Post by Auburn on Dec 15, 2015 19:09:52 GMT -5
I've been trying to put words to these two concepts for a while now. They've been swimming around in my mind, but they've started to congeal. We are a pretty Ne and Ni heavy group here, so I'm certainly you all know what it's like to flow-with-impressions.
Giving such concrete "quantification" to this theory also left it a bit dissatisfying. The omission of nuance, which needs a reinsertion. But how to do so without too much ambiguity?
In the "On Vultology" chapter I added this section in the latest draft:
Inevitably, the vultologist will come across individuals who are altogether challenging to decipher from the partial list of signals outlined in this book. In such cases, I would strongly recommend honoring that uncertainty and cultivating the capacity to measure one’s level of sureness on a given matter. Keep a personal, written log of those who you have typed and reference these samples when seeking to discern the psychology of a new person. If you are debating between two types, review footage of those who you’ve previously identified to belong to those psychologies in question.
But more importantly, both for the refinement of this model and for the pursuit of its full understanding, do keep a personal log of those who you have not been able to quantify - a sort of shadow database of those people who suggest inconsistent or contradictory qualities. It is my belief that, even for those with little proficiency and experience in visual reading, this shadow database should not overwhelm the actual database which they will come to nurture. That is to say, far more often we should arrive at a type clearly, with no contradiction, even with a rudimentary understanding of these reading principles.
And in keeping this secondary database in sight, often the advent of a new reading will crystallize into consciousness a connection which required an adjacent, but hitherto missing point of data.
As continued exposure catalyzes an evolution of perspective, more such points come into awareness and allow us to gain a broader and more accurate paradigm of the many variations of types. When our sample of readings has expanded to encompass all varieties within humanity, we quickly discover that there are more than enough shades in humanity to give rise to dozens of very common expressions of each type. Differences in age, race, facial structure and culture will make the mastery of vultology a rich and exhaustive journey. But as we traverse this labyrinth, we have an indispensable tool of agency; namely the phenomenon of twin shades. When nurture has been significantly similar between two people of the same type, despite differences in race or facial structure, their visual signatures will echo strongly, alerting us to a definitive link. We may be struck by the feeling that these two individuals are different incarnations of the same fundamental essence. Twin shades will echo in this manner despite certain demographic or cultural differences, allowing us to expand our social awareness by confirming for us what this type looks like in cultures and races we hadn’t yet encountered.
It is generally unadvisable to analyze a demographic too far divorced from one’s own, especially of a different language, without first developing a sensible awareness of the culture’s mannerisms and normalities to properly contextualize the signals for discerning type. However, at times these twin shades can offer us a direct channel into a new culture due to type being a far more prevailing factor than the net capacity of their heritage to obscure the reading.
Giving such concrete "quantification" to this theory also left it a bit dissatisfying. The omission of nuance, which needs a reinsertion. But how to do so without too much ambiguity?
In the "On Vultology" chapter I added this section in the latest draft:
Uncertainty, Twin Shades and Beyond
Inevitably, the vultologist will come across individuals who are altogether challenging to decipher from the partial list of signals outlined in this book. In such cases, I would strongly recommend honoring that uncertainty and cultivating the capacity to measure one’s level of sureness on a given matter. Keep a personal, written log of those who you have typed and reference these samples when seeking to discern the psychology of a new person. If you are debating between two types, review footage of those who you’ve previously identified to belong to those psychologies in question.
But more importantly, both for the refinement of this model and for the pursuit of its full understanding, do keep a personal log of those who you have not been able to quantify - a sort of shadow database of those people who suggest inconsistent or contradictory qualities. It is my belief that, even for those with little proficiency and experience in visual reading, this shadow database should not overwhelm the actual database which they will come to nurture. That is to say, far more often we should arrive at a type clearly, with no contradiction, even with a rudimentary understanding of these reading principles.
And in keeping this secondary database in sight, often the advent of a new reading will crystallize into consciousness a connection which required an adjacent, but hitherto missing point of data.
