Objective vs. functional

Monsieur O. Cuckington III criticizes:

>”The naturalist’s desire to form the perfect world order built from this gnosis follows immediately from the study of philosophy and psychology, which is why these fields hold such an intense fascination for would-be philosopher kangz”

>”this gnosis”

^You appear to be conflating Gnosticism (a be-a-shitbag-for-free-card masquerading as a religion) with the xNTP cognitive style (which favors “knowing” as opposed to xNTJ “willing”).

From IDRLabs.com:

NTP Knowing vs. NTJ Willing

By Sigurd Arild and Ryan Smith

Here on the site we often tell our readers that Jungian functions are about cognitive processes and not specific contents of consciousness. Content can be understood as any entity of consciousness, be it a thought, feeling, sensation, or belief, i.e. anything that is contained in consciousness. The content need not be consciousness of a physical object, in fact, it need not even be true (for example, a man may have as a content of his consciousness the belief that his girlfriend has never cheated on him when in fact she has). The basic idea when dealing with the contents of consciousness is that there is cognitive attention directed at something and that it is this attention that distinguishes between conscious and unconscious mental contents. Attention to the entities of consciousness is common to all of the functions; what differs is the way in which each function interacts with the contents given.

In this article we will talk about Knowing and Willing as prima facie modes of attending to the entities of consciousness – modes that are especially applicable to NTPs and NTJs. For our purposes, we postulate that there are two modes of relation between consciousness and content (in reality there are more, but we have not discovered them all yet).

There is one mode in which the contents of consciousness determine the kind of attention levelled at it, i.e. where the content dominates the attention, thus causing the individual consciousness to get lost in the object; we call this mode Knowing.
There is another mode in which attention determines the content, i.e. where the consciousness dominates the content, thus causing the object to get lost in the individual consciousness of it; we call this mode Willing.

Knowing

In the Knowing mode of relation between consciousness and attention to the entities of consciousness, we aspire to have our consciousness determined by the object. Our goal is that our consciousness – i.e. the subjective element of consciousness – should merely discover the object without adding anything to it or distorting it in any way. For this impartial discovery to occur, it is logically necessary that the object should exist prior to, and independently of, us. It must be an already accomplished and agreed-upon fact; one that is not brought into being by our cognition of it.

Willing

In the Willing mode of relation between consciousness and attention to the entities of consciousness, we aspire to embody a “consciousness first” approach. In the Knowing mode we are at ease when the fact existed prior to our own cognition of it, but the Willing mode functions differently. Here we operate on the basis of an ideal initial stage where only our own consciousness existed and there was not yet any object to preoccupy it. Psychologically, we may say that in the Willing mode, objects are ushered into existence by way of our consciousness of them. Objects are felt to have no purpose apart from the purpose that we will for them. Hence we call it Willing.

Contrast of Knowing and Willing

In the Knowing mode, we aspire to have ideal knowledge of the object, even beyond what is humanly possible. But in the Willing mode, we aspire to have the objects of consciousness conform to the injunctions of our personal consciousness. In the knowing mode, the properties of the objects of consciousness are therefore ends in themselves, whereas in the Willing mode, these properties should ideally be completely conducive to the volitions of one’s personal consciousness. Willing thus operates on the basis of pure imagination, whereas Knowing only imagines on the basis of facts that are already given to it. The ideal of Knowing is therefore truth, while the ideal of Willing is freedom.

It might be thought that in order for us to Will something, we must know what to will in advance. This is certainly axiomatically true, but psychologically, we are here dealing with one of the many instances of surprising inferences contained in Jungian typology: In the case of the NTJ types, for example, we may say that they often will things without completely knowing in advance what it is that they are willing. One reason for this remarkable arrangement is that, as Te types, they care about being decisive before caring about being precise. By way of Te, they quickly see a goal, but with depreciated Fi, and with no Si to instill moderation in their pursuits, they do not necessarily pause to ponder what it is they are advancing. The psychological injunction to will something into being may in practice occur with only scant insight into the outcome willed.

NTP Knowing and NTJ Willing

It should now be easy to see how Knowing and Willing conform to the typical makeup of NTPs and NTJs, all else being equal.

