Although briefly touched upon in the previous article, I think it is imperative for any typology, typology adjacent system, or really any metric for that matter to touch upon the intent and goals of the system in great detail. As such this article has been procured. The format will be a simple list with further elaboration below if needed. Any questions will/can be answered in the comment section.
A metric for understanding human cognition that falls not too heavy on the side of a standardized, authoritarian type image while not sacrificing depth of ideas for hyper-subjectivity
Standardized, authoritarian type image would mean something like [Type code] means [Description] definitively, with little variation, or with extreme priority
Hyper-subjectivity would be seen in vibe typing or when more emphasis is placed on the individual understanding rather than the agreed upon type image (the more this laissez-faire attitude, in a traditional typology environment, is applied the less meaning can be extracted from the type code in of itself)
Mind Axes' solution is a geographic typology or rather a rangeology (title may be replaced) of sorts. What this implies is a form of standardization in the quality of the geography or compass (we are working on best accounting for relativity) via the axes coupled with the subjectivity given by the movement of the subject.
It is important to note that the compass, as it is just a conceptual expression, realistically abides by its own laws differing from the standard natural laws we abide. Therefore, in order to best conceptualize movement one must eliminate the natural stratification our mind seems to induct (E.G. To get from Point A to Point B you must pass through that is itself expressed on the chart). I have written some more about movement in the article on Contexts and Fluidity
Standard typology assumes types are isolated variables and thusly fail to account for overlap. When a typology does account for relation between types (I.E. Enneagram) the overlap is accounted for in strange ways such as presupposed movement (Disintegration/Integration) masquerading under the guide of being the only pattern when in fact it is just the main pattern. It is like a forest wherein the explorer is only allowed to follow the set paths (the explorer could hardly call themselves an explorer!)
Our system takes great influence from the works of post-structuralist philosophers such as (or rather primarily) Gilles Deleuze. We have worked to create a system that moves past the arborescent and authoritative implications of traditional typology that which limits becoming.
Note 1: One should find identification in the quality of the geography they appear on not in the tribes or other people of the land. If need be one may identify flags or other static beacons but one must always realize these may appear again throughout the compass
Note 2: Borders and other such stratification claimed to exist is arbitrary and although patterns may exist the primary deterrent for movement or being in a location on the compass is actual ability for the subject to withstand its geography
Our system takes great influence from the works of post-structuralist philosophers such as (or rather primarily) Gilles Deleuze. We have worked to create a system that moves past the arborescent and authoritative implications of traditional typology that which limits becoming.
Note 1: One should find identification in the quality of the geography they appear on not in the tribes or other people of the land. If need be one may identify flags or other static beacons but one must always realize these may appear again throughout the compass
Note 2: Borders and other such stratification claimed to exist is arbitrary and although patterns may exist the primary deterrent for movement or being in a location on the compass is actual ability for the subject to withstand its geography
For more information on how one will express themselves on the chart please see the article Contexts and Fluidity
Comments
Post a Comment