| Author |
 Topic  |
|
the_eye
Member
Romania
4183 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 08:31:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by awakening
quote:
Originally posted by the_eye
Oh, another thing about 5w4s that could be called dislikable: paranoia. For instance- James Angleton obsessed with KGB moles into the CIA.
For Dee - the board is full of 5w4s and some of them are 5w6s.
Fwiw, 5w6s are more paranoid than w4s.
Yes, I know, but it's not true that 5w4s can't have paranoid behaviours at times. 5s go well with concepts as "protection" and "paranoia" too (so do 6s but in a slightly different way).
'mich interessiert kein Gleichgewicht/ mir scheint die Sonne ins Gesicht' |
 |
|
|
dfgray44
Member
USA
6546 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 08:53:37 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by marie
quote:
Originally posted by carlos
my secret is revealed...
I AM THE SKY FATHER
So, you're the one I have been trying to impress!
and MY SWORD IS BIGGER THAN YOURS
Ahem...well, I should hope so. (But you know...they do say that it's not the size but what you do with it that matters.)
Ambassador to the Savage Tribes
It's disheartening to observe those who haven't yet heard the name of their own religion. Walking at the sun. The alien shape of their church tethered to their footsteps on the ground behind.
It's always struck me as marvelous...how different a whisper is inside a grand cathedral.
********* / *
|
Edited by - dfgray44 on 26 Oct 2009 08:55:50 AM |
|
|
|
the_eye
Member
Romania
4183 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 09:31:24 AM
|
He woke up... Assuming the same method, you should be the good boy who grasps little attention from his mother since you behave like this.
Can you answer Sea Shell's question? I'm curious. Earth mother here.
|
Edited by - the_eye on 26 Oct 2009 09:32:01 AM |
|
|
|
dfgray44
Member
USA
6546 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 10:58:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_eye
He woke up... Assuming the same method, you should be the good boy who grasps little attention from his mother since you behave like this.
Oh look! Something is being birthed. I see the slit (and the hair around it). The baby's head is starting to crown. Wait! That's not a head....it's an eye. It's an eye opening!
Congratulations. 
Can you answer Sea Shell's question? I'm curious. Earth mother here.
Yes, back later, Dear Mother.
********* / *
|
|
|
|
dfgray44
Member
USA
6546 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 11:58:02 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odyssey
Do you think that spewing labyrinthical posts at people is the proper way to entice dialogue ?
A considerably larger amount of truth comes out by surprise, as compared to conscious/sober conversation. The labyrinths are merely forms that match the complexity of common psychic structures. They're designed to nestle comfortably into the pre-existing maze of dark halls and dead ends.
Extremes are not necessarily more true, or more valid, or more significant, than averages. Your fascination with psychological extremes is your hobby. Shadows and archetypes are fine psychological concepts that help shed light on one's elusive corners of the psyche. But they're not EVERYTHING, and they're not that complex, actually... they're not as complex as you make them sound. I think you like to complexify, because you're fascinated with your own capacity to visualize : you create paintings in your mind, and then you tell a person that her psyche is just like your painting.
You're right. Archetypes are not that complex. And I don't know much about archetypes; I'm just an intuitive extrapolater who's read a few things.
Why would you prefer the microscope to be warped ?
To add the requisite realism of emotional fluidity.
You objectify people, then tell them that they're too small for you and not worthy of your attention.
I see most people unconsciously doing that. I do it consciously instead of assuming that I'm above such behavior.
And what I see you do is NOT acknowledging other people's opinions, most of the time. Usually, you're completely impermeable, which I must assume, is a voluntary counter-reaction to the 9 capacity for absortion.
As I said, you're going to find me listening much more acutely than most people.
As I age, I don't feel like I'm bigger than before, but rather that my concern with individuality is shrinking.
I'm describing an expansion that sits on the edge of the spiritual and the non-spiritual. This quality of being in two anti-worlds at once is akin to a change in the atomic structure of the Web of Existence. 
That was my question about spirituality and 'indifference'. But the 'indifference' stage is just a step, I believe, it is not the ultimate destination.
Agreed.
We all live in a cage. Yours is padded with a douanier Rousseau theme print.
Thank you for the Rousseau print. He's my fave.
********* / *
|
|
|
|
koolkatkuhner
Member
3777 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 6:18:51 PM
|
quote:
Our government sometimes kills them. Probably for not having minds of their own.
Impractical. But love the concept.  |
|
|
|
carlos
Member
3565 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 6:37:11 PM
|
quote:
I'm just an intuitive extrapolater who's read a few things.
i'm curious as to what you've read and what your background is... maybe it would help me understand what you're talking about and explain to you where you've gone wrong. 
Ambassador to the Savage Tribes |
|
|
|
dfgray44
Member
USA
6546 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 8:39:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by carlos
quote:
I'm just an intuitive extrapolater who's read a few things.
i'm curious as to what you've read and what your background is... maybe it would help me understand what you're talking about and explain to you where you've gone wrong.
Ambassador to the Savage Tribes
Rather than list all I've read, it would help to know where I've gone wrong so I can trace it back to specific influences.
I'm interested in the critique.
********* / *
|
|
|
|
carlos
Member
3565 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 9:34:54 PM
|
quote:
Rather than list all I've read, it would help to know where I've gone wrong so I can trace it back to specific influences.
I'm interested in the critique.
See, the thing is that, in the little that i've read from you, the concepts you're using, the terms of reference, the explanations you're giving, the dynamics you're describing, etc, are alien to me. I'm wondering if there are important authors or schools of thought or poetry or art or higher knowledge that you're extrapolating from or are these 'original inspirations'?
because i don't understand how you're arriving at the conclusions you're arriving at-- and in fact your conclusions themselves aren't very clear to me at all-- it would help to have some common language to be able to communicate.
for instance, what books on psychology have you read, or types of psychology you've been exposed to or worked with, that give you your background in psychological profiling?
Ambassador to the Savage Tribes |
Edited by - carlos on 26 Oct 2009 9:39:40 PM |
|
|
|
dfgray44
Member
USA
6546 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 10:47:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by carlos
See, the thing is that, in the little that i've read from you, the concepts you're using, the terms of reference, the explanations you're giving, the dynamics you're describing, etc, are alien to me. I'm wondering if there are important authors or schools of thought or poetry or art or higher knowledge that you're extrapolating from or are these 'original inspirations'?
because i don't understand how you're arriving at the conclusions you're arriving at-- and in fact your conclusions themselves aren't very clear to me at all-- it would help to have some common language to be able to communicate.
for instance, what books on psychology have you read, or types of psychology you've been exposed to or worked with, that give you your background in psychological profiling?
Ambassador to the Savage Tribes
It's a difficult subject to properly relay because it involves an evolution over 25 years or so. Jung is central; but also his mutated offspring.
Probably one of the most critical early stirrers of this material for me was a book called "A Little Book On The Human Shadow". There's an excerpt online...if you take a look, starting at page 17, there's some similarity to the abstract psychological descriptions I favor: http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780062548474
The following was also another significant influence, both in its ideas and its writing style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Personae
The first chapter of that back (pg 20 - 40) has a treatise on men-and-women that is canonical for me.
Here's the kind of stuff she writes:
"Human life began in flight and fear. Religion rose from rituals of propitiation, spells to lull the punishing elements. The Bible has come under fire for making Woman the fall guy in man's cosmic drama. But in casting a male conspirator, the serpent, as God's enemy, Genesis hedges and does not take its misogyny far enough. The Bible defensively swerves from God's true opponent, chthonian nature. The serpent is not outside Eve, but in her. She is the garden and the serpent."
----
"Even the best critical writing on Emily Dickinson underestimates her. She is frightening. To come to her directly from Dante, Spenser, Blake, and Baudelaire is to find her sadomasochism obvious and flagrant. Birds, bees, and amputated hands are the dizzy stuff of this poetry. dickinson is like the homosexual cultist draping himself in black leather and chains to bring the idea of masculinity into aggressive visibility."
----
I don't care whether any of the above is true. It gets me religiously high, so I want to move in and around it. It's an infectious drumbeat, played by a ten-foot-tall stomping witchdoctor with a fever.
Anyway, there's a starter course on my wrongness....
********* / *
|
|
|
|
marie
Member
4292 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2009 : 11:20:25 PM
|
So interesting that you are a Camille Paglia ("she is the cosmos!") fan. I'm with Molly Ivins on her:
From _Mother Jones_, September/October 1991, pp 8-10
Impolitic, by Molly Ivins.
I Am the Cosmos
Austin, Texas --- ``So write about Camille Paglia,'' suggested the
editor. Like any normal person, I replied, ``And who the hell might
she be?''
Big cheese in New York intellectual circles. The latest rage. Hot
stuff. Controversial.
But I'm not good on New York intellectual controversies, I explained.
Could never bring myself to give a rat's ass about Jerzy Kosinski.
Never read Andy Warhol's diaries. Can never remember the name of the
editor of this _New Whatsit_, the neo-con critical rag. I'm a no-hoper
on this stuff, practically a professional provincial.
Read Paglia, says he, you'll have an opinion. So I did; and I do.
Christ! Get this woman a Valium!
Hand her a gin. Try meditation. Camille, honey, calm down!
The noise is about her _oeuvre_, as we always say in Lubbock: _Sexual
Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily dickinson_. In
very brief, for those of you who have been playing hooky from the _New
York Review of Books_, Ms. Paglia's contention is that ``the history
of western civilization has been a constant struggle between ... two
impulses, an unending tennis match between cold, Apollonian
categorization and Dionysian lust and chaos.'' Jeez, me too. I always
thought the world was divided into only two kinds of people --- those
who think the world is divided into only two kinds of people, and
those who don't.
You think perhaps this is a cheap shot, that I have searched her work
and caught Ms. Paglia in a rare moment of sweeping generalization,
easy to make fun of? _Au contraire_, as we always say in Amarillo; the
sweeping generalization is her signature. In fact, her work consists
of damn little else. She is the queen of the categorical statement.
Never one to dodge a simple dichotomy when she can set one up, Ms.
Paglia holds that the entire error of western civilization stems from
denying that nature is a kind of nasty, funky, violent, wet dream, and
that Judeo-Christianity has been one long effort to ignore this. She
pegs poor old Rousseau, that fathead, as the initiator of the silly
notion that nature is benign and glorious and that only civilization
corrupts.
Right away, I got a problem. Happens I have spent a lot of my life in
the wilderness, and also a lot of my life in bars. When I want sex and
violence, I go to a Texas honky-tonk. When I want peace and quiet, I
head for the woods. Just as a minor historical correction to Ms.
Paglia, Rousseau did not invent the concept of benign Nature. Among
the first writers to hold that nature was a more salubrious
environment for man than the corruptions of civilization were the
Roman Stoics --- rather a clear-eyed lot, I always thought.
Now why, you naturally ask, would anyone care about whether a reviewer
has ever done any serious camping? Ah, but you do not yet know the
Camille Paglia school of I-am-the-cosmos argument. Ms. Paglia believes
that all her personal experiences are Seminal. Indeed, Definitive.
She credits a large part of her supposed wisdom to having been born
post-World War II and thus having been raised on television. Damn me,
so was I.
In addition to the intrinsic cultural superiority Ms. Paglia
attributes to herself from having grown up watching television (``It's
Howdy-Doody Time'' obviously made us all smarter), she also considers
her own taste in music to be of enormous significance. ``From the
moment the feminist movement was born, it descended into dogma,'' she
told an interviewer for _New York_ magazine. ``They stifled any kind
of debate, any kind of dissent. Okay, it's Yale, it's New Haven in
'69, I am a rock fanatic, okay .... So I was talking about taste to
these female rock musicians, and I said the Rolling Stones were the
greatest rock band, and that just set them off. They said, `The
Rolling Stones are sexist, and it's bad music because it's sexist.' I
said: `Wait a minute. You can't make a judgment about art on the
basis of whether it fits into some dogma.' And now they're yelling,
screaming, saying that nothing that demeans women can be art.
``You see, right from the start it was impossible for me to be taken
into the feminist movement, okay? The only art they will permit is art
that gives a positive image of women. I said, `That's like the Soviet
Union; that is the demagogic, propagandistic view of art.' ''
Well, by George, as a First Amendment absolutist, you'll find me
willing to spring to the defense of Camille Paglia's right to be a
feminist Rolling Stones fan any hour, day or night. Come to think of
it, who the hell was the Stalin who wouldn't let her do that? I went
back and researched the '69 politburo, and all I could find was Betty
Friedan, Bella Abzug, and Gloria Steinem, none of whom ever seems to
have come out against rock music.
I have myself quite cheerfully been both a country-music fan and a
feminist for years --- if Camille Paglia is the cosmos, so am I. When
some fellow feminist doesn't like my music (How could you not like
``You are just another sticky wheel on the grocery cart of life''?), I
have always felt free to say, in my politically correct feminist
fashion, ``Fuck off.''
In a conversation printed in _Harper's_ magazine, Paglia held forth on
one of her favorite themes --- Madonna, the pop singer: ``The latest
atavistic discoverer of the pagan heart of Catholicism is Madonna.
This is what she's up to. She doesn't completely understand it
herself. When she goes on _Nightline_ and makes speeches about
celebrating the body, as if she's some sort of Woodstock hippie, she's
way off. She needs _me_ to tell her.'' I doubt that.
Bram Dijkstra, author of a much-praised book, _Idols of Perversity_,
which is a sort of mirror image of _Sexual Personae_, said that Paglia
``literally drags the whole nineteenth-century ideological structure
back into the late-eighteenth century, really completely unchanged.
What's so amazing is that she takes all that nineteenth-century stuff,
Darwinism and social Darwinism, and she re-asserts it and reaffirms it
in this incredibly dualistic fashion. In any situation, she
establishes the lowest common denominator of a point. She says,
`This is the feminist point of view,' and overturns it by standing it
on its head. She doesn't go outside what she critiques; she simply
puts out the opposite of it.''
``For example,'' Dijkstra continues, ``she claims, `Feminism blames
rape on pornography,' which is truly the reductio ad absurdum of the
feminist point of view. Of course, there are very many feminist points
of view, but then she blows away this extremely simplified opposite,
and we are supposed to consider this erudition. She writes aphorisms
and then throws them out, one after the other, so rapid-fire the
reader is exhausted.''
Tracing Paglia's intellectual ancestry is a telling exercise; she's
the lineal descendant of Ayn Rand, who in turn was a student of
William Graham Sumner, one of the early American sociologists and an
enormously successful popularizer of social Darwinism. Sumner was in
turn a disciple of Herbert Spencer, that splendid nineteenth-century
kook. Because Paglia reasserts ideas so ingrained in our thinking, she
has become popular by reaffirming common prejudices.
Paglia's obsession with de Sade is beyond my competence, although the
glorification of sadomasochism can easily be read as a rationalization
of bondage into imagined power, a characteristic process of
masochistic transfer. Dijkstra suggests that the Sadean notion of the
executioner's assistant is critical to her thinking, though one
wonders if there is not also some identification with de Sade, the
Catholic aristocrat.
Paglia's view of sex --- that it is irrational, violent, immoral, and
wounding --- is so glum that one hesitates to suggest that it might be
instead, well, a lot of fun, and maybe even affectionate and loving.
Far less forgivable is Paglia's consistent confusion of feminism with
yuppies. What _does_ she think she's doing? Paglia holds feminists
responsible for the bizarre blight created by John T. Molloy, author of _Dress for Success_, which caused a blessedly brief crop of young
women, all apparently aspiring to be executive vice-presidents, to
appear in the corporate halls wearing those awful sand-colored baggy
suits with little floppy bow ties around their necks.
Why Paglia lays the blame for this at the feet of feminism is beyond
me. Whatever our other aims may have been, no one in the feminist
movement ever thought you are what you wear. The only coherent fashion
statement I can recall from the entire movement was the suggestion
that Mrs. Cleaver, Beaver's mom, would on the whole have been a
happier woman had she not persisted in vacuuming while wearing high
heels. This, I still believe.
In an even more hilarious leap, Paglia contends that feminism is
responsible for the aerobics craze and concern over thin thighs.
Speaking as a beer-drinking feminist whose idea of watching her diet
is to choose either the baked potato with sour cream or with butter,
but not with both, I find this loony beyond all hope --- and I am the
cosmos, too.
What we have here, fellow citizens, is a crassly egocentric, raving
twit. The Norman Podhoretz of our gender. That this woman is actually
taken seriously as a thinker in New York intellectual circles is a
clear sign of decadence, decay, and hopeless pinheadedness. Has no
one in the nation's intellectual capital the background and ability to
see through a web of categorical assertions? One fashionable line of
response to Paglia is to claim that even though she may be
fundamentally off-base, she has ``flashes of brilliance.'' If so, I
missed them in her oceans of swill.
One of her latest efforts at playing enfant terrible in intellectual circles was a peppy essay for _Newsday_, claiming that either there is no such thing as date rape or, if there is, it's women's fault because we dress so provocatively. Thanks, Camille, I've got some Texas fraternity boys I want you to meet.
There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that
politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity.
Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable
fashion, we say, ``Poor dear, it's probably PMS.'' Whereas, if a man
behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, ``What an
asshole.'' Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia, Sheesh, what an asshole.
|
Edited by - marie on 26 Oct 2009 11:31:12 PM |
|
|
|
dfgray44
Member
USA
6546 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 12:20:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sea Shell
I appreciate your honesty.
You said you don't dislike 5w4s as a group. I assume there are certain characteristics that you dislike about 5w4s, but these characteristics are not possessed by all 5w4s.
If you are still in the mood after all these arguments, would you mind sharing what are the things that you honestly dislike about 5w4s?
I don't know that there's more to add to what I've already said (and bear's comments were helpful in further illuminating).
If I were to condense my gripe into something a wee bit less tonal/poetic/absurd, I'd say 5w4s use 'perfect cynicism' as a weapon of psychological violence. This both replaces and stands in the way of their movement toward the lived brutality of E8. The mental sword stops the 5 from picking up the physical sword.
So, the cynicism is carrying the full weight of the 5's expansionist drive. But cynicism and expansion are opposed to each other. So you get a heat-generating electrical circuit going because the energy can't be loosed, expanded into the living environment. The heat smelts the raw mental elements and pours off impermeable steel. And this is the perfection of the cynicism....it's very hardness. It now cannot absorb. This is why compassion is such an antidote for 5s - the ability to absorb.
********* / *
|
|
|
|
randy mizer
Member
67 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 01:09:58 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scorpionical
On the whole 5 is my favorite type. I appriciate their ability to listen without really having to say anything. The head types as a whole have that magic to me. You never get Oprah eyes
When it comes to somebody listening to me, I prefer Oprah. Fives are just way too heartless and selfish. They often think too highly of themselves to merit any kind of respect... so they honestly aren't worth your time. Why do so many (here) allow themselves to be doormats to these fools? |
|
|
|
shakti
Member
USA
7845 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 01:32:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bear
I think what's underneath the sky father thing is not specific to marie, but to 5w4 in general, and sx 5w4 in particular... unconsciously knocking people off their game. It's a part of "confidence" - to force the other into a place of uncertainty keeps fear at bay and maintains a comfortable "i know you don't" self-image. It's definitely something that is disliked about us because we're constantly undermining the other in subtle ways, stealing their confidence.
Interesting. It seems like a facet of competition of sx 4. In general, the heart traiders (even those with a heart wing) seem to land/dwell in the very personal interpersonal space more easily. |
|
|
|
~lee~
Member
USA
7144 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 01:36:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by randy mizer
quote:
Originally posted by Scorpionical
On the whole 5 is my favorite type. I appriciate their ability to listen without really having to say anything. The head types as a whole have that magic to me. You never get Oprah eyes
When it comes to somebody listening to me, I prefer Oprah. Fives are just way too heartless and selfish. They often think too highly of themselves to merit any kind of respect... so they honestly aren't worth your time. Why do so many (here) allow themselves to be doormats to these fools?
Are you being serious or sarcastic? |
|
|
|
shakti
Member
USA
7845 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 01:40:29 AM
|
It was many years ago that I got a sampling of Paglia (in the early/mid 90s I think) and decided her writing wasn't for me...this was before I had done my own passage through Jungian material. I suspect I would have had a very different reaction if I had encountered her after rather than before. I didn't read all of what marie posted, but from what I did, there are at themes such as the appollonian versus untamed nature/instinctual that are the types of opposites that Jungian work attempts to hold. If you talk about subtle reality and power it up and eject it into regular reality, you're apt to have some mixture of puzzled reactivity and resonance, but since it started without the subtle space for a more nuanced exploration, it seems like it would overshoot and pick up a lot of noise. It's a bit like associating red with anger and passion, there's a truth there on many levels (all the way from what people actually see sometimes when angry, to actual use of the color red in daily expression and the expression 'to see red' to essential reality of strength). But, to speak as if anger/strength/red etc. are common reality would not be accurate. It seems that some would get it, some wouldn't, and it would stir up a bunch of noise, with controvesy potentially overshadowing any truth that could be enlightening.
