I'm starting to have serious doubts if Contributor though is a independent form of thinking, or if its a learned behavior from traumatic survival.
A lot of the contributor philosophers I've identified gone through significant trauma in their lives, the few I can't obviously point to are Aristotle, the monkish Sun Tzu (though I doubt one lives so secluded and focusing on topics like Sun Tzu without pretty good trama), St. Anslem, Al Birudi.
Usually we suffered, and badly. Hannibal and Scipio Africanus are examples of the intellectual non-Philosopher, the Cynic Philosophers have the highest concentration of us (in Sufi schools adopting Cynic practices, the Contributors and Exhorters split the majority). Confucius suffered. Buddha suffered, Machiavelli Suffered, Nietzsche Suffered, Boethius, Ibn Khaldun.. I'm noticing a trend here, and a lack of suffering in the others could point to a incomplete history.
So is contributor thought real, or is it just a extension of other personality types reacting to affliction?
I bring this up because though I am Catholic, I follow Pan-Philosophy and try my damnest to examine every aspect of philosophy ancient and modern and international, and notice in affliction oriented philosophies- in Hinduism since the Chandogya Upanisad tackled Karma, to Buddhism- I can see everyone at play EXCEPT Contributors. Even in basic monism of Advaita, the juxtaposition is between Perceiver-Exhorters and Perceiver-Facilitator. George Feuerstein when I talked to him a few years ago seemed the later.
Sometimes I'll see one, RamaKrishna….. but it's his type I see, it's not reflected in their theories, despite nailing most of the feedback loops mentioned here and then some.
I also doubt my doubt, wondering if the Guru-Disciple programming of per-literate Vedic Schools might of limited Contributor thought to the schools head, effectively submerging it in others in such a way they could hold much, much more information dispersed amongst them without questioning or manipulating it.
If you watch the CHANYAKA series on YouTube (with English subtitles, 40 some episodes long about the top contributor thinker in ancient India who drove Alexander the Great out) you'll see this tradition of verbal repetition. I'm both drawn to joining in and revolted by a lost of control. But that's the whole basis of the Mantra chanting in Bhakti cults there- people juggle Mercy and Perceiver thought, trying to evoke a independence awareness of this….. both Monism and Dualism do this….. but it usually seems to be Teacher or Facilitator doing that.
I find Monism countered to Mathematical thinking….. Buckminuster Fuller is a Perceiver very aware of contributor thought, its where is inventive rules and ideas are pulled from…. but your average Monist? Their rules for the states if consciousness (pulled from Buddhist sources) in books such as the Uddhava Gita or Ashtavakra Gita (Ashtavakra in myth being the archetype of suffering overcoming contributor thought) its suppressed or gone. Multiplicity avoided, the various categories of psychological imagination labeled but seperated, and told to avoid (Jains do this too- Exhorters thought manipulated by Contributor thinking causes silly dreaming phenomena, I've noticed this on Jungian forums).
If its so easy to cancel out contributor thought, despite paralleling near everything else here, its getting me to wonder if Contributors actually exist. In Hindu and Buddhist theories, they closely parallel and push beyond the feedback loops. Sometimes I feel it hits contributor thought, but usually not.
One aspect of Monistic Advaita I think hits us may by the interpretation of the sense of self fun relationship to Turiya exploiting Contributors extra sense of awareness of form-formless thought via seeing closed eyed hallucinations between levels 1-3 naturally with little concentration. Exhorters can see them better, but don't have nearly as much imaginative control over them. It's the one aspect that exists in waking, dreaming, and unconscious deep sleep, as its a continuous activity (lava lamp still bubbles for a time after light is turned off). Given its relations to visual aesthetics, and several classical contributors believing vision starts in the eyes, hits the object, and returns…. It seems a likely place for contributor thought, and given its ability to exist in dreamlike states that are refreshing, and reducing eye strain- I can see it fitting the bill, but it doesn't in other respects- the feedback loop of Facilitators from the videos also has a lot of possible relation, perhaps more.
Besides, I don't like people here are aware Contributors can do this eye trick, effecting geometrical arrangements and depths in regards to a sense of self. I'm not the only one…. but if something minor like our hypnagogic control is missed, how much do we actually know about Contributors? Are they a real type, or something learned by other types, taking over what is otherwise unconscious and usually involuntary operations?
Cicero's approach to the art of memory- it's contributor thought manipulating Exhorters thought, but apparently ANYONE can learn this. It has me scratching my head.
Perhaps Contributor thought is the possibilities of the Unconscious to be learned and eventually controlled. You look at Sweden's 'The Ice Man', able to regenerate frostbite flesh, survive intense cold and heat…. he learned it through breath control and conditioning…. but these are (educated guess) Facilitator functions. The guy teaches classes on this, and Tibetian Monks do much the same.
Same with Exhorters. Amusement parks, formal parties since childhood were brought to, Mystery Cults and religious gatherings…. It too seems a socially learnable behavior most can join in (save the wallflowers).
I'm starting to wonder if Contributor especially, but to a lesser extent Exhorters and Facilitators are primary types, or just the Unconscious to the other four types.
This whole mindset of Contributor thought being three aspects began with the three part division of the cult of the muses on Mt Helicon by the Macedonians. It later expanded to nine, and in Alexandrian Hermeticism became a hieratic mind with three columns. One for a left hemisphere, one right- and a awkward one down the middle. I look at a brain, I only see two sides, and in epileptics, you can cut right down the middle to stop seizures. Wouldn't that for all meaningful purposes kill Contributor and Exhorters thought?