As continued exposure catalyzes an evolution of perspective, more such points come into awareness and allow us to gain a broader and more accurate paradigm of the many variations of types. When our sample of readings has expanded to encompass all varieties within humanity, we quickly discover that there are more than enough shades in humanity to give rise to dozens of very common expressions of each type. Differences in age, race, facial structure and culture will make the mastery of vultology a rich and exhaustive journey. But as we traverse this labyrinth, we have an indispensable tool of agency; namely the phenomenon of twin shades. When nurture has been significantly similar between two people of the same type, despite differences in race or facial structure, their visual signatures will echo strongly, alerting us to a definitive link. We may be struck by the feeling that these two individuals are different incarnations of the same fundamental essence. Twin shades will echo in this manner despite certain demographic or cultural differences, allowing us to expand our social awareness by confirming for us what this type looks like in cultures and races we hadn’t yet encountered.
It is generally unadvisable to analyze a demographic too far divorced from one’s own, especially of a different language, without first developing a sensible awareness of the culture’s mannerisms and normalities to properly contextualize the signals for discerning type. However, at times these twin shades can offer us a direct channel into a new culture due to type being a far more prevailing factor than the net capacity of their heritage to obscure the reading.
A shadow database is a very important thing to have; an admittance of what we don't know --- what is murky, confusion, contrary --- without tossing it aside. This relates back to the "icebreg" metaphor I used for those of you who were in the vidchat sessions:
What is above the water is what we "know" and what is below is what is unknown. In the sessions I used this diagram to describe where psychology is at. Coincidentally Jung likens the conscious as the iceberg tip and the unconscious as what's under water.
Right now, the whole western world (and Jung describes this too) is in a heavily light and concrete bias. This is also a little more true in the USA than in Europe. Basically, whatever isn't clear and tactile is largely discarded. Whatever isn't 'evident' is altogether false -- rather than looked at through "degrees of truth".
This attitude has within it an arrogance to assume that anything which does not clearly enter our own mind's comprehension is not relevant to our reality -- as if all that we know is all that is. An iceberg tip with no base. It fails to realize that we are feeble beings sitting atop of a vastly complex universe that we can scarcely quantify. And we would do better to at least try to grasp it using all our available avenues of exploration (the literal and the metaphorical) than to close the door to what isn't clear to us.
I'm probably preaching to the choir here. Anyhow, I felt this was worth putting in that chapter, and to aim to more proactively establish the need for a 'shadow database' -- as well as the need to use a visceral identification of "twin shades" -- to inform us toward similarities. I think far better results may emerge, and a faster learning curve.
If/as CT starts to expand and is taught by others, this concrete-vs-abstract methodological difference is bound to come up, so I felt it was worth mentioning right-off that vultology is an art form that requires both types of perceptive sensitivities in order to be effective.
/repetitive ramble
What is above the water is what we "know" and what is below is what is unknown. In the sessions I used this diagram to describe where psychology is at. Coincidentally Jung likens the conscious as the iceberg tip and the unconscious as what's under water.
Right now, the whole western world (and Jung describes this too) is in a heavily light and concrete bias. This is also a little more true in the USA than in Europe. Basically, whatever isn't clear and tactile is largely discarded. Whatever isn't 'evident' is altogether false -- rather than looked at through "degrees of truth".
This attitude has within it an arrogance to assume that anything which does not clearly enter our own mind's comprehension is not relevant to our reality -- as if all that we know is all that is. An iceberg tip with no base. It fails to realize that we are feeble beings sitting atop of a vastly complex universe that we can scarcely quantify. And we would do better to at least try to grasp it using all our available avenues of exploration (the literal and the metaphorical) than to close the door to what isn't clear to us.
I'm probably preaching to the choir here. Anyhow, I felt this was worth putting in that chapter, and to aim to more proactively establish the need for a 'shadow database' -- as well as the need to use a visceral identification of "twin shades" -- to inform us toward similarities. I think far better results may emerge, and a faster learning curve.
If/as CT starts to expand and is taught by others, this concrete-vs-abstract methodological difference is bound to come up, so I felt it was worth mentioning right-off that vultology is an art form that requires both types of perceptive sensitivities in order to be effective.
/repetitive ramble