(V)ortical vs (M)odular

Home Page Forums Cognitive Functions (V)ortical vs (M)odular

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

    Hello, this is a followup to this thread on the P systems.



    I’m very excited to share this with you all. The contents I’m about to share are extrapolated from direct testimonies, both publicly and privately shared with me, from vultologically corresponding individuals. This is not something I came up with, but is what I see as the monistic essence of what they independently convey. Humans struggle to be aware of how their own mind processes information, and so each person describes the phenomenon differently. But when we triangulate across enough people, we can see the essence that is affecting all of them and from which their thoughts arise. I feel confident enough now to say that the following definition will likely remained unchanged and be the key definitions in Model 2.

    Pre:

    It is important to note that the P systems are information archiving/structuring systems. What we are looking at here is therefore not content (images/data/facts/etc), but the encryption, or encoding, of that content. These are the structures of data encoding that I see explained by the corresponding samples:

    (V) Vortical

    The Ni/Se oscillation can be described as Vortical (V) in its information architecture. The GIF above is a graphical representation of this data structure. In the last thread I described V as a process wherein “The current location is fixed in its parameters, but the dimensions are continuous, or non-local. Even though I am exactly where I am right now, I am in multiple dimensions at once, “exactly” there, in each one.” We can think of the central point of the vortex (torus) above as V+, and the expanding lines as V-.  The lines each form cycles so that at any temporal location, V+ is along a certain path of a V- line, and it will inevitable come back around to a full rotation.

    Structure:

    As far as I can tell, this information structure covers all of the main motifs that have been described to me by V users over many years. Some have described their perception to me as a tunnel like so:

    These are described as intrusions from the psyche, not imaginations. That is to say, they are not conjured up voluntarily, but manifest spontaneously in consciousness. We also know these from V- Carl Jung, who wrote extensively on mandalas.

    He believed mandalas were, in some sense, representative of the structure of the archetypes and the psyche overall. A few quotes from him:

    “I believe, the word “archetype” is thoroughly characteristic of the structural forms that underlie consciousness as the crystal lattice underlies the crystallization process.”

    “It became increasingly plain to me that the mandala is the center. It is the exponent of all paths. It is the path to the center, to individuation.”

    “I sketched every morning in a notebook a small circular drawing, a mandala, which seemed to correspond to my inner situation at the time”

    At other times it’s been described by V types as a spiral, a cycle and also as a web. And what do you get when you combine a tunnel, with a spiral, with a cycle, with a web and a kaleidescopic mandala? The vortex above captures all of this, as it is simultaneously a tunnel, spiral, web, cycle, mandala — with each facet describing a different point of focus of the same structure. This vortex is depicted in three dimensions, but as discussed in this thread, the total dimensionality of it in the human psyche is incalculable.

    Effects:

    Cycling / Fatalism

    Since V sees the present as laced within a thematic, cyclic geodesic, one of the effects of this Vortical data structure is the proclivity toward cycling. The vortex is cycling, and through it events will seem to be at a certain stage within a wheel that will come back around. This phenomenon explains both the V type’s karmic inclinations, as well as esotericism that focuses heavily on symbols such as the Ouroborus. While it may be true that the Ouroborus symbol is a universal archetypal truth, like with so many things in life, it’s those types that are most attuned to see it that end up describing it most frequently.

    Another effect of this data structure is fatalism. If the vortex is going to come back around, then there may be a sense of what is imminent, inevitable or inescapable. There’s a tendency to ask for the other side of the story. Phrases like “every light has a shadow” and “every tree has its roots” are similar to saying “everything comes with a price” or “what’s the dark side of this idea.” This also explains the V- inclination, when in an unhealthy psyche, toward conspiratorial thought because there is a sense that the whole ‘cycle’ is not completely in sight. And that which is not presently ‘visible’ (i.e. in the middle of the vortex) is no less real in the spatiotemprally absolute view. Because the entire vortex is the full perceptual reality.

    Convergence / Synchronicity

    Another effect of this data structure is the inclination to see the present [positional actuality] as the convergent point of these geodesics, as if the present was a gravity well that has pulled everything into this moment. This, I believe, is partly responsible for an over-representation of synchronous thought in V types (although I know this takes a biotic inclination as well, which adds ‘meaningfulness’ to the convergences).


    There are more emergent effects than these, but this covers some of the main ones I’ve seen. These effects are outgrowths of the information structure that V types possess.  This doesn’t mean a V type is destined to buy into these ideas, but their P System’s “data encryption style”, per se, would lend to their data taking on concepts that are isomorphic to this structure.

    (M) Modular

    The other data structure that we know of is a Modular (M) one. Once again I extract this from direct observation and testimony of how Ne/Si types structure their information. I don’t have one illustration that captures this all completely but I’ll use a few for now:

     

    Structure:

    The proper image would have the expansion of the top GIF, but with the recombinations of the bottom two photos during expansion. It would show successive generations of combinations growing outward indefinitely. Not too dissimilar to this:

    What we see in this structure is that everything from the past is preserved in the present, but always recombined. Note that the arrow of time is not looped like in the Vortical data structure. Instead, every new moment shuffles parts of the past in novel ways that create a permanent divergence from where they came. The same moment never appears twice. And there is also no clear path as to what still lies ahead.

    Effects:

    Recombination / Shuffling

    One of the effects of this that we see is the tendency for M to shuffle information into new arrangements. Unlike the Vortical data structure, where data is tied to geodesics, the data structure of M can freely recombine or switch trajectories. This causes effects like “Indiscriminate Correlation” and Parodies — where parodies recombine elements of different datasets together to amalgamate a new scene.

    Exponentiality / Emergentism

    Another effect of this data structure is an exponential bifurcation. As each successive generation of data is recombined or split, it creates a situation where complexity increases. To use an example close to home, we can see this in effects like TeSi Dave Power’s 512 subtypes system, my own 1024 resolution system, or FeSi C.S. Joseph’s wild system where each person is all 16 types, in some combination. It’s easy to tack on another bifurcation, and exponentially multiply complexity.

    Infinite Potentiality

    And this also leads to an unknown future trajectory. By contrast, the Vortical data structure loops back around, and in that sense it has a finite planar size. We can think of this as the difference between a closed universe (V) or an open universe (M), although I’m borrowing this distinction as a metaphor for the psyche – independent of specific cosmological views.

    Totems / Anchoring

    Now M- (Si) might perceive the repetition of past into future, but since M- is a discontinous process, it will only see that parity between the past and future if there’s a high level of specific (S) fidelity between the two. As soon as the future does not literally resemble the past, M- will sense “this is not what it used to be” and then come to exist in a new reality of unhinged, uncharted possibility (M+). This is actually what contributes to M-‘s greater tendency toward preserving totems. This sense that the literal past will be lost so easily leads to a stronger focus on anchoring, and not letting go of specific mental or physical objects. All people can experience nostalgic sentiments but for V, less feels “lost” because all data is still in the same Vortex, in some sense, which will loop around, and there is less fear of losing specific local data, because the thematic is retained.



    Both of these data structures are capable of synthesizing any idea or concept, but they’ll encode it differently. And I believe there are objective ways — even outside of vultology — that we can identify what sort of encoding a person’s perceptual system is using.

    I’m so happy to finally put this into more succinct language. I do feel that this is the essence of the structural differences between the two data structures, which then propagate into countless specific life situations. And we now have proper terms for what V and M stand for.

    Do let me know if this seems clear. This is a rather technical topic, so I know that elaboration may be needed. Please feel free to answer any questions, and I’ll try my best to answer them.

    • This topic was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by Auburn.
    a.k.a.Janie
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    This is so true, that it gave me chills. I’ve actually been going through a bit of V style catastrophizing recently regarding current events and the pattern I kept thinking was emerging. This helps explain what I’ve been doing. This explanation has made a few things click into place. Like, I can’t believe I never connected the word “archetype” to the V axis before, even though I always insisted that when I hear new information, such as a new concept, I want to know *what kind of thing* it is at its essence.
    I was speculating that the minds of V and M users store information as impressions and memories differently, but it does also have to do with whether it involves feelings / the biotic.

    The M part isn’t fully clear to me. It would be interesting if I could really grasp the essence of this part:

    All people can experience nostalgic sentiments but for V, less feels “lost” because all data is still in the same Vortex, in some sense, which will loop around, and there is less fear of losing specific local data, because the thematic is retained.

    to get a sense for how people with M- (Si) experience nostalgia differently than the way I do.

    Rua
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @janie – I was attempting to explain my M experience of nostalgia to my partner last night, so let me give it a shot here.

    All people can experience nostalgic sentiments but for V, less feels “lost” because all data is still in the same Vortex, in some sense, which will loop around, and there is less fear of losing specific local data, because the thematic is retained.

    The most succinct way I can express the sensation of being unable to re-experience specific, irretrievably beautiful moments is through a poem I wrote recently:

    ====Having walked the same path, if the clock kept its place, could====

    Our bodies’ tomorrow

    birthed bluish

    skycloud sonograms

    then rippling

    precisely the wind

    together, and again

    riverstepping?

    I was walking a path near my house one day, and there was this perfect formation of clouds that resembled a sonogram in the sky, and I had an overwhelming urge to be birthed together with that cloud in the same place, at the same time, as soon as tomorrow. And yet I knew it couldn’t be so, and a melancholy and wistful feeling which was not totally unpleasant crept over me.

    a.k.a.Janie
    Participant
    • Type: FiSe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    Thank you for sharing @rua. Yes, that is very different than for me. Yours is so poetic and symbolic; and mine are so literal, I’m not even sure which if any of them can truly be called “nostalgia.” For example, sometimes when I see little kids, especially girls, I will get a flashback memory of having had the same shoes or article of clothing, or maybe it’s the way they’re sitting on a slide or swing, and I’ll remember what it was like to have that kind of perspective, how fresh things seemed, how big things seemed, how big time seemed.

    It’s true, though, sometimes, including when I feel particularly moved by a piece of music or something else, I feel a sense that it just sort of exists, almost eternally, in the sense of the Greek roots of the word outside of + time. Other times, when I sense what is going to happen in the future, it’s not even like it’s *going to happen*, more like it’s already happened, or is happening “now”, in the sense that time is “flat” outside of the perception I (we) are stuck in (that it’s moving at a constant speed in a constant direction), which is actually an illusion.

    Rua
    Moderator
    • Type: NeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    ^^To add something further as a contrast: songs and smells are the stimuli that most often trigger a sense of being back at a certain era or state of mind I existed in years ago. It can be a song I’ve heard before, maybe even 20 times, and yet on the 21st listen, if present conditions have primed it somehow, a feeling of being synchronized with that time comes over me. And when this sensation happens, it doesn’t trigger a specific memory, it’s more like a grouping of thoughts and feelings I once experienced separately that have conglomerated to form a unified mental atmosphere. Often it’s a very pleasant feeling; it used to cause at least a tinge of wistfulness for me, but most of the time it happens now it just feels nice. If it’s a stimulus that triggers the feeling of being back in a space I don’t want to go back to, dissociation happens autonomically for me, but I don’t think that has much to do with M.

    There are also specific anchoring memories I can access. They are highly detailed and very spatial/positional, and the ones I can access this way don’t change. I’ll have a sense that I am exactly where my body was at that specific point in time, and everything is visually freeze-framed. And around this memory there will be a nebulous sense of the era in which it took place, of the chunk of time that surrounds the anchoring spot, and the vague character of that time period, but nothing specific unless I actively try to remember more. Then I can come up with the rituals first, like recreating the route I took from school, or the most common sequence of habits I followed in a day (this is all largely visual). The last things I remember when working from the anchor point are the most poignant and emotional scenes of that time period.

    It’s true, though, sometimes, including when I feel particularly moved by a piece of music or something else, I feel a sense that it just sort of exists, almost eternally, in the sense of the Greek roots of the word outside of + time. Other times, when I sense what is going to happen in the future, it’s not even like it’s *going to happen*, more like it’s already happened, or is happening “now”, in the sense that time is “flat” outside of the perception I (we) are stuck in (that it’s moving at a constant speed in a constant direction), which is actually an illusion.

    I definitely don’t experience this, but it sounds really interesting! I very much have the sense that time as I can perceive it in a standard state of consciousness is moving forward linearly, that patterns and cycles repeat and play themselves out with new agents and variables; I don’t sense anything timeless in this process, quite the opposite. What I can envision are the most probable future timelines I generate from my understanding of history: how what has come before interacts with the movements of the current variables and processes I perceive. When I have an overwhelming sense or vision of a specific future which will occur, there is no sense that it’s already happened, just a resignation that it’s the end effect of all the dominoes that came before it, and of those yet to be placed, with only a fraction of a chance of not occurring because I misjudged or was incapable of perceiving or predicting the dominoes placed between now and the event.

    EDIT: Frank Herbert’s first Dune novel is very much concerned with an M user’s exploration of prescience, of the way in which every preceding event can lead to an inevitable outcome, and of the way one’s actions leave the realm of personal control and spiral outward towards a singular and terrible purpose. Later novels in the series begin to chip away at this idea of inevitability, and posit that prescience in fact creates and chooses the very future it claims to predict by only displaying one or a few paths that suit the person navigating the unfathomable complexity of the universe. In my youth the idea that my actions, no matter how good or well-intentioned they might be at present, could spiral into something intensely negative later down the line used to cause me a great deal of distress (especially as it related to other people’s welfare).

    • This reply was modified 6 days, 10 hours ago by Rua.
    • This reply was modified 6 days, 5 hours ago by Rua.
    paroikos
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l-l-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    When I started reading the section on M I didn’t feel like it fit me. The more I read the more I started understand how it does though.

    Though I think I may be developing my Si/M-, I realize how I haven’t been using it as much. When playing any sort of game where I can generate statistics of my play I tend to create spreadsheets to guide my game choices. These spreadsheets inevitably grow extremely complex as I constantly return to them and come up with new statistics that I find helpful in the moment or try to adjust for more helpful correlations between statistics. Eventually I hit a point where they are horrifying to look at and no stranger could make sense of them, at which time I unceremoniously make a brand new, simpler spreadsheet and begin the process anew.

    This is representative of my creative processes in general. I don’t tend to have totems, and the moment I feel things stagnating (I perceive too much fidelity between the future and past) I tend to destroy or abandon what I have in pursuit of a new start.

    Chiron
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @Auburn

    I think this is a more coherent description of the P functions, however not that different from what you’ve said before. It’s more in-depth though, more complete of an idea which is great! 🙂

    That said, having studied archetypal psychology in-depth and spoken to many people about their archetypal experiences (both V and M types), I don’t think it should be extrapolated that Jung was describing the vortical nature of his perception functions when speaking of the mandala. I’m convinced he was speaking of something else, something more on the level of primordial imagery. Archetypes seem to be something truly universal, at a deeper level than the cognitive functions. Really they are the symbolization, the abstraction, of our instincts and other long-standing interpretations of our intuitional sensing of reality. This is why Jung compares the propagation of the archetypal structures to crystal formation, like a crystal growing from microscopic seeds the ultimate form of the unconscious mind is determined by apparently invisible impetuses which manifest as emotional complexes/images to our conscious mind.

    The mandala in particular seemed to represent to Jung the kind of self-similar, symmetrical form of the association between the Archetypes. He wrote about the rose windows in churches being especially accurate representations of the psyche because they usually premiered Christ – a character of the Self – at the center, surrounded by concentric rings of other characters including Spirit, Messengers, Mother, Father, Deciples, Adversaries and often portraying a narrative such as the Birth of the Hero or Death and Resurrection.

    The way I’ve come to see it, and I think Jung was eluding to this in comparing the psyche to a physical 3D crystal, is that the Self is our closest approximation of our entire experience, i.e. all the causality of our biology and the greater world. This includes subliminal awareness not only of every chemical change in every one of our cells, but that expansive awareness which connects us to the state of every other living thing on planet earth and to the timeless sense of past and future. In his Red Book Jung says the Self is the closest thing to ‘the God’, which I’ve interpreted to mean ‘the whole of Nature and its proper causality’. Every other archetype springs from the Self, i.e. every instinctual constallation is an inevitable result of our fundamental nature. This is why the mandala seemed such a perfect representation of the psyche to Jung, with Self at center perpetuating the characters and narratives of survival and life events. But he didn’t just come up with this idea either, his obsession with mandalas came from years of witnessing them emerge spontaneously to mean similar things in his patients, and indeed in historical art. The mandala is an archetypal symbol, a shorthand the unconscious/body/nervous system generates to express its tendencies and movement to the conscious mind.

    I’ve seen mandalas many times in dreams and visions and interpreted them, and you know I’m definitely Ne! ;p

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

    @alerith – Thanks!

    As for Jung’s view– I somewhat agree. I think a lot of Jung’s ideas have to be translated to modern scientific language in order to be understood or refined. I don’t often take Jung’s testimony on things as more than a well educated guess, but one that nonetheless has to be confirmed. In support of his ideas, I find that the human cell in general does operate as a crystal formation. Here’s an amazing scene I came across recently from this video:

    ^ This is cell division happening in an Alpine Newt, which apparently grow in transparent sacks, so we can see the whole thing. One becomes two, then that becomes four, then eight, etc. I find it to be structurally very similar to:

    Now, I think that cell division in our neurons likely follows the same logic, and forms the structure of our brain symmetrically. As mapped by the human connectome project, the brain is a 3D lattice structure of neural connections (notwithstanding some topological curvature). And this speaks to this algorithmic extrapolation of neurons, likely from a relatively simple equation.

    The brain is algorithmically created, unfolding like a fractal out of a zygote, just like the rest of the body. It’s no wonder, then, that human consciousness should have an intuition about its own Self/Totality as being a sort of fractal mandala. That is, in the structural sense, true imo. Isn’t this incredible?! So, Jung was right in that sense, I think.

    So, I personally don’t think Jung was wrong about mandalas being representative of the totality of the Self, but I think he was more predisposed to catch onto that truth because it has more parity to his vortical thought process. It’s like how Te physicists are more predisposed to catch onto mechanistic world truths, even though they apply to Fe users and everyone as well. Universal truths are still more likely to be uncovered by people whose mental operations have greater parity to those truths, because their intuitions about reality are more matched to that specific domain of reality. That’s mainly what I meant. 🙂 I don’t mean to say mandalas are an exclusively V experience.

    Having said that, I think the Self is different in different people, so that ‘the God’ is different in an NiFe and in an NeFi, for instance. And this is because this algorithm — as well as its unfurling — is different within different biological agents. I would imagine the cognitive mandalas of V and M types would be different, because V and M are structurally different. I didn’t manage to capture this in the GIF above, but the M structure also unfurls from a center… but perhaps it does so in a more idiosyncratic format, and it has more tangential bifurcations and asymmetrical recombinations. I would expect this to also manifest in the psychoanalytical practice – and I suspect this is testable. For example the internal archetypal constitution of an M type may be more modular and local to them, just the way life for an M type in general is much more modular and hodgepodged according to a very specific historical and combinatory development (re: emergentism). The interior of V types may be more prone to follow the same trends, because there’s less localization of data. I could be wrong, but that’s my hypothesis atm. 🙂

    _ _ _

    edit: And I think this is part of why I suspect V types would see things more prototypically ‘archetypally’ (if by that we mean thematically homo rather than hetero). Archetypes rely on thematic uniformity, which V has more proclivity towards. I think the linearity of V makes it more inclined to explain more phenomena with fewer trendlines, so that it converges information together into meta-themes/trends/cycles like archetypes much more neatly and symmetrically. So I think V types may be prone to over-emphasize the thematic sameness of information across long spatiotemporal ranges.

    • This reply was modified 3 days, 2 hours ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 days, 2 hours ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 days, 1 hour ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 days, 1 hour ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 days, 1 hour ago by Auburn.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 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