Hello! A leap of faith from me. | Who Am I? | Forum Topics

 
You must be logged in to post Login Register


Register? | Lost Your Password?

Search Forums:


 






Wildcard Usage:
*    matches any number of characters
%    matches exactly one character

Hello! A leap of faith from me.

No Tags
UserPost

10:32 am
March 12, 2013


Kaeppen

Member

posts 3

I'm a 21 year old NFJ, probably Facilitator or Exhorter. I'm at the time studying information engineering with little success, but plan to start studying philosophy next year.

I have 'researched' and thought Mental Symmetry and Cognitive Styles for maybe a year now but haven't been publicly active, as I'm sensitive and fear to be taken stupid or annoying or anything shameful. But today I felt a duty to share any information that could have some value.

I consider myself to have a deep vision into my psyche. I take a lot of responsibility in certain things but altogether abandon some aspects consciously. I'm socially active and at times very energetic. I don't consider other Exhorters my kin, but I'm very tuned in the energy and drive department in my psyche. (It has gotten to a point where I hardly can do any work for it is boring and needs concentration, which is very difficult.) I spend a lot of time partying etc, though I'm building an understanding of my own all the time and also relate to Perceivers very much.

Mental Symmetry is in my opinion a example of nowadays emerging form of thought (this form of thought doesn't seem to stem from academia at all), and a hugely valuable theory and has descriptions that I feel I can confirm at some level.

At a relatively young age I declared nihilism and "flat"-relativism to be right and good and I still tend to consider truths to be context-based (I dream of somehow synthesizing "different level truths"). I think this thought occured when my parents divorced, both of them having strong beliefs and opinions. I very much relate to the description of the Facilitator strategy taking over when absolutes break down and think it's a strong hypothesis. Nowadays I'm even distrustful of time, in other terms I at some level don't believe my acts to have any effect on the world or my own happiness.

I somehow naturally have always thought essentialist philosophies to be bad/not true/not 'real', although I love wisdom and new revelations. Philosophy-kind-of-thinking has always been somewhat an obsession to me, in the way that it really is/was supposed to "heal my inner pain of confusion and some agonizing uncertainty". I think this generation Facilitator, in general and in particular, can be anxious, depressed and obsessed in himself and his thoughts, like I am. (I think Erik Erikson makes accurate descriptions of this kind of adolescent identity confusion in his texts.) Also I'm quite sure that Facilitator style, in general, is terribly afraid of shame and embarrasment (?) and it's a huge factor in defining how he acts in the world.

In my late teens I read Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Motorcycle Maintenance, which really rebuild the whole tetris game in my mind. I think Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality works well with Jungs' cognitive processes and Mental Symmetry. Has anyone heard of this?

http://robertpirsig.org/MOQSummary.htm

I introduced Mental Symmetry to my friend who is developing a philosophic theory of his own upon the aforementioned MOQ. He mentions Mental Symmetry in his soon published book. His takes on this could be valuable at some level:

http://www.moq.fi/blog/what-is…..-symmetry/

http://www.moq.fi/blog/mental-…..-and-amoq/

I also have my own takes and questions but cant recall them now at all.

7:07 pm
March 14, 2013


hatchback176

Member

posts 9

elcome to Mental Symmetry (and the Teacher version Cognitive Styles). As a Teacher the first thing I asked myself is 'Who actually has the more general theory?' I've seen your MOQ buddy trying to get the attention of Chris Langan when he has been discussing the CTMU on threequarksdaily. I am impressed with the scale he is going for, but he has to do a lot better than taking the bare diagram for the theory. People should be aware that Neurology in large part coincides with the personality distinctions. He needs to be a lot more careful before he says entire forms of thought or dynamics are missing on the Mental Symmetry end.

