Paragraphs six and seven are a tangent on the extant forms of reality and principle vs form. The paragraph after this sentence is counted as paragraph one.
I’ve always been inclined to believe that it is detrimental to our perspective on human cognition for personality be quantified predominantly in typology (i.e. MBTI, enneagram, four temperaments, etcetera) without respect to cognition vs intuition or any idiosyncratic traits. I have begun to question if that inclination is incorrect.
Imagine the end result if a person could catalogue each potential attribute of the human psyche into a composite aggregate of attributes (which I am going to refer hereafter to as the collective/composite ‘Whole’.)
If each human being is a set of singular pieces of the collective whole of attributes, is their ‘bundle of attributes’ not merely a contribution to the composite Whole as well? Do multiple humans with the same attribute not truly have the same attribute if it is processed through intuition in one individual and cognition in another individual? I suppose there’s no way that this can be quantified in study but it’s food for thought.
Furthermore, each individual is totally unique in their ‘mode of process’. (Mode of process, in this case, being defined as ‘in what manner and to what degree they rely on their intuition’, and also as, ‘in what manner and to what degree they rely on their intellectual cognition’.)
Allow me to explain this in simple terms. Have you ever had a dialogue in which you have remarked that the way a person other than yourself has cognitively processed the information with which you are both presented in a different way than yourself? The combination of words that they use to describe a given thing in order to portray it’s thing-ness could be different than the words you would use. It is as though they tick to a different set of idiosyncracies.
We have a typology of idiosyncracies without first processing any form of typology through baseline intuitions and cognitions, which I suppose it could be said are “subjective perceptions of reality”, but that also depends on your worldview on what falls under reality and what does not. Unless, of course, the individual’s worldview is incorrect, at which point whatever aspects of reality external of their subjective perception are not ‘nonce’, assuming there is such a thing as real reality.
Can extant aspects of reality (‘real reality’) exist in principle if not in form? What, then, is principle, if not an extension of form? Huamanity is upright in principle because we stand and walk in form. Words are capable of emotional damage in principle because it has been found to be a ubiquitous experience in form, in practice, throughout every culture and society. Maybe that’s too difficult an example, but it’s food for thought.
Now, circling back to personality typology, what is the Whole upon which we are devised? Is it an amalgamation of every individular idiosyncracy or each set thereof? Perhaps there are no parts of a whole but rather base model upon which our mode of existence – quirks and individual subjective perception – is imprinted upon, the mind being a framework for the construction of individuality in cognition and intuition. I believe that very principle is referred to as the ‘tabulum rosae’ in the study of epistemology, but I have yet to research it in much depth.
Where do our cognition come from? Is there no baseline in form with which we can discover the principle upon which we exist?
If you have any remarks on my thought process and would like to give me food for thought (or vice versa), I would find it stimulating and pleasurable if you email me at stagliano(underscore)nicolas(at)yahoo(dot)com. Do not be intimidated, I want you to chat with me if you have thoughts.