Heartitude, Halos, Icons, and Relationships
Sept 16, 2018 3:33:11 GMT -5 by Aqua
Auburn, Hrafn, and 1 more like this
Post by Aqua on Sept 16, 2018 3:33:11 GMT -5
I had this in a different subforum but I think this is more suitable.
Auburn , I have been thinking a lot lately and as I went through the FeNi and NiFe threads.
-About CT hertitude and the Big 5 agreeable/disagreeable trait
-About its^ relationship to the Christian (esp ancient Christian) notion of holiness
-About its^^ relationship to type compatibility speculations
I won't ramble as usual. Have to hand in my current project by end of today but I must write this before I lose it. Will come back to plump it up with meat later.
My ideas, simply:
First, the heartitude article: cognitivetype.com/2017/12/14/attitudes-of-the-heart/
1) Christian spiritual practice (self-surrender, repentance, prayer) and morality (the command to love God above all and fellow man as oneself and to forgive others for everything bad that they do) is a how-to-become-adaptive/seelie enterprise. Ie. If taken seriously at the individual level, this is the project a person embarks on.
2) There's a 'conversion of the heart' experience that's written about, for centuries that marks a soul that truly becomes Christian, or truly starts on the path to holiness as seen in that tradition (In Catholicism, you'd say when a soul has the second conversion experience or starts the purgative way (the first phase) in earnest): It consists in turning over the will to God and becoming less wilful. Essentially, it's giving up the ultimate/final say over the direction of one's own life to a good that's higher.
-It's hard to describe precisely because it's such an interior experience. But my point here is that I really think that this process is the turning point for when the heart becomes habitually seelie/adaptive. I think directiveness/unseelieness involves retaining one's own self-ownership in this deep level of the will.
-Occasionally, it opens up and turns adaptive/seelie, but will go back to directiveness unless/until that turning point/switch is flicked. It may be that for some people the switch happens earlier (I don't know if adaptive/seelie is how we are when we are born) or that they go through a life-changing experience (a religious conversion/NDE etc) that makes them give up that self-ownership at a deep level and become more seelie/adaptive in a more consistent way.
3) The Eastern Orthodox notion of the 'nous' (I hope you look at it, Aub) I think is entirely about this hidden inner attitude.
4) I think the Christian depiction of saints with a halo around their heads is an ancient depiction of seelie/adaptive qualia. Even the radiance/use of light in icons, seems to be a way to depict qualia. In these traditions, seelieness/adaptiveness was holiness. The saints would be the seeliest/most adaptive people with zero or the least side-effects of imbalanced lightness in the heartitude thread (Those ones who were maximally seelie/adaptive but did not also have the stressed seelie/adaptive traits, or at least had them very mildly and very infrequently).
5) Additionally, I've seen in the FeNi/NiFe threads you've mentioned a spectrum of adaptiveness/directiveness with some people more in the middle but leaning one way.
-I think we all have access to both at all times (And I'm still assuming that this is the same phenomenon I've identified in spiritual circles of the above-mentioned traditions^^).
-I think we however are habitually rooted/formed in one verses another. I think that precisely because this is deeply habitual, it's hard to change, yet not impossible. I think that people so habitually conformed to one over the other will stand out in society in a good/bad way, but most of us access both. For example, I think I'm habitually seelie but occasionally will turn unseelie. I think there was a time in my teens, perhaps a year or so, around 17 years old, when I was habitually unseelie (alternatively habitually stressed seelie).
5) I've been thinking on my personal experiences with people at work, home, family, acquaintances and even online and I want to offer a suggestion for a who-is-compatible-with-whom? project
-I think heartitude is the most significant trait for that question, over and above specific functions and development.
Ultimately, long-term stability/happiness in a long-term affair depends more on values and boundaries and the willingness to give/compromise or not than it does anything else. I think two people of any type can live well closely together if they have a shared idea of what is right/wrong to do to each other. The rest can be worked around but not that. So if I were to start this new project (or kick off a new debate!) I'd say, beyond values/goals/general life expectations, the most significant CT trait that can be used to determine/predict relationship health is by far the heartitude.
-i.e. if people are on a similar place on 'the spectrum' you will have a good relationship, whereas if they are opposites you will have an abusive relationship or at least a very one-sided one.
Lemmie know what y'all think!
Auburn , I have been thinking a lot lately and as I went through the FeNi and NiFe threads.
-About CT hertitude and the Big 5 agreeable/disagreeable trait
-About its^ relationship to the Christian (esp ancient Christian) notion of holiness
-About its^^ relationship to type compatibility speculations
I won't ramble as usual. Have to hand in my current project by end of today but I must write this before I lose it. Will come back to plump it up with meat later.
My ideas, simply:
First, the heartitude article: cognitivetype.com/2017/12/14/attitudes-of-the-heart/
1) Christian spiritual practice (self-surrender, repentance, prayer) and morality (the command to love God above all and fellow man as oneself and to forgive others for everything bad that they do) is a how-to-become-adaptive/seelie enterprise. Ie. If taken seriously at the individual level, this is the project a person embarks on.
2) There's a 'conversion of the heart' experience that's written about, for centuries that marks a soul that truly becomes Christian, or truly starts on the path to holiness as seen in that tradition (In Catholicism, you'd say when a soul has the second conversion experience or starts the purgative way (the first phase) in earnest): It consists in turning over the will to God and becoming less wilful. Essentially, it's giving up the ultimate/final say over the direction of one's own life to a good that's higher.
-It's hard to describe precisely because it's such an interior experience. But my point here is that I really think that this process is the turning point for when the heart becomes habitually seelie/adaptive. I think directiveness/unseelieness involves retaining one's own self-ownership in this deep level of the will.
-Occasionally, it opens up and turns adaptive/seelie, but will go back to directiveness unless/until that turning point/switch is flicked. It may be that for some people the switch happens earlier (I don't know if adaptive/seelie is how we are when we are born) or that they go through a life-changing experience (a religious conversion/NDE etc) that makes them give up that self-ownership at a deep level and become more seelie/adaptive in a more consistent way.
3) The Eastern Orthodox notion of the 'nous' (I hope you look at it, Aub) I think is entirely about this hidden inner attitude.
4) I think the Christian depiction of saints with a halo around their heads is an ancient depiction of seelie/adaptive qualia. Even the radiance/use of light in icons, seems to be a way to depict qualia. In these traditions, seelieness/adaptiveness was holiness. The saints would be the seeliest/most adaptive people with zero or the least side-effects of imbalanced lightness in the heartitude thread (Those ones who were maximally seelie/adaptive but did not also have the stressed seelie/adaptive traits, or at least had them very mildly and very infrequently).
5) Additionally, I've seen in the FeNi/NiFe threads you've mentioned a spectrum of adaptiveness/directiveness with some people more in the middle but leaning one way.
-I think we all have access to both at all times (And I'm still assuming that this is the same phenomenon I've identified in spiritual circles of the above-mentioned traditions^^).
-I think we however are habitually rooted/formed in one verses another. I think that precisely because this is deeply habitual, it's hard to change, yet not impossible. I think that people so habitually conformed to one over the other will stand out in society in a good/bad way, but most of us access both. For example, I think I'm habitually seelie but occasionally will turn unseelie. I think there was a time in my teens, perhaps a year or so, around 17 years old, when I was habitually unseelie (alternatively habitually stressed seelie).
5) I've been thinking on my personal experiences with people at work, home, family, acquaintances and even online and I want to offer a suggestion for a who-is-compatible-with-whom? project
-I think heartitude is the most significant trait for that question, over and above specific functions and development.
Ultimately, long-term stability/happiness in a long-term affair depends more on values and boundaries and the willingness to give/compromise or not than it does anything else. I think two people of any type can live well closely together if they have a shared idea of what is right/wrong to do to each other. The rest can be worked around but not that. So if I were to start this new project (or kick off a new debate!) I'd say, beyond values/goals/general life expectations, the most significant CT trait that can be used to determine/predict relationship health is by far the heartitude.
-i.e. if people are on a similar place on 'the spectrum' you will have a good relationship, whereas if they are opposites you will have an abusive relationship or at least a very one-sided one.
Lemmie know what y'all think!