On the delusion of typology

[Korpsy Knievel]

"You cannot be anything that you point to." - Mooji

[somavision]

I cannot be a penis.

[Gravolez]

"You cannot be anything that you point to." - Mooji

Technically this is not true.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Technically this is not true.

Pick something to point at and we will falsify your truth.

[somavision]

Is this going to start getting into philosophy and such? If so, I can see it getting messy...

From my laymans point of view the issue seems to be around the semantics of 'you' and 'I', I would think that James' distinction of the existential and catagorical selves could be useful.

Perhaps it could be clarified "The existential self cannot be anything that is pointed to."

[ashlesha]

*points at own body*

[mu4]

The question isn't whether or not something is a delusion or a illusion, but what that delusion or illusion tells us about "being".

This delusion applies to far more then merely typology, it is a pervasive illusion.

Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion

We do not and perhaps cannot know absolute reality, but that doesn't mean our delusions are empty.

Socionics would view the conscious mind as a mechanism that process a portion of the available information(via avaliable senses/processing units, possibly aided by tools), and thru specialization via information preference forms a picture of the world. So socionics is like a picture of a picture of (likely just another picture), who knows when the pictures end and absolute reality begins. And frankly, people generally just give up and just believe in God or the Universe or some other such convenience. However, for those of a curious mindset, that picture of a picture of a picture of probably pictures is interesting and fun and might even provide a advantage in the games which we play in life.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Is this going to start getting into philosophy and such? If so, I can see it getting messy...

Perfect.

From my laymans point of view the issue seems to be around the semantics of 'you' and 'I', I would think that James' distinction of the existential and catagorical selves could be useful.

A citation would be helpful. In the meantime there's this, which I'm guessing is in the same spirit:

The term self-concept is a general term used to refer to how someone thinks about or perceives themselves.

The self concept is how we think about and evaluate ourselves. To be aware of oneself is to have a concept of oneself.

Baumeister (1999) provides the following self concept definition: ""the individual's belief about himself or herself, including the person's attributes and who and what the self is"".
Self Concept is an important term for both social psychology and humanism.

Lewis (1990) suggests that development of a concept of self has two aspects: -

(1) The Existential Self

This is the most basic part of the self-scheme or self-concept; the sense of being separate and distinct from others and the awareness of the constancy of the self” (Bee 1992).

The child realizes that they exist as a separate entity from others and that they continue to exist over time and space. According to Lewis awareness of the existential self begins as young as two to three months old and arises in part due to the relation the child has with the world. For example, the child smiles and someone smiles back, or the child touches a mobile and sees it move.

(2) The Categorical Self

Having realized that he or she exists as a separate experiencing being, the child next becomes aware that he or she is also an object in the world. Just as other objects including people have properties that can be experienced (big, small, red, smooth and so on) so the child is becoming aware of him or her self as an object which can be experienced and which has properties. The self too can be put into categories such as age, gender, size or skill. Two of the first categories to be applied are age (“I am 3”) and gender (“I am a girl”).

In early childhood. the categories children apply to themselves are very concrete (e.g. hair color, height and favorite things). Later, self-description also begins to include reference to internal psychological traits, comparative evaluations and to how others see them.

So, predicated on the assumption that a self and one or more non-selves exists, the existential and categorical selves can be broadly described as identificatory attachments to mental constructs arising from persistent belief in phenomenal object-subject relations.

Perhaps it could be clarified "The existential self cannot be anything that is pointed to."

I'd argue the truth of this statement by leaning on Uncle Herc once again, who said "You cannot step into the same river twice, young homie, for the waters are ever flowing on." So if one were to point to oneself to convey "This is me", that action would spur an accretion of perceptions begetting memories and thoughts, and the self who indicated itself would have changed before the gesture was completed.

Secondly, if we accept that we cannot perceive, rationalize, or communicate perfectly, and if we accept that the existential self arises from the mind as a result of phenomenal events, then we can see that this existential self is but a nonequivalent representation of the objective self. And so we cannot point to this simulacrum of the self and rightfully say that it is what we are.

[Korpsy Knievel]

The question isn't whether or not something is a delusion or a illusion, but what that delusion or illusion tells us about "being".

This delusion applies to far more then merely typology, it is a pervasive illusion.

We do not and perhaps cannot know absolute reality, but that doesn't mean our delusions are empty.