Context-based truth is an oxymoron. For those without the aid of something like Mental Symmetry they are going to see an INFJ like yourself and think 'oh, he is quite adaptable'. I, instead, will notice that context-switching is an Executive Function executed by the frontal lobes and wonder 'Why does he never context-switch out of context-switching?" Nihilistic or relativistic thought can't find a root inside Mental Symmetry, Natural Conscience would be one reason, but another is that people implicitly think they have wiggle room and can somehow disappear off the Mental Symmetry radar by doing something blatantly irrational or subtle (something 'outside' their personality). What they don't realize is the dumber you act (less symmetrical) the easier it is to localize your form of thought. Schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, and even Bipolar disorder are touched on. They aren't more complex, they are less complex and involve less total brain function.

I can tell you I don't have you confused with an Exhorter at all. I am happy to have another smart person evaluating Mental Symmetry. Finally, enjoy yourself. This is the only theory to lay out personal growth in anything close to a comprehensive manner and I've found it to be unshakeable when confronted. It always finds a higher path.

7:40 am
March 17, 2013


Eun Sang Cha

Member

posts 29

Hi Kaeppen.

It's nice to know that we have another facilitator on board. The last time I posted something on this website was probably a week before I had a mental breakdown and ended up hospitalized. It'ts pretty embarrasing to see the stuff i wrote when I was manic haha.

Before I looked at mental symmetry with lorin, I myself thought that truths were context based. But now I am pretty convinced that there are absolute truths out here in this world. Hanging around with Lorin possibly triggered my dormant perciever part of the brain.

Anyways, have you tried reading Lorin's book? Chapter 13 talks about philosophy in detail with regards to time. I bought the hardcopy because I wanted to give Lorin credit for his effort, but I am sure hatchback has a pdf copy 😉

2:02 pm
March 17, 2013


Tuukka Virtaperko

Finland

Member

posts 6

Hi, I'm Tuukka Virtaperko and very pleased to find out you have been discussing my work. That is, the Analytic Metaphysics of Quality or AMOQ. I've made some advances on various Internet forums with varying results, but it's good to see that someone else opened discussion, too. I'm pretty sure I'm a Facilitator, too.

A word of warning. I'm discussing casually here. I need that. I'm not making definitive statements about something on this forum. If I want to make a definitive statement, I'll use some other media. Even the MOQ.FI blog is too casual. It's just a personal notebook that happens to be available publicly in case someone wants to read it. My philosophical stances can be studied from the book Zen and the Art of Insanity, which is supposed to be out this Autumn.

I have some comments for hatchback176.

As a Teacher the first thing I asked myself is 'Who actually has the
more general theory?' I've seen your MOQ buddy trying to get the
attention of Chris Langan when he has been discussing the CTMU on
threequarksdaily. I am impressed with the scale he is going for, but he
has to do a lot better than taking the bare diagram for the theory.

Yes. The diagrams just provide a general overview. They can show you the scope of my theory, but they are pretty much like learning aids instead of the actual content.

He needs to be a lot more careful before he says entire forms of thought or dynamics are missing on the Mental Symmetry end.

Mental Symmetry probably already has enough categories for explaining the things it is intended to explain. I had to simplify the AMOQ to use it for modeling Mental Symmetry, but I had to expand a part of it for modeling the information elements in socionics. By the way, although it was possible and pretty easy to make the expansion socionics required, the expansion seemed quite irrelevant for understanding the AMOQ. I just did it because it was possible.

Relativizing other philosophy, psychology, occultism, mysticism and such to the AMOQ is something I've done on an industrial scale for some time. The AMOQ is intended as the industry standard of this form of thought (quoting Kaeppen):

Mental Symmetry is in my opinion a example of nowadays emerging form of
thought (this form of thought doesn't seem to stem from academia at
all), and a hugely valuable theory and has descriptions that I feel I
can confirm at some level.

The rationale behind this is that if paper sizes or file formats can be standardized, metaphysics (or whatever this "form of thought" is called) can be standardized, too. But before the standardization attempts in the AMOQ have traction, the theory has to be published and so on.

6:01 pm
March 18, 2013


lorinfriesen

Admin

posts 45

Hi:

Mental symmetry originally began as a system of cognitive styles. However, to my surprise, I've found that it appears to contain just enough detail to act as an effective meta-theory. Anything more general would lack the details to be able to explain things meaningfully, while adding too many details would end up excluding aspects of thought.

 

By the way, I see that some users are having problems posting. I'll see what I can do.

