Math and synergy can be used to understand the human condition. Metaphysics and modern psychology are explored using a formula.
I think its rather simplistic to put everyone under one of three headings. Each person is an individual but can display similar behaviours because of cirtain conditions/mindsets relating to cirtain situations. Because of this individual nature, there exists alot of overlap one the three archtypes here, and there would also be syndromes and conditions that exist because of these crosovers. For example People with OCD are generally analytical thinkers and very caring.
The core idea for this is interesting. But I find a bit of it difficult to reason with. Mind you, these statements are to encourage it better developed, not smash it down. The encouragement is that a lot of things I see posted here, I don’t take the time to write anything on it because I don’t think there’s anything there worth exploring (like all posters do).
Maybe it fascinates me because it resonates a little of my pet invention (which I justify with NO basis, honestly). But it still remains its own idea entirely. It’s also exciting to see something that is genuinely driven toward making new ideas. So as they use a compliment sandwich in business . . .
(1) You should probably make a real website out of this if you want it taken more seriously. Even a cheap domain like .tk
(2) A lot of unnecessary words are used like “quantum,” “math,” “synergy,” “metaphysics.” This is not necessarily the case, but it prompts a suspicion from the reader as to wheather they were just fun to use and make it sound smarter. For each of those words, you’d need a lot of (probably unnecessary) work to defend their use. With that said, I think at least the first 2 paragraphs are unnecessary.
(3) Your first 2 sets are interesting. But the third set is just a little too obviously condascending. It’s difficult to say what to do with it, because it implies that anyone falling under the third category is a hopeless case problem.
Now what I DO like is that core differentiation: The Designer, the Professional, and the Charmer. But I would also identify these archetypes somewhat differently. I’ll make a second post as to what I see between those types in common people. All subjective, of course, and abstract. Not really fleshed out.
The designer is an introvert, leaning toward Jung’s “architect” archetype. Many others can apply, such as “visionary.” The designer is devoted toward theory and analysis, but does not tend to follow specific status-quo direction of those designs.
The Professional, on the other hand, does love the status-quo and feels envigored by a rigorous hand. A well-to-do at work and school, but not an eager developer. The Professional seeks to be the glue of a social group, in family or in work etc, trying to unite a solid center of the Professional’s ideal. The professional sees social situations as more concrete. “This is where I work, this is how I live” rather than being able to consider changing direction or doing away with a lifestyle entirely.
The Charmer is extraverted and also somewhat radical. The charmer is not occupied with a status-quo, nor preoccupied with theory. In fact, the charmer is adept at distraction, able to change with mood of environment. Willing to connect with the idea at hand.
Perhaps one solid use for these archetypes would be that a person can consider wheather they fit narrowly in one of those categories, and then can possibly be more successful by considering how interactions in that category are beneficial. It might be encouraged that they keep their weakness to a controllable level, but focus on their strengths when it comes to winning the war.
Each category has a clear defined situtation of where they’re comfortable and uncomfortable. I also find an easy time looking at others I know and seating them right away in one of the three. I don’t think they would argue with my choices for them either.
thanks for the feedback guys
It seems you’ve drawn together some rather uncommon archetypes – I would be interested to know how you would announce their existence and qualifty their symmetry. You speak of archetypes, but I am wondering if it wouldn’t be more pertinent to draw complexes from these archetypes and how they intersperse with one another and lend to the human condition; perhaps you will do this, but there isn’t really enough information on your page that elaborates on any of this, much less explain your entire position. Your theory, as presented, is incomplete. I’m not sure you’re not misrepresenting Jung.
I thought some of these archetypes were actually rather common. Mostly everyone is familiar with the concept of a mother or a child or a hero.
So much has already been said about these individual archetypes. I can’t imagine what I would say about them individually that wouldn’t just be reiterating something that Carl Jung said. I think the most important aspect of this theory is the way the archetypes take on a new meaning and image when they are combined.
kimanishorter.tripod.com/id2.html
kimanishorter.tripod.com/id3.html
kimanishorter.tripod.com/id4.html
I suppose in order to understand this new meaning and image some background information is needed about the archetypes but I think that is explained fairly adequately.