of his shoulders. His ideas and ideals are those of society in general and he is accepted as a respectable, but average and prosaic man. But is he a man? has he any self-respect or pride in himself? How could he, when he has risked nothing and gained nothing? What does he think when he sees his youthful dreams of adventure, accomplishment, travel and romance buried under the cloak of conformity? How does he feel when he realizes that he has barely tasted the meal of life; when he sees the prison he has made for himself in pursuit of the almighty dollar? If he thinks this is all well and good, fine, but think of the tragedy of a man who has sacrificed his freedom on the altar of security, and wishes he could turn back the hands of time. A man is to be pitied who lacked the courage to accept the challenge of freedom and depart from the cushion of security and see life as it is instead of living it second-hand. Life has by-passed this man and he has watched from a secure place, afraid to seek anything better What has he done except to sit and wait for the tomorrow which never comes?
Turn back the pages of history and see the men who have shaped the destiny of the world. Security was never theirs, but they lived rather than existed. Where would the world be if all men had sought security and not taken risks or gambled with their lives on the chance that, if they won, life would be different and richer? It is from the bystanders (who are in the vast majority) that we receive the propaganda that life is not worth living, that life is drudgery, that the ambitions of youth must he laid aside for a life which is but a painful wait for death. These are the ones who squeeze what excitement they can from life out of the imaginations and experiences of others through books and movies. These are the insignificant and forgotten men who preach conformity because it is all they know. These are the men who dream at night of what could have been, but who wake at dawn to take their places at the now-familiar rut and to merely exist through another day. For them, the romance of life is long dead and they are forced to go through the years on a treadmill, cursing their existence, yet afraid to die because of the unknown which faces them after death. They lacked the only true courage: the kind which enables men to face the unknown regardless of the consequences.
As an afterthought, it seems hardly proper to write of life without once mentioning happiness; so we shall let the reader answer this question for himself: who is the happier man, he who has braved the storm of life and lived or he who has stayed securely on shore and merely existed?
have you seen this, suedehead?
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tual-Stackings
i wouldn't be surprised if you have. it is i who am rusty on these topics.
Yeah, why.
you are totally inept if you think all the shit you posted in this thread is sp/so. but sp/sx is most likely your stack given your preference for such images and your username.Originally Posted by inumbra
Last edited by Amber; 04-06-2015 at 10:31 AM.
hi amber. i sensed you might have been speaking to me, or at least countering me, with your posts after mine (although i don't discount that i am paranoid). i tried to counter back a bit in a non-obvious way.
it occurred to me as i was posting in this thread and then reading that i might be relating myself to the wrong stacking... and by the end of the evening i realized sp/sx is a better fit for me (although this depends i'm sure on the source and interpretation, so i haven't fully ruled out sp/so).
that said, i don't think all of my posts in this thread are completely off the wall for sp/so. i put a lot of thought into them actually. and i certainly didn't mean to spam up the thread.
i think my first post is actually not bad for sp/so.
the seal song isn't bad either, arguably. it's obviously from the pov of someone who is socially focused and interested in helping society, focused on the problems facing people in society ("wanna shoe the children, ain't got no shoes on their feet... want a house of people, living on the street..."). in fact that one, although i've always liked seal's version of the song, i selected because it popped into my head for sp/so, rather removed from what i do or don't relate to.
the solaris vid i don't think is terrible either. although i don't necessarily see clooney's character as sp/so (but maybe?) and i certainly don't see mcelhone's character as that... the whole film was very subdued, the relationship presented (and, well, actually all of the relationships in the film) quite aloof and distant in feeling. clooney's character seemed to not be able to connect to mcelhone's emotionality and later is trying to desperately backtrack wishing he could undo the events leading to her suicide. of course a lot of the subdued energy is because of his grief and the sort of thick depression that settles in when one is grieving. i hate just going off of "vibes" but i feel the movie arguably has an sp/so vibe, and that the entity solaris itself seems to communicate back in this vibe. it doesn't understand the human dramas playing out or human psychology or madness; it reflects things back, apparently unaware of what that is doing to these people. it can't seem to connect to them just as clooney's character couldn't connect in time to mcelhone's. connection between solaris and human beings, and human beings and each other, is buried under a thick layer of fog that only clears in brief moments. (edit: i selected that video because i felt it captured the film well.)
