Pesharim - Where We Go
I visit various blogs, message boards, and websites.
I go to each one for different reasons. I have a lot of different interests. I go to Milblogs to get the war, defense, counterterrorism, and military scoop. I visit blogs run by former Intel officers (or they say they are, one never really knows with Spooks as people remind me all of the time, since some call me a Spook of sorts, and I guess I am sortta but I'm also not, so there you go, that's the way that kind of thing works doesn't it?) to catch a drift or two about espionage and cryptology, I visit religious blogs and missionary blogs cause I love some of those and missionary blogs are great sources of religious, cultural, and societal Intel. I visit cop and detective blogs, for obvious reasons. I visit science and technology blogs. I visit governmental project blogs. I visit Research and Development blogs, academic blogs, university and student blogs, criminology blogs, art blogs, the blogs of buddies, foreign blogs, analytical blogs, political blogs, the blogs of freelance journalists, a few blog communities.
I also visit all kinds of websites, of the same types as the types of blogs I detailed above, as well as medical sites and Deep Web sites and business and corporate sites and blah, blah, blah. I visit nerd sites and parody sites and vaddign sites and sports and athletic sites and message boards and so forth. You get the picture.
But why?
I guess what I'm driving at is not only why do I visit the types of blogs and websites I visit but why do I visit the particular blogs and websites I visit?
I've never really thought about it much, in a systematic or analytical fashion, being new to blogging myself but I am certain that the types of places you visit in cyberspace must say something about your psychespace.
I really personally enjoy some locales, others I visit because they intrigue me, some places I visit because they are excellent sources of data, information, or even Intel, some because they are interesting, some because they are useful, some because they amuse me, some because I like commenting there, and some because well, hell, I couldn't really tell you.
As a matter of fact in some sense I couldn't really tell you why I visit any of the particular sites and blogs I do other than to tell you that I like them. For instance two different guys might run two different blogs which are immensely similar in content, maybe even in arrangement and outlook, yet one will appeal to me and the other will not. One may be popular and well trafficked by any standard as well as being appealing to me, the other might be hardly touched by anyone else and yet I like going there. Why?
I couldn't tell you.
There are reasons, obviously, having to do with my nature and the nature of the other person or persons on site (though I'm not one of those people who are naive enough or deluded enough to believe you can ever really "know" someone based on what they post to the Internet, that's like saying you can know a man from his scats and tracks - you can know some of his on-line attributes, assuming he is not disguising them, you cannot though really "know him through technology") as well as unknown factors and quanta.
But why this and not that?
There's a paper in here somewhere dealing with mass personality as expressed through abstract communication modes, as well as several empirical experiments, and maybe even the framework of a few inventions regarding personality and technological applications. I'm sure in some way this relates to God Technology. But I don't have time to screw with all of the possibilities right now.
Nevertheless, now that I have begun ruminating on the subject, it sure is interesting to think about.
I guess I'll come back to this later, just as I'll continue to revisit old sites and blogs I haunt.
I'll come and I'll go and so will you, and one day maybe I'll investigate thoroughly enough to firmly suspect why.
But I guess it's kinda like a good Cold Case.
You'll never really know for sure why it happened until it's solved, and then you'll say to yourself, "Well, hell, I knew that all along, there just wasn't enough evidence yet to pin it down"
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Senator Kerry and His Political Party
The Glair - Senator Kerry and His Political Party
A Psycho-Political Assessment of Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party
Every election I make a biographical and psychological study of important candidates and their backgrounds before deciding and predicting how an election will conclude prior to it actually occurring.
I have done this all the way back to Clinton, who was the first national candidate upon whom I conducted a thorough biographical and psychological study. In conducting such studies I always try to find biographers, and assessment and analysis pieces from authors who are both friendly towards and antagonistic towards a particular candidate.
I shocked my friends when GW Bush ran against Gore by proclaiming before the election had even been conducted that based upon his biographical, political, and psychological profile that Al Gore had no intention at all of being president. He only ran because his father had wanted him to become president, and he only accepted the nomination and only secured the nomination because he was owed the position, that he felt he had earned it from past loyal, party service. And because he felt a reciprocal duty towards his party and his father’s memory and past aspirations for him in becoming president. But he never internally desired to be president, or ever wanted to be president. In this sense Al Gore was very similar to George Herbert Walker Bush, who also never really wanted to be president in the same sense as his son, or felt he had a destiny to be President, as did Reagan and GW Bush. Rather, the elder Bush felt he was owed the position after Reagan’s last term, not that he was destined for it, or even really deeply desired it. Bush the Elder was a maintenance and administrative personality, not a man convinced of a momentous reform nature or a personal and private destiny to lead, as was the case with his son. (This does not mean that when push came to shove the Elder Bush was a bad leader, merely not a passionate and self-convicted leader.)
After the debacle in Florida began I also shocked many of my friends by announcing before the events were concluded that Al Gore would be the first to withdraw any claim on the office, as he had no intention of actually becoming president (he merely wanted to convince himself and the public that he had made a good try), and that furthermore he would not bother to run again in the next election cycle. Gore still had the ghost of his father to bury, and as is evident from his current stand on many national and international issues, that ghost still drives him hard.
Then came the Kerry-Bush race and after conducting a second detailed biographical and personality profile on Bush, and my first detailed study on John F. Kerry it became evident to me as well that Kerry would never become president and that he indeed had no intention of becoming president. He did not want the job. That in fact he would do everything possible to sabotage his own candidacy, whereas Bush would do everything possible to assure his own re-election. So once again I surprised and shocked my friends and family by declaring months before the election that Bush had already won and that Kerry had no intention of winning the office, that he would sabotage any chance he had of actually winning (just as I had told them that Gore was going to do before he failed his own election).
Even though these pre-election predictions seemed amazing to many of my friends (and many told me that they did not understand how I could have possibly accurately predicted what I did when I did because my predictions contradicted all pre-election polling and evidence) in truth, they were very easy predictions to make. I even told everyone on what basis I had made these predictions and what exact methods I had used in making my biographical and psychological assessments, down to citing specific biographical and personality incidents in the prior lives of each individual candidate. Men do not usually stray far from their own true natures and characters, politicians being no exception of any kind. As a matter of fact, in most cases, politicians are the types of men whose behavior is strikingly easy to analyze and predict. And predicting elections is fundamentally, all other things being even, really just a matter of predicting the behavior of the various candidates involved in that election.
Bill Clinton is the only national Democrat figure I have studied in the past twenty years or so who has convinced me that he indeed both intended and desired to win. Even though I worked to help elect Dole I knew in my heart by studying both men that Clinton intended to be re-elected, and that Dole was like the Elder Bush, he expected the nomination of his party from past loyal service, but he had no real intention of ever being president. If Dole had become president it would have been by accident, not intention.
Now we come to this election cycle and I more firmly perceive something that I have suspected (and told my friends on more than one occasion) for a long time, but could not be sure the extrapolation was a correct one, and that is, the Democratic Party as a whole (not just individual candidates) has deeply baptized itself with what I’ll call, the “Kerry Corona.” This is a normally invisible to normal sight aura of self-sabotage that demands and directs some action or series of actions by various members of the Democratic Party before important and major elections to assure a predetermined result of political failure.
They simply do not intend to win. It is not a set of coincidental blunders, or a series of seemingly unrelated events and behaviors that signify bad luck, poor management, misunderstanding, or misdirection. They simply, deep down, as an in-bred, or adopted (it doesn’t matter which, the result is the same) psychological and political impulse have no intention of succeeding. And this impulse (for which the nation can be immensely grateful for a whole host of reasons involving; security, economics, taxation, reform, international affairs, etc.) leads them to strap on the metaphorical homicide/suicide vest before each determinative election. And then explode it prematurely in the manner likely to yield the most destructive sphere of self-inflicted damage that it is possible to achieve.
After this particular election cycle is concluded, and ends in a result very different from current Democratic hopes (for indeed few of them have any real confidence that it will end as they hope, but rather as they expect) they will of course begin the common post-election autopsy examination, and process of distributing blame. And a large measure of that blame will fall to radically liberal members of the party, such as Pelosi and to the scapegoats of the perennial Democratic sin of internal sabotage, such as Kerry.
But the constant and consummate ability of the Democrats to draw fire relentlessly upon their own position, telegraph their most blatant public ideologies (when they would do far better to camouflage their public ideals behind private subterfuge) to a disbelieving and naïvely lethargic populace, and to expose their own most easily exploited vulnerabilities to rest of the world, is a congenital defect of their most inward nature. After all every organization is a result of the individuals who fill the ranks of that group, and the actions of every party depend upon the actions of those individuals who compose the corporate nature of that society of like-minded peoples. The Democrats see themselves, and have for decades, as an Army of One (unlike the military they so often criticize) bent upon a personal yet ultimately flawed campaign of individual sabotage and self-aggrandizement. And because each individual Democrat is his own worst enemy, an entire party of Democrats is a corporate and Byzantine conspiracy of both personal and collective habitual wrack and ruin. They earn, by hard labor and direct intention, the profit of their own penury. Because they have no leader, they have no leadership, because each high ranking Democrat sees himself or herself as a Law Unto Themselves, they breed no law but that of political chaos, economic catastrophe, utter taxation, and national vulnerability. And in the end, when it really counts most to them, and to the nation as a whole, they breed political suicide.
Here’s to many more decades of Democrats doing what they do best, public political failure. See you at the after-party.
© JWG, Jr. 2006
A Psycho-Political Assessment of Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party
Every election I make a biographical and psychological study of important candidates and their backgrounds before deciding and predicting how an election will conclude prior to it actually occurring.
I have done this all the way back to Clinton, who was the first national candidate upon whom I conducted a thorough biographical and psychological study. In conducting such studies I always try to find biographers, and assessment and analysis pieces from authors who are both friendly towards and antagonistic towards a particular candidate.
I shocked my friends when GW Bush ran against Gore by proclaiming before the election had even been conducted that based upon his biographical, political, and psychological profile that Al Gore had no intention at all of being president. He only ran because his father had wanted him to become president, and he only accepted the nomination and only secured the nomination because he was owed the position, that he felt he had earned it from past loyal, party service. And because he felt a reciprocal duty towards his party and his father’s memory and past aspirations for him in becoming president. But he never internally desired to be president, or ever wanted to be president. In this sense Al Gore was very similar to George Herbert Walker Bush, who also never really wanted to be president in the same sense as his son, or felt he had a destiny to be President, as did Reagan and GW Bush. Rather, the elder Bush felt he was owed the position after Reagan’s last term, not that he was destined for it, or even really deeply desired it. Bush the Elder was a maintenance and administrative personality, not a man convinced of a momentous reform nature or a personal and private destiny to lead, as was the case with his son. (This does not mean that when push came to shove the Elder Bush was a bad leader, merely not a passionate and self-convicted leader.)
After the debacle in Florida began I also shocked many of my friends by announcing before the events were concluded that Al Gore would be the first to withdraw any claim on the office, as he had no intention of actually becoming president (he merely wanted to convince himself and the public that he had made a good try), and that furthermore he would not bother to run again in the next election cycle. Gore still had the ghost of his father to bury, and as is evident from his current stand on many national and international issues, that ghost still drives him hard.
Then came the Kerry-Bush race and after conducting a second detailed biographical and personality profile on Bush, and my first detailed study on John F. Kerry it became evident to me as well that Kerry would never become president and that he indeed had no intention of becoming president. He did not want the job. That in fact he would do everything possible to sabotage his own candidacy, whereas Bush would do everything possible to assure his own re-election. So once again I surprised and shocked my friends and family by declaring months before the election that Bush had already won and that Kerry had no intention of winning the office, that he would sabotage any chance he had of actually winning (just as I had told them that Gore was going to do before he failed his own election).
Even though these pre-election predictions seemed amazing to many of my friends (and many told me that they did not understand how I could have possibly accurately predicted what I did when I did because my predictions contradicted all pre-election polling and evidence) in truth, they were very easy predictions to make. I even told everyone on what basis I had made these predictions and what exact methods I had used in making my biographical and psychological assessments, down to citing specific biographical and personality incidents in the prior lives of each individual candidate. Men do not usually stray far from their own true natures and characters, politicians being no exception of any kind. As a matter of fact, in most cases, politicians are the types of men whose behavior is strikingly easy to analyze and predict. And predicting elections is fundamentally, all other things being even, really just a matter of predicting the behavior of the various candidates involved in that election.
Bill Clinton is the only national Democrat figure I have studied in the past twenty years or so who has convinced me that he indeed both intended and desired to win. Even though I worked to help elect Dole I knew in my heart by studying both men that Clinton intended to be re-elected, and that Dole was like the Elder Bush, he expected the nomination of his party from past loyal service, but he had no real intention of ever being president. If Dole had become president it would have been by accident, not intention.
Now we come to this election cycle and I more firmly perceive something that I have suspected (and told my friends on more than one occasion) for a long time, but could not be sure the extrapolation was a correct one, and that is, the Democratic Party as a whole (not just individual candidates) has deeply baptized itself with what I’ll call, the “Kerry Corona.” This is a normally invisible to normal sight aura of self-sabotage that demands and directs some action or series of actions by various members of the Democratic Party before important and major elections to assure a predetermined result of political failure.
They simply do not intend to win. It is not a set of coincidental blunders, or a series of seemingly unrelated events and behaviors that signify bad luck, poor management, misunderstanding, or misdirection. They simply, deep down, as an in-bred, or adopted (it doesn’t matter which, the result is the same) psychological and political impulse have no intention of succeeding. And this impulse (for which the nation can be immensely grateful for a whole host of reasons involving; security, economics, taxation, reform, international affairs, etc.) leads them to strap on the metaphorical homicide/suicide vest before each determinative election. And then explode it prematurely in the manner likely to yield the most destructive sphere of self-inflicted damage that it is possible to achieve.
After this particular election cycle is concluded, and ends in a result very different from current Democratic hopes (for indeed few of them have any real confidence that it will end as they hope, but rather as they expect) they will of course begin the common post-election autopsy examination, and process of distributing blame. And a large measure of that blame will fall to radically liberal members of the party, such as Pelosi and to the scapegoats of the perennial Democratic sin of internal sabotage, such as Kerry.
But the constant and consummate ability of the Democrats to draw fire relentlessly upon their own position, telegraph their most blatant public ideologies (when they would do far better to camouflage their public ideals behind private subterfuge) to a disbelieving and naïvely lethargic populace, and to expose their own most easily exploited vulnerabilities to rest of the world, is a congenital defect of their most inward nature. After all every organization is a result of the individuals who fill the ranks of that group, and the actions of every party depend upon the actions of those individuals who compose the corporate nature of that society of like-minded peoples. The Democrats see themselves, and have for decades, as an Army of One (unlike the military they so often criticize) bent upon a personal yet ultimately flawed campaign of individual sabotage and self-aggrandizement. And because each individual Democrat is his own worst enemy, an entire party of Democrats is a corporate and Byzantine conspiracy of both personal and collective habitual wrack and ruin. They earn, by hard labor and direct intention, the profit of their own penury. Because they have no leader, they have no leadership, because each high ranking Democrat sees himself or herself as a Law Unto Themselves, they breed no law but that of political chaos, economic catastrophe, utter taxation, and national vulnerability. And in the end, when it really counts most to them, and to the nation as a whole, they breed political suicide.
Here’s to many more decades of Democrats doing what they do best, public political failure. See you at the after-party.
© JWG, Jr. 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Invisible Hand - Personality Aspects
Invisible Hand - Personality Aspects
Today, after helping teach class I went and took shots. It was raining so all the shots I took were taken either in a moderately heavy rain or during a full-fledged storm. While taking some of the shots I began thinking back to a time when a friend of mine at the University of Saint Petersburg (back then it was Leningrad) and I were working together on a new Theory of Personality.
We never finished our work together but a large part of my contribution of the work involved Personality Aspects. (I used and use the term differently than it is commonly applied.) Not fragments of personality but the idea that each person has different Aspects of Personality, or to use Greek and Latin influenced interpretations, Mask Faces. (Persona means "Mask" and Aspect means "Face.")
Now the general theory was a Theory of Integrated Personality for the Normal and Abnormal Personality Typologies, or