12:22 am
March 19, 2013


hatchback176

Member

posts 9

Metacognition becomes important when dealing with high IQ people. Jung, AMOQ, CTMU, and MS all help structure the metacognitive skill-set. The problem I have is that somehow the CTMU and MS are being claimed to have a smaller domain than AMOQ. CTMU is supposed to embody Logic, if true a claim to universal domain is granted. MS is supposed to embody Neurology, if true a claim to universal domain is again granted. Logic is supposed to be the rules of cognition, while Neurology is present for all human experience, including it's contemplation. Where is AMOQ finding the territory to claim itself sovereign, if it separates itself from Logic and Neurology? Apparently another Facilitator is claiming supremacy for Introspection, without subjecting themselves to the structure of logical tautology. Tuukka seems to have made quite a foundational error, in terms of self-awareness.

9:41 am
March 19, 2013


Tuukka Virtaperko

Finland

Member

posts 6

Good to see you, Lorin.

Mental symmetry originally began as a system of cognitive styles.
However, to my surprise, I've found that it appears to contain just
enough detail to act as an effective meta-theory. Anything more general
would lack the details to be able to explain things meaningfully, while
adding too many details would end up excluding aspects of thought.

I otherwise agree, except that I'd rather say adding too many details would make some aspects of thought less accessible to the audience.

hatchback176:

The problem I have is that somehow the CTMU and MS are being claimed to
have a smaller domain than AMOQ. CTMU is supposed to embody Logic, if
true a claim to universal domain is granted.

Logic is only the universal domain of… logic. It covers only 25% of the theory of classical quality within AMOQ. Also, the CTMU also includes unbound telesis, which has nothing to do with logic as far as I can tell. Even if the CTMU would embody logic, I'm not sure whether it does so in a useful way. I'd expect a "logic-embodying" system to contain useful info about general properties of axiomatic systems. For example, it could attempt to quantify things such as strength (low in classical logic, high in lambda calculus) or preservation of truth value (lower in deduction, higher in sequential calculus).

MS is supposed to embody
Neurology, if true a claim to universal domain is again granted.

Neurology is the universal domain of neurology.

Logic
is supposed to be the rules of cognition,

That's not the consensus among logicians. There are a lot of interpretations about what logic is "supposed" to be, including mathematical realism, which has little to do with cognition. The purpose or role of logic is defined within metaphysical systems. The AMOQ is supposed to be a combinatorially optimal synthesis of all the purposes so far presented.

while Neurology is present for
all human experience, including it's contemplation.

If it only were that. But neurology is an empirical science, right? The domain of empirical science comprises a quarter of the theory of classical quality within AMOQ. But that's a different quarter than the one that comprises logic.

Where is AMOQ
finding the territory to claim itself sovereign,

From the territory beyond the two quarters of classical quality that comprise logic and empirical science. That territory has an gnostic epistemology and can only be approached rationally within a metatheory. The territory itself is not unknown, and has been explored by philosophers (Pirsig, Wittgenstein), scientists (Jung, Swedenborg) and mystics (Carroll, Hine) for millennia. The sovereignty of the AMOQ arises only from no prior analytically defined theory having such a large scope and such a high accuracy.

Also, the AMOQ features a way of meaningfully categorizing pure phenomena – that is, referents without a reference. It does so by referring to a category of phenomena within two non-overlapping systems. As the category this way gains two separate references, it is possible to speak of the category independently of which reference is used. This is how the AMOQ frees us of a certain malady, namely, that of the "self-inflicted imprisonment of modern philosophy, a legacy of post
Kantian thought that was hardly satisfactorily solved in the big
enterprises of 20th century philosophy", as Antti Kukkonen (MA, M.Soc.Sci.) puts it in his foreword to Zen and the Art of Insanity.

if it separates itself
from Logic and Neurology?

The AMOQ includes logic and neurology as its subsets. It does not separate itself from them. This is the purpose of metaphysics: to unify our discernment instead of further fragmenting it.

Apparently another Facilitator is claiming
supremacy for Introspection, without subjecting themselves to the
structure of logical tautology. Tuukka seems to have made quite a
foundational error, in terms of self-awareness.

Whoa there. I have proved tautologies within classical logic (Hilbert-style proofs) and within infinite order logic.

9:50 am
March 19, 2013


Kaeppen

Member

posts 3

MOQ says that quality is the base of world. Logic and neurology 'emerge' from quality. It doesn't separate anything, quite the opposite.

MOQ says that before we examine the 2D parts of a 3D object, we are able to know that the 3D object is different than the sum of its 2D parts. You can't make 2D of the difference itself but know it is there, not by descriptions of processes but 'processes themselves'.

I don't know if I just made everything more unclear. I hope not.

Also intimidating or testing a facilitator is interesting, as it most likely doesn't have the effect it is supposed to. At least this is my hypothesis.

1:18 pm
March 26, 2013


Tuukka Virtaperko

Finland

Member

posts 6

In any case, I hope Mental Symmetry will gain popularity by being included to my book. There are many styles to influence people. Zen and the Art of Insanity is pretty avant-garde, and some people would surely prefer Lorin's approach. Of all the people I've talked with, Lorin seems by far the sanest and most benevolent of those who have developed and published a "reality theory". But of course there are many people, who work on this field, with whom I have not yet become acquainted.

I have found nothing in Mental Symmetry that I would oppose. It does not seem like an instrument of control, fueled by the greed and hubris of either its author or its followers. Some other theories do seem a bit like that. Mental Symmetry doesn't seem like a scam, either. There are swindlers in the field of philosophy, and sometimes they make a lot of money. Of course it is always hard to guess the true motivations of others, as ineptitude is difficult to distinguish from evil.

Take the Finnish "philosopher" Pekka Himanen, for example. He had the prime minister commission him to take business class flights to apparently irrelevant conferences so that he could write a book. The thing ended up costing 700 000 euros, but the book is the laughing stock of the nation. Did Himanen not understand his work is bad, or did he want to expose the prime minister's ignorance of philosophy? I don't know, but I'd like to find out.

Then there's Ciaran Healy. He just might really believe in what he's doing. But he seems to be no more than a Contributor, as he can't see much value in anything except his own approach. An anonymous person with apparently severe mental problems suggested that I commission him to write a foreword for Zen and the Art of Insanity, and I did so for fun. Healy wrote the piece, but unlike the formally competent Antti Kukkonen, he didn't understand the work, because it didn't support his bottom line.

Healy's bottom line as a Contributor, as far as I can tell, is something to the effect of the ultimate deconstruction of metaphysical categories in favor of some things Healy calls "no-self" and "honesty". An arbitrary goal with obvious drawbacks, as anything could be deconstructed, but doing so would leave us with little. Furthermore, categories and systems can be used to demonstrate the arbitrariness of categories and systems, like Gödel did with his incompleteness theorems. Healy does not seem to understand this.

Furthermore, as Healy's "no-self" and "honesty" are concepts, there is at least a temptation to interpret them as categories. Healy probably would say they are not supposed to be interpreted as such. But by saying so he would use "no-self" and "honesty" in a metaphorical (as opposed to logical) manner, which would render them similar to Dynamic Quality and possibly romantic quality in the AMOQ, which Healy however finds unimportant because they are categories.

Something Lorin wrote summarizes what I think of Healy: "That is like selling the real thing so that you can buy more pictures of the real thing." Here, the real thing is moral value, and the picture of the real thing is an empty space inhabited only by "honesty" and "no-self". Of course it's sometimes moral to get rid of obstacles. But if you want to climb on the roof of a house, and you throw away the ladder because it's an obstacle, you'll have a hard time getting there with "no-self" and "honesty".

By the way, as Healy is categorically opposed to categories, he would probably belittle Mental Symmetry in the same way as he belittled my work. "No-self" and "honesty" are exceptions only because Healy's thoughts wouldn't get a grip of anything if he wouldn't repeat some concepts. He'd become vulnerable to the question: "Okay, what's your point?" But he does not grant others the same priviledge to use concepts in such a way, because for him, this seems to be a competition: the Contributor bottom line is to gain authority over defining the rules of the discourse. However, the rules need not be good. That is, they do not need to render as many views valid as possible. On the contrary, they need to invalidate entire approaches to philosophy in ways that could never be successful, as too many people see merit in category building. The impossibility of victory reassures Healy that he won't run out of things to do.

