Dude, I miss you. I wish you were still around, you were fun. (You knew me as either RGB or Hexcoder, I can't remember which username I had when we talked.)Originally Posted by Oppai Anschluss
Dude, I miss you. I wish you were still around, you were fun. (You knew me as either RGB or Hexcoder, I can't remember which username I had when we talked.)
I think it was Hexcoder back then
"I would rather be ashes than dust"
"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked."
Holy shit, hey!!! Wtf, did you get an email because I quoted you, or did you just happen to get on here? How've you been?
Yo. Serendipity, I guess. I randomly felt like logging in today and saw the notification and it was a really nice to feeling stumble upon like that. Been okay. Doing the mental health thing. Trying to disentangle where type indicators end and attachment disorders begin. How bout you? Based on the post and blog entry count it looks like you've been busy on here the last few years.
"I would rather be ashes than dust"
"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked."
Wtf, that's crazy, lol. You have some 6th sense shit going on there, man.
Yeah, I've been doing the mental health thing myself. I use this place mainly for journaling, writing as a form of critically thinking through my own life, honestly. I've distanced myself from typology a lot in general, even though I still offer my opinions on it every now and then.
As for the disentangling, yeah, I understand how that goes. Ultimately, for me at least, it comes down to prioritizing one or the other. I dig into the origins of a concept from psychology, research its background, look into what kinds of evidences support it, and if it has better research than typology, I just overwrite the typology in my brain. Could it end up being wrong? Sure, it might be proven to be wrong in 40 years...but in life, there are times when we have to make the best choices available to us and keep moving forward in order to avoid stagnation. I think it'd be quite nonsensical to prioritize pseudoscientific information over anything that's fundamentally scientific. Honestly, though...personally, I prioritize virtually any and all information over typology anymore. I don't even think about typology once I close this forum.
I've been through a fuck ton since we spoke last, but things are finally looking up for me at this point.
Could be. Not the first time a whim has taken me somewhere at the right time. I stopped questioning it and just decided to ride it (to an extent) and see where I end up a long time ago cause doing anything else feels forced, fake, and pigeonholed. Intuition or collective unconscious or moved by the spirit? Who knows, but the more I've listened with some discernment the better several things have gotten.
Journaling with some room for feedback is probably a decent description for how most online output could be characterized regardless of platform. That's basically what I use twitter and discord for the last couple years. Writing down to process and crystalize those thoughts, putting it out somewhere to make it real, and occasionally get an affirmation that you exist from the faceless infinite of the internet but nothing sincere or close enough to potentially hurt. Damn, I hate the internet most times.
I'm largely in a similar boat as far as typology, but I don't put much stock in Psychology's validity vis scientific methodologies. There's a point where there's recognition when these systems exist without any referent to something Real and further elaboration is just recursive self-gratification. Philosophically it's perfectly fine that each of these "types" are essentially defined by each other, since one thing's Is amounts to the negative space of its Is-Not, but it's way too easy to let the map replace the territory and without some anchor to orient it a system can be completely valid and entirely irrelevant. That's generally my outlook on almost all of Psychology these days, even in the court-magician certified varieties where institutional validation or social proof are the measure of its inerrancy. I don't think people are unique enough that they can't be sorted into approximate types (whatever they may be), but it's a rough heuristic for framing things, not some infinitely explicable codex re: people (translation: yourself). It doesn't need to be True to work, and it almost certainly isn't Truth but can help image it.
So "type indicators" are just short-hand for "aspects of (my) personality that don't belie some maladaptation or other dysfunction" vs actual issues that would be beneficial to try and work on or remain conscious of to compensate for. Eg. If "Fi" gets defined as an affinity for information regarding relations and personal evaluations between people and things, is there a dividing line for definition between that affinity and a preoccupation resulting from insecure attachment styles, other than competence which nobody is able to properly self-assess? Conditional? Bi-conditional? Prompted by the very sad realization that most of the people closest to me had/have an enormous misunderstanding of me (attributing things to pride instead of fear), partly due to my own enormous misunderstanding of me and a wish-fulfillment representation of myself socially. The first correction for this is to renovate my mental model for myself, and deal with the rot under the floorboards, rather than label it and call it a personality. I'll cut that off before it becomes trauma-dumping.
Dunno if "a fuck ton" is good or bad in your eyes, but if you're still going and looking up then that's enough to celebrate. We must imagine Sisyphus happy, after all.
"I would rather be ashes than dust"
"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote