I would like to note that the realms of subjectivity and the realms of objectivity ask for different approaches, as they have different natures. I agree that it's tempting for many people to unconsciously commit the mistake of subjectifying something that belongs to an objective realm (like, for instance, what mbti made to the psychological functions); just as much as it can be tempting to many people to do the inverse: to unconsciously try to put something that belongs to the subjective realm into an objective (even measurable) realm. Both distortions bring the danger of allowing precious phenomena scape from where they truly belong to and people can lose wonders/golds for that.
Yes, this is a difficult line to straddle.
I've often felt such a strong pull to pull into the subjective (I feel most comfortable there) but I try to refrain. What I wish for this book to be is a sort of bridge between the subjective and objective. It would elate me so much to have this used as a tool that the empiricists can use to better appreciate the subjective realm -- rather than having the subjective often confined to a little corner of human knowledge where there's chaos.
There is chaos, certainly. But that's all the more reason we need more understanding and clarity. We need to do this if we are to succeed in creating A.I., and go into the future. Or if we wish to move away from over-prescription of psyche meds and learn to better resolve psychic issues without needing to cover them up.
I would like to note that the realms of subjectivity and the realms of objectivity ask for different approaches, as they have different natures. I agree that it's tempting for many people to unconsciously commit the mistake of subjectifying something that belongs to an objective realm (like, for instance, what mbti made to the psychological functions); just as much as it can be tempting to many people to do the inverse: to unconsciously try to put something that belongs to the subjective realm into an objective (even measurable) realm. Both distortions bring the danger of allowing precious phenomena scape from where they truly belong to and people can lose wonders/golds for that.
Yes, this is a difficult line to straddle.
I've often felt such a strong pull to pull into the subjective (I feel most comfortable there) but I try to refrain. What I wish for this book to be is a sort of bridge between the subjective and objective. It would elate me so much to have this used as a tool that the empiricists can use to better appreciate the subjective realm -- rather than having the subjective often confined to a little corner of human knowledge where there's chaos.
There is chaos, certainly. But that's all the more reason we need more understanding and clarity. We need to do this if we are to succeed in creating A.I., and go into the future. Or if we wish to move away from over-prescription of psyche meds and learn to better resolve psychic issues without needing to cover them up.
I am afraid I didn't express myself well. I was not referring to your book and CT when I wrote that - imo the 8 functions do belong to a more objective and even measurable realms and I feel and think that you are totally on the right track in your approach to that phenomena and in building a bridge between the subjective and objective (?) - maybe in the end types are all together belong more to an objective than to a subjective realm - and it is so totally fine! You are helping the world see that after all the confusion mbti brought ^^ What I was referring to was... the path your mind seemed to take when your mind seemed to take a path (when it was trying to help you make sense of what you know so far about the ennagramz) to reframe and reduce what you know so far about the enneagram into, for instance, lymbic system and epigenetics. Of course I would never deny that there might be some correspondences and all parallels are so cool - as long as they don't distort/reduce the nature, specificty and dimension of phenomena, but parallels existing solely as parallels - they are wondefah. But... what, for example, neuropsychology sometimes try to do by adopting a certain type of 'scientific in a typical sense' approach attempting to make sense of certain psychological phenomena that don't belong to that sphere... they don't 'do' that without tremendous reductionism... and at the cost of loss. Imagine one reducing what Freud, Adler, Jung (not the types, but other concepts and contributions, for example, 'trancendentional function'), The Enneagram, Melanie Klein, Winicott, Lacan, etc. to brainscans or parts of the brain or hormones, etc. I'll take as a drastic parallel what Stephen Hawking tried to do with 'godz'. Certain phenomena demand another level of approach and let's say differents levels of 'vertical abstraction of consciousness' that are being developed with time by nature and people and will be available in a clearer way in da future. ^^ I would add that I believe it's not a question of coming back to previous stages of development in human 'consciousness and approach' but in going beyond what 'science in a typical sense' has to offer to the understanding of certain kinds of phenomena. Me believes one day humankind will understand the solutions human minds are going come up to deal with what 'scientific in a typical sense' can't and fails in trying... just like the 'mythic mind' and/or the 'mystic-animistic mind' of the past couldn't imagine with any hint of clarity what 'scientific in a typical sense' could be about and the advancements it would bring. We can agree on agreeing or agree in disagreeing about this topic and all topics. Either way, I am happy, as the world needs all perspectives to be whole.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2015 10:00:09 GMT -5 by Deleted
Oh, right, I see what you mean now. I don't disagree. I'm actually a really big fan of archetypal psychology, and think that approach is genius. The way I think of it is an exploration into "the mind, understood by how the mind experiences itself". The experience of consciousness can't be understood by the reduction of its elements, the same way the experience of eyesight can't be appreciated even with the keenest knowledge of optical anatomy. The psyche is itself (regardless of how it comes about physiologically) a whole dimension to ponder over.
Auburn I can see that you've already noted a few fi-users as seelie or unseelie in the celeb list, and I'm wondering if you're planning to do that with all of them?
I have to revise the celeb list eventually (haven't gotten to it yet) for accuracy, but yes.
The idea is to note their development and/or subtype. So sometimes an Fi-user isn't heavily seelie or unseelie, but instead has a more standard development or fits under another subtype, such as a TeNi physicist. In those cases I'd just note the subtype instead.