oh, and do you think there’s any correlation between T & F axes and a preference toward dealing w/reality as either mythos or logos?
This touches on one of the important potential ramifications of the mythos/logos division.
I went to the LT weekend last semester and one of the things that they did was a short skit where they were dealing with the wall and trying to treat it as though it was a door. They let different people come up and try different methods of making the wall into a door; one woman tried to use seduction, one man used anger and intimidation, someone used reason, someone tried pity, etc. Lo and behold they never did make the wall have the properties of a door regardless of the method that they used.
The basic idea is that logos is not affected by your emotional response to it. Pick up a pen and drop it, it will probably fall. Do it again and really really want for it not to fall, my guess is that it will anyway. Do it again and feel great pangs of injustice that the pen is falling, it will still fall. The individual’s emotional response to logos is irrelevant, Feeling as a method of judgement is not suited for logos.
That is using a fairly narrow definition of Feeling. There are NF’s who just “feel” that a course of action is the correct one, though they are not aware of why. Feeling as a form of judgement can be an outlet for Intuition, and it can be based on the same level of detachment as thinking.
Really the basic concept behind properly dealing with logos is not how you come to know the judgement, but that the judgement be based on detached observation. The primary danger that Feelers have in dealing with logos is that they become attached to a certain set of ideas and are unwilling to let go of those ideas even though observation dictates otherwise. I dislike Myers and Briggs’ definitions of T and F partly because they give all detachment to people who operate with Thinking and I think that it is possible for an Intuitive to deliver detached responses through a Feeling judging function and I think that one of the main changes that Feeling goes through as it matures is the capacity to detach.
So, is Thinking the way to go to best cope with reality? Ha, not by a long shot. Detachment is the best method for dealing with logos, but it is entirely incapable of dealing with mythos. Talk about the dangers of attachment clouding perception is fairly common, but talk about the breakdown of logic is less common. You find it some in existentialist writings, where men are searching for meaning and not finding it. Also Pirsig is dealing with it in _ZMM_, he talks about our burgeoning technological society and says that it is not providing meaning for people.
Why am I sitting here rather than watching television? In short just because and no other reason. I have learned through experience that this action will bring me greater satisfaction than the other, so I am doing this. What is the basis of that satisfaction though? What is the basis of meaning? People have tried to attack this with logos tools and have been foiled because they are the wrong tools. There is no basis for value, it just is.
Thinkers oftentimes act as though the values that they act according to somehow arise out of nature directly. The arrogance that oftentimes accompanies this is something that I have had to watch and work on in myself. It is a delusion though; any logical system must be based on axioms; there comes a point where we don’t know “why” anymore we just have to say “this is just because.”
Something that M commented on to me when I was writing about this earlier was that in his search for values he came to a point where the choice was completely arbitrary, there wasn’t a reason why he chose one course over another. Such has been my experience as well.
Arrg, this is a difficult piece to write; there is so much that I am leaving out. As I go I have all these huge structures all around me and I could go into any one of them and just stay there exploring, but to do so I have to ignore all these others. It is just frustrating to be leaving so much out. I really think that I have a solid set of ideas, but I don’t see how I can explain them to anyone because they are so big. Really the only way to do it is to walk around with all of them in your head and see how everything fits into the picture.
Anyhow, I think I’ll wrap up with two major challenges to what I have said.
The first is a strange set of bed-fellows; religion and science; Jesus and theoretical physics. It is the removal of the objectivity of logos; aka. that what you believe has an effect on what you perceive or that the act of perception affects the situation. In the Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying (Matthew 17:20) “[Jesus] replied, ‘Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, `Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.'” And then in particle physics we have the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle which is oftentimes quoted to demonstrate that the subject-object duality may just be an illusion (though I was reading an article in Scientific American which says that using some complex new mathematics and techniques they can get past Hiesenberg’s problems (the article was way over my head in the mathematics described, but it sounded reputable. =) )) So maybe there isn’t a logos at all except what is created, or at the very least that mythos and logos are in a relationship that makes the distinction between them false.
I kinda hope so, walking on water is on my list of things to do and if I don’t get to I will be disappointed. =) Though maybe it is not mystical at all, just common sense that we haven’t recognized yet.
I touched on the subjectivity of objectivity before and I a seeing it more clearly now, but it’ll have to wait, I’m going to bed.