Towards a Nietzschean Typology.

Once she’s arrived you know all conversation with substance is over.
Back to the average.
It’s the only thing tolerable around here…and out there for that matter.

Here, even the feminine obsession of a hypothetical man, eternally dedicated to his one and only, can be misconstrued in such a manner that (s)he becomes preferable to the alternative.

I went through a similar phase of taking such tests to understand my psyche and that of other’s better, and I understand your’s all too well…

There is more to life than seeing it/things through our own perspective, and all you see is your’s… a very fulfilling life that must be :confusion-shrug:

That you think this makes you all the more predictable.
I doubt you understand anything about yourself.

Do you know what is fabuluos about you Marge, except for being a killer of thinking?
It’s that you still hold onto that fable that all perspectives are created equal and so all of them are worthy of consideration…makes your own part of that fabulous group.

The idea(l) of egalitarianism has an attractive element to it: it presumes that just because something is thought or expressed, it deserves something like consideration…just as the idea that if something is born it automatically deserves life. It does so, even when all of evolution and natural selection speaks against this absurdity…because it is a human one…a humanistic one.
It makes the weak feel like they have to be listened to, just as it makes the lamb think that it must be preserved from the jaws of wolves.

See, the insinuation that someone, this ambiguous one, is stuck in his worldview, lends credence to the necessity that he must answer to every dolt, every moron, every retard, with an opinion, and spend his time…his days, responding to idiots that happen to have adopted a popular world-view as if it were self-evident and the product of their own personal deliberations.
This is what makes these forums a cesspool for mediocrity, administered by people like you and Faust: a drunkard on the rebound, just wanting to hang-out and shoot the shit and have a few laughs.

Let me break this down so that someone on your level can comprehend it:

What this means is that someone, a hypothetical one, with a world-view thought out and argued, that goes against the common, average sentiment, mist, MUST (because otherwise he will be called “closed-minded”, 'arrogant" and “evil”) respond to every dolt that thinks he understands this world-view, based on the fact that all world-views are created equal because they are the product of a feeble human mind and on the fact that someone must, MUST, respond individually to every moron who speaks for the collective mind.

In this case, dear, every Christian must be responded to individually (as if they were individual thinkers) when expressing a common, conformist, popular sentiment, or else one will be censored or accused of being a “closed mind” unable to consider the opinions of others.

The second hypothetical here is that every idiot expressing the same world-view is so because he arrived at it via personal, individual, thinking.

Having no proof of this presumed “fact” and taking YOU into consideration, I would choose to disagree.
But, please, continue administrating and censoring and weeding out (according to your own judgments0 what is worth posting and what is worth banning, it makes it all the more obvious to the ones I choose to address.

Presumptuous, aren’t you…

I didn’t mention anything about all perspectives being equal…

…and who said I thought otherwise?

Our job as ‘moderator’ is to… moderate, not to ban/exclude people from joining just because others take a dislike to them in debates.

Please define my ‘level’?

…there is a better way to handle that situation than using ad homs and profanities, but you always seem to fail to find that better way.

See above, and try to apply it to this dilemma that you have…

That is not of my concern, but their’s alone…

…again, it is not what you are saying but how you say it that would cause one to be banned - people come here to ‘discuss’ not to be ‘abused’ so please bear that in mind :wink:

Now this is a brilliant post. Your correspondence table is most interesting. I think yours would be the first one beginning with Brahmana, and mine would be the second one beginning with Kshatriya. To each of those four types, I would like to know what you would include for the astrological and the Tarot as well.

Yes, type fours are most interested in depth psychology. It’s part of our nature to explore the self and psyche as deeply as we can. That is why I’m so appreciative of your efforts here. It adds depth and dimension to typologies in a new way, to my knowledge. I don’t think mathematically and logically the way you do. What I do is explore around and absorb what I can and then see if it makes sense and can be applied to what I know about myself and others. The Enneagram spoke to me most profoundly in that regard, better than any other typological system. And it’s good to see some added thought with the symbology from different systems. Well done.

Well, the correspondence I found between the castes and the elements is actually like this:

Water - white [the traditional colour of the Brahmana caste]
Fire - red [same for the Kshatriya caste]
Earth - yellow [same for the Vaishya caste]
Air - blue or black [same for the Sudra caste]

and:

Brahmana - Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces [all Water signs]
Kshatriya - Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius [all Fire signs]
Vaishya - Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn [all Earth signs]
Sudra - Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius [all Air signs]

There you have astrology. And as for Tarot:

Cups = Water
Wands = Fire
Pentacles = Earth
Swords = Air

I will not get into possible correspondences between the astrological signs (or planets) and the Major Arcana here.

I know, in theory you guys are wonderful.

Below average.
What you are doing moderating, I do not know. But that you do can only result in lowering everything down to YOUR level of competence.
But its comfortable here.

I fail to find a reason to even try.
When you’ve got a mosquito buzzing around how many reasons can you find to not smack and kill it?

“Dilemma”?
Nothing of the sort.
See why you are below average?

Of course not, because your only concern is participation…ensuring your own.
Quantity.

I’m assuming that no matter how ridiculous one is or how stupid their positions are their participation is greatly appreciated.
A very democratic sentiment.

Again, in theory it works, but in practice you’ve got Faust who selectively censures and is known to turn a blind eye to an insult directed towards someone he dislikes…or maybe in his drunken stupor he doesn’t care how biased and lame his moderating is.
It’s much easier to silence someone who says things that you find offensive, even if they might be directed towards an other, and to disregard an assault which you wish to make yourself.

Like I said…mediocrity abounds when those in power are of the people.

That’s up to you, for sure. This is your concept of typological associations after all. What I found most illuminating was the thought that typology had an origin in the four humors: Phlegmatic, Choleric, Melancholic, and Sanguine. Each of these was thought to have an origin in a part of the body, I believe: phlegm, yellow bile, black bile, and blood. These then came to be associated with emotions/moods, the four elements and the four seasons. Were they also associated with the four directions and the four winds, the four corners of the earth? It strikes me a bit as square or flat earth thinking. Also, they are included in the Tarot later on, and Tarot symbology thus seems to include an implicit typology.

I don’t like typology based on ranks and castes, but I do find it interesting. In a square, mathematical, flat chessboard or playing card world, that is what came about. However, the world has not always been thought of this way; and in the twentieth century the concept of the mandala, the circle and the sphere had a kind of resurgence or resurrection as the basic symbol for the psyche or soul and for life and the entire cosmos. Jung wrote extensively on the mandala; it is the great symbol of eastern minds and myths. Furthermore, the First Peoples understood the great circle as well, along with the early Greeks. The spiral circular labyrinth is a common symbol among early peoples across the world, a great metaphor for the mind and spiritual transformation.

Take a look at Empedocles, Pascal, and Black elk on the circle and their holistic visionary language. This is the view that speaks to me most strongly.

Empedocles: God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere.

Pascal: God is an infinite sphere who center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere.

Black Elk: I saw that the sacred hoop of my people was one of many hoops that made one circle, and being endless, it was holy.

Thus, typology can be a useful tool in exploring the self and depth psychology, but it is not meant to be the be all and end all to psychic and spiritual transformation. For example, one thing that transformation involves is a movement from passion to compassion and then a realization that all are one and connected with no regard to ranks or castes. One interesting metaphor for transformation is the chakra system, or any system of sevens: the Tree of Life, the seven sacraments, and so on.

As Stanislaf Grof said: “Life is a metaphor, and all metaphors are true.”

Here’s one for jonquil to ponder:

Sauwelios, what do you think of moving through the castes? After all, wasn’t self-overcoming and transfiguration a large part of N’s philosophy. Although he hints at Lamarckism every now and then, there’s a strong motif of plasticity throughout his corpus.

Happy members speaks volumes - integrate or no… the choice is your’s… :wink:

My educational qualifications and IQ prove otherwise I’m afraid, but please keep feeling free to tell me otherwise.

…it is up to you/the poster, to find an alternative method for dealing with such matters, no?

I am not the one who cannot reply to posts without resorting to ad homs and profanities, and relying on those methods does not reek of superiority to me :confusion-shrug:

There are less-confrontational alternatives at one’s disposal, ya know :wink:

No, my concern is for the many… not for the few who think they deserve immunity from ILP rules…

Debate and discussion leads to learning and better understanding, and you prevent that happening in others with your ‘bull in a china shop method’ of cutting debate dead in it’s tracks - stifling debate stifles us all, so is a selfish act, no?

Fent, jonquil is a happy soul. The tarantula is not in her nature, but she thinks it makes a great symbol for those who want to project it on her from their own tarantula nature. She finds this interesting but not worth much in the scheme of things she considers all that important.

I guess for you, my dear, listening to a retard tell you the same shit, using the same absurdities as argument, is always a new experience.
You renew your engagement with mediocrity. Perhaps it’s because you can’t think above a certain limit and so anything hinting at it is some mystical weirdness that makes you feel enlightened or as if you are “growing”.

For a duck, like me, listening to a moron tell me his experience with fear and how he copes with it by escaping into delusion has ceased being a novelty.
Like watching a dog lick its arse…interesting then funny then cute and finally disgusting.

Typical kwackery. Go back and wallow in your mudhole, Burp. Maybe a dog will come lick its arse just for you… to kind of take your mind off the fact that there is no astrological sign, star, or constellation named after a duck. But if you decide to turn into a swan, Cygnus, you will be in luck.

It’s this kind of comeback that keeps me coming back to this mud-hole.
:astonished:

I’m reading Plato’s Republic at the moment, in the Lampertian sense. Consider this:

[size=95]Plato realizes that even with his breeding program, there will be children born to the Guardians who do not belong there. That is especially likely when we realize that it is not intelligence that distinguishes Plato’s philosophers but the dominance of a particular kind of interest. Anyone dominated by desire, however intelligent, belongs among the commoners. There will also be children born to the commoners who belong among the Guardians, and so there must be some way to sort everyone out. That will be a universal system of education. A very large part of the Republic is about education. Those who go all the way in that system and will be qualified to be the philosopher rulers will actually be nearly fifty before they have finished all the requirements.
[http://www.friesian.com/plato.htm][/size]

Compare the fact that Nietzsche’s Zarathustra is forty when he first comes down from his mountain (TSZ Prologue, 1), and that it’s only years later (ibid., “The Child with the Mirror”) that he becomes a “genuine philosopher” (BGE 211; cf. section 9 and my signature below).

Hmm… maybe everyone should be reminded of the mudflats from whence they come, particularly when they start getting pretentiously pristine in their racist and classist purism. That’s where philosophy should breed first, for sure, in the mudhole. Somehow, if a so-called philosopher thinks it can only come from the rarefied ether of the olympian mountaintop, he misses something lost or forgotten in the cold dry air exposed only to light and dark and nothing in between.

I like to picture ancient philosophers mudwrestling like creatures of the slime, then crawling out on all fours to take on evolution in a fine, slow manner as it turns into the music that accompanies the dance of creation. White-robed philosophers with athenian sandals descending from the lofty reaches to preach to the mudflatters just doesn’t quite do it for me. It’s the mudflatter reaching up towards the heights that inspires wonder, the amoeba turning into the god of the big brain and the great ideas who never forgets his squirming, teeming, oozy origins. In that sense, I also think that every mountaintop philosopher thinking of walking the earth in a condescending fashion should be required to live and work in the ghetto for thirty or forty years before taking up the staff of Caduceus and joining the School of Athens.

Agreed…now you consider how fair and just and equal these mudflats are and how your responses expose your qualities.

If racism makes you feel bad, consider why or how you’ve been conditioned, like a Pavlovian dog, to feel that way…then try to explain how species evolve without the divergence racism implies, rather than your liberal post-modern reactions which assume that they imply violence and cruelty.

Do something novel for you…think outside your comfort zone and your cultural prejudices.
Become interesting, instead of a dullard.

Let us assume that evolution is based on loving tenderness and hugs and kisses…because a moron can’t stomach the alternative and his own self-esteem is troubled by it.

How many presumptions is your simplicity fraught with…first you assume that debate is not a conflict, adhering to the same rules Evolution theory proposes, then you presume to know where I’ve waled and how, because you cannot imagine that empathy could result in anything but sympathy…that’s how weak and subjective you are.

But I’m just a duck…

Burp, you have clearly shown yourself to be a rather pathetic armchair pseudo-philosopher in duck’s clothing. Those faux feathers are starting to look pretty dingy now. I really think you need a good bath in the mudflats with creatures such as myself looking for a good game of mudhole volleyball.

Sorry, bud, but I just don’t sit on those aery thrones of Mount Parnassus without remembering that I wasn’t born a god. This is what helps me create those aerial fabrics out of the clouds when I fall tripping over cliffs in my foolishness, especially when forgetting that others actually sit there and think it’s their birthright due to some fine distinction between the noble or higher men and the rest of slavish, impure, and ignoble humanity. Ugh.

Have I?
Point out where I said anyhting remotely dealing with what I think- particularly of you.

Time to run away now, retard.
Go back to debating if God exists.

Is that what I do?
Fascinating.

Funny how in the realm of human existence the only thing you can comprehend is either God or douche-bag and you choose the latter.

No God am I, but you certainty have found your place.

Trust me, you’ve enlightened me.

You ARE, indeed, the average human.
Never let anyone convince you otherwise.