Reply To: Model 2: Mechanistic (D+) vs Negentropic (L+)

Index Forums Cognitive Functions Model 2: Mechanistic (D+) vs Negentropic (L+) Reply To: Model 2: Mechanistic (D+) vs Negentropic (L+)

  • Type: TiNe
  • Development: l--l
  • Attitude: Adaptive

I actually wrote this days ago but @safsom ‘s recent comment here has compelled me to post it. I’ll paste it here as I wrote it, to hopefully open up more discussion about it.

I wanted to talk about one aspect I left out in the OP above, the concept of “constraint.” Jeremy Sherman is really such a great example of an L+ (Fe) articulating understanding and new answers from a place of years pursuing questions guided by L+’s intuitions. He talks about constraint in this video: (he gets to the relevant part at 6:54+ but the whole video is very informative)


(p.s. I think he’s Lv+ (FeNi) …pretty sure now)

What Sherman says in this video is in line with the J+ code, specifically this part: order(objects[í].vectors); . Here, “constraint” has parity with the concept of order. Both J+ processes have as their goal an a priori of order, and this ordering is where the object vectors are directed. D+ is aiming to direct mechanistic vectors into order, and L+ is directing qualia/biotic vectors into order.

This idea of constraint is also echoed by Lv+ Jordan Peterson who says that Order is what allows us to be anything at all, and that we sacrifice infinite potentiality to be “something.” He speaks about this in many places but this is just one:


This motif, that many L+ types come to, can be summarized as: Life is an adaptive constraint (order) towards what is most conducive to future life. This then becomes a strong incentive for “moral work,” which is the choice to organize one’s qualia vectors (internal sub-drives) towards an idealized order which is most conducive to life here and in the future.

Notes about D+ and organic survival

Having said this, I need to mention that D and L types both have as their mission the preservation of the organism, but D+ achieves this preservation more directly by treating objects with a bias towards their inanimate nature. This is supposed to serve the final interest of the organism though, since it helps us work with tools. Treating objects as abiotic loops back around to the central principle of self-preservation, else abiotic awareness would not have evolved in us.

Although many things are alive, not all things relevant to our survival behave as living things. The mind must have found it more fitting to create a dichotomy of object-registration that can differentiate living and non-living objects, in order to optimize its treatment of them, for the sake of survival. Both abiotic and biotic awareness have the organism’s wellbeing in mind, in the ultimate sense.

The D system registers the biotic through D- in a monistic way, and executes abiotically through D+ towards the preservation of the essential beings registered by D-. The L system simply inverts the metabolism of these object properties, yet each system achieves the same ends by different means.

  • This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
  • This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval


The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.