In the Knowing mode:

We aspire to let the whole of our own consciousness be determined by the external object. Thus our motives are neatly aligned with Ne.
We wish merely to discover the object on its own terms, without taking sides or deploying it for any specific purpose. We employ a mode of inquiry where, ideally and in the final respect, we do not even require a consciousness to be conscious of the object. Hence this mode of attention blends well with Ti.
We are more at ease if an object of consciousness is already existent and agreed upon, prior to our engagement with it. These properties of the object are soothing to Fe and Si.

But in the Willing mode:

We invariably let the external object be determined by our consciousness of it, which is akin to Ni.
We push for specific goals and outcomes; goals that may make considerable and skillful use of external facts, but which are ultimately given precedence (i.e. one goal is pursued over another) by the means of our personal consciousness, thus allowing the exerciser of Te.
We crave freedom from the already existing and the communally agreed upon, which speaks to the fancies of Fi and Se over those of Fe and Si. We want to arrive at results that are iconoclastic and seminally new; not a brilliant reorganization of an already existing body of knowledge (as in the case of the NTPs).
We are preoccupied with the aspirations of our personal consciousness and thus cannot be self-forgetful.

Thus we say that, all else being equal, Knowing conforms to the NTP temperament, while Willing comes closer to the natural dispositions of the NTJs.

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Professor T.R.V. Murti for his discussions of transcendental psychology.

^There are other, similar articles to that one on that site, but they’re behind a paywall

Funnily, and perhaps paradoxically, the NTJ/Willing mode lends itself much more heavily to Gnosticism than does the NTP/Knowing mode. Which is probably why modern Christendom has such a problem with reality-denialism, cuckery, Judeophilia; etc

Also if you could refrain from conflating Gnosticism with intellectual honesty while doing so that would be good. I say “intellectual honesty” but what I mean is “cognitive styles that are different from your own”. Basically I’m irritated at your conflating a different cognitive style with heresy

Comments on Jungian Paganism as Zodiacism

I like “objective” and “functional” for this distinction, or maybe “object-as-art” vs. “object-as-tool”. And this is something I’ve noticed about my own cognition: I don’t think in words OR pictures primarily, but rather in terms of actions taken on the environment. So I don’t see myself opening the door and walking out, I see a thumbnail of the door handle and feel it opening in my hand (but also as a sort of “sensation thumbnail”). And I conceptualize this plan as a sort of 3-phase story where I’m in one place, then engaged in the action, then in another place. This is probably the “willing” mode.

The exception is when I’m in turtle mode, diving deep into the land of intuitive archetypes and their behaviors (for humans, think of this as the stories they expect). Generally, these insights come to me as something like waking dreams which are primarily visual, with phrases mixed in (very similar to this dream), which have to be interpreted afterward. This is probably the “knowing” mode. I do the writing in tool mode, which tends to supply whatever logical structure the thing eventually takes.

Similarly, I expect the difference in self-knowledge available to xNTPs and xNTJs is something like “self-as-art” vs. “self-as-tool”.

Dankpoast tomorrow, promise. I have a plan to make it happen more regularly, even when I’m down in the dumps (been low-energy since the family thing, think it’s finally passing though).

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Objective vs. functional

  1. Gabriel Lorca says:

    Good post on a meta-level concept. I was just smoking a cig and contemplating this related to the unamended US Constitution and what we have today. Also helps explains the cuckservative phenomenon as well.

    • Gabriel Lorca says:

      “We invariably let the external object be determined by our consciousness of it, which is akin to Ni.
      We push for specific goals and outcomes; goals that may make considerable and skillful use of external facts, but which are ultimately given precedence (i.e. one goal is pursued over another) by the means of our personal consciousness, thus allowing the exerciser of Te.”

      This is why Normies are such a problem. They dont understand its 3am and the gym is closed so you have to do burpees in the cubicle. Or that its winter and the supply chain is delayed a day.

      • bicebicebcie says:

        That is interesting because if you tell them that, you become the source of their ire, you are the delay manifest. Works the same for every other issue, don’t sperg in public without a sperging license!

