Hi JoVo,
Try this:
The moment you make a distinction of A so you force the creation of the
distinction of ~A.
This process of distinction making is the fundamental way in which we humans
make maps of reality.
When we make a distinction we then more often than not zoom-in on the
distinction and make it a context within which we create more distinctions
as we attempt to refine our analysis of A. This is an attempt to be precise,
to clearly identify A from ~A.
The process of zooming-in has structure in that we 'cut' A into bits which
we then label. At the general level these labels are:
A -- the whole
~A -- all else of A
Zooming-in on ~A helps to differentiate ~A into such distinctions as:
parts (wholes in their own right but here seen as objects in the context of
a greater object)
relationships, both static and dynamic.
Zoom-in further and out pops a general distinction best associated with the
concepts of positive/negative, text/context, foreground/background,
expansive/contractive etc.
All of these distinctions are 'natural', they are not learnt in anyway, just
refined through education.
Thus ANY distinction-making includes a set of properties that are part of
the method of analysis, you will 'see' A/~A fleshed-out into distinctions of
wholeness, partness, static relationships, dynamic relationships. These in
turn are fleshed-out into, for example, the text/context distinction, thus
you have whole as text, whole as context, parts as text, parts as context,
static relationships as text, static relationships as context, dynamic
relationships as text, dynamic relationships as context.
There are eight distinctions in this list and these seem to be enough to
form a simple set of meanings that when combined with each other lead to a
set of meanings that are more complex.
These complex meanings, reflecting the combinations of the elements of the
simple set described above are associated with general feelings and these
feelings form the generally invarient set of feelings we as a species use to
communicate.
In the context of this list, take the MOQ as the 'universe of discourse'. We
will naturally flesh-out the properties and methods of this universe by
using recursive dichotomisations to identify 'meanings'. Thus the MOQ will
naturally fall into the distintions of whole, parts, static relationships,
dynamic relationships etc as discussed above re ANY distinction.
These distinctions however are too general, it is hard to talk about 'a
whole' without localising it, without identifying 'this whole' from 'that
whole'. Language helps us here by enabling us to NAME, to LOCALISE, wholes,
parts etc and so objects in general.
Thus 'MOQ' is a universe of discourse, it is a 'whole' as such and we
automatically use dichotomisation to analyse MOQ and then label the
distinctions we make such that MOQ is fleshed-out into a concept with its
own language and as such MOQ becomes a tool for interpreting reality.
Feedback then goes towards validating MOQ to be a 'useful' way of
interpreting or not.
Structurally MOQ has the SAME set of distinctions as all other universes of
discourse but this is hidden by the use of free will to label distinctions,
to particularise them, to tie them to the particular universe of discourse.
This method of analysis, dichotomous analysis, reflects your brain at work
in that analysis of data is made by forming 1:many type dichotomies and from
those eliciting a sense of meaning.
IF you map-out the first few steps of this method you have the following
distinctions:
Level 0 - a whole (thus a general particularisation, the distinction of
"MOQ" from everything else)
Zoom-in to level 1 -- a whole + parts.
Zoom-in to level 2 - (by looking at the space 'inbetween' the distinctions
of whole and parts) whole+parts+relationships, where the latter is static
and dynamic.
You may be puzzled here since isnt a part a relationship? so why the
distinctions that exclude the concept of parts? This is because
relationships exist between objects and as such can be interpreted as 'stand
alone' -- virtual objects if you like. Thus 'love' can be interpreted as a
'thing' but in fact is a process, Thus love is a virtual object in that,
like a tornado, when analysed it is found to have nothing to touch, it is
all 'wind' :-)
With all of this in mind, when you analyse all categorisation systems based
on observations of people, so the different systems - e.g. MBTI, HBTI, BIG-5
etc are found to have the SAME structures behind the DIFFERENT words.
Thus, to use the MBTI you find:
NFP types are biased to behaviours linked to contractive wholeness, to
blending by drawing someone 'in' -- disciples and advocates are like this.
NFJ types are biased to contractive static relationships, to bonding, to
sharing the same space with another (as do NFPs) but also to retaining some
sense of their original identity.
SFJ types favour parts, boundaries distinctions but contractive in form, aim
to protect.
STJ types favour dynamic relationships, they lack trust in others and so use
BINDs to share space, they make contracts etc
NTP types favour dynamic relationships but are expansive. They lack trust in
themselves and so bind themselves to maps and philosophies.
NTJ types favour parts, expansive boundaries which they push outwards.
SFP types favour static relationships but in an expansive form, to form
bonds with their audience (these types are often performers etc)
STP types favour expansive wholeness, singlemindedness, to assert THEIR
context over all else.
The above associations are made from analysis of the MBTI as linked to the
underlying template of 'meaning' based on object/relationship distinctions
unconsciously made by the neurology. The MBTI is a particularisation of
patterns identification in a context of persona typing and as such is a
metaphor for describing personality types.
The source of these categorisations is the use of recursion dichotomisations
of some basic distinctions. For the MBTI you can identify these distinctions
as that of NF from SP temperaments. These terms (N-intuitive, F-feeling,
S-sensing, P-perceiving) where derivered from intuitive meanings and by
extending these meanings all of the other types 'pop out' of the extention
process. This process is the recursion of the original distinctions
expressed in the form of a dichotomy, thus NF/SP applied to itself gives:
(1) 'Pure' NF
(2) A mix of SP in an NF context
(3) A mix of NF in an SP context
(4) 'Pure' SP.
The middle two are then re-categorised to emphasise their difference where
(2) manifests a state best expressed by the MBTI/Keirsey distinctions of an
SJ temperament and (3) manifests a state best expressed as NT. (T = think, J
= Judge)
Even at this 'general' level behavioural biases have emerged where:
NF are found to be identity seekers
SJ are found to be security seekers
NT are found to be solution seekers (problem solvers)
SP are found to be sensation seekers
Keep applying these distinctions recursively and you move well beyond the
current levels of persona typologies (usually limited to 5 dimensions -- the
above method gets to 12 before things become too personal in that we move
from general persona types -- a social typology system, to particular
individuals).
MY emphasis is on the structuring of these categorisations in that they
reflect underlying neurologically determined categorisations.
My understanding this 'hidden' level of analysis we can get a better
perspective on concepts and so be more discerning in our analyse of things,
we see expressions for what they are, metaphors, and as such withdraw from
taking many of them too literally since that seems to be where we have all
of our problems.
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Johannes Volmert
> Sent: Thursday, 7 December 2000 11:43
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD: JoVo, Enneagram and MOQ
>
>
>
>
> Chris Lofting wrote:
> >
> > JoVo, my emphasis on my websites is more on what is BEHIND
> these typologies
> > IOW each typology is 'different' in the way descriptions are
> expressed but
> > behind them all is a methodology that is, at the general level,
> the SAME in
> > all of the our species.
> >
> > Understand THAT level and all else is seen as particularisations,
> > localisations, of a general form of categorisations.
> >
> > This includes converting dichotomy-derived to trichotomy-derived and the
> > reverse...
> >
> > best,
>
>
> Hi Chris, Hi All,
>
> I was referring to the above table (of the referred page), the
> MBTI-Enneagram,
> that gives one possible decription what kind of general types can
> be found in
> any society and you yourself refer to the Keirsey typology as
> well, isn't it?
> It maybe, that I did not use it in the way it is meant to be, but
> IMO I did it
> in an also legal way and Danila seems to be of at least a nearby opinion.
>
> I must admit that, however greatly interested in your posts, that
> I have until
> now - though I spend a lot of time on it, especially your
> articles on this list
> - have not understood what exactly your, well, impetus is.
>
> For example I don't understand, what you would like to express
> with the above,
> apart from having misunderstood you. It may be, that I'm not as
> smart as you
> :-), but it seems I'm not the only one who has some problems to
> understand the
> meaning of your writings.
>
> With best wishes, hoping for a clarifying answer on your part,
>
> regards
>
> JoVo
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST