To discuss the fluidity and movement of the system we must make very clear two things:
Latently, you are every type. That is to say self-contained within a person's cognition is the capacity to process information in any manner (that is explained by the axes).
Tendency to be on different places around the chart is too contextual to lock into presuppositions.
With this in mind I'll try and explain this idea of "portals of context"
A portal of context refers to the ability of a person to, in any position on a chart, open up a portal that allows for the instantaneous movement from two different places (no matter how radically opposing the positions may seem). What then is the condition for opening these portals up? The way I see it there is two methods which will open up portals: Conscious learning of a range's cognition approach and latent subconscious capacity for a cognitive approach. The trigger then will be facing a context (an information input) that forces the subject to open up a portal. This may not always be easy, in fact often times even with pre-established portals this will be very difficult, truth is that it is too contextual and individualized to say here. I'll give an example of a person who goes from a hyper impressionist range to a B or lexical A range when doing something that could be said to innately resemble lexicality (under different contexts), we'll say typology (you are literally putting into a concise and consistent model a person; of course you can do typology impressionistically though). It's important to note these contexts do not always appear only in singular ranges. They occur all throughout and have tendency ascribed to them. I see no reason why this person should have to either chartloop or go through the bordering types to the left when cognition to me is designed to be versatile (and not literally on a chart or axes lol). One of the most common presuppositions that I am against, although not entirely as the movement of a person is contextual, is the idea (or perhaps more an implication) that you will always move through bordering types rather than skip past them. I've never been a fan of this form of restricting movement (along with it sometimes comes predetermined speed for types which is also something I am not a fan of).
Ok here's the question how does this all impact my type? This may seem weird with the context of previous and perhaps even future articles but I am of the opinion that ONLY YOU can find out your "type" (I would rather say your "ranges" but I digress) . Only you have full context of the contexts that trigger different forms of cognition and even more so only you have full context of the mode of cognition itself. Generally typing, unless you are undergoing an incredibly detailed psychological survey, is biased to the context a person finds themselves
in
To make very, very clear what I want to do with any typology I'll say this: I want an open-range typology one where the person being analyzed is shown to be in constant flux, one where the "type" itself is marked by the movements of the person, a nomadic system, the most individualized generic system I can cram without falling too largely into the side of having to deal with too much data, and hopefully a system lacking an archetypal approach.
To visualize how the chart should look we've thrown this together:
Comments
Post a Comment