There will probably be many ways to utilize people like Healy and Pekka Himanen, but you have to remember that they are the engine of the car, not the driver. They create the noise and discord that more skilled experts will have to sort out. After all, without problems and confusion there would be little need for well-done philosophical work. Taking the role of the troublemaker is a tough thing to do, ecspecially willingly. I'd thank them if that wouldn't undermine their role as a troublemaker.

2:48 pm
March 26, 2013


Kaeppen

Member

posts 3

Post edited 2:55 pm – March 26, 2013 by Kaeppen


In the vein of Tuukka's emphazising on 'open mindedness':

Have you studied Socionics, the Russian version of Jung types? You will see it doesn't have the 'disgusting sugar coat' of MBTI; It's much more daring every way.

For example, this is EIE/ENFj, corresponds with MBTI ENFJ and Mental Symmetry intuitive Exhorter. I've found Wikisocion to be the best source of information considering Socionics.

Stratievskaya_EIE

Socioscope_EIE

 

Here's link to all types:

Type_descriptions

 

The information elements are also very interesting!

8:21 pm
March 26, 2013


Tuukka Virtaperko

Finland

Member

posts 6

Post edited 8:25 pm – March 26, 2013 by Tuukka Virtaperko


I have taken a glance at socionics. The network of relationships between different personality types is an impressive system. I don't know how much empirical backing it has. For me the biggest question so far is related to this: what is the purpose of differentiating "external dynamics of objects" from the internal ones, or "external dynamics of fields" from the internal ones? By not differentiating them the AMOQ provides a model that could be seen as a partial solution to the symbol grounding problem, but of course within certain limitations. By the "symbol grounding problem" I mean the question of how language attains meaning that can be deemed independent of the internal rules of the language-game.

If we do as socionics does, and differentiate external dynamics of X from internal dynamics of X, we end up obscuring this solution. Now, I'm curious: does socionics acknowledge that by not making the differentiation, this problem can be solved? To my knowledge socionics does not acknowledge that. As its context is that of psychology, it may take for granted that problems involving intensions and extensions (= "references and referents" or "statics and dynamics") may be dismissed, because it's "common sense" that expressions refer to what they're supposed to refer.

Differentiating external dynamics of X from the internal ones probably cannot be deemed an error, because in this kind of discussion, so much depends simply on arbitrary definitions. But I have so far not found a philosophical use for the difference. In any case, this is the table I made when expanding the AMOQ to accommodate the information elements of socionics.

 

Socionics
 

Analytic Metaphysics of Quality
 

 

 

external dynamics of objects (Te)
 

objective extensions
 

internal dynamics of objects (Fe)
 

normative extensions
 

external statics of objects (Se)
 

objective intensions
 

internal statics of objects (Ne)
 

normative intensions
 

external statics of fields (Ti)
 

mystical intensions
 

internal statics of fields (Fi)
 

subjective intensions
 

external dynamics of fields (Si)
 

mystical extensions
 

internal dynamics of fields (Ni)
 

subjective extensions
 

 

To iterate my question: how does socionics differentiate external dynamics of X from the internal ones? I know of no way to do this except by examining whether the statics of X are internal or external. If this is indeed the only way, can internality and externality be deemed true properties of the dynamics of X? Or do they instead depend on the statics?

What I'm asking for here is not a particular solution, but a methodologically rigorous way of producing one. Perhaps, though, this question should be asked on a socionics forum instead of this forum.

In the AMOQ I originally made, normative and mystical extensions were the same, and objective and subjective extensions were the same. An extension did not acquire internality or externality unless it had an intension. I understand that it doesn't make much sense to speak of any particular extension without an intension, but still, the intension determines the extension's internality or externality. It is not an inherent property of the extension in any way that can be analytically detected. I'm wondering whether the developers of socionics already know this.