I thought you were proudly spamming the thread. The Solaris vid can pass for sp/so and some of the first pics (lions, city ...).
But most other images have a very pregnant sp/sx feel to them : isolation, pain, darkness, passivity (sleep) -- post 293 is utterly disturbing. Figures look dehumanized and dead. Many things in post 280 have that Gothic vibe (Poesque) that only fits in sp/sx. Moonlight, scary atmosphere, little visibility, ravens, haunting etc. Post 282 involves contra-flow humor, obscurity, confinement ...all sp/sx themes. I fail to see the social element in what you posted. Besides everything you posted seems to flow from an E4 center --- I picture someone like the blue-eyed chick you posted when I see all the things you brought here.
Last edited by Amber; 04-08-2015 at 01:20 AM.
what i meant with #279 and #283
#279: society has won over the individual… in the center image, people are concentrated in the city in small spaces that all look the same, stacked one on top of the other. the dominant forces are corporate, telling you how to be and what to think. there is no individual expression, but corporate expression in the form of the billboards (they are the only creative presence). there is a dark feel, in that life has become bleak and dead for everyone. no one is allowed to be or express who they are or to be different. that’s why for the last image, i chose the woman who is shrouded in darkness, most of her face covered in her hands, only her eyes peaking out—the question of does one dare reveal themselves, and how does one keep themselves in this world. the top image of the corvid, was meant to symbolize the desire to transcend this hell, to be able to fly freely over society and its trappings. i used this because this is sp first after all (not so first). my interpretation was that sp/so would be aware of the “forces of society” and wishing to find a way to free itself (where as perhaps so-last would simply be able to operate independently, oblivious to these forces and untroubled by them).
#283: another depiction of the death of the individual by society. trying to adapt to “the real world” after college, the individual butchers and mutilates his personality, so as to fit in with the workforce and its predictable course for people, which i think ultimately leads to the destruction of one’s true identity/person/spirit. “these days” it isn’t people literally being worked to death so much (at least not here), their bodies torn and destroyed, but it’s a longer internal (or soul) death as one’s ideals and dreams give way to a hopeless social-driven reality. unable to be independent of civilization—relying on it to meet basic needs—the individual may be faced with the prospect of physical death (no money for the things you need to live) vs. soul death (physical life, but no life for the “spirit”). to reconcile these two competing elements is what is required for transcendence.
I've met this singer, easily one of the most sx-last people I've known
???????
you mean the random reaction faces I sometimes post?
???????????????
I don't dislike the way you unreel your interpretations of those images (sounds like Ni ego), but I don't think sp/so feels the social as trapping. It's what they're most comfortable with - well, second to most. Sp/so is defined by the need to find a place for oneself in a social configuration. It doesn't wish to free itself from society. Many sp/so are interested in the history of their collective etc. precisely because they have a "communal" perspective on life/people. For comparison you can check how the social manifests itself in Sx/so in the Foucault video I posted.
the dominant forces are corporate, telling you how to be and what to think. (..) no one is allowed to be or express who they are or to be different. that’s why for the last image, i chose the woman who is shrouded in darkness, most of her face covered in her hands (...)
This is arguably so/sp, not sp/so. And I repeat you're coming from a sp/sx standpoint...that's why you talk about society threatening to control individual expression and thinking and so on. Totally so-last - no intrinsic need to position oneself in a social or cultural sphere.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Last edited by marooned; 04-13-2015 at 04:33 AM.
Tracy Chapman - 9w1? sp/so
Last edited by Default; 04-21-2015 at 05:05 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