Socionics would view the conscious mind as a mechanism that process a portion of the available information(via avaliable senses/processing units, possibly aided by tools), and thru specialization via information preference forms a picture of the world. So socionics is like a picture of a picture of (likely just another picture), who knows when the pictures end and absolute reality begins. And frankly, people generally just give up and just believe in God or the Universe or some other such convenience. However, for those of a curious mindset, that picture of a picture of a picture of probably pictures is interesting and fun and might even provide a advantage in the games which we play in life.

Good post. We are sort of agreeing for once. My Uncle Al (Watts) says organisms are how the universe experiences itself. It enjoys a game in which it forgets who it is for a while and plays hide-and-seek with itself. So socionics as a study of perception and consciousness is one instrument to understand that game.

[Gilly]

Navel gazers

(irony intended)

[Korpsy Knievel]

Navel gazers

(irony intended)

Under orders from the comedian Schopenhauer, I recently began easing myself into the hindoo hottub of advaita vedanta, or nondualist humbug. Finding something amusing about this snippet from Mooji, I thought it worthwhile to have a little fun with the ideas attending it. Bite me.

[Gilly]

*points at head*

As far as I can tell, most of it happens here.

[somavision]

Perfect..

Oh I hate this, I like getting involved but I know I'm going to get lost in concepts that I struggle to grasp.

A citation would be helpful. In the meantime there's this, which I'm guessing is in the same spirit:..

Yes it is.

So, predicated on the assumption that a self and one or more non-selves exists, the existential and categorical selves can be broadly described as identificatory attachments to mental constructs arising from persistent belief in phenomenal object-subject relations..

Well I hope I have understood you, so I'd like to paraphrase? You are working from the assumption that there is one actual "core" self, then the existential and catagorical selves can be described as these reflective mental constructs, seperate from a true experiential self?

If this is the case, I would view the self in terms of the whole organism, this extends beyond a narrow definition of the immediate expereintial self, but would include all cognitive and sensory processes, including abstract catagorisations and associations and a constructed identities as well as immediate perceptual experience.

I'd argue the truth of this statement by leaning on Uncle Herc once again, who said "You cannot step into the same river twice, young homie, for the waters are ever flowing on." So if one were to point to oneself to convey "This is me", that action would spur an accretion of perceptions begetting memories and thoughts, and the self who indicated itself would have changed before the gesture was completed.

Secondly, if we accept that we cannot perceive, rationalize, or communicate perfectly, and if we accept that the existential self arises from the mind as a result of phenomenal events, then we can see that this existential self is but a nonequivalent representation of the objective self. And so we cannot point to this simulacrum of the self and rightfully say that it is what we are.

Yes this is interesting, I have for some considered the idea of a static centred self as illusory. In fact it could be argued that a static self is a convenient social construction. It reminds me of this... (wait til about 1 minute)

[Absurd]

"You cannot be anything that you point to." - Mooji

It is the same as, standing in a garage doesn't make one a car.

If this is the case, I would view the self in terms of the whole organism, this extends beyond a narrow definition of the immediate expereintial self, but would include all cognitive and sensory processes, including abstract catagorisations and associations and a constructed identities as well as immediate perceptual experience.

You can't view the self in a form of entire organism for the self or something is intangible whereas an organism is tangible. That is, the self is not real, ye Sunday philosophers.

[leckysupport]

You can't view the self in a form of entire organism for the self or something is intangible whereas an organism is tangible. That is, the self is not real.

What makes a mix of "stuff" a living organism is intangible.

Take a bike apart and put it back together again and you have a working bike; take a frog apart and put it back together again and you've got a dead frog.

[Absurd]

What makes a mix of "stuff" a living organism is intangible.

Take a bike apart and put it back together again and you have a working bike; take a frog apart and put it back together again and you've got a dead frog.

Sure, you make a point

A bike isn't a living organism, though, it is inanimate matter. Take oxygen for example which is inanimate matter as well - oxygen enters your lungs and then your bloodstream, travels to cells, and so on. Point I am making is, oxygen doesn't carry a vital force and inanimate materials that make up your body have no special quality of life about them in themselves.

What we're speaking about here is a soul, stricte metaphysically. And that frog can be replaced by that monster Frankenstein put together and gave it life.

Oh on somewhat unrelated note, there were experiments done on dogs in SU/Africa that brought back to life dead dogs. I mean dogs with their heads severed off and sewn on again.