  2. Robotnick says:

    This post made me hard. Good concept porn

  3. Robotnick says:

    I don’t think type is a static thing, and I think we would agree on that.

    I used to think I was INTJ, but I noticed I’m not exactly big on planning, operationalizing, strategizing in particular. But more geared towards contemplation and then communication of ideas in a Petersonian-esque fashion (though probably not as rigorous as him at this point)
    Though my contemplation is highly subjective (creative) as opposed to objective. So favoring Ni over Ne I would think. I think I’m actually an INFJ at this point. The NFJ being rather a blend of NTP knowing and NTJ willing a would imagine. A need to conform to some underlying cosmic order but also a creative aspect to one’s worldview. As opposed to an INTJ Nietzschean pure individuated will structuring one’s life and reality or whatnot.
    Schopenhauer vs Nietzsche would be a good example of INFJ vs INTJ.
    Or maybe I’m just an INTJ on a Ni-Fi loop. If that’s possible.
    /dumb rants

  4. says:

    Lots to unpack here. From what I can tell we are basically physiognomically-inverse as well.

    Your eyes are narrowishly-spaced relative to your overall facial dimensions with concomitant emotional solipsism; my eyes are wideishly-spaced with concomitant emotional asperger’s syndrome.
    The bone structure of your face is robust; mine is gracile.
    Your face is fairly short; mine is fairly long.
    You have the big lowslung occ mass with slight parietal-top; I have the big backswept parietal with slight occ-bottom.
    You have the strong INTJ cognition; I have the strong ENTP (whose functional-stacks also mirror each other perfectly and inversely).

    Basically, you are “full-Enlil”:
    http://the-red-thread.net/Enlil.html

    I am “full-Enki”:
    http://the-red-thread.net/Enki.html

    • says:

      Also, your face is somewhat neotenous (despite skeletal robusticity), whereas mine is somewhat gerontomorphic (despite skeletal gracility)

      • says:

        There’s probably more, too.

        I prolly got dat big dik wif little nuts; u prolly got dem big nutz wif a little dik

        • says:

          You have the brain of an intellectual and the personality of an artist; I have the brain of an artist and the personality of an intellectual.
          You are on the rostral stream; I am on the caudal stream.

          • says:

            Your brain abstracts flat circles with little regard to entropy, and hates pyramids. My brain abstracts pyramids in order to control entropy, and hates circles.
            Our common enemy is, of course, a circle inside of a pyramid.

            • says:

              >Your brain abstracts flat circles with little regard to entropy, and hates pyramids. My brain abstracts pyramids in order to control entropy

              ^I’ll add that this idea is conjecture on my part that seems true

            • says:

              Triangle: Parietal
              Circle: Occipital
              Square: Frontal
              X: Temporal

            • says:

              The parietal abstracts pyramids to control entropy:


              ^Left beaker: Occipital; Middle beaker: temporal; Right beaker: Parietal

              “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:”

            • says:

              #latenightshitpostingspree

            • says:

              Floating is Aesthetic-ese for Gnostic enlightenment, which is why triangle is always the jump button

            • says:

              Circle button always crouches down, goes prone or moves back.
              X Always connects the player to something in the environment.
              Square is generally a utility-button.

  5. says:

    At earlier times in our lives, you hated America and loved Jews. I, on the other hand, loved America and hated Jews.

    >Our common enemy is, of course, a circle inside of a pyramid.

    America has a pyramid on its dollar bill. Israel has a circle on its flag.

    Lucifer and Ahriman both need to be BTFO sooner rather than later.

  6. Julian says:

    They’re out of place in a 5th-century synagogue mosaic, if that’s actually what they happen to be. I guess the spiral staircase makes sense though.

  7. Pingback: Melonhead attention powers | Aeoli Pera

  8. Ø says:

    “I don’t think in words OR pictures primarily, but rather in terms of actions taken on the environment. So I don’t see myself opening the door and walking out, I see a thumbnail of the door handle and feel it opening in my hand (but also as a sort of “sensation thumbnail”). And I conceptualize this plan as a sort of 3-phase story where I’m in one place, then engaged in the action, then in another place.”

    Whereas I merely see a door handle in front of me, then reach out and open it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s