Anyway, I think the thinking around her type is 8w7, so if you filter that it may very well be possible to get something of value even from the excerpts posted by marie. |
|
|
|
randy mizer
Member
67 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 02:36:37 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ~lee~
quote:
Originally posted by randy mizer
quote:
Originally posted by Scorpionical
On the whole 5 is my favorite type. I appriciate their ability to listen without really having to say anything. The head types as a whole have that magic to me. You never get Oprah eyes
When it comes to somebody listening to me, I prefer Oprah. Fives are just way too heartless and selfish. They often think too highly of themselves to merit any kind of respect... so they honestly aren't worth your time. Why do so many (here) allow themselves to be doormats to these fools?
Are you being serious or sarcastic?
Serious.
but seriously, I can understand why one would think I was being Sarcastic since it's an alto ego that shows its fugly face from time to time.
speaking of the devil...
|
|
|
|
Art_Skidmore
Member
13305 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 06:40:57 AM
|
| ....outta fear they redirect. |
|
|
|
Sea Shell
Member
45 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 07:35:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dfgray44
If I were to condense my gripe into something a wee bit less tonal/poetic/absurd, I'd say 5w4s use 'perfect cynicism' as a weapon of psychological violence. This both replaces and stands in the way of their movement toward the lived brutality of E8. The mental sword stops the 5 from picking up the physical sword.
So, the cynicism is carrying the full weight of the 5's expansionist drive. But cynicism and expansion are opposed to each other. So you get a heat-generating electrical circuit going because the energy can't be loosed, expanded into the living environment. The heat smelts the raw mental elements and pours off impermeable steel. And this is the perfection of the cynicism....it's very hardness. It now cannot absorb. This is why compassion is such an antidote for 5s - the ability to absorb.
I believe most 5s are INTx, some sx 5w4s may be INFx. I find most NTs are more attached to their theory and correctness and hence may lack of the sensitivity to be aware of others' feelings.
It is not easy for average to unhealthy NT 5s to develop natural compassion towards others especially when they are going down their health levels and being caught up by their own problems.
|
|
|
|
Sea Shell
Member
45 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 07:49:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bear
I think what's underneath the sky father thing is not specific to marie, but to 5w4 in general, and sx 5w4 in particular... unconsciously knocking people off their game. It's a part of "confidence" - to force the other into a place of uncertainty keeps fear at bay and maintains a comfortable "i know you don't" self-image. It's definitely something that is disliked about us because we're constantly undermining the other in subtle ways, stealing their confidence.
Why sx 5w4 in particular?
quote:
Originally posted by bear
In carlos' case, apply what Naranjo said about sx 5s to finding the right teacher: passionate about the one person (usually someone they can't find). Search for absolute love and it's too hard for others to pass the test. Very easily disappointed. Looking to trust in another - the one that will be with you and for you no matter what, beyond the level of marriage vows. There's a need to undermine all that don't pass the test (and sometimes idealize those that aren't available).
I thought this applies only to sx 5s' ideals of their loved ones. I don't understand how it can apply to finding a teacher.
|
|
|
|
baba
Member
1132 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 08:07:21 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by skunk
quote:
what do people dislike about 5w4's?
In 1925 she and Stieglitz moved to the Shelton Hotel in New York, taking an apartment on the 30th floor of the new building. They would live here for 12 years. With a spectacular view, Georgia began to paint the city.
"One can't paint New York as it is, but rather as it is felt."
I love "Totto".
"Banzai-tree"
You can't fight in here. This is the War Room! |
|
|
|
dfgray44
Member
USA
6546 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 08:41:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sea Shell
quote:
Originally posted by dfgray44
If I were to condense my gripe into something a wee bit less tonal/poetic/absurd, I'd say 5w4s use 'perfect cynicism' as a weapon of psychological violence. This both replaces and stands in the way of their movement toward the lived brutality of E8. The mental sword stops the 5 from picking up the physical sword.
So, the cynicism is carrying the full weight of the 5's expansionist drive. But cynicism and expansion are opposed to each other. So you get a heat-generating electrical circuit going because the energy can't be loosed, expanded into the living environment. The heat smelts the raw mental elements and pours off impermeable steel. And this is the perfection of the cynicism....it's very hardness. It now cannot absorb. This is why compassion is such an antidote for 5s - the ability to absorb.
I believe most 5s are INTx, some sx 5w4s may be INFx. I find most NTs are more attached to their theory and correctness and hence may lack of the sensitivity to be aware of others' feelings.
It is not easy for average to unhealthy NT 5s to develop natural compassion towards others especially when they are going down their health levels and being caught up by their own problems.
The compulsion for intellectual steel-making becomes the art of sword-making in the 4-winger because insecurity-about-identity is now suffused into the steel-making. For some 5w4s, this means that only the most elegant intellectual forms will receive an invitation to join the sacred space of the self/identity.
If you add sx-first, the electric arc furnace cranks up in a new way - you now have a significant amount of animalistic sexual competition (with its own identity issues) thrown into the mix.
To understand the idealized self-image of sx-first 5w4, imagine a peacock with tail-plumage that looks like an oriental fan of swords.
********* / *
|
Edited by - dfgray44 on 27 Oct 2009 08:42:56 AM |
|
|
|
baba
Member
1132 Posts |
Posted - 27 Oct 2009 : 11:00:15 AM
|
Df,
You're talking a lot about "sword".
I have a nice meal for you to prepare:
Pesce spada in cartoccio..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBDeRgkOTbc
Lovely packed "Swordfish"..
A parent must also not be afraid to hang himself. |
|
|
|
bear
Member
USA
4072 Posts |
Posted - 29 Oct 2009 : 7:40:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by shakti
quote:
Originally posted by bear
It's a part of "confidence" - to force the other into a place of uncertainty keeps fear at bay and maintains a comfortable "i know you don't" self-image. It's definitely something that is disliked about us because we're constantly undermining the other in subtle ways, stealing their confidence.
Interesting. It seems like a facet of competition of sx 4. In general, the heart traiders (even those with a heart wing) seem to land/dwell in the very personal interpersonal space more easily.
It's definitely heavily connected to that, but I think there are other dynamics also at play. "Suggestible" at 7 is something that definitely doesn't fit a 5's self-image, so it's not easily recognized and would tend to be something pushed into shadow.
Possession/Surrender at 8 is idealized, but not usually seen in full technicolor, warts and all. So there's a push/pull that is connected to that motion - avoiding what is (in a way) a weak component from 7 for a strong one at 8. As dfg alluded to with the peacock swords, there's also Strength/Beauty in the shadow - denied but still part of the gestalt.
quote:
Originally posted by Sea Shell
quote:
Originally posted by bear
I think what's underneath the sky father thing is not specific to marie, but to 5w4 in general, and sx 5w4 in particular... unconsciously knocking people off their game. It's a part of "confidence" - to force the other into a place of uncertainty keeps fear at bay and maintains a comfortable "i know you don't" self-image. It's definitely something that is disliked about us because we're constantly undermining the other in subtle ways, stealing their confidence.
Why sx 5w4 in particular?
For lots of reasons, including the connection to wings and arrows, but also because of the focus on the interpersonal. There's an intricately designed keyhole the sx 5 sets up, looking for the perfect key. To avoid feeling the pain and disappointment of not being met, others are devalued. The other subtypes also do the arrogant "i know" thing, but it's not as fierce - my sense is that there's not as much disappointment because there isn't as much focus on the perfect fit.
quote:
Originally posted by bear
In carlos' case, apply what Naranjo said about sx 5s to finding the right teacher: passionate about the one person (usually someone they can't find). Search for absolute love and it's too hard for others to pass the test. Very easily disappointed. Looking to trust in another - the one that will be with you and for you no matter what, beyond the level of marriage vows. There's a need to undermine all that don't pass the test (and sometimes idealize those that aren't available).
I thought this applies only to sx 5s' ideals of their loved ones. I don't understand how it can apply to finding a teacher.
Instinctual focus applies to just about everything and everyone, it's not just about primary relationships. A full blown commitment to a teacher or teaching also requires love and a sense of intense connection.
|
Edited by - bear on 29 Oct 2009 7:53:36 PM |
|
|
|
Art_Skidmore
Member
13305 Posts |
Posted - 30 Oct 2009 : 03:26:35 AM
|
...they don'nt start every conversation with something polite like...."IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED...."
....yo intense commitement requires yo give yo intense money first which is in intense porportation to yo intense love and the intense love yo intensley receive in return.
 |
Edited by - Art_Skidmore on 30 Oct 2009 03:37:16 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
what do people dislike about 5w4's?