You believe in a soul, lecky?

[leckysupport]

Sure, you make a point

A bike isn't a living organism, though, it is inanimate matter. Take oxygen for example which is inanimate matter as well - oxygen enters your lungs and then your bloodstream, travels to cells, and so on. Point I am making is, oxygen doesn't carry a vital force and inanimate materials that make up your body have no special quality of life about them in themselves.

I don't understand your point.

A large part of what makes an organism an organism is life, and the thing which is "life" extends past the tangible and into the realm of the intangible. The self has a similar pattern, the brain (tangible) giving rise to the self (intangible).

[Absurd]

I don't understand your point.

A large part of what makes an organism an organism is life, and thing which is "life" extends past the tangible and into the realm of the intangible. The self has a similar pattern, the brain (tangible) giving rise to the self (intangible).

Alright, I'll ride on your bike/frog analogy again. Like your common frog, Earth is an organism too, the entire organism, the whole organism, and like your common bike it is composed of parts/organs such as various races and nations of men and where one of these is permitted to remain disaffected, Earth itself is threatened with death. In other words, you, me, this board is/are composed in a way that you cannot function efficiently without the alignment of each and every part and organ of your anatomy.

As for life, you seem to be one dodging questions organism. Anyhow, that's what I said but in a different way.

[somavision]

You can't view the self in a form of entire organism for the self or something is intangible whereas an organism is tangible. That is, the self is not real, ye Sunday philosophers.

I was unclear. I meant organism in the way that Carl Rogers spoke of the organismic self - basically that all these experiences can be incorporated into the self, rather than limiting the self to a narrow fixed concept.

[leckysupport]

Anyhow, that's what I said but in a different way.

Never mind, I got the impression that you were disagreeing with me - my mistake.

[Absurd]

I was unclear. I meant organism in the way that Carl Rogers spoke of the organismic self - basically that all these experiences can be incorporated into the self, rather than limiting the self to a narrow fixed concept.

I have heard about that in brief somewhere, not really in that package, as in Carl Rogers and the organismic self package but taking into account what I have heard you're talking about the false ego, Id (Self), and lack of organic "I."

Want to warn as well, I'm not that far into concepts but here goes something - the false ego, that is, the persona, is in a perpetual attempt to escape the "self," but the self it is fleeing from is wholly unknown. Additionally, the ego tries to "find itself." It imagines it has become the "new you" constructing a new act, an act that you never know you're faking until the "new you" realizes it and replaces it with another act.

It is somewhat common on this board not to mention Identification which is completely out of bounds in here, that is, you get people that actually do this en masse.

Read my books...

Oh and I'm really sorry I didn't refer to Jung this time, ahem, but knowing both Jung and Freud well, I can only say the former is quite the bride when it comes to things some of you disagree with and condemn, so it is Freud this time

[wacey]

There is nothing wrong with an identity, as long as you do not truly identify yourself with it.

[Absurd]

There is nothing wrong with an identity, as long as you do not truly identify yourself with it.

Well, there isn't. Problems arise when you as the real "you" meet the idolised "you", which is not "you", when you actually try to become something you're not. Even a tone deaf person can learn the notes.

[wacey]

Well, there isn't. Problems arise when you as the real "you" meet the idolised "you", which is not "you", when you actually try to become something you're not. Even a tone deaf person can learn the notes.

Are you talking about sociotype? Just another identity - we have to call a tree a tree, there is no other choice. Where is the problem in that? Use it for awhile, drop it when no longer nessasary.

[mu4]

I think socionics is "inter-subjective" and "hetero-phenomonal" and avoids many of the pitfalls of identity and identification.

This is because it is subjectivity with a third person(s), i.e the socio part of socionics.

So socionics is not merely typology, the categorization of "narrative" cognitive processes(call it monologue) but also the assessment of dialogue between "narrative" cognitive processes and the assessment of these systems in relation to one another.

I don't think of socionics as a typology, I would say it has determined identity to only be a emergent differentiation of the mind and not a "first cause" so to speak. I would be very hesitant to look at a typology that view it's types as the base causal mechanism, it's like a persistent weather front, eye of jupiter thing. One's mental life could be viewed as a gathering storm and its output the precipitation of that storm, and death the end of that storm.

So go make it rain...

[Absurd]

Are you talking about sociotype? Just another identity - we have to call a tree a tree, there is no other choice. Where is the problem in that? Use it for awhile, drop it when no longer nessasary.

Spade is a spade to me and I'm not talking about sociotype, and I'm not raging against socionics, do not see a point in that in the first place. To me, it is the same, people who are against and people who are for, same boat, different opinion but still same boat. If it wasn't some other scenario, those people wouldn't be even here and just said "meh", and left. So they're a part of the whole to me, a cog, thinking they're going to tinker with it and it is going to sink. Well, true believers just tighten the screws seeing that and balance is achieved. So you all can rage all you want, for and against, for you all are wearing shackles that you put on yourself willingly and enjoy it.

For example:

Subject A: Socionics is bullshit,

Subject B: Socionics is real,

A+B = Socionics.

Classic push and pull.

[Absurd]

We're going to make millions, hkkmr. I mean you're going to make millions. It's cool you see the potential in it. I, for one, find it, I don't know, funny at times, not in a bad way, but forum-way so to speak.

[mu4]

We're going to make millions, hkkmr. I mean you're going to make millions. It's cool you see the potential in it. I, for one, find it, I don't know, funny at times, not in a bad way, but forum-way so to speak.

I think anyone can make millions if they can understand how to process information preference data into a tangible technological form. This is something that is of a very lucrative sector of technology at the moment. You can even make millions simply by gathering data and selling anonymous/non-anonymous data to other processors.

[Absurd]

I think anyone can make millions if they can understand how to process information preference data into a tangible technological form. This is something that is of a very lucrative sector of technology at the moment. You can even make millions simply by gathering data and selling anonymous/non-anonymous data to other processors.

Not really what I meant but cool.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I was unclear. I meant organism in the way that Carl Rogers spoke of the organismic self - basically that all these experiences can be incorporated into the self, rather than limiting the self to a narrow fixed concept.

Check this out:

THE ORGANISM ITSELF AS THE EMERGENT MEANING

I anticipate that biology will go through a transforming revelation/revolution that is like the revolution that happened in physics with the development of quantum mechanics nearly 100 years ago. In biology this will involve the realisation that to make sense of the complexity of gene activity in development, the prevailing model of local mechanical causality will have to be abandoned. In its place we will have a model of interactive relationships within gene transcription networks that is like the pattern of interactions between words in a language, where ambiguity is essential to the creation of emergent meaning that is sensitive to cultural history and to context. The organism itself is the emergent meaning of the developmental process as embodied form, sensitive to both historical constraint within the genome and to environmental context, as we see in the adaptive creativity of evolution. What contemporary studies have revealed is that genes are not independent units of information that can be transferred between organisms to alter phenotypes, but elements of complex networks that act together in a morphogenetic process that produces coherent form and function as embodied meaning.

A major consequence that I see of this revelation in biology is the realisation that the separation we have made between human creativity as expressed in culture, and natural creativity as expressed in evolution, is mistaken. The two are much more deeply related than we have previously recognised. That humans are embedded in and dependent on nature is something that no-one can deny. This has become dramatically evident recently as our economic system has collapsed, along with the collapse of many crucial ecosystems, due to our failure to integrate human economic activity as a sustainable part of Gaian regulatory networks. We now face dramatic changes in the climate that require equally dramatic changes in our technologies connected with energy generation, farming, travel, and human life-style in general.

On the other hand, the recognition that culture is embedded in nature is not so evident but will, I believe, emerge as part of the biological revelation/revolution. Biologists will realise that all life, from bacteria to humans, involves a creative process that is grounded in natural languages as the foundation of their capacity for self-generation and continuous adaptive transformation. The complexity of the molecular networks regulating gene activity in organisms reveals a structure and a dynamic that has the self-similar characteristics and long-range order of languages. The coherent form of an organism emerges during its development as the embodied meaning of the historical genetic text, created through the process of resolving ambiguity and multiple possibilities of form into appropriate functional order that reflects sensitivity to context. Such use of language in all its manifestations in the arts and the sciences is the essence of cultural creativity.

In conclusion, I see the deep conceptual changes that are currently happening in biology as a prelude and accompaniment to the cultural changes that are occurring in culture, facilitating these and ushering in a new age of sustainable living on the planet.

BRIAN GOODWIN
Biologist, Schumacher College, Devon, UK; Author, How The Leopard Changed Its Spots

http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_4.html#goodwin

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

Nice thread