The X-Axis - Lexicality vs Impressionism

 

The X-Axis - Lexicality vs Impressionism:

Information, whether tangible or idea-oriented, can be seen in a vast variety of ways. While some may prefer making records of it, others would prefer the default chaos and subjective impressions of what is seen. In Jungian terms, one side of the X-axis prefers judging the information, and the other side prefers perceiving it. While one side may prefer establishing or having the formula to address all that exists, the other side may find the vague, fluid associations of that perception more valuable. One can, in simple terms, summarise it as order vs chaos, but that's more of a diagonal matter. In the X-axis, structures, formulas, and rules oppose vibes, instinct, and subjective associations. The magic of this axis' contrast is that, while one side would formulise the abstract and the raw, the other side would find spontaneous impressions and associations, while looking at organised and structured data. 

Lexicality:

The side that seeks to formulise what is experienced. Think back to the very first cave carvings. A record was made of the experiences, and most importantly, a language was established/relied upon (depending on laterality or verticality) to refer to that experience. A great example of lexicality is the very existence of data itself because considering the bounds of the uncertainty principle, which would suggest the lack of absolutes due to the relative standards. Approximate permanency is what can be deemed as the very core of lexicality - the idea itself. Principles about the manipulation of reality are preferably established. 

Mathematics and music theory would be the biggest examples of lexicality in its typical manifestation, besides the conventional language itself. Geometry, more specifically is the classic example of lexicality's principles resulting more in the focus towards the approximate, instead of towards the absolute, in fact, it can be summed down as the absolution of the approximate. No existence features shapes as perfect as those mainly discussed and quantified in geometry, and the analysis of the shape of existence would be much more complex and devoid of approximation a process, which, is an indication of lexicality, despite its perfect principles, still being a victim of nature's loopholes. Geometrical thinking is also a major proof of lexicality, like every idea to ever exist, manifesting in several ways instead of one, as while it's typically assumed as a medium of words, any structures of the permanent kind, that result in communication and problem-solving, are lexical. Even imagination itself can be considered lexical due to the inevitable possibility of it also featuring extreme clarity and organisation. 

This isn't to say that all minds that have grown into being a person of lexical ways would always need or establish extremely structured, and permanently ordered ways of communicating and problem-solving. People who are mildly in the lexical range would blend in a great deal of spontaneity alongside their way of expression and judgment. The preference of lexicality, in that case, would be seen through their value for still using more technical ways of seeing information and ideas. In fact, the lexicals of the non-extreme kind are even likelier than more lexical thinkers to find those patterns of approximation within purely abstract, raw, and artistic ideas, or rely on them, albeit with lesser order in the codification. The very slight kind of lexical people would find some interestingly universal patterns within the spontaneity of expression. 

Memory, principle, and symbol, are the lexical memory, principle, and symbol that represent lexicality. The approximately absolute ideas, represented in subtly permanent codes and principles, would be the timeless deduction factor of a lexical mind. 

Impressionism:

The side of the impressionists thrives in the most perceptive ways of seeing all existence. It perceives the default chaos of things in the rawest, or the most abstract possible ways (depending on the Y-axis placement). The immediate, spontaneous expression or association that is felt in relation to the observed events is what the impressionistic mind spurs out. It finds the idea of simple codes or symbols permanently representing the ideas inconsistent with its perceptive approach, as, for it, the categorised context is of much less importance than what is subjectively perceived by each sensation or idea. Due to this reason, one would expect the impressionistic mind to associate different, chaotic, and fluid means of expression with what they sense or intuit, and that also results in the extremely impressionistic minds' obliviousness to any permanent forms of communication, as the preference of the spontaneous expression, or art has great prominence within them. 

Freeform and abstract art forms are the manifestation of all that float the impressionistic boat. Randomness and uncertainty guide the impressionistic mind's process of shaping things. Think of a painter who doesn't know the whereabouts of their next stroke, as all that shall guide them are the fluid associations their perception brings forth, without any permanency of principles. Due to the existence of memory, this isn't to say that there's nothing long-lasting, in the impressionistic mind, it is a greater hub of instinctive ideas than its opposites, but the ideas constantly evolve or reshape, at the speed of the perceived immediate itself. This can be seen in the spontaneous, and the devoid of theory kind of an artist of any medium, as the theoretical regulation would, according to the impressionist, limit the fluid uniqueness and absolute novelty in their internal or external approach (lateral vs vertical). 

You wouldn't however, expect everyone in the impressionistic ranges to be exactly like that. Mildly impressionistic minds do codify their raw, or artistic impressions, and they're even likely to follow the lexical codification to a degree, but it should be made clear by their preferred position itself, that they would trust their immediate hunches more, and would at best, try to make them very approachable to the codifying aspects of their minds. And the situation reverses from the non-extreme lexicals, in the case of non-extreme impressionists, as while the former preferred ways to technically address and theorise the spontaneous expression, the latter would find ways to trust their hunches, regarding any detail that they see. And while extreme impressionism may fit the artist that knows no second stroke, as every stroke is the stroke that matters itself, balanced, or slight impressionism would fit the mind of a storyteller, as their subjective worlds or expressions would be turned into a means of being read (not necessarily as a book). 

The impressionistic mind can very well be associated with fluidity and instinct, where the absolutely current idea of the situation is what shall manifest at whatever preferred level. Be it a live performance of an actor, or the spontaneous strokes of an artist, that end up unveiling the universe's secrets, chaotically. 

The Fluidity:

The system believes in no static type or range that you're a part of. You're near a range depending on the frequency of your placement under different, identity-defining contexts. These contexts, however, can cause drastic changes in your cognitive approaches, especially those that generally deviate from your approach (also note that a deviating cognition in itself can be an approach). For example, a lexical may enjoy the fluidity of music as it is, as that's where they could make an exception, as compared to other facets. An impressionistic mind may have to be lexical in order to solve mathematical problems.