Among the most central concepts to CT is the notion of function quadrants, yet it's the one lacking the most information. The existing behavioral resources are quite outdated (alpha, beta, gamma, delta). And the existing metabolic sources (here), while far more helpful, are rather sparse and do not cover everything related to the four. In order to address this matter, I'm taking a more formal approach to quantifying the quadrants based on the net aggregate of all the possible function compounds exclusive to each quadrant. This I found to be the most precise way to capture the quadrants, in systemic fashion.
But like with everything else, I need to check to see if my hypothesis holds true, both of celebs but also of real members here, and so I write this as a feedback thread. If my general direction of thought is correct, I will pursue a more elaborate article on them. But before I do, I wish to know if I'm on the right track. Thank you for reading!
As always, the terms being employed above cannot be anymore than approximations to a phenomenon, and are not to be taken literally. Naturally, anyone can be a democrat, and anyone can be an entrepreneur if we mean this by the standard dictionary definition of the word. However, I hope to employ a specific nomenclature here, which is subject to revision (and feedback), for the purpose of facilitating discussion on these function conjunctions.
Also, the four categories of each quadrant above are elements that are accessible to each individual of the quadrant, to varying degrees, either as actual (conscious) or fantastical (unconscious) -- they are not exclusively seen or experienced in those with the functions conscious.
The first two rows were generally explained in the metabolic article, with the exception f Te+Si changing from Technocratic to Bureaucratic. In the end I realized this is a better shorthand, given the overwhelming representation of Te+Si users in all forms of litigation, all the way up to corporate management. And a technocracy is too specific a term for a tendency that may evolve elsewhere. However, this word is also more expansive than previously thought. The "bureaucratic" tendency of the Delta types is not limited to law, but is instead a metabolic approach that deals with specific sequential details, outlined in a given objective process chain. To give an example of this in another context, this bureaucratic tendency is also represented in the scientific approach, with its exhaustive documentation and research methods that rely on discrete antecedent datasets structured in finite causal sequences. This is the full meaning of bureaucratic, in this context. And while other types are represented in the sciences too, no types appear more represented in both law and science than the Deltas, because of this very nitty-gritty detailed approach that comes from Te+Si working in tandem.
The bottom two rows (Ji+Pi and Je+Pe) have thus far been less discussed. The terms compression and decompression (see here) refer to elements of information processing that I need to outline more in another article (related to computation). But in general, the result of two introverted functions computing with each other leads to a compression of the data being worked on, with everything becoming more tightly packed together but also less accessible, like a zip file. Oppositely, decompression is the unzipping process, by which there is expansion both in volume and breadth of words. There is just as much information in both types of processes, as there is in people of said processes or developments, but the information is either encoded or decoded.
The decompressed individual appears to "think as they speak", and be in a very immediate feedback with the environment. The compressed individual's thoughts are more challenging to access, sparse in their sharing, and require greater initiation to begin to grasp from an outsider's point of view.
(Currently Unknown) (Fi+Si)
I wish to first contrast Cabalistic (Beta) and Occultist (Gamma). The term "cabalistic" here is being used not exclusively for relation to Kabbalah, but in accordance to the Oxford definition: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/cabalistic of "Relating to or associated with mystical interpretation or esoteric doctrine." At the same time, it elucidates a certain manner of exploration of the esoteric domain that is formalized as a sort of philosophy-of-mind enterprise. By cabalistic I therefore mean the study of (esoteric) doctrines or models which attempt to give formulation to the mind-body problem through a symbolic philosophical framework. Any use of a symbolic structure by which to base a theory of the mind (aside from the sefirot) would equally qualify here. I have here, for support of this term, many examples such as Carl Jung, Claudio Naranjo, AH Almaas, Humberto Maturana, Antero Alli, Rav Kook, etc.
The compression of information, for the Beta type, leads inevitably to a focus on the essentialism of biotic universals (i.e. consciousnesses), hence formulations and diagrams appear as 'objective' scaffolds, in relation to objective conscious holism (often as circle diagrams). I debated whether to use the term "mystic" for this conjunction of Ni+Ti, but I decided in the end that it was too general a term, and while Cabalistic teeters too close to specific reference to Jewish Kabbalah for my taste, it appears closer to the right definition than mysticism, which has many sub-forms. And the core of Kabbalah is, in my opinion, the same tendency as what we see in Beta Ti+Ni activity overall.
This, in turn, is contrasted against Occultist (Gamma). It's important to consider that a cabalist is not necessarily an occultist, as occultism implies a few additional features. Firstly, there is a greater focus in actual practices, on an embodied flesh/blood act, as well as a sensuality that is born from the conjunction of Fi's essence-embodiment with Ni's cosmic convergentism. I have here, for support of this term, many examples such as:
NiTe Robert Anton Wilson
NiTe Adi Da Samraj (cult leader)
NiTe Teal Swan (spiritual guru, former cult member)
NiTe Baris Ilhan (astrologer)
As well as the countless SeFi crystal witches on youtube...
The addition of a more practical element to Gammas, over Betas, is due to the difference in Te over Fe. And the deeper sensual embodiment/immersion into the practice itself is due to Fi over Ti. In this sense we can say that Ni+Ti is more intellectualized metaphysics about universal human attributes, while Ni+Fi is more enacted metaphysical contacts.
The Alpha's compressed functions (Ti+Si) are closer in comparison to the Beta (Ni+Ti) functions. But the difference between the two would be the difference between a Talmudist (Ti+Si) and a Kabbalist (Ti+Ni). The two are equally immersed in their subject matters, and both perpetuate a deeper withdrawal from the world of the external. But the term I used for Ti+Si is Scholastic, as it reflects the more local and historically-contingent roots by which ideas are more tightly analyzed, rather than via an intersectional associative (Ni) route. The formalization of knowledge, for the Ti+Si conjunction, can be more easily verified in a manner congruent with current scholarly standards. Oppositely, the Cabalistic tendency of the Ti+Ni conjunction is less 'scholastic' at present, due to its removal away from the current literal inclinations in academia. As such, I use the word contextually to say that Ti+Si is more scholastic, based on the current times, and not in any absolute sense. When taken to its extreme, scholasticism also applies here to Ti+Si.
Lastly we arrive at Fi+Si, but I do not have a large enough sample size of Fi+Si individuals to understand what the essential property of this grouping is yet. I have intuitions about it, but I'll withhold my estimates for now until I have more data.
(Oh wow, time sure flies! I will get to the Je+Pe conjunctions in a followup post. Please let me know your thoughts on the present material.)
It is easier for me to approach the topic of the decompressed functions from the entry point of the Gamma quadrant, for it gives perhaps the most forthcoming view of reality-- hence the term Realists. I have mentioned before that for gamma's there's often no crisis of confusion as to what reality is, even though there may be a crisis as to what to do about it, or what it means for them personally. These confusions are of a second order, because in the first order, there is at least a directness in how reality manifests-- due to Te's objective causality-orientation and Se's tunneling being capable of extracting out clarity rather than diverging endlessly in an allocentric fashion.
And with this particular term, the dictionary definition adequately describes it as: "a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly." This does not mean surrender-- quite the opposite. The realism of Gammas give a clear sense of the doable, and make them fearless in doing what they know can be done (even if hard), as well as not waste their time on doing things that they cannot. This makes gamma realists very utilitarian and adds to their great representation in business enterprises.
Gamma realism (Se+Te) contrasts against its occultism (Fi+Ni) in a fascinating manner. One would think that the two are opposites, and indeed they are in a sense, but they are also the same. The occultism of Gammas is part of the realism, so that occult immersion is not fanciful or made-up, but is as real as the rest of reality-- infused with sobriety and gravity. The real is esoteric, and the esoteric is real. The qualia of this function syzygy is something I'll need more time to properly write about, but I hope this presents an initial estimation.
Moving on, we take an opposite swing towards the Alpha quadrant. This was a difficult one to formulate, and I had to struggle to find an adequate view. In summary, the Ne+Fe conjunction creates the compounding belief of indiscriminate potentiality, specifically as applied to biotic subjects, and secondarily to the universe at large -- hence potentialism. This has philosophical but also social implications. At one level, Ne+Fe leads to an inclination to never shut doors to what is humanly and cosmically possible, often in terms of human potential. The slogan "you can be anything" has echoes of this belief. This is a very fanciful disposition, with influence from the puer aeternus (Mer) and savior (Aler) coming together. A mythical example of this is Son Goku, who presents as having limits only to then overcome them over and over, as Fe mind-over-body meets Ne possibility.
On a more social level, it leads to a hyper-generous belief in solutions being found, such as in the possibility of peace being found among conflicting parties or philosophies. The combination of the Ne+Fe functions is the most pluralistic, when it comes to social matters, hence also leading to multiculturalist inclinations.
In many ways the Gamma realists and Alpha potentialists are diametrically opposed. However, both can believe in the higher unfurling of human potential. The difference is that Gamma realists see this unfurling as the greater manifestation of what already is, and always was, in a person -- perhaps even from a cosmic source. By contrast, the Alpha approach does not know, or have a concept, of the limits. Thus, Alphas being "potentialists" here should not be taken to mean other types don't believe in rising to greater potency. It only means Alpha potentialists have little concept of where the limits or constraints are in what that entails, and they approach reality optimistically through that agnosticism.
The next two quadrants are best analyzed together, as were the above two. The delta Ne+Te conjunction is titled "entrepreneureal". This has already been discussed before in other places, such as with the Eccentric Nerd shades of TeSi and NeFi. This trait is, in a sense, both a mixture of Gamma and Alpha. The delta entrepreneurial tendency has the optimistic belief in the possible, which alphas share, but it is here applied to the abiotic-causal world. Hence, technology, innovation and inventions. The over-representation of Deltas in gadgetry, and wildcard experiments, is one example of this.
Yet, they differ from gamma realists in that gammas leverage what they know to be the situation, prepare for it, plan for it, and optimize for it, while Deltas are less oriented towards optimizing to "what is", and are inclined to imagine (free of many constraints) a more favorable alternative to the situation at hand, then get to work on crafting it, nevermind it being an untested idea or problem-solving path. Naturally this leads to a lot of trial and error (with more failure than success). A lot of this can lead to results that are sporadic and wasteful. However we also have deltas to thank for a lot of the innovations of the past century.
This doesn't mean other quadrants could not have created the same innovations, if for example they were the only quadrant on earth. Indeed, I think each of these human families would have done so anyway, but the Delta Ne+Te function conjunction is specifically compelled to put the time/energy/pain/joy into this trajectory, and create enterprises and projects with little or no precedent.
Like the Deltas, the word selected for Betas has an implicit goal in mind. But Betas are rather opposite in their aim, with all their ‘engineering’ efforts going toward social engineering. I’m not too happy with the word Machiavellian, because of its sometimes negative connotation, and if a better word comes along I’d be happy to adopt it. But, if the word is seen neutrally, as a political strategy of dealing with people/groups, I think it adequately captures Se+Fe tactics. Like the Gamma realists, the Betas here are grounded in a non-divergent view of reality, where “what is” is apparent to them, with the exception of this situational awareness being highly sociologically targeted. Like with all of these double-extroverted function conjunctions, there is a twofold proactive vector, and for the Betas this vector uses leverage specifically in a social setting, thus leading to “cunning”, “artful” and “crafty” orchestration of social causalities. Beta Se+Fe is very invested in the study of power dynamics, and how to gain, sustain, and to steer it as needed.
There's far more to be said about this, and I'm not yet convinced this is the best framing, or wording, of this function pair. These are initial preparations for an eventual article rewrite, so I'd be very eager to hear feedback from our Beta members. 🙂
And likewise for the other categories here. I'm curious to hear what you guys think of the above content, and if it's headed in the right direction? Thanks!
I think this links up well with my recent thoughts on jungian cognitive architecture.
Recently, I’ve been more inclined to consider the connections between the rational and irrational functions as fundamental. I know you haven’t necessarily advocated for that interpretation in the above post. What are your current thoughts on potential introverted and extroverted function oscillations? Also, compression vs. decompression/(expansion?) line up well with other theories interpretations of extraversion and introversion, among them world socionics society’s energizing vs. integrating dichotomy. In the diagram I linked the arrows correspond to flow of information, I didn’t draw oscillating loops, but I think they may be present. Additionally, conduction would consist of internal input/stimulus and external output/response, decompression would consist of external input/stimulus and external output/response, revision would consist of external input/stimulus and internal output/response and lastly, compression would consist of internal input/stimulus and internal output/response.
Edit: Also, theory of mind or ToM as used in the behavioral sciences usually specifically refers to the ability to understand the mindset of another, as opposed to how I think you intend to use it to refer to a theory of THE mind. A more appropriate term for what you’re trying to convey may be a philosophy of mind or phenomenology.
That's an interesting diagram!
Some of your thoughts are very much in line with my own on this, and where things are headed.
Recently, I’ve been more inclined to consider the connections between the rational and irrational functions as fundamental. I know you haven’t necessarily advocated for that interpretation in the above post.
I don't know if I would call one conjunction "more fundamental" than another, anymore. While I still think that the J and P axes are most fixed, I think that the question of fundamentality may be ill framed. For example, I don't know if the wheels, the engine, or the steering wheel are more fundamental to a car. I think all of them are, just as the body also needs each system to operate.
The capacity for each module/operation to pass information onto the other is key for basic conscious operation. And it seems that people can vary in how much neural reinforcement exists towards a given conjunction. For some people, the Ji-Je axis is cycling the strongest, and that seems fundamental to them. For some it's Pe+Ji, and that seems fundamental to them. We can identify this vultologically, although it gets tricky with 3 or 4 equally balanced operations.
What are your current thoughts on potential introverted and extroverted function oscillations? Also, compression vs. decompression/(expansion?) line up well with other theories interpretations of extraversion and introversion, among them world socionics society’s energizing vs. integrating dichotomy.
I can give you a little bit of a preview into what I'm working on, regarding the architecture. This is a screencap of part of the table of contents of book 2 for CT:
^ Specifically in the chapter "The Architecture", I will be describing the three types of conjunctions, their roles in information processing, etc. And this will come after the chapters above it, where I'll be writing out the programming code more formally -- very likely in python or tensorflow.
But in short, my idea is that all of these oscillations are critical to proper operation, and people are weighted differently across these conjunctions (due to neural reinforcement), contingent on what sort of task they are more focused on achieving.
The idea of "thinking as you speak" seems to be well reflected in the diagram I shared. Thinking as you speak and specifically "immediate feedback with the environment" seem to imply a stimulus-response loop; that's what feedback means. I think all of the oscillations may be involved in different types of feedback loops. Perhaps decompression is a more external feedback loop and compression is more internal feedback loop.
The idea of “thinking as you speak” seems to be well reflected in the diagram I shared.
yes! it's something like this:
(full link: here)
The Je+Pe oscillation places the mind in the closest contact to the environment, indeed. It leads to a situation in which Je+Pe are themselves the reactive components in relation to the environment, and the "loop" is formed between the human psyche and the environment, as "inner-outer".
I put "inner" in quotations above Ji+Pi because it's become completely evident to me that the entirety of the architecture is internal, due to how all humans create a proxy of reality with their cognition. Even Pe's object-formation requires there to be a mental representation of the outer, making even Pe necessarily internal. Same with Je simulating causalities as mental hypotheses. Human phenomenology, of all kinds, is within the self.
Thus, Je+Pe is internal in relation to the absolute-objective, because they are still mental and thus introverted (i.e. within the mind). However, Ji+Pi are internal in relation to Je+Pe. But anyways... yes in essence:
Perhaps decompression is a more external feedback loop and compression is more internal feedback loop.
^ This can be said to be correct, if we understand that we need to define the frame of reference. 🙂
Ji+Pi does create an additional level of removal from the environment (compared to Je+Pe). It recedes deeper into a process that ceases to take in input, and focuses instead on optimizing its information processing within the existing data, or weaving it with itself more tightly. Compression is a process that runs through the same data over and over, for example editing a text to make it more concise. Or it may take all existing Pi archives and knits them all closer together.
Importing a snippet from Discord relating to a discussion about type & quadrants, which I think prompted something relevant to this thread:
a NeTi to me isn't Ne+Ti as much as it is an Alpha quadrant Pe-lead
because there's more descriptive definitions for the quadra as a whole and Pe as a whole in current CT at least
^ yes, belonging to a quadrant is to have a unique cognitive architecture, with four compounds/conjunctions that no other types have. There's an "inner" reality to belonging to a quadrant that is emergent from the functions, but not reducible to them. Like with gamma:
(^ this is a sort of quaternity within the gamma psyche, as functions come together -- or so it appears thus far.)
In the (near) future, I hope it becomes possible to untangle quadrant differences or edge cases by looking at the interior like this, and seeing whether a person has the psychological attributes of a given quadrant's architecture.
So instead of just looking to see if there's Ne+Ti psychology, etc, we also look to see if there's the psychology of the four function conjunctions that make up Alpha. I think that would lead to a much more fruitful understanding of each type, and a greater psychological accuracy.
It may be useful to conceptualize PiJi (I) and PeJe (E) as both “environments” in their own right. I think the same might go for PeJi (P) and JePi (J) as well. Well, actually it depends on what you are attempting to capture from a phenomenological perspective. Can all of consciousness experience be split up by these bifurcations? Is cognitive typology also a phenomenological model? I know you’ve already mentioned that cognitive typology does not aim to account for all of human behavior, but does it aim to account for all of conscious experience? If so, the. It would be more appropriate to conceptualize E, J, I and P not as mental models of “environments” but as phenomenological environments in and of themselves. Though as I’ve mentioned, I’m not sure whether or not cognitive typology is an attempt at a complete phenomenological model. I guess I’m proposing that if cognitive typology is a phenomenological theory then E, for example, should be conceptualized as a phenomenological environment as opposed to a mental model of the environment or perhaps more accurately, as an aspect of consciousness. Phenomenology, by definition excludes the noumena or the aspect of reality that is not accessible via consciousness. From a phenomenological perspective, everything is a mental model of something that cannot be directly perceived. Therefore, the oscillations should be conceptualized as bifurcations of phenomenological reality as opposed to access points to something that exists outside the mind. Once again, this is all predicated on the notion that cognitive typology is an attempt at a phenomenological model.
Phenomenology, by definition excludes the noumena or the aspect of reality that is not accessible via consciousness. From a phenomenological perspective, everything is a mental model of something that cannot be directly perceived. Therefore, the oscillations should be conceptualized as bifurcations of phenomenological reality as opposed to access points to something that exists outside the mind. Once again, this is all predicated on the notion that cognitive typology is an attempt at a phenomenological model.
CT is also a phenomenological model, or at least it will be when the upcoming changes are properly described. I have been studying philosophy, albeit independently, for the past year (and have more to go) in order to learn about how different people/types describe their fundamental reality-environment, and it is surprisingly consistent with type and vultology. We've had many discussions on Discord about the phenomenology of types, and it needs to be consolidated into proper language.
To give just one more screenshot (I really shouldn't be doing this) into the table of contents in the works:
The Metaboism section of this new work is divided like so:
I wish to present my case for why the nature of the neuron is the key to understanding the rules of computation. Section 1 (neuronal) would describe what we know about neurons so far and computational emergence, neural networks, etc. Section 2 describes the computational rules themselves, of the CT model as a postulated solution, and how they give rise to conscious activities. Section 3 would describe what that computational truth is experienced like to the subject -- which is phenomenology. So yes CT would be a phenomenological model, but as an emergence of being a computational model first and foremost.
It's my belief that our phenomenology is embedded with a priori assumptions which come from the rules of computation itself. And the exercise of "thinking about thinking" (i.e. philosophy) can therefore be thought of as the activity of the human brain aiming to map out the rules of itself, all the while believing/hoping it is mapping out the nature of true reality (noumena). Everything gets questioned by the mind, and the highest philosophical questions are mind-questions that reach roadblocks around these computational "a priori" algorithmic structures.
In other words, the rules of the computational program itself, which are the in-built assumptions, become the hot topics we cannot avoid getting into a final 'barrier' or 'clash' with. Because we're using those very programming parameters to discern reality. So eventually thinking about thinking... goes up the chain far enough until we recognize the essential structure of our computational boundaries. And we describe that, often times, as the Absolute. (Divinity, even). However, it is "absolute", depending on the subject and their type-- and what computational parameter is most irreducible in their hierarchy or structure.
If the Fe-lead cannot reduce away the cognitive-agent "a priori" from the causal/procedural (Je), then at the highest level of analysis the Absolute is a cognitive agent with a procedural nature (the Unmoved Mover is not just causality but Will).
In this case, not only does CT become a phenomenological model, but it also has theological consequences to consider. When we reframe humanity's desire to look for the Absolute, as a desire to look for what is computationally irreducible and true, by thinking-about-thinking, then a person's uncovered god-concept becomes a reflection of the central nexus of their computation. At least, this is the central thesis of this chapter I'm working on. I've already said way too much! So, I'm gonna stop blabbering here, and just get to work!