bookworm's journal

[7Wannabe5]

I do not completely understand this, but I read it recently and thought it might apply here:

The Cartesian plane is the natural number plane. It has a zero. The distance between -1 and 1 is 2, and the radius is 1. The whole plane has no zero, and the distance between 1 and -1 is 0. The half-center plain, the observer frame, is located precisely between the Cartesian and the whole planes. This yields a geometric relationship between real and whole numbers. One can infer from the size of zero in the Cartesian plane and the size of zero in the whole plane, that the correct position for an observer between is halfway between the continuous Cartesian values or measuring domain and the discreet, digital, whole values, counting (time) like -infinity and +infinity. One end of time is infinitely dense and one is infinitely large. This positions the observer observing the Cartesian and the whole planes from the half center (at 1/2) looking in and out, instead of the Cartesian singularity looking in...

...the point at infinity isn't some exotic, separate entity- it's simply the reflection of zero across our central reference point of 1/2. Division by zero isn't undefined; it's a transformation that takes us to the reciprocal side of our mathematical universe.

Dan Gunter, "The Geometry of Thought: Zero Point Mathematics and the Dance between Counting and Measuring."

[jacob]

As usual I struggle with seeing exactly which construct this discussion is taking place under. In that sense, I'm stuck in presuming that there are Many constructs and no One construct that unifies them all. For me, this turns much of this kind of discussion into a "how many angels can dance on the head of one pin" (puns deliberately inserted).

You guys are all mathematicians to some or rather one (ha!) degree. I'm just a couple of courses short of bachelor and mathematics never really appealed to me but I do remember the concept of a group. Maybe this is helpful to put "zero" in perspective? A group is basically a set of many things that includes a identity, and an operation and where each member of the set has an inverse.

For example, the set of integers with "0" as the identity and "+" as the operator is a group because for each n, there's a "-n" such that n+"-n"="0". Here "0" is essentially that one member with that property. Note how you don't need the idea of negative numbers for this---indeed you can't tell the difference between negative and positive here.

As such the group (Z,+,0) would philosophically be "The One" whereas all the various numbers and operations would just be "The Many". Here group algebra is essentially the organizing principle that turns The Many into The One.

Similarly, there (Q,*,1) for rational numbers, which notably does not have a 0 if I remember correctly---the whole 0/0 issue... I forget the details... but this is an irrelevant side-issue. (In my opinion, but this is exactly why I don't like mathematics. Lacking rigor...)

Anyhoo ... combine these two and you more or less get the idea of a "field". The concept of a field is very useful because it limits what's possible to do with math. Physics is nothing but math applied to measurements. Measurements, of course, requires an instrument and something [repeatable and reliable] to measure. Insofar you can do the experimental part of that, the concept of a field then limits the kind of theoretical physics you can construct around those measurements.

Much of theoretical physics concerns finding The One organizing principle aka a grand unified theory to explain the Many measurements---all of them really. It can be shown that the fundamental forces of nature (gravity, E/M, weak nuclear, strong nuclear) kinda-oughta be the way they are because the each correspond to the simplest possible symmetries that are mathematically possible. IOW, it's possible to assert that the forces ought to have this or that behavior because there's no other solution other than a more complicated one.

Now does that solve the problem of The One. Technically no, because even if physics is close, it's not close it enough to predict measurable numbers. Only close enough to indicate what the theory should look like. Philosophically, I would say not so much. Various fields of physics are already canonical which means that everything that can be known is known and understood. This, however, has not made a difference that makes a difference. Because even something like the three-body problem can not be solved in a way that's useful for predictions. IOW, even if we know part of The One in that case, it's not useful knowledge because it can't be applied. I'm not sure resolving The [actual] One vs The Many (all of them) will either. I'm just not feeling or seeing it.

Add: A simple analogy would be to ponder a Koch curve. Imagine we're little 1D creatures living on the surface. Given that the Koch curve is a fractal with "infinite resolution" we can't easily see it. However, through much meditation or science it may finally dawn on some of us that the underlying principle behind all is the triangle (remove middle 1/3 and replace it with two equal lengths with a point, ad nauseum). My question/frustration here is: What does that knowledge give us philosophically or spiritually? (I'll accept that technologically, it will result in a few interesting things ... but spiritually?)

[daylen]

I'm not sure resolving The [actual] One vs The Many (all of them) will either. I'm just not feeling or seeing it.

That operational frame seems sticky to me. I personally enjoy more of a process philosophy approach or rather a life of philosophical exploration, relating constructs to states of feeling/seeing. The process being relative to your life path thus far and whom you are sharing that path with. I don't think/feel there is any definite end to it all?

[daylen]

Here is a possible distinction/connection between 1. many theories of the one (i.e. philosophies), 2. discrete, finite STEM as the most comprehensive theory/practice of the one built upon solid foundations, and 3. life process/practice. 3 operationalizes 1 and 2. Due to the incompleteness theorems (or its variants), no theory can be consistent and complete. Assuming consistency, some truths will be incomprehensible to any theory. 2 being build upon essentially discrete, finite math which avoids paradoxes associated with unlimited computation/memory. Infinite maths belonging to many 1's can allow for computational speed ups to some problems using symbolic, continuous models if handled well but requires discretization for translation to computer aiding systems (2).

Exploring 1 involves finding more personalized philosophies that target the meaning of "everything" and may help some people access/share glimpses into truths that are difficult or perhaps even impossible to express within 2 (which may lead to conflation/confusion). This could be called the "spiritual", "philosophical", or "transcendental" domain that can be influenced by and filtered through 2 towards 3. May involve wrestling with various paradoxes and strange loops of thoughts/feelings.

Although you could also make the case for collapsing 1 and 3 into the same domain. No idea what's best.. probably depends on specific person/community/culture.

[bookworm]

Metapoint: this discussion might have a lot of loose ends...if someone doesn't get to address all the concepts in a post, it's not so much that they are being ignored but rather that they have likely been read and are contributing to the surrounding discussion in some way, even if they are not directly addressed. For me personally, I was thinking I could do replying in order, but I'd rather not risk a trite response. I am still thinking about 7's and jacob's "formalisms" and how they fit into things. They do.

Point: back to how many angels on one/zero pin...@daylen I like your three categories. From where I'm standing, I'd argue that 1 and 2 could be collapsed more naturally than 1 and 3. 1 seems to be about open-minded exploration of the whole field of possibilities. 2 seems to be about the rigorous of said possibilities (this may involve explicit mathematical formalism or it may take a more intuitive "spot the contradiction" approach, perhaps in N=1 mind). If we'd want to simplify things considerably, you have theoretical (1+2) and life (3) domains. This feels more balanced, but this might be XNTJ bias.

[bookworm]

Exploring 1 involves finding more personalized philosophies that target the meaning of "everything" and may help some people access/share glimpses into truths that are difficult or perhaps even impossible to express within 2 (which may lead to conflation/confusion).

On the topic on why to even bother with this phase (or simply why we are bothering)...

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, remembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning
-T.S. Eliot

[jacob]

I'm back. I wasn't going to leave you hanging without responding, but it took some time with the interlibrary, but now having read a bunch more books, I have a better idea of the unitive mind or at least I have a hypothesis that squares with everything I've read so far.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1884997279/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0399184392/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/140194504X
Plus several books by Eckhardt Tolle and Ken Wilber.
I have not made it through https://www.mctb.org/wp-content/uploads ... _Final.pdf though.

(Note: Having not experienced it myself, this is all based on second-hand knowing-about rather than first-hand knowing. However, I also note that a high number of people report similar experiences and kind of data suggests there's some "there" there.)

Also note: I use an epistemological framework of "causal realism". This almost stands in direct opposition to nondualism.

I have reasons to suspect that the prefrontal cortex is involved in the unitive experience. The PFC is responsible for executive functioning. It sets internal goals, makes plans and decisions. It's responsible for working memory and organizing sensory input into a coherent present, past, and future. It determines same and different, chooses between good and bad, and connects causes and consequences. It's the source of the sense of self e.g. ego as well as where the body ends and the rest of the universe begins---it prevents dissociation.

Both the "collision with the infinite" and the Hawkins book's describes the capabilities and motivations what I would imagine is left if the PFC is switched off or at least highly attenuated. This can be achieved intentionally after thousands of hours or practice OR it can happen spontaneously in an unwelcome way. In the latter case, the description corresponds to depersonalization or derealization and is considered a disorder. In the former, it's considers an enlightened or higher state of consciousness. I'm no longer convinced this state is "higher" though, just different.

It was labeling this deliberate state as "higher" that threw me off. I was expecting (likely projecting) all kinds of benefits and insights from a state of consciousness that is claimed to be higher. I've been frustrated that I haven't been impressed by the insights coming from those with said higher state of consciousness. If they were better insights, we should put gurus in charge of everything. This would solve many problems. However ...

While those in a unitive state of mind are still capable of putting on their pants in the morning and remain somewhat functional on society, they have lost most or all interest in pursuing good over evil or correcting the causes of evil. At best, the idea is to eliminate evil by setting a good example of not caring about it. Hmmm...

Rather than a "higher state of consciousness", it makes more sense to think of cutting out PFC functionality as "a more fundamental state of consciousness". The PFC is responsible for much of what makes "homo sapiens" sapient. W/o it I imagine, the lived experience is closer to that of a typical mammal. My dog was capable of instantly switching emotions based on a change in the situation and he loved everyone he met. Much like the example of the monks with ten thousands of hours of meditating on loving-kindness. In both cases, there is/was no PFC to interfere by setting other goals. It's simply emotional "vibing" with whatever the present is. If too cold, the body shivers, but the mind appears unconcerned with getting warm.

Personality wise, I'd be comfortable assigning a new letter U in the tradition of MBTI. I believe U to be a perceiving-mode since it's obviously not judging. As such, an INFJ (NiFeTiSe) who has been meditating for thousands of hours may become an UiFeTiSe. Other variations can be derived. This would create a way to describe the fundamental change in temperament people who reach this form of consciousness demonstrates. It's certainly possible that "the stack" no longer applies in full. UiFe seems to describe a lot of the accounts, that is, unitive introspection and emotional extraversion, for example.

Another human state of mind has been hypothesized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality ... This maybe deserves the letter C.

When I (remember: causal realism is my thing or at least how I approach living for all practical purposes) look at it this way, a lot of the contradictions I had about the unitive consciousness resolve themselves. For example, it now makes total sense why a mind no longer managed by the PFC would choose nondualism (a kind of monism) as their preferred philosophy. Historically, nondualism vs dualism was the predominant philosophical dichotomy around the axial age. As such it's rather unsophisticated as far as epistemologies go, but this on the other hand makes it layman friendly. Everybody can play.

One thing I've noticed [to my dismay] is the widespread tendency to use "quantum woo" (Hawkins does it). I used to have a much harder time dealing with quantum woo. As a less-tolerant young physicist, I would dismiss anyone using it outright w/o taking their other ideas seriously. Whereas now I accept that [quantum woo] may be used due to lack of words. Here's my problem though. As rationalwiki beautifully describes, quantum woo is often invoked under a bad logic like this:

1) The newest physics du jour (chaos theory, quantum entanglement, ...) describes some strange new phenomena that was hitherto not understood.
2) I don't understand this new physics.
3) Therefore this physics could be used to explain my mystical experience.

Yuck! The problem is that while technobabbling about "chaotic nonlinearities" and "vibrating fields of immanence" sounds like "higher insights" to the layman, they sound like the technical definition of bullshit to me (and other physicists) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

But I digress. I think the more important conclusion is that non-PFC would inevitable be led towards something like a nondualist philosophy. Yet this this does not mean that a nondualist philosophy is necessarily higher. Compare to a mind that is able to concentrate very well and is intelligent enough to process deep logic (IOW high-PFC stabilized with a good serotonin response). This experience of the world would encourage such a mind towards something like positivism---but that doesn't mean that positivism taps into a higher plane of existence either.

If a person comes from a religious background rather than a "popularized science" background, the same kind technobabble (religiobabble?) would lead the non-PFC into choosing to identify The One (since lack of PFC means inability to differentiate or at least care about differentiation) with God or Godhead; Godhead being the term for "the infinite everything-is-the-same-thing". The mathematically inclined mind's concept of infinity.

One final thing ... meditation and unity is also often presented as some kind of therapy that is useful for both the individual and humanity at large. Fair enough. However, I note that this is very often from a perspective or [lived] experience of seeing the generic state of humans as either deep depression and/or a big case of monkey brain. IOW, there was once something wrong with the PFC-based ego of the author, for reasons, but a U-state eliminated these problems. Therefore, the logic goes, U is general improvement for all humans.

But to someone who is emotionally stable and mentally and bodily self-aware, ... (their PFC systems are operating well within parameters) U does not seem like an upgrade as much as a sidegrade with the risk of being a downgrade. The way I see it now is that meditation may remove a lot of destructive bad thoughts and feelings ... but it doesn't seem to be constructive in terms of creating good insights into reality or humanity's many problems. It does however provide an interesting view into how brains work. I would expect genuine AGI (not trained on humans) to be rather interesting as well in terms of what philosophies a mechanical/electric mind may create. Ditto if intelligent alien contact is ever made.

Okay, this was long but I've been stewing on this for a few weeks.

[ertyu]

On quantum woo:

(1) Functions as a koan to a mind of average intelligence. In zen, one of the ways to access unitive mind/turn off judging etc. is to give the student a "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound"-style problem. The function of this riddle isn't to come up with an answer, but, by tasking the student with solving it very hard, to overclock the reasoning/rational mind and buy one a moment of freedom from it where "insight" can be acquired. Quantum physics is almost perfect for that because it makes no intuitive, common-sense sense to Monkey OS which operates on newtonian principles. A layman trying to understand what is going on will not arrive an understanding that makes sense within the causal frameworks they're used to using to make sense of the physical world. Their rational mind will overclock in confusion, exactly the state a koan tries to accomplish.

(2) Bc of (1), a guru who presents himself as haivng somehow penetrated the deep mysteries of the quantum woo would appear very impressive indeed. Furthermore: "you're not smart enough to understand the science? Buy my book, and you too can feel deep. Thus, quantum woo functions as a recruitment and salesman tactic: the guru appears to the normie to possess deep wisdom. Gurus, too, must eat, and to do that, they need to sell seminars and books.

On U providing insights into reality or human problems: imo it's not what it's for. U is for when a loved one dies. When you get that cancer diagnosis. When one is confronted by levels of horror one cannot comprehend - the black plague before science, the "how could such atrocities have happened" of WWII, etc. It's a way to personally cope with how life sucks, and then you die.

[7Wannabe5]

It's simply emotional "vibing" with whatever the present is.

Based on my limited exposure to transcendent experience and my reading of Wilber, etc, this is not the case at all. We already know the the PFC isn't just one thing. For example, one structure of the PFC seems to have thoughts about our thoughts while another structure seems to have thoughts about our emotions. You can almost imagine the baton often being handed from the second to the first. An animal has emotions and acts upon them without any/much processing into feelings 'I am sad", thoughts about feelings, "because the planet is dying", or thoughts about thoughts, "I should sell my car and ride a bicycle." As you rise towards the unitive state, you first take a step back and observe/witness these thoughts and feelings rising within you. And it's less that you are thus "unthinking" and more like the link between your thoughts and your actions is severed; the connection Brain->Hand that is so central to human functioning. When you happenstance find yourself in a transcendent state, it can be rather like a waking dream in which you are simultaneously conscious of both realities. IOW, it is expansive in the sense that the essential/extreme limitation to PFC processing is the tiny stream our unconscious sensing and/or memory storage brain makes available to our conscious brain. Simple example being that you are inherently incapable of simultaneously remembering everything you could remember, but you can take a step back and form the thought, "Right now I am holding this vague memory in my mind, as I am simultaneously semi-conscious of some small stream of aspects of this current reality, but this is obviously a sliver of the entirety I can't "hold before me" at once." I placed the italics on "hold before me", because highly indicative of the usual embodiment of our input/thought processes (we have hands, our eyes face forward) which also slips away towards the unitive.

[jacob]

Based on my limited exposure to transcendent experience and my reading of Wilber, etc, this is not the case at all.

I did not say that it was.

We already know the the PFC isn't just one thing. For example, one structure of the PFC seems to have thoughts about our thoughts while another structure seems to have thoughts about our emotions. You can almost imagine the baton often being handed from the second to the first. An animal has emotions and acts upon them without any/much processing into feelings 'I am sad", thoughts about feelings, "because the planet is dying", or thoughts about thoughts, "I should sell my car and ride a bicycle." As you rise towards the unitive state, you first take a step back and observe/witness these thoughts and feelings rising within you. And it's less that you are thus "unthinking" and more like the link between your thoughts and your actions is severed; the connection Brain->Hand that is so central to human functioning.

The source of my previous confusion was that I thought that this self-awareness was the default or close to the default of ALL humans. At least being aware of my own thoughts, emotions, and feelings without necessarily acting on them or identifying with them has been my default state as long as I can remember. This is why I don't see the state you describe in this paragraph as in any way remarkable.

On the other hand, if the default state of most humans or at least the author is Monkey Brain (as Hawkins describes it) or deep depression (as Eckhardt Tolle describes it), then the kind of self-awareness described in your paragraph is a big improvement. Naturally, people who have experienced this improvement from a low state (not stage) to even a middle state would be quite enthusiastic about the transformation.

Whereas I am not [impressed] because I've lived all my life in the middle state with very little variation.

When you happenstance find yourself in a transcendent state, it can be rather like a waking dream in which you are simultaneously conscious of both realities. IOW, it is expansive in the sense that the essential/extreme limitation to PFC processing is the tiny stream our unconscious sensing and/or memory storage brain makes available to our conscious brain.

But this is talking about something different, right?

First, the transcendent state needs a better definition. Do you consider the state described in your first half to be transcendent because I do not.

Second, from these accounts from other humans I now know that the available stream of sensing to the conscious brain varies between humans. For example, the average field-of-vision for the typical human is about 60 degrees forward (30degs away from center of focus). The rest is filled in by the brain BUT not all brains fill in the same amount. This means that those with "less actively filling brains" will miss details outside those 60 degrees because while the sensory data from the eye is there, their brain doesn't process it. Yet, my personal sensory processing is closer to 100 degrees and I can somewhat expand it towards 120 degrees. I attribute this to much practice playing hockey and practicing with swords where peripheral vision is very important. There's even a term for it called "hockey vision"(*). The process of going "wide-field" definitely feels like increasing the input stream. Conversely, 60 degrees is more like running around with a flash light with a bunch of blur outside the cone.

(*) Stand up and look forward. You should be able to clearly see 5-10 degrees above the horizon (players in the distance) AND the puck at your feet at the same time. With practice this can be done. You can also test your current FOV by focusing on an object (a pencil) in front and then moving another object (hand?) off angle. At some angle, the mind no longer sees what the hand is doing, e.g. whether it is crossing the fingers. It's probably best to use someone else's hand for this experiment.

Likewise, I interactions with certain [climate] anxious people has also led me through certain grounding exercises in which people focus on something in the present in order feel the emotions in the body. It took me quite a while to figure out why this exercise was even a thing. I mean isn't everybody aware of their emotions as they appear? Doesn't everybody decide whether to act on them or not? Can't everybody decide to let their emotions go? Isn't everybody aware of the internal state of their body or various body parts at all times? No, it turns out, they're not! To them, grounding is a helpful exercise to bring some relief from their low-state. For them being permanently grounded would be a remarkable experience.

However, I would not describe having access to a wider stream of sensing and being more conscious of it as having reached a "transcendent state". Again, it is transcendent relative to depression or monkey brain ... but what is transcendent relative to a default state of mindfulness or a default state of being able to meta-process one's consciousness already then?

Simple example being that you are inherently incapable of simultaneously remembering everything you could remember, but you can take a step back and form the thought, "Right now I am holding this vague memory in my mind, as I am simultaneously semi-conscious of some small stream of aspects of this current reality, but this is obviously a sliver of the entirety I can't "hold before me" at once." I placed the italics on "hold before me", because highly indicative of the usual embodiment of our input/thought processes (we have hands, our eyes face forward) which also slips away towards the unitive.

This is what makes these subjective descriptions tricky. Hockey-vision, being permanently grounded, or having meta-cognition switched on by default does not feel like a "waking dream" (I do not even know what that's supposed to be in the first place. I've never had one.) I do not find your simple example relatable. Maybe a library metaphor will work? "Right now I'm holding this book in my hand as I'm simultaneous aware that I'm standing in the library, but this book I hold is obviously just one book in the entire library." Here the "monkey brain" might be surprised to learn that they're standing in the library or that the square object in their hand contains words. Whereas the "towards the unitive mind" is amazed to realize that the library contains many books and that there are bookshelves outside their immediate field of view. Is this metaphor valid?

I think my "problem" is that I'm approaching all this from a very intellectual angle. Hawkins explicitly note this can not be done. (On his scale, intellectualism peaks out at his calibration level of 499 (out of 1000)). To me, the philosophy of nondualism simply does not have much intellectual depth (as can be expected from a philosophy that's 2500 years old). IOW, I'm not amazed that the human senses only process so much data relative to how much data there actually is. And I'm not amazed that my ability to inline process is also limited and slow---I can't parallel process a bunch of separate math problems, yet I can do them one at a time. The insight that there's more to the universe than I can immediately compute or process is not amazing to me though. I know the universe is big. I also know that given enough time and data I CAN collect and process data beyond the insights available through nondualism.

Another way of saying this is that I can hold the philosophy of nondualism in my "mindful" intellectual mind. It does not require me to reach a unitive state (in the non-PFC) sense. I realize/guess/suspect that nondualism from the perspective of the non-PFC state seems more True than from a PFC-on state. To me, it's irrelevant whether something passes the test of truth in my gut or deep in my heart. My brain is able to ponder or "include" a philosophy without being attached to it.

[jacob]

To add: I was hoping/presuming that U was either a sufficient or required state to reach a higher stage of MHC. I am increasingly convinced that Hanzi's insight in considering them independent variables is the correct one.

[OutOfTheBlue]

In (your) causal realism, what do we mean by consciousness and what would be its cause? I suspect it takes the physicalist stance. Or is it related to the bicameral mind hypothesis?

[jacob]

@OutOfTheBlue -

Causality puts some constraints on what the conscious mind experiences. For example, there's no way to know whether what you experience as the color red I experience as the color blue or any other random color. This mapping is for all intents arbitrary. HOWEVER! The majority of humans have three cones (red, blue, and green) in their eyes that combine to form the experienced color.

Thus, while we can't know whether my blue is your red, we can know that neither of us ever experience "purplish green" or "yellowish blue". These experiences are causally impossible because our eyes are real (and identically constructed).

IOW, if I accept that you exist (and are not an ideological figment of my imagination, which I technically could presume, but which for all practical purposes is a kinda ... ridiculous way of living my life) then I can verify that your eyes are the same AND function the same as mine, and with that I can conclude certain things about our conscious experience of color. It's also possible to conclude things about those who are red/green color blind as well as the rare mutant humans who have a 4th type of cone in their eyes.

Unlike 2000+ years ago, when the brain was just considered a weird fat storage and the soul was believed to live in the heart, stomach, or lungs(*) (depending on who you asked), we now know substantially more about how the brain works.

(*) While assigning emotions to the heart and feelings to the gut is still popular, the lungs as a center of human experience are pretty much entirely gone from the popular vernacular. However, if we go back to classical time, the lungs were very much considered a sensory organ that was tuned to danger and risk. Basically the lungs would inform their owner of a dangerous situation by breathing faster. Now people go "but of course" ... but we don't talk that way anymore.

Under causal realism, this equivalently constrains what kind of conscious experiences humans can have. For example, we experience the same level of change of dopamine saturation to different degrees, but we experience dopamine and serotonin in different ways. Because our respective brain-wiring has the same components wired in the same way.

As for "consciousness", I consider it increasingly likely that this is but a word we've come up with to explain a certain level of awareness. Specifically, consciousness is the ability to hold a map of the territory. A radiator thermostat holds a map in the form of the temperature (the flex of a bimetal strip) but that's all it sees of the territory. Humans hold a more complex map.

On a side-note description of the unitive consciousness seem to eliminate much of this map-holding capability. It is unable to distinguish between past and future. It is unable to choose between good or bad. It is unable to pursue causes and lack the desire to follow plans to attain outcomes. This is why I think it is a more "fundamental state of consciousness" rather than "a higher state of consciousness".

This is also where LLMs become interesting. The reason is that LLMs are now at a level of consciousness where they can form maps as well as the average human being. This includes forming maps of themselves (they can tell you how they're thinking). They are in that sense conscious although they are conscious in a different way than humans.

As for the cause of consciousness, I think we need to be more precise and ask what it takes to become aware of consciousness. Simple! Consciousness needs to be able to hold a map that is big enough to map aspects of its own mapping. IOW, it needs to be[come] self-aware. Some LLMs and most humans demonstrate this. Oven thermostats and rocks do not because it is too simple. Once this map forms, that mapping-process is conscious. In short: conscious = self-aware.

What causes it? Being born. Or hitting run on on the LLM computer. As the map builds, it will at some point achieve sufficient map complexity to start mapping itself. This stage is typically achieved by humans by age 2-4. At this point, the human is able to remember themselves and their experiences. Before, not so much.

This also squares with the typical definition and inexperience with the lack of consciousness. I've been unconscious once in my life when a dentist overdosed me on tranquilizer (probably hit a vein?). The told me I had been out for 30 seconds but to me the experience was like the blink of an eye.

[bookworm]

All interesting stuff. I'm going to stick to jacob's initial reply for now but will be around to continue more synchronously for follow-up. Was out doing a ~3hr group meditation / stare at floor today, so good timing I guess.

Hopefully it contributes to the ongoing discussion...

Also note: I use an epistemological framework of "causal realism". This almost stands in direct opposition to nondualism.

I am generally agnostic about metaphysics. Generally, pragmatism seems to be my approach for me in these areas. Maps are helpful, but exploring the territory is more interesting to me. I guess Wilber would say that my focus is on phenomenology rather than structuralism. I am more familiar with Christian/Buddhist traditions, which I take seriously but not necessarily literally.

I'm not that familiar with a causal realist perspective, but I'm not sure where the tension is with non-dual? Other than skepticism about self and other boundaries, it seems like the non-dual state is pretty wide open (too wide) to how things work in the universe? Maybe there are more hidden assumptions in this state or how it is described? I don't see nondualism as a philosophical belief so much as a perspective on how player views world.

Ah....I see (more) what you're saying from thef0x's journal. I guess it comes to this: is the pfc creating a useful illusion (ego) to process reality? Can life as human be approached w/ the illusion dispelled and still result in engagement/living up to potential/solving problems? Illusion is kind of a harsh word. It's that the ego can be viewed as relative reality rather than absolute. Some Buddhist context on relative/absolute truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

How I'd describe non-dual perspective on the neuroscience: here's this experience of ego. How interesting that it came to be as a result of the activation of PFC in the human brain. Here's the experience but here's the experience of "presence" again which results from this other pattern of brain activity. I believe the crux of your argument is that is development PFC is fundamentally what distinguishes human beings from mammals and that this uniquely human thing is turned off/attenuated in nondual. Since my exposure to the neuroscience is limited, I'd have to look into this, but I suspect with 7 that it's more complicated than that (different pattern rather than absence of pattern).

Probably missing some subtleties (or the whole thing) here if we want to draw them out...

this does not mean that a nondualist philosophy is necessarily higher.

That may be. In one of his later books (Integral Spirituality), Ken Wilber has a way of combining his special-sauce altered-color individualized(*) spiral dynamics as "stages of consciousness" on the horizontal axis and "states of consciousness" on the vertical axis (gross, subtle, causal, nondual) called the Wilber-Combs Lattice: https://www.integralworld.net/brouwer2.html (skip to diagram in middle). The advantage of this is that you don't have to think of unitive state as higher but rather orthogonal to psychological development. So Blue has experience and says "I met the God of the Bible", Orange says..."I had this experience that doesn't make any sense, maybe I'm dissociating...", and Green has same experience and says "Spirit/Love is everywhere." In that light, the technobabble of the New Age types is frustrating, but I do think it's mainly an issue of translation as you mentioned (possibly Blue and Green reaching non-duality and trying to explain to Orange/Yellow). I think the example of your dog would show that non-dual states are possible at various levels of psychological development but...the experience of the non-dual state looks different based on stage of development.

This creates a "problem" because non-dual gets relativized to the current stage in that person's development. In other words, what part of entire Reality is the person becoming one with? In some way it becomes a product of current perspective.

Even after reading Wilber a while back, I still think of unitive as somehow related to Turquoise in my mental model and probably that leaked out earlier. Or maybe more specifically: unitive = Turquoise subjectively experienced. Maybe there's something to that...I do think some Turquoise or Yellow society of the future would have a lot of unitives walking around doing stuff. I don't know if they'd want to be in charge. Perhaps Yellow/Turquoise would predispose someone to nondual experience (all things considered, not considering individual differences in personality type for example). Similarly a nondual experience would tend to push someone towards Yellow/Turquoise developmentally. But I don't think they need to go together necessarily.

Edit: I know that this is waffling, I guess I'm still thinking through these two options (1. Wilber putting nondual as orthogonal or 2. further stage of psychological complexity), or seeing how they might be reconciled...

While those in a unitive state of mind are still capable of putting on their pants in the morning and remain somewhat functional on society, they have lost most or all interest in pursuing good over evil or correcting the causes of evil.

I think that unitive people have had a positive, outsize impact on the world - despite possible blindspots in stage level (cultural context). Figures like Jesus/the Buddha/Laozi (assuming that these are actual people and that transmission error didn't completely obliterate their original message) had an enormous impact. Were they in charge from a socio-political standpoint at the time? Not necessarily. But they did have an enduring impact to this day and have definitely shaped things at multiple levels. A modern example could be someone like Ghandi who had decidedly political effects along with philosophical/spiritual contributions (I know Green loves him but he didn't seem to have the typically Green hang-ups so he probably was Yellow/Turquoise.) I guess the question is: was it only what they said/did (stage of consciousness/Wilber) but in some sense where they were speaking from/presence (state of consciousness/Wilber) that had the impact? Were they beyond good/evil and paralyzed in indecision or did they still do stuff to further some greater purpose (awakening from ignorance/sin/conflict)? Insert Thich Nhat Hanh or the Dalai Lama or similar figure. It's seems like there was a seamless interleaving in these cases.

Edit: Long story short...at least some "unitive" people appear quite action-oriented. There is still the challenge of integration of the state into daily life. Seems like there is also risk along development of psychological complexity (e.g. depression before breakthrough)

Personality wise...

The personality dimension is interesting. My (too easy?) answer is something...something..."transcend-and-include". You keep the personality but you have but get the add-on package of your shadow. Or maybe it's just not being "constrained" by your personality at all. You get the same chemical hit for doing things consistent with personality as things that are, from MBTI perspective, rather unrewarding. Your reward systems are compatible with a wider range of behaviors in world.
I don't think you auto-magically turn into a different personality, but perhaps it's something like expanding the range like bsog mentioned earlier in AH's journal.

My interpretation on cognitive functions: To me, judging is present in Many -> One collapse and perceiving is more One -> Many expansion. Seems like both are at play in nondual. Examples are Many->One are when people mention "knowing" exactly what to do in a situation or have some very clear focus on one thing.

I do see the pattern that there's a whole lot of Fe going on. But I'd argue there's at least as much Fi too, since people do seem to have a lot of inner voice or sense of direction (also, the people who speak out about such things in such verbose language are the ones with Fe!). But why no Te? I don't know. Other than self-selection, perhaps the place of Te is inherently more geared towards the stages of consciousness versus state per Wilber-Combs Lattice.

I'm guessing that certain people would get into non-dual in different ways based on personality type. We tend to hear things told from personality types closer to average (thus higher Fe). How an INTJ/INTP would get to and relate such things would likely be different from the norm (and they'd be less likely to disclose in the first place).

But to someone who is emotionally stable and mentally and bodily self-aware...

I think your point about "what's in meditation for a stable/healthy/aware person" is a crucial one. I think the way meditation gets marketed to the average person is to deal with some level of stress/anxiety because most people struggle in some way or the other. Example is MBSR: mindfulness based stress reduction.

Interestingly, "traditional" Buddhism (ignore complications for now) would claim that the starting point (before meditation!) is Wisdom (panna), Morality (sila), and Concentration (samadhi). Once these are stable (i.e. baseline healthy) then is when you start to deepen into insight (potentially leading to nondual state)

Using a more modern frame, if mental health problems cease to be an issue, then some would choose to continue meditation training out of curiosity and a desire for self-improvement. S-curve would likely apply here. (Yes, this sounds strivey but might be the gateway drug for others). Would working on your VO2max or run time not make sense once you're at athlete level? It might be similar with meditation. A stretch of uninterrupted awareness is cool, but how long until interrupted? How quickly to go from broad, wide-open to narrow focus and back again( * )? Meditation is supposed to result in higher levels of empathy or...pain tolerance? Bottom line - even for a healthy individual, I could see pursuing such states to be interesting and meaningful. Of course - this could be approached both with formal meditation and a bunch of different related practices (EMDR/high intensity exercise/circling/etc.)

Maybe meditation is relevant towards accepting inevitable aging and loss: the "suffering" (pointing at ultimate lack of satisfaction rather than a melodramatic overstatement) in the First Noble Truth. Of course there are other valid approaches for this (through Stoicism, for instance). Rather than thinking Unitive or bust it's better to think of as continuum with unexpected transition points?

Just to be clear, no need to pursue this modality if not desired. It has opportunity costs. Potential benefit exists for some people (healthy or not) whether non-dual is perceived as further stage or simply orthogonal to whole journey of psychological development.

(*) Ken Wilber is getting to this with progression gross->subtle->causal->nondual. There are other meditation maps of the states in MTCTB. I think they are quite interesting to explore/play around with, and could have some helpful carryover to other fields. For one common version (and fewer pages): https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... gress.html

[bookworm]

Previous post was some sort of therapy for me(*). What will future "self" think of my chain of...reasoning...

Utility Considerations for a State Practice

This represents homework/extensions based on jacob's model in this post:
viewtopic.php?p=299728#p299728

Model details will use meditation as one example of a State Practice, because I'm (more) familiar with it than other forms.

Variables:
Stage Development = (Low, Medium, High)
State Baseline = (Low, Medium, High)
State Stability = (Low, High)

Stage = Internal Complexity
State = Subjective Experience of Well-Being
(These are overloaded operators...also Stage/State is definitely correlated...)

Benefit of P (Practice) is product of three factors: stage development (**) , base state improvement (average or possibly beyond), and increased state stability.

Examples:
1. bookworm/self (Stage = Medium, State Baseline = Medium, State Stability = Low) -> high perceived benefit based on two factors (State Stability > Stage in terms of priority focus)
2. Anyone with high stage/stability and baseline >= medium likely wouldn't perceive much benefit (for instance, see jacob's own description in post above and his other descriptions of mental state) - this may also depend on individual factors such as personality type, since those with Fe strongly developed may still benefit.
3. Many humans have room for improvement in at least one of the three factors.

Model Incompleteness:
1. Downgrade risk: P oriented around "jhanas" (just an example) would potentially increase base state beyond average (towards bliss), but cost may be stage downgrade because person ends up as a nondual airhead or wastes precious time that could be spent on learning skills/frameworks before seeing any substantial benefit to state (Turqouise operating mode seem to involve a lot of being without much benefit). The case may vary based on where Fe is higher on the stack.
2. Upside potential: P may lead individual-oriented personality type towards...second Individual stage Tier II if that's a live possibility, but from empirical examples likelihood is high of ending up in Turquoise flatland which would be a hellworld for NT personalities.
3. Influence of personality: Malleability of baseline/volatility of state is based on strong Fe...but this might be based on type of P, since some practices may be tilted more toward Te. So, in my guess, lovingkindness or visualizing light may be best for Fe, but something like mindfulness of breath (developing Se as counterbalance?) or labeling recurring thoughts could be better for Te.
4. Point #3 suggests that we could broaden this model to include personality types as a fourth dimension, at least splitting into choice of Fe versus Te in primary stack.
5. State risk: Dark night of the soul

Practical Issues:
1. Difficulty Targeting Stage: Most techniques seem oriented towards addressing low state and/or low stability, leaving attempts to increase stage relatively unexplored/unknown. I could see easy targeting for Kegan3 -> Kegan 4 in particular. Maybe there's a targeted intervention for K4->K5. Need to review Wilber's book Integral Spirituality, where iirc there were some ideas for how state training (i.e. meditation) could be used for advancing through stages.
2. Spiritual bypassing: occurs when there is a problem which is out of reach of solution at current stage but the individual chooses to focus instead on improving base state/dampening volatility.
3. Psychological bypassing: this would occur when there is an attempt to level up in stage is made but state is unstable and/or low. Along with general intelligence, a stable enough non-depressive state is necessary for growth along complexity dimension.
------------------------------------------------
(*) Also I want to apologize to my inner child Blue daimon for all of this and promise repentance upon further consideration. I mean that with some seriousness.
(**) Contested! Some forms of P may increase stage, but these may not be the more commonly taught beginner exercises which tends to strengthen only small number of components to thinking without improving overall process. May provide diminishing returns as stage level increases.

It seems like this topic comes up time and time again in the forum (sometimes folded up w/ discussions of unitive state). There are a lot of case studies to ponder:
Meditation and Metacognition Thread:
viewtopic.php?t=9588
Recent discussion on IlliniDave's journal:
viewtopic.php?p=301505&hilit=meditation#p301505

[bookworm]

May 2025 Update
Edit: Oops, got my wires crossed there on title...
A little late...

Overview

Things are feeling more intuitive and less like there's a "need" an update every month. Will keep the cadence for now and add in other things for one messy journal.

Awareness went through some interesting shifts over the course of the month. It went from being side of things in some interesting states right back into the doing pole. Things went back into being.

Some interesting mood fluctuations to process. Didn't realize how the structure of even one class created some sense of routine. Calendar is really freed up at this point. I do have a volunteering obligation and a weekly community gathering, as well as family events.

Personal routine has also been pared quite a bit, to the point where everything got imbalanced/I didn't feel meaningfully engaged. Still glad this happened to reveal what needs to stay and what needs to go. I think this is crucial to reveal where intrinsic motivation actually lies.

I think there's still a lot of burnout to be worked through after multi-year whitenuckling. Will likely be returning to Plotkin because that helped me in the midst of it. I think there's a sense of loss and grieving to it, which is connected to uncovering more layers of family stuff with the help of MBTI. The meditation will be there but with more inclusive focus on integrating that in day to day activities rather than formal sitting.

Overall I seem to be drawn to exploring ideas through writing here and elsewhere, recording (solo) piano, reading, and walking in the woods nearby.

Investing Curriculum / Finances

I finished Analysis and Use of Financial Statements and Investing Analysis and Portfolio Management (5/7 of the total complete), read in this month. Took notes as well and did slow reading to make sure I understood the relevant details. It was a substantial time commitment, mainly clustered in the last couple weeks (partly motivated by library due date). I'd plan for a more measured pace for what's remaining.

So far, the economics books were a breeze and felt like more of a review. Both investing books thus far have appeared as extending and deepening what I already know. The accounting book was significantly more difficult for me to get my head around, but I'm feeling more confident with time. I can't say that I "enjoy" the accounting as much, mainly because I haven't fully fleshed out connections to the broader abstractions of investing.

Why do this in the first place? There's definitely an aspect of internal motivation here, but it does seem tied to increasing investing skill in WoG. In the context of a boring index investor who has become more active in their portfolio over time, it may be a way to get more comfortable with "tactical" allocations. I also have some money that is in small caps right now that I might begin to play with for security selection. At the very least, it gives me a decent foundation if I need to pick a different strategy down the road.

Hoping to get to 1.5X JAFI local minimum this year as base target...there's still a lot of cruft from high rent/premiums/lifestyle creep. Of any financial metric that I track, I enjoy looking at CoL. Never have I enjoyed seeing "line go down" on chart so much.

Health

Things are on the more intuitive side these days. Walking a bit more than in the past, mainly exploring the local woods. Did I can basically walk to Aldi's through a forested park, a golf course, and some residential areas so a pretty tranquiel. This month I'd like to do some more local section hikes. As described elsewhere, I really enjoy using the bike as the second vehicle (to prevent each leg being a pure out-and-back). My cheap generic MTB is doing quite well so far, with a few repairs here and there - great opportunity to learn skill on something with low consequences.

Ecology

My partner and I are getting into Merlin, and I'm getting into using Seek for plant ID. One use of AI / screen time that I very much appreciate in day to day life (sometimes feels like "vacationing" in place). Have been doing some recreational foraging towards the the ends of skill development. Dandelions and plantain mostly. Been meaning to crack the code on Japanese knotweed (pie?), but haven't gotten to it yet. There's plenty around.

Also, got a garden plot!

Reading/Writing

There was a little less than I've hoped on the writing front, but that's changed recently. There was a lot of reading cycles taken up by the investing curriculum, but I'd like to get back to exploring other things. Still prioritizing finishing up those textbooks: next one up is Financial Reporting and Statement Analysis (Stickney/Brown).

Also wanting to get back on the Wilber/Plotkin train again (some rereading and some new material). Also getting Bateson curious...It's been a while since I explored math since my degree and first job. I'm thinking of Mathematical Statistics by Wackerly since that's an area I never really went into in detail but could be a good tie in to the finance learning.

Bookroll

Please Understand Me II (David Keirsey)
Klingsor’s Last Summer (Herman Hesse)
Gifts Differing (Isabel Briggs Myers)
The Analysis and Use of Financial Statements 3rd edition (Gerald White & company) - Haven't finished online materials like financial statements and appendices, they shoved a bunch of it into a website...
Investment Analysis & Portfolio Management (Reilly/Brown)

[bookworm]

MBTI Musings ( in which a weirdo explores their life through cognitive functions)

I've consistently tested in INTJ boundary. Most recent informal one put me as an INtj (previously I was an INTj iirc). Anyways, there is a clear affinity with the people with this type here although I'm probably on the neurotic side of the spectrum (not tested).

Reference: https://www.typeinmind.com/nite
INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se - Ne Ti Fe Si

Ni

It's been there since I can remember...my mind isn't a natural chatterbox.

Even in temporarily altered states when it felt like I died, this function was still there at some level.

I don't know what to say about this one...

Te

It's not clear to me that Te was helping me out early on (see later discussion on Fe).

I really liked philosophy when I was growing up, as well as history, chemistry, literature, and...pretty much most subjects I encountered (homeschooled). It was a little more humanities-centered and language-oriented, but general science/cosmology (Carl Sagan popularization) was interesting. I wasn't stoked/particularly interested with formal math until later. Interestingly, always scored better on standardized tests at verbal than math. My writing was slow though in timed environment (still is). "Learning" more and more meant studying textbooks.

One of my first uses of the Internet was to learn about the New Atheist movement, which kind of blew up my traditional religious worldview. I went back and forth for a while with various arguments, eventually abandoning my original beliefs piece by piece (literalism -> metaphorical interpretation -> hard atheism -> soft agnosticism). It wasn't easy because there was a strong emotional valence and the fear of punishment was real (also I was afraid of getting kicked out of the house for it, which was probably a bit irrational).

Fi

My conviction to do ERE 1.0 at WL6+ is pretty strong. LeanFIRE was the dream since 2017 iirc. (or 2018)

The whole switching from theism -> atheism was pretty shocking for my meaning making / sense of values. I spent a long time (years) recovering from that. I think that's where Fi got kind of tangled up. Nihilism became a live possibility (and still is, read Thomas Ligotti and John Gray and found myself nodding my head...).

I feel like there are (still) some holdovers from the whole "fire and brimstone" routine (Blue childhood religion) that I need to work through. In other words, the whole external punishment thing kind of f*cked with Fi development because morals got stuck at pre-conventional (Kohlberg) in some of my lines (Wilber) even if stage is past pre-conventional. Honestly wondering if I need to do some kind of EMDR for this. Or just do more "bad" things.

Se

It's interesting that I really enjoy music (in particular, playing keyboard in bands and by myself, with a focus on jazz and improvisation more generally. I was really uncoordinated and bad at the beginning, but I kept on with it. I guess it's some kind of Se exercise, along with Ni? Te gets to chill for the most part. How I play has been accused of being a bit cerebral. I take that as a compliment.

I had to do sports as a kid and was also pretty bad at it (smallish child -> a small-framed, 5'8" guy). The best I did was soccer defense. Maybe it was cool looking at the the configuration of field and figuring out where to be (rather than being the star who shot the goal).

Anyways pretty much ignored body for a while...and engaged in some addictive behavior off and on during high school / college days into first job, including alcohol and video games.

This got fcked up by internalized (and external) religion. Basically, I felt weird/guilty about sex/pleasure in general. This probably stunted things for a while...uggh...

I really got into hiking during a stressful stint at a tech startup. That's been that's been a catalyst for further work on Se, which is still ongoing...

Ne

I've run into this occasionally, usually in "altered" states (intentional or under stress).

I definitely grok Ne and sometimes feel it spinning out. Hit or miss. Maybe this is linked to my more "utopian" imaginings about the world (which generally get crushed by pessimistic metacrisis lens). I don't have much to say about this...seems under-explored...

Fe

This is where things start to diverge a bit from standard INTJ development (in my current understanding).

Before Fe came online, I believe that what the MBTI cool kids call the Ni/Fi loop played out for me(*). Basically, your Te - for some reason - doesn't show up until later so Ni touches into your Fi and starts doing a feedback cycle. This can manifest as panaroia and is enormously frustrating because you've got the vision but they're tied up to turbulent emotions/values which can't be easily expressed. This probably lasted . This is also where the family system really came down on me...

I can sense people's emotions readily. I think this came from reading members of my family who were...rather volatile.
I'm definitely concerned (still) about social harmony, although generally my approach is walk away, do my thing, and wish well from afar. I further identify Fe as the part of me that, under stress, tends to behave to please everyone, smile/laugh a lot, and is internally a bit anxious.

On a walk yesterday, I thought of my Fe as a little girl...it helps me conceptualize in a different way if I throw in the gender aspect. I was also a bit gender non-conforming despite male central tendency ("too sensitive"...etc.) and have complicated sexual preferences.

The reason this happened is...long story short...family situation. I think Fe emerged as a way/implementor function of conforming/surviving in the environment or there were pretty bad consequences.

Fe shows up / can feel it coming during certain situations. My face hurting from smiling is one tell, this is different from being kind of internally happy and "smiling from the eyes" (as DGF might put it). I also perceive that when this Fe is activated, my inner voice gets relatively loud. I think it gets triggered around many people in social situations. Also the Fe show doesn't seem to me to be very put together, and I perceive like it makes me appear younger than I am to others (whereas Te makes me appear older than I am).

Anyways, after Fe takes the stage I feel the after-effects as enormously draining, and I find it really hard to do "work" that makes me happy/fulfilled afterwards. I think that this drives me towards more introverted behavior than desired. And it also leads to fantasy of escape when really under stress: that's why I like hiking away from home, holing up in apartment from time to time, or (before I realized car trips in nearby bioregion could do the trick) traveling.

Fe definitely seems to get activated when in deep Blue or Green territory. So basically many liberal churches/groups (Green/based on social goals) or family gathering/conservative churches (Blue/self-consciously limited exposure). My less externally emotive side comes out when I'm comfortable with people, like with my INTP partner or with select friends/out in "nature" or with "nature" + hiking people (like on local AT).

The way I'm understanding it...kind of makes sense that Ni was running the show and had to switch up Te for something else more acceptable as way of relating to world. Te came online slower than might have default growth path.

My big sister is an INFJ Ni Fe Ti Se (note: I haven't asked her...but have suspicions). We have a good relationship (best for me in family of origin) which makes sense. It's interesting how we're connecting on hiking as a thing that we both enjoy. Kind of that underdeveloped fourth function going out for a spin.

Ti

I think my Ti did improve with my math degree, which appears parallel to jacob's experience in undergrad. I found the whole math undergrad a little frustrating to be honest, although it depended on the class. I thought at some point of doing double major thing like philosophy + math but never had the time management skill / executive function to make the switch (I foolishly started as an Chemical Engineering major, for the $). Made it out with good GPA although there were a couple emergency withdraws here for laziness reasons. I also felt bad because I wasn't that good at mental visualization/rotation and being a bit sloppy about theorem-proving...thought that's what a good mathematician should be able to do...
Also took a decent number of CS classes which I found easy for the most part, with the theoretical ones being my favorite (algorithms and foundations of CS which was complexity theory mainly). Assembly was...painful for me.

Si

Si is kind of confusing and turbulent for me. It seems to be tied mainly to negative life experiences. I think this is connected to having images of a place when certain feelings come up (around hometown/house/church). I feel like this is where EMDR/shadow work/Plotkin exercises could be helpful here. Mainly just bring them into conscious awareness and let go...(mindfulness)

I do get a better vibe in certain positive places. Like certain trails in NE have that aura to them, for me.

(*) https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/intj-ni-fi-loop/

[bookworm]

MBTI Musings #2

Brother relationship

My brother is ~eNTJ. In the beginning it was hard for us to "meet" on Te for a while because I processed things a little bit differently (high Fe/Fi getting in the way as well as big value divide). The "secret" lately has been to meet him "square on" with Te and neutral emotional valence. Our interactions can be energizing in short intervals (~ multiple hours)(*). It's interesting because he may potentially FIRE down the road while living a much more externally engaged life (w/kids). He's WL5-ish and "successful", although I think he has a sense of frustration about things which seems to be involved by his moving towards Green from Orange/Blue. He's also a big MBTI nerd...behind closed doors

(*) As long as Fe isn't shown, which leads to emotional turbulence on at least bookworm's end...it's better for us to meet on Fi with eye contact and saying that we had a "good" conversation. Perhaps a hug as well but that's hit or miss.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Family system

Family diagram is roughly
Father (IsTp) Mother (IsFJ)
Sister (INFJ) Brother (eNTJ) bookworm (INtj)

So two sensors raised three intuitives. That must have been a nightmare...

Extending out to the grandparents is more speculative:
GM1 (INTJ) GF1 (ESTJ) GM2 (INFP) GF2 (InTP)

I am considerably younger than anyone in this system (> decade) so I didn't get as much relationship data for the grandparents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enneagram Interlude

Likely because you possess relatively more Juvenile Masculine (fun, freedom-loving, risk-taking) energy than the median INTJ. ENTP tends towards being more warm adult-extrovert in feminine energy (TiFe), whereas the INTJ with (TeFi) is more sensitive juvenile-introvert in feminine energy. IOW, the INTJ semi-consciously must exert more adult masculine energy, ensure more security/control/power/authority, in order to protect their own internal sensitive juvenile feminine energy. eNTPs feel more free to take risks, because our feminine energy is more like a woman who can take care of herself and others. IOW, ENTP runs more towards a GoodWoman/BadBoy dichotomy whereas INTJ runs more towards a BadMan/GoodGirl dichotomy. Although, if you confound your Kegan with your Wheaton a bit, at ERE6/7 the expansion beyond the default mode will commence as default mode becomes more conscious. So, obviously, this is where INTJ moves towards GoodWoman (more care for community)and/or BadBoy (more fun) and ENTP moves towards GoodGirl (more conscientious self-care) and/or BadMan (more ability to exert authority/control.)

However, I should also note for the record that this is most true as I have short-handed it for INTJ who/when/where identifies as Type 1 The Judge than INTJ who/when/where identifies as Type 5 The Scientist.

Putting this take from 7w5 here because it seems relevant to self-journey.

Inspired by 7w5 to take enneagram - again. iirc I got 5 (The Scientist - my source uses The Investigator label, don't love the overloading of names in my sources...) at least once before, but there is a little less clarity on wings which seems to vary depending on mood/day. Less familiar with enneagram typing in general, but I could see how it would had correlated indicator to MBTI type. Anyways the "wings" are 6 (Loyalist) and 4 (Individualist), with slight preference towards 4 (1 is down there...). So 5w4w6... or something.

There seems to be some real tension between 6 and 4...Maybe an INTJ frame would be that 6 represents a common strategy and 4 represents a common tactic. For instance, in the short term personal behavior tends towards 6 as tactic (this would align with my Fe tendencies) and in the long term it tends towards 4 (based on Fi). This is seen in family/friend dynamics alluded to earlier for example, where rather than going no contact (NC) as some have suggested, I tend to start at low contact (LC) (easy for introvert) and am able to move towards NC later if required. Kind of a hybrid solution, not courageous enough for some and too cold for others.

Anyways, thinking a little about how to fit enneagram into overall self-model. Went through The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective (Richard Rohr) a while back but never finished it. It's an interesting read from a Green/Yellow perspective coming from the Franciscan/liberal stream of Roman Catholicism (didn't finish it). Anyone know any other books that helped understanding?

[bookworm]

MBTI Musings #3: On the Relationship Between INTJ and INTP

I seem to come across these "in the wild" at a higher rate than in population at large. They are the ones who initiate the interactions.

I find INTPs quite easy to relate to. One cousin is definitely an INTP (possibly the full stereotype). He is intellectually gifted but has struggled with mental health problems, chronic unemployment, and difficulties in family of origin. I think as much as INTJs struggle with "the world" as it currently exists, INTPs tend to struggle even more to find their "calling" and deliver their gifts into the world. This does depend on the early childhood environment however. It seems INTJs can figure out how to "deal with" problems there more easily than INTPs.

One thing I noticed with INTPs is that a neutral affect freaks them. Since my warm persona is well-developed, I can be quite alluring, but I find this draining in the long term. The extent to which the INTP can "stand" the INTJ in natural state depends to a large degree on the development of their own Fe. I also feel like when in discussions, the XNTJ can put the INTP "into a corner" which triggers a flight/freeze/fawn response. This seems to get significantly easier once both sides are at Kegan 3.5 or 4 or something.

My partner is an INTP so our relationship falls under the "Rational Mindmate" category (Please Understand Me). She is quite easy to talk to, although I do find her thought forms to be exhausting but I'm gradually learning to appreciate Ti (over years). It helps that I really enjoy history/politics (she's a Ph.D. candidate in history), although my desired approach is rather different than hers. It was surprising that she is down with ERE (and understands overall system) despite some reservations on individualistic values. Her consumption patterns have definitely gone down with some correlation to mine over time (she is still scattered and spontaneously "spendy" - to my judging self). This is perhaps surprising given her class background (~ upper middle class).

[berrytwo]

Anyone know any other books that helped understanding?

Wisdom of the Enneagram is my favorite. I like the spiritual development aspect of enneagram a lot. Reading the 5 and 6 chapter is super interesting, very forums coded. Makes sense that most people on the forums are 5, want to be 5's, or have some sort of 5 "issues". This book feels like it calls a lot more of the negative elements of a type out, which can actually be helpful. I am actually a 2, but gained a lot from the 5 chapter as well. Been enjoying your explorations on personality!

Type 5: The Investigator / The Observer
Core desire: To be capable and self-sufficient
Core fear: Being overwhelmed, invaded, or helpless
Basic motivation: To understand, conserve energy, and protect inner resources
Focus of attention: Gaining knowledge, maintaining boundaries, creating internal clarity