Why this Blog is Now Called "The Non-Ex-Socionist"
Six years ago I wrote a post called "Why this Blog is Now Called "The [Ex-]Socionist." Six months ago I wrote a post called "Ex-ex-socionist?"
From now on this blog will be called "The Non-Ex-Socionist."
The Non-Ex-Socionist Manifesto
There may be types. Actually, it seems like there are. We can pretend that there are. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it doesn't.
The recognition that there are types (or appear to be, upon close observation) is more important than the particular choice of typology.
The close observation leading to the recognition that there are types (or appear to be) is even more important than the recognition that there are types.
A lack of awareness of types causes much bewilderment in the world. Many errors of judgment arise from a lack of recognition of types and from a lack of close observation into the nature of individual differences.
You can and probably should apply different typologies simultaneously. These typologies do not need to correlate. In fact, they will not. Attempts to map typologies to each other or somehow merge them are doomed.
Typologies are imaginary constructs and thus deserve to be treated lightheartedly. There is no good reason to get worked up about typology.
Treating typology as a non-imaginary construct (as reality) can and does become a source of suffering. The very inventors of a typology may be afflicted by it.
Strongly identifying with a type and defending that identification leads to suffering, though it may not seem so at first. At some point it will be useful to give up the identification.
Having relinquished your type identify, you will nonetheless notice type-related behavior in yourself and others. Now you're getting somewhere!
You are not your type. Your personality may seem to follow a type pattern. But even identifying with your personality is unnecessary.
Your interpersonal relationships and interactions appear to be affected by type. Actually, they are most strongly influenced by your identifications.
Your self-identifications can be interpreted in such a way as to seem type-related. This serves to strengthen the identifications, which contributes to suffering.
Changes in identifications and self-referential narratives cause changes in relationships. Show me a type-identified person, and I'll show you a person who is suffering in their relationships.
Nonetheless, there may be types. Actually, it seems like there are. We can pretend that there are. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it doesn't.
3 comments:
I think that there are people with similar personalities. And you could call them "types". But I think that the more important thing than just observing and categorizing these differences, is to understand why are there these types, and what exactly is it that give "expression" to these types. Otherwise I think, we'd be missing a whole bunch of other contexts for understanding how people actually work and why is it that they do whatever that they do, and especially in different situations and circumstances.
It's not just enough for biology to categorize a myriad of confusing and seemingly unrelated species, it required the theory of evolution to make sense of it all that they're all connected in a beautiful way and that they all have a common ancestor. It wasn't enough for chemistry to just observe and attempt to classify a bunch of known chemical elements at the time and failing at it, it required the Periodic Table that told us how those elements came about to make sense of it all
More important to science, definitely. But here I'm talking about the individual's perspective. Are you (generic person) able to live well (joyfully and peacefully) in an absence of perfect knowledge of your own type, the types of other people, and a coherent scientific theory explaining why these types exist and why they are the way they are?
Welcome back, Rick!
Post a Comment