On the conductor/revisor dichotomy

[safsom]

(Taken from a DM discussion on Discord)
But this next message should draw links between typology, dialectical monism, and the problems with American politics
In general, I have thought a great deal recently about Freud's conceptualiztions of conscious reasoning / unconscious reasoning and analogies to the ideas of internal languages and external languages - an external language is essentialy a set of standards that one employs when attempting to translate thoughts from one medium to another. Often, this happens to be the translation of thoughts from an internal language into an external one, and there is often a detraction of the internal-content when manifesting it categorically, which is why so many are opposed to formal logical methods of analysis. For revisors, I think that there is a more "gutsy" access to these internal languages, one that is not so readily interjected by through external languages. This results in there being less capability to articulate cognitions, however, the lack of the burden of translation essentially means that that they are able to hold inordinately complex structures internally, ones that describe a given object almost in exact precision. This means that revisors are ideal investigators, but often subpar articulators. These structures never meet the light of day, and thus remain unique to the subject, but their detailed and scrupulously crafted nature is precisely why I use the word "inner depth" to describe them. Conductors, on the other hand, have an innate access to conscious reasoning, or reasoning that employs external languages and their comparison to come to systematic, linearly deduced solutions to problems. This means that conductors don't necessarily perfect as system translators or perfectors but rather optimizers - there is a two-fold aspect, one is that while conductors tend to be able to translate systems to results effortlessly and break grounds in solving specific problems, there tends to be an impatience about thorough structural explication of the systems as things-in-themselves, hence one could make a case for conductors having less "inner depth".
If you look closely, you'll see that the prominence of one attitude usually entails a repression of the opposite attitude. The path to individuation is usually framed as the integration of the opposite attitude, which usually involves battles within the ego. The ulitmate result, however, should be a balance, which is where dialectical monism comes in. Coherence between these two aspects of cognition means that an individual operates as a unit, one capable of efficiently switching between these two modalities of thinking to serve one's own goals. This, however, is a rare attainment and the process of reaching it usually leaves some linguistic fracturing between the systems. In other words, trauma, which is why more conscious functions tends to mean flat affect.
I see Western politics as attempting to reconcile these poles into a monistic whole when you take into account the manifestations of recent events - you will see that there are clear fractures of society based on group-specific languages, a rejection of a collective language, and reciprocal attempts to re-intergate these groups by imposing a collective language back unto them, leading to further fracturing and disintegration of society. A whole is only possible when these levels of language are harmonized into one level. Hence Osward Spengler's prediction regarding the decline of the West. If a society is too fractured to be re-synthesized, it will die.

[Author]

Posts