9:43 am
March 28, 2013


Tuukka Virtaperko

Finland

Member

posts 6

Kaeppen, I'm writing from a cell phone so forgive mistakes. But I was thinking whether Dynamic Quality can be interpreted as infinite order romantic quality. Do you see what I mean?  In logic "order", roughly speaking, means the amount of levels of self-refrence that are permitted. Classical logic is first-order.

9:45 am
March 28, 2013


Tuukka Virtaperko

Finland

Member

posts 6

My point is that internality and externality already seem like second order romantic quality, since they require te intensions.

3:30 am
April 30, 2013


Internal_Asylum

New Member

posts 1

Post edited 3:21 am – May 1, 2013 by Internal_Asylum


Intellectual Heat death.

[img:424fb1aa40]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a217/ChamplooBoy/1233215619237.gif[/img:424fb1aa40]

No Tags

About the Mental Symmetry Forum Forum

Most Users Ever Online: 33

Currently Online:
1 Guest

Currently Browsing this Topic:
1 Guest

Forum Stats:

Groups: 5
Forums: 13
Topics: 45
Posts: 182

Membership:

There are 7402 Members

There is 1 Admin

Top Posters:

Onasander – 95
Eun Sang Cha – 29
hatchback176 – 9
Tuukka Virtaperko – 6
Ben – 6
WildWinds – 4

Recent New Members: Tuukka Virtaperko, Kaeppen, Thinkist, Onasander, fairladyZ64, Ben

Administrators: lorinfriesen (45 Posts)



 

7 Responses to Hello! A leap of faith from me. | Who Am I? | Forum Topics

  1. WildWinds says:

    Interesting history of eyeliner. Also, agreed about the sunscreen (and blush, I never have understood the purpose). Cosmetic and fashion companies have good control over people. Some are even taking advantage of the semi-recent emotional crisis of how made up, airbrushed models used for advertising place unrealistic expectations on young girls.

  2. WildWinds says:

    I’m pretty much a baby in this theory; much reading in both Lane’s and Lorin’s texts is to be done. But for what its worth, I too noticed the differences in their writing styles and how they approached the topic and noticed how Lane goes more for the big picture. I’m a Perceiver person and really enjoy reading Lorin’s texts, I can actually relate when he makes comments like “As a Perceiver person…” Something will lead me to think about something else and how it applies, and sure enough if I keep reading, Lorin will cover what I was questioning. My Teacher person friends seem to prefer Lane’s texts though.

  3. fairladyZ64 says:

    I feel a little self conscience and relieved to reveal my cognitive style…would love to get a smile, recognization, appreciation, acceptence when greatful. As seen in a myrid of ways by other(s)~ their allocated traits + (plus) xp (experience) = exposition eg. self ~ NOTE…and note unto self My spelling is phonetic, at best…lousy drives me uP the wall, however I can spend and have hours on one sentance, a paragraph can get nowhere and I give…uP…exhausted with/in my effort to express myself verbally ( yet in type ) can cause me to back up truncation into non-existance expressions of what I … for lack of a better word /or not coming to mind… am…my way…of getting there. Lorin, I have forgotton my orgin of thought which caused this post, however in a round-a-bout way I am asking that you make a note that…I have awaited this forum. The reveal of the/ this theory should have NEVER been limited to the faulacity of your higher learning institution. Rather left exposed to humanity, with s response portal, to the whole…of humanity. For I have spoken/inquired of your findings b4 (deal with SOME short cuts of expression) finding your reality of facts and understanding, I was very frank with you upon my initial reading of the mercy room when I expressed to you ( in e-mails maybe long un accessed or deleated…and I’m pretty close to quoting myself…HOW do YOU know of this place??…a place I can find my emotions LOST in if it weren’t for TEACHER emotions and PERCIEVER facts, leading me into (ya, strange) Server actions which lean into the uncomfortable…and again THX, your …http//209.87.142.42/y/pro/ch1.htm I printed 1/18/2006 has valadated my perception of this realm. Tis’ a cool thing and a great gift. Thank you

    • lorinfriesen says:

      Hi. Over the years I have found that Mercy persons often really appreciate this material because they realize that it is OK to be a Mercy person. The inhuman technological world may shut down Mercy feelings, but these emotions are legitimate.
      I just spent eight years in South Korea. People there are not as emotionally split there as we are here in North America. Business and family go together there.

  4. Brandon Casner says:

    I was on the website with Hatchback- he was one of the ones who plucked us innocents off the MBTI forums. Either he or CBeck informed me I was a contributor, and apparently from the old material made it sound really cool and elite…. but it started getting on everyone’s nerves, and everyone started preying viciously on one another, mimicking the worst traits inherent in the idealization of the type. The facilitators became fascist, the teachers douchebags, perceivers contrarily douchebags, and contributors the archetypal aquarian destroyers….. and mercy just came out gypsy weird…. and easily toyed with.

    That site died once the seriphot came up…. and the dawning realization of how close the similarities.

    This being said…. after the dust has settled, may be a future in the system- largely because I still use it, as well as the seriphot, as quick shorthand symbols for ideas I have to note the beginning and end and sudden arrival of certain kinds of thought, so I can go back and try to trace back the mechanics of it. Sometimes helpful, sometimes not, but would be hypocritical of me to completely disregard it if I use it in part…. so I back it partly. I still recommend the videos to people if I have to get them up to speed real quick for psychology…. but I note everything I need them for isn’t really listed. Such as how each type dreams. I’ve noticed it differs…. also meditation- such as sitting meditation- differs substantially for a INTJ Contributor than for a Mercy or Facilitator, as my eyesight changes substantially in passive as well as active response to just sitting and stairing… I get shapes and sinewave patterns bouncing around from doing nothing distracting me, while others see nothing but a wall in front of them…. if I shift my thinking pattern, it shifts as well, or goes away completely. That’s what sent the warning signals off in my head to look into varient mediation tecniques, as Zen clearly isn’t designed for a Contributor persay, but better for a facilitator- hence the big Enzo loop. I see these issues everywhere, across religions…. I can apply some of it here to the differation of the cognitive styles, but it becomes ify at times. Some systems don’t easily stick…. such as dualistic tibetian mandalas. Yes…. I can imagine lorn sitting down doing a graph of a mandala and how everything would intergrate…. but time after time after time having to do the work over an over by hand makes it suspicious the theory itself is missing something fundamental that the mandalas themselves are teasing out, the the koans are, that the mantras are, prayers are, the walking philosophical discussions are, etc. Something Nietzsche grasped but failed to reach. A need for a overman mentality…. but in each system it’s not within the type itself…. it’s a transference to another style, or hodgepodge of them, as well as intergration in greater depth of a particular style. This seems a bit beyond what Hatchback and CBeck exposed us to, and I have yet to see it on mental symmetry…. though I am admittedly lack luster in searching through everything still. I’ll take my time. I have more gripes than pleasantries, but still am capable of pleasantries, so I’ll say hello to Hatchback.

    I will also say I can’t tell the difference between any writer’s writing style on the site…. looks the same to me unless I see the name titled.

    I am also perplexed as to why crabs have personality types. Why? I own three, each a predictable type…. but they don’t show signs of social organization in eating or sleeping someplace…. but they are as complex as baboons at times. Why? Their brains can’t be too similar to ours, much different evolutionary history, yet….

  5. Kaeppen says:

    I tried to reply to the forum to a topic about left-hemisphere and right-hemisphere Facilitators. but it didn’t work so I decided to put my post here:

    I remember in childhood I loved ‘wisdom’ and thought of angels a lot. I “felt” the presence of angels many times and wondered if I was an angel myself somehow. Maybe wisdom personified as an angel to me. Then came the uncertainty and in the end hijacking the cortex and sensation-seeking.

    I’m now trying to “light up” natural conscience again but I have started to feel extremely guilty. I cannot “atone for my sins” without P-strategy working but when it’s working and leading I feel like I’ve killed someone. I have no idea where to start because I did a lot of immoral things while in the “sleep” that I don’t even remember. I feel I’m pinned down here and sometimes wonder if I’m just delusional.
    What should I do?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *