Model 2: J Systems (Draft)

Home Forums Cognitive Functions Model 2: J Systems (Draft)

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

    Hello,

    This writeup is a rough draft of the J systems, in the new CTA context.

    The Political Problem

    If I may, I’d like to preface this with a bit of context. For the past two weeks I have been tearing my hair out, attempting to figure out the problem of the J systems. It is considerably more difficult to quantify than the P systems because the J systems are inherently political in nature. They are also the very source of our definitions and delineations and as such, modeling the J systems cannot be done successfully if their modal structure restricts the liberty of ‘choice’ (judgment) we all have in all matters of life.

    For example, to call Fe/Ti collectivist would be an error because, by virtue of being a J system, an Fe/Ti user is free to choose what sort of ideology to affiliate with. And it may not be collectivist at the end of the day. Likewise, an Fi/Te may decide a collectivist structure is more just and fair. Or an Fe/Ti user may adopt a meritocratic philosophy and nothing says they can’t. I tried to look for politically neutral terms, but after burning my brains and studying many different political ideologies and methodologies for social organization, and personal value organization, I decided this was altogether the wrong path to take.

    The path to describing the J systems must be apolitical in its architecture, but capable of allowing any political ideology to be adopted. This doesn’t mean that political affiliations won’t aggregate around the architecture, but these affiliations must be considered secondary, not primary. What I’d like to propose in this post is a solution to this problem that appears to fit the data to me.

    Basic Structure

    To start off, the simplest structural difference between the J systems can be summarized as follows:

    What we see here is an inverted symmetry. The center point is Ji, and the outer ring is Je. Stars are biotic and circles are abiotic. As you can see, in the Fi/Te pair the center is a star (Fi), and the outer ring is made of circles (Te). The opposite is true of the Ti/Fe pair, where the center is a circle (Ti) and the outer ring is stars (Fe).

    Notice the lines connecting the circle together, these lines are vector interactions. This is because Je is always object-to-object. The ring of object-to-object interactions forms around the Ji core or compass. You can also think of the outer ring as “actions”, which are vectors. So if each of these two diagrams is a person, then their outer ring represents their verbs.

    • The verbs of Fi/Te are abiotic (Te), but they stem from a biotic core motivation (Fi).
    • The verbs of Ti/Fe are biotic (Fe), but they revolve around abiotic principles.

    Simple enough, right? But this doesn’t tell us very much yet. We start to see the effects of this structure when we introduce complexity.

    Vector Spaces

    The next thing to examine is how this structure interfaces in a vector space:

    Here we see the J axes each represented as an interaction between three rings –which are three individuals. Notice that for the Fi/Te structure, the abiotic objects interface with the objects of other individuals, together forming an abiotic object vector space: a mechanistic economy. The inverse is true for Ti/Fe, where biotic objects interface with other objects, forming a biotic vector space: a negentropic economy.

    Social Structures

    Now, I have to stop right here and say very universally that human beings are a social species. That means both J axes bear the responsibility of caring for their fellow man, of making social structures that are “good” for as many people as possible. Both have empathy for others, both feel pain and loss at the pains of the other. Both have maternal/paternal instincts. And in fact, ‘abiotic’ thinking is a tool for an ultimately organism-assisting goal.

    Therefore, both of these structures are life-conducive. As I explained in this post, the Te vector space has it as a goal to maximize the well-being of those it cares for, but it does so by examining the situation abiotically and organizing vectors impersonally, but towards personal aims. So long as we understand that the aim of both J axes is the same, we can begin to properly describe the differences.

    Fi/Te

    One word that came very close to describing the Te/Fi structure for me is Utilitarian.

    “Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals. Although different varieties of utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is to in some sense maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts.”

    The basic structure of utilitarianism is one where the shared vector space is designed to maximize the happiness of the individuals that live in the vector space. In other words, politics revolve around how to establish mechanistic protocols (Te) that appropriately revere the essences of individuals (Fi) and allow for their autonomous fruition.

    This is just an example, albeit a very common example, of where Fi/Te ethics ends up going. At the extreme end of this we see Libertarianism + Free-Market Capitalism. But as I said in the beginning, we cannot make 1:1 equations between J systems and political philosophies. We can only say that Fi/Te users tend to, on average, develop utilitarian ideologies because this is in implicit alignment with their J system’s formation. (I believe this is testable, although the correlation won’t be 100%.)

    Still, the most typical conclusion for Fi/Te users to come to is to say that the objective vector space exists to be organized so as to serve oneself and those the self values, and others should be free to do the same and tend to their own families as well. And the government rules of the objective vector space would benefit from allowing everyone the capacity to achieve that personal agency. But again: “most natural” is not a definitive statement. We can all choose differently.

    Fe/Ti

    As for the Fe/Ti axis, something else has to be understood about the nature of the structure, to grasp what sort of social structure it generates. I now know it is incorrect to call Fe/Ti collectivist, or socialist, or any of these very broad terms. This is because, as stated above, both J axes have the well-being of all people in mind. The difference lies in something else.

    And this has to do with how vector ordering happens in Fe, as J+. As we touched upon recently, vectors are organized according to an order. And for Fe, this creates a unique situation where there is an ‘objective’ living order, or vector intent, which things ‘ought’ to be organized towards.

    For Fe it is not merely a matter of banding together, it is a sort of phenomenology/experience that registers a trans-personal ‘ought’ that they owe biotic/willed allegiance to, and which pulls their energies towards it the way J+ pulls vectors into order. And for those who mutually feel this living order’s pull, their biotic vectors adhere to it as a sort of mission that is synonymous with their own vitality. But it’s not a “mission” in the general sense of the word, it’s more like a belief that one’s own vitality is inseparable from this extra-personal object’s ontology. So the object is uplifted.

    This can lead to more macro-organistic tendencies in Fe/Ti users: tribal behaviors, and sects of people who wholly self-identify with that biotic object/vector for their existence. But it also may not lead to that. Like with Fi/Te, people have free choice. They can choose to turn away from this vector pull. Like Simba when he chose hakuna matata. The difference is that they cannot shut down the implicit pull because causality’s vector space is forever tied to the biotic. So ‘purposeful’ causality, and purpose in general, will forever be contingent on this for them. The choice to turn away will come at a cost.

    And this is where we hear people like Peterson talk about the shamefulness of not molding yourself into the hero you were meant to be, or fulfilling your purpose. This is where we hear Fe’s say meaning is to be found by [ being part of this ought ]. And that there’s something that you know you ‘should’ be doing. This is different from Fi thinking they are not being true to themselves. It’s Fe sensing a dis-order between their own biotic vectors (verbs) and the intrinsic nature of the macro-causality. This is different than social pressure –which Fi/Te users are also subject to– because it comes from Fe/Ti user’s very phenomenology.

    As such, the true difference between Fe/Ti and Fi/Te rests in where the direction of biotic energy is coming from or going to. With Fi it’s coming from the core, and radiating away – organizing reality according to those wishes. With Fe it’s being pulled outward by an attractor. Which leads me to what I believe are the truly unvarying, apolitical structural differences between these two J systems:

    (R)adial vs (G)ravitic

    What you see above is sometimes called a positive point charge (R), and a negative point charge (G). I looked for better names for a while but there does not seem to be single-word descriptions for them. So I choose my own. “Radial” refers to the fact that the structure radiates outward from a central point. “Gravitic”, or gravitational, refers to the fact that the structure pulls/attracts, like gravity, towards a convergent target.

    In order to illustrate this more completely, I have to create a higher resolution diagram for those at the beginning of this post:

    What we see above is the same thing as in the first diagram, but it has been multiplied by four successive rings.

    The Radial structure has the star shape propagating across each of these successive rings. And remembering that the white circles are Te vectors, then we see that the Te vectors combine across themselves forming a structure that supports the star shape.

    For the Gravitic structure, we have successive layers of biotic vectors. But if you look at the arrows, the biotic vectors (verbs) are pointing towards the attractor, which sits outside the body. This is the essence of what causes it to be gravitic, rather than radial. For the radial structure, the star is in the middle, and the vectors go out from the star. For the gravitic structure, the star is outside the structure, and the biotic vectors point towards it.

    Scaled

    And when we multiply this across individuals, what we see is this:

    We again see the Radial types join abiotic vectors together and form a structure that is in some way meant for all, and which facilitates everyone’s needs, through mechanistic means.

    The Gravitic types might do the same, but notice that the arrows of the Gravitic types are not just coming together at the intersection of three agents, they are going toward the attractor. Again, this is because the attractor is purpose-giver and this is not synonymous with group consensus.

    Previously I associated democracy with Fe, but that was a mistake. Radial philosophy can very much come to conclude that “all should be equally represented.” Ironically, it is Gravitic philosophy that can sometimes be very non-democratic if what it concludes is that specific agents should sacrifice themselves for the greater cause (toward the attractor). Individual sovereignty may or may not be a value that Gravitic types arrive at. Macro-organismic priority may lead individual agents to be seen as dispensable if the sovereignty of the attractor, and the mission toward it, can be saved.

    However, a Gravitic type may also disagree with where the crowd thinks the attractor is. “Guys it’s over here.” So once again this is not synonymous with group-think, or social pressure or conformity. It’s all an act of logical processing. The voluntary, deliberate and conscious participation of G types is at play here – whether it leads to lone researchers of ‘It’, or collectives.

    ~ ~ ~

    This is already quite a lot, so I will stop here for now.

    But if this viewpoint above proves to be properly representative of the corresponding types, then this would finalize the core elements of model 2 – where Fi/Te would be “R” and Fe/Ti would be “G.” These would replace the letters D and L respectively. I apologize for the rapid prototyping and name changes. I promise things will solidify soon, and I feel confident it will give birth to a far better model that can properly meet the rigor and scrutiny of the wider world in ways model 1 can’t do.

    Looking forward to your feedback! Please let me know if this sounds or doesn’t sound right for you guys – or if you have any questions.

    • This topic was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Further notes on G : Orthogenesis / Directed Evolution

    I also would not like to miss this opportunity to mention that the G structure is inclined toward a certain philosophy as well. I mentioned utilitarianism being more prototypically compatible with R. And if I had to pick one from the set of philosophies I’ve come across it would be orthogenesis. I very nearly chose orthogenic as the term that encompasses the G structure, before choosing to focus on structure rather than philosophy or biology. As per Wikipedia:

    Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or “driving force”.

    The presence of the attractor, and the gravitic implicit bias of G causes it to see causality as not merely ‘there’, or not merely ‘mechanical’, but as having some ‘goal’ some ‘aim’ some ‘teleology.’ Fe, or G+/negentropy, can also be thought of as teleological in its registration of causality.

    This pattern is so persistent that we even see it in G+ types with very high IQ’s, G+ Christopher Langan being a prime example of this. He is world famous, has an IQ of 195+, and is Fe-lead. He developed what he called his: “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” (CTMU) which he maintains “explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase”. (…) additionally contending that with CTMU he “can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics.”

    And if we go to CTMU.org what we see is this:

    The main title is “Teleologic Evolution”, which again echoes what was said about G+ seeing causality as force-driven towards some non-random, willfully “directed” universal (or at least objective) progress. Langan aims to connect consciousness and universe together — as so many G (Fe/Ti) types do.

    Just another example, of many, can be seen in FeNi Thomas Chenault from Pod’lair. Chenault, like Langan, believes himself to have found the ‘true’ ‘Theory of Everything’ which explains mind and reality simultaneously; a common theme. The subtitle of the theory is “Everything is Energy Evolving”, which carries teleological undertones.

    Now, I am not making any assertions about the viability of these models – only pointing out how it is that an orthogenetic and teleological predispostion stems out from G’s gravitational structure.

    Another related behavioral effect that emerges from G is a focus on ‘human consciousness’, as a sort of objective thing. The presence of the attractor, ‘sensed’ by the G type, leads often times to obsessions about questions which try to arrive at the ‘objective truth’ of the biotic, the conscious. Thus there is a strong statistical connection between G types and cognitive science, or what I might summarize as “theories of the mind/consciousness”, because for G types the nature of the (would-be-abiotic) universe and human beings are roughly the same problem. Insofar as G types are interested in universal questions, it is often the case that they’re interested in them through this mind-angle.

    But I have to be careful once again and say that I’m just talking about emergent statistical effects here. There are some G types that are stone cold materialists, but if we did a statistical analysis of the distributions across the general population, I believe there would be a very considerable tilt towards G types in certain fields and modellings like these.

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    R / G as Unified Agendas

    Also I’d like to address one quick detail in the diagrams above. At first glance it may seem that “Radial” and “Gravitic” describe things moreso from the point of view of the biotic angle: Fi and Fe respectively. And although that has something to do with it, this isn’t entirely correct. The biotic dimension does seem to provide more life-impetus than the abiotic, which guides the living trajectory of the organism more as a whole, but it couldn’t do this alone — it’s a mutual activity.

    Radial would not be radial if R+ (Te) did not act upon the world. Radiation would just stop at Fi’s unbridled radiation if it wasn’t for Te moving reality along in that vector. And with Te’s aide, Fi/Te can, as a whole, radiate out into the world in the way it chooses.

    Likewise G would not be gravitic if G+ (Fe) sensed the call of the attractor, but did not have a compass to course-correct its navigation process. Ti (G-) lead types are also driven towards the ‘problem’ of this elusive objective (willed/conscious) attractor, albeit from a more essentialist and definitional place; aiming to cognitively ‘grasp’ it along with everything else.

    Practiacally speaking, Ti’s (G-) task in the pair is to make sure that the course of their pursuit of abstract Fe (G+) questions is conceptually pure, true and monistically sound. It therefore functions more as a ‘standard’, a compass and editor of mistakes along the navigation of G+ toward the attractor. G- is not the life-impetus process, it’s a passive compass that mainly subtracts what it sees as falsehoods in the larger G oscillation. In both Radial and Gravitic cases, it is Je that is moving them forward. But in both cases, it is the Ji compass helping define (R-) what ‘forward’ is, or refine (G-) what ‘forward’ is.

    (But I should also mention that this unified agenda manifests the most when both functions are consciously engaged. As with V and M, R and G describe the ‘total’ activity of the systems. If a person is repressing one side of the oscillation, this won’t be experienced quite the same and the isolated definitions of the poles come into play instead.)

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    Rua
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Very happy to see ‘J’ targeted more precisely and stripped of overt political affiliations. These visuals are extremely helpful in conceptualizing what you’re describing here.

    While I understand that G’s nature as gravitic might imply an explicit connection to the ‘Attractor’, a change to its visual representation could be helpful. From my understanding, the attractor can’t be fundamentally detached from a G user’s cognition; its conception as a separate body is characteristic of the dominant gravitational pull it exerts on the rest of G. Making the gravitational influence it has visible might clear up any confusion, as in the current iteration it could be seen as separate from G itself, which I’m assuming is not the intention of the model.

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

    @rua ^ right!

    It would be more coherent like this. Here, the arrows are now pointing to the star which is nonetheless held within the structure, but along the final vector space. Yes this feels right, especially in light of the IF article, where I mention that a variant of G exists that is pious “In Relation to a Self-Crafted Object.” Thus, the object [attractor] can also be acknowledged as self-crafted (within-the-mind).

    And whether we wish to say that all G types self-craft the star, or whether it truly exists outside, is a theological question better left unknown — since I don’t wanna cross theological lines, any more than I want to cross political problems. Putting the attractor within the structure also retains the G structure within phenomenology. But at the same time, to those who have a theological bent, it doesn’t omit the possibility that the existence of the attractor within them is isomorphic to an extrinsic attractor.

    Yes! Agh, this was actually bugging me– and now it’s like when you snap that last puzzle piece into place. Thank you for pointing it out Rua.

     

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I am also testing this modelling at the extremes, to see if it holds up. One extreme would be to try to imagine a G type who happens to have an internal belief system that coincides very much with how an R type would have their own. And this is what we see:

    What we see here is a situation in which the G type doesn’t have just one self-crafted object/value, but five. And lets say that practically speaking they’re the same key five values that are also held by a close R type friend:

    ^ What we see here is an R type who’s radial extension spans out in the same five directions. And yet, the difference is clear. It’s the difference between push and pull. It doesn’t matter if the values are the same, but the “how” of abiding by them is inverse. The R type has these values as a property of the compass, and the G type has these values as an object-vector derived conclusion, or set of conclusions.

    The manner in which they go about the values will also be different. The G type will still aim to confirm their own biotic vectors (verbs/acts) according to said values, in a sort of act of self-transmutation. J+ ‘orders’ vectors according to the [ Ideal ]. The value ‘out there’ needs to be ‘met’ by qualia control.

    Oppositely, the R type will emanate out according to the compass values, and aim to have reality meet them through R+ mechanistic order.

    Problem: R type self-change

    This leaves open one question though, which is the way R types handle self-change. We cannot say that only G types work on ‘character’. Moral work is another one of those things, like politics and theology, that I need to avoid prejudicing things towards. And I believe this structure can address that point as well.

    It’s certainly possible for R types to change the location their values are pointing. But, like a laser beam, change of trajectory is contingent on the starting positions of the emanations. So, in the metaphor above of the 5 pointed star of the R type, the central star may change itself by an act of will, so that the radiation shape changes. Not being an R type, I don’t know to what degree this can be done, but I imagine R types who don’t “like who they are” can find ways to change that, and as a result also their radiated values.

    ///

    This difference in method — push or pull — necessarily leads to different strategies being more common. A good example of this can be seen in TiNe (Gm-) Amy Cuddy, who writes about Power Poses and using a “Fake it ’til you become it” strategy. This is a type of outside-in self-transmutation, where one’s biotic vectors (one’s “character”) is changed rather pragmatically by doing things that would change the character through the course of doing them. Once again I have to be careful here and not draw 1:1 relationships between behaviors/strategies and R & G. But it does seem more common for G types to find this sort of solution.

    And on the opposite side of things, we have TeSi (Rm+) Martha Beck advocating for purifying oneself back into the ‘right form’, a kind of essentialist perfect ‘you’. With books like: “Finding Your Way in a Wild New World: Reclaim Your True Nature to Create the Life You Want.” The idea here being that we go astray from our true north, and that’s why we dislike ourselves. And the solution is to get back to it. Not to ‘become’ something, but to ‘un-become’ what one was distorted away from.

    (Again, these are just statistically common messages and motifs I see manifest in R and G types. But what ultimately defines R and G types is the structures/diagrams above. A G type may wish to return to an original shape as well, but that original shape will never be the Radial structure above. It may be more like an R- circles based star that the biotic arrows conform to. Although, I’ll have to leave that matter for another post.)

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 5 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Just read through this again, and I think I may be able to give some insight into how R enacts self-change, but I kind of have to formulate my thoughts first.

    In the mean time, it’s interesting you mention a self-help writer using that “true north / true self” strategy, because I’ve read very similar self-help stuff with a very similar message!

    Lindsay C Gibson has written a couple books on how to heal, grow, and satisfyingly interact with emotionally immature parents and with emotionally immature people in general. She has also written a book called “Who You Were Meant To Be,” about “finding and getting back” to one’s most natural talents and purposes in life, or what they are most effective at, or what they maybe sub-consciously want to do. All of her work has the theme that along the journey of life, we are constantly distracted from our “true self,” or the self that we actually are, but may not be living out. These distractions and diversions can come in the form of dogmatic parents trying to form you into what they want, or emotionally immature people who demand all of your emotional energy and time, or just a culture that does not encourage us to seek and live our true path. Maybe life just gets in the way, making ends meet, or maybe you just aren’t very good at sensing your inner self and your wants and needs.

    I hate to harp on this again because I’m sure it’s annoying at this point, but this is all super aligned with humanist psychological theories. Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow specifically BOTH reference a “weak force” that always points us in the right direction, that cannot be destroyed, but is difficult to hear when there are other things demanding our attention. One must either be supremely aware or supremely secure with little outside worry if they are to hear this subtle flow of one’s inner river pointing the way toward fulfilment. In their minds, this was very aligned with the concept of self-actualization, a concept which the humanist psychologists had sort of coined and studied very deeply. The act of becoming one’s self.

    Alice
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Alright, I think I’ve percolated my thoughts long enough! hahaha

    So, I’ve changed a lot in my life, and many times. I have been many different versions of myself, many different selves, and I am still in a constant state of change. If I ever sense that I have stagnated in my growth, this is actually pretty troubling to me. I get the most exhilaration, the feeling of most aliveness, when I am learning and growing core aspects of myself.

    So, off the bat I will acknowledge the fact that I am a trans woman, and this obviously implies some substantial self-change in my life. But I think everyone goes through change in their lives, everyone grows, and a lucky few of us get the privilege of actually forging ourselves by our own hand and vision. I got the idea a little while ago to write something called The Common Transition, about how not only transgender people undergo transition in their lives. Everyone does. This is why I mentioned self-actualizing in my above post, I think this is a really key way of understanding how we all Become as human beings with true BEing. It’s cliche, but I truly believe that the self is an action, a being, a state of mind one can slip in and out of. And I’ve always experienced self-change like this.

    Throughout my life, I’ve always changed in ways that felt more fulfilling than how I was before. I almost never had a clear intention or direction in my change, but somehow, a clear trajectory seems to be pointing the way from behind my growth – I have fairly consistently become looser, yet more steady in myself. I have consistently felt more and more of a feeling of Awareness, Awakeness, and Consciousness. I have followed this feeling of clearmindedness, sobriety, and temperance, and as I follow it, I have had more of an ability to feel tranquil when I think to. It’s almost like learning to find paths through the brush of the woods. When I was young, I thought the only way through way to just plow forward in whatever direction I wanted to go, or give up and sit in a single spot, but now I’m learning that there actually are ways to learn to navigate, ways to recognize a path through that I couldn’t see before. It’s mostly been learning to accept, and then find peace and awe in the largeness of the forest, the chaos of the trees, and the order that this life will go on around me whether I engage with it or not. So I may as well engage with it with warmth and affection, hoping that I’ll maybe find some goodness in that.

    That was all pretty abstract, but I guess to summarize, my self-change and growth has usually been totally unplanned, but from an outside perspective and looking back, seems like it must have some kind of underlying guidance. There has been some invisible trajectory that I have followed whether I have been aware of it or not, though it’s been easier to find peace when I am aware of it.

    I have always had a great deal of concern for the sovereignty of each individual, but my methods for seeking that have changed over time. When I was younger, I was really into anarchist and utopian philosophies where everyone was able to do whatever they wanted when they wanted, everyone was always free from any sort of domination, and where there was no hierarchy between people. But like any sort of edgy ideology we adopt as teens, I suspect my motivations for being into it were mostly because of it’s coolness factor, and only partially for it’s merits. I mostly was totally unversed in the actual philosophies and ideas of the figures who created the stuff I was into. As I grew older a bit, I kind of loosened my affiliation with that ideology, and started thinking about how we could even come to that utopian society. Who would manage the sewage by choice? Who would tend to the roads? How would we care for the environment around us with no plan? Who would do all the actual labor – those who had lived mostly intellectually driven lives before the advent of utopia, or those who had been actually doing the hard manual labor? To create this vision of a more perfect society, we would first have to address the inequalities of this current one. And as I started to realize this, my allegiance to this ideal started to kind of loosen. I started relating to it as just that: an ideal. Something unattainable, but probably something worth chasing anyway. A platonic ideal which to hold our own actions against and judge them for their intention.

    But as I got even older, my thinking started to change again. Lately I have been thinking of the fact that every single person has their own ideal to strive for. On a planet with almost eight billion people, there are eight billion different perspectives. How could we strive toward a common ideal of a more perfect world, a more perfect society, when we each have our own concept of what that even means? When we each come from different cultures, with different histories, with different values, and different ways of doing the basics of life? How could I have been so presumptuous, so arrogant to think that I could hold an ideal that would benefit everyone equally? Something that could allow everyone to live a fulfilling life? So I’ve kind of settled on a belief in the feeling of steadiness I get from placing my ideal in a completely ambiguous place, and that to have a world where we can all exist a little easier, I am going to need some help, and we are all going to need to compromise some deeply held personal truths for a greater good. I’m going to updating and refining my beliefs for the rest of my life, and I suspect that as I refine them, they will paradoxically become a bit blurrier and blurrier, and that’s okay. I still believe we all deserve some basic respect for what we hold to be true, and that we all have a right to try to seek those truths in the world, even enact them. But I also understand that there is no action without consequence, no enacting a truth you believe to be self-evident without damaging someone else’s. We all hurt and help each other constantly in everything we do, sometimes to great extremes. We kill and with give birth, even as we constantly destroy and give birth to ourselves. Living as a human being with a single perspective among 7.67 billion other perspectives is obviously inconceivably complicated. And that’s okay, because that’s just how it is, but I will still try to have at least some small effect for what I believe in in the scope of my own tiny, tiny life.

    So my goal has pretty much remained the same since I was a kid, before I even knew anything about ideology, or philosophy, or ethics, or humanity. We all deserve a chance to grow and self-actualize, and that should have as much support as possible from the systems we put in place to govern ourselves, whether they be mechanical or social. My methods have just changed over time to become less rigid and more ambiguous, and my goal has become clearer to me through all of it. Mostly I have relaxed more and more since I am carrying less and less of the world on my shoulders. Maybe in a philosophical sense, this is why Ji pairs with Pe? As we learn and grow, we learn more and more to just appreciate this moment, because it really is all we have. And vice versa. We cannot just sit around enjoying life all the time, sometimes we have to make things better than they are now. And the cycle goes on.

    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Very interesting! First of all, I think it is wise to separate the fundamental essence of the function axes from their behavioral correlations. Second, I will say that for myself, at least, the Te/Fi description fits my own thinking quite well. I’m going to talk about my politics here, but I want to preface it by saying that I’m not interested in having a political argument with anyone – the only reason I bring it up is because of how it relates to Auburn’s ideas about type.

    My political ideologies have generally been pretty socialist, but there is some nuance to it that is captured in what you say. I advocate for socialism because it appears that socialist societies tend to be happier – on a broad scale, socialism seems to be what is best for the society as a whole. But this belief sometimes results in inner conflict because I seem to have quite a strong (perhaps irrational) pull to the value of individual liberty. When push comes to shove and the issue of actually losing some personal liberty comes up, I can find it quite hard to swallow. I sometimes say that I wish I was born into a society that was more collective and less individualist but that I might have a hard time moving to such a society at this point in my life because I would resent the decrease in my personal freedom. Here’s an example of how this conflict can play out: take the issue of whether businesses should be able to refuse to serve gay people on religious grounds. My knee jerk reaction is, “Shouldn’t private citizens and businesses be able to choose who they serve?” Limiting that freedom gives me an uncomfortable feeling. But when I think through the consequences of allowing that freedom, I come to the conclusion that society will be better off if we don’t allow it. I think I often have more sympathy for libertarians than many others on the left. Although I don’t agree with them, I am very sympathetic to them because I can relate to the feelings that lead to their beliefs.

    This also reminds me of an experience I once had reading about a hunter gatherer tribe (the Yequana, I think it was). I felt as though I had discovered the solution to my inner conflict and found the holy grail of political structure (although it most likely only works because of the small scale of their society and so it’s not a particularly useful discovery in a practical sense). In their society, individual liberty is held in extremely high regard – to such an extent that they even avoid trying to persuade others to change their minds about something. And yet their society is also extremely egalitarian and collectivist. They share absolutely everything and put very high value on taking care of each person in the group. This is possible simply because the society is not collectivist as a result of laws or social pressure but simply because each individual in the society freely chooses to behave this way because they recognize the benefits of doing so. When you’re living in a hunter gatherer tribe, the well being of the group is vital to your own well being. Plus the group is small enough that each person has an emotional attachment to each other person, increasing their motivation to take care of those people. I found it to be such a relief to discover that it was possible to have a society in which the values of individual freedom and taking care of the group could exist together so harmoniously.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

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.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON