Tag: Psyche

Posted on

Extroverts, Introverts and the Mystics

planet-atom

I would first like to lay out some spectrums:
Dissociation/Abstract ——— Association/Literal
Transcendence ———– Immanence

In the above 2 spectrums, we would have mystics to the far left, introverts in the middle, and extroverts to the far right.
So it might look something like this:
Abstract—|M|——|I|——|E|—-Literal
M = Mystic
I = Introvert
E = Extrovert

Our psyche projects life/emotion/feeling into the world and enlivens it.

For extroverts, I think the world objects and people are so totally mapped to their psyche that there is no distance.
They are completely tuned into this world.
So there is no abstraction, rather the world is literal and everything in it is literal.
It is the perfect projection of essence giving total reality to the world and its objects.
For example: If an extrovert says I want that specific car, then his feelings permeate the whole car.
The car literally carries his projected feelings perfectly.
So when the car moves, it is his bundle of feelings literally moving.
So similes and metaphors would not apply since there is no distance between the projection and the object.

Introverts I feel, do not attach to the objects themselves directly but do so to the mental representation of the objects.
So they are a layer removed from the literal and are slightly abstract.
So introverts may use similes, metaphors or abstract concepts more, in their communication.
They see the world with SOME distance and the mental representation in the intermediate layer they interface with the most.
The objects serve as a cue to trigger their mental representation, and then the focus is a bit more internal i.e. on the representation.

Mystics I feel are on the far left end.
They are 1 layer further removed from even the mental representation of objects.
So they inhabit a space that is highly abstract and they witness the deep activity of the symbolic deeper mind.
So their communication tends to be heavy in allegory, metaphor, analogy, and symbols.
One must contemplate on what a mystic says to truly understand it.

This makes me wonder, could we say extroverts are in the nucleus of this world (realm)? (though in conventional life we look at it in the exact opposite way i.e. seeing extroverts as the ones moving around the most)
The introverts are on the nearby electron orbits?
And the mystics are on the outermost electron orbits?
I feel the mystic/free-thinker is a free electron and enjoys a certain freedom in terms of moving around between different atoms and molecules. (which is an analogy for moving in and out of different higher context worlds with an abstract understanding that works in all those worlds)

I feel the mystic operates on the fringe. He is a messenger, a link between the known and the unknown, a link between order and chaos, and he brings back information from the other worlds and assists the evolution of others.
Posted on

High/Low psyche energy duality

Intense psyche energy – moves experience, increases possibilities, novelty, wonder and creates anticipation, joys etc.
When the psyche energy is low – there is flatness, dullness, disenchantment, disinterest, loss of consciousness, loss of interest/passion/desire/love/focus. Such a person falls into a stupor-like state almost only driven by bare survival and when even survival is surrendered, he falls into the unknown void/blankness.
When very low on energy, the strain is on survival only, the deepest desire, attention/focus is pulled from the reserves to do the bare minimum to survive. It is a hard desperate struggling state.

The best way to illustrate this duality is – ON PSYCHEDELICS vs. the next day PSYCHEDELIC HANGOVER.
The psychedelic awakens the soul energy, that is precisely the feeling of high interest/curiosity/wonder/passion/love/joy/abundance/overflow/sparkles of energy/impressions(impressiveness).
The exact opposite happens in the hangover:
disinterest/flatness/dread/deadness/discontent/struggle/scarcity/low energy/depression/unconsciousness.
Posted on

About ‘Doing’ and its implications

Another way to put across the principle would be:
Every assertion requires an assumed denial (as base state)
Every denial requires an assumed assertion (as base state)
This is the inherent dilemma with all “Doing” itself

Another way to put it would be: Doing is secondary to the structure that causes and justifies the doing.
For example: If I want to help someone, I have to first assume that he needs help and cannot help himself, and that I know what help he needs, and that I know the best thing he should do to help himself. All this is the narrative/background structure behind my action of helping.
Doing is like watching the ball roll down a mountain. But there are lot of things that have to be in place for that – the mountain, the slope, the gravity force and so on. That is the background set (as in cinema parlance)
The narrative I create behind the doing is the higher dimensional structure. That is my creation too. That is why it is said “Belief creates reality”.
Doing is simply the manifestation/symptom of the structure I have assumed/believed in.

Surrendering of all “Doing” is to live in the causeless
Where everything simply happens and doing happens too, but there is no “Doing” by an agent/ego/self(with small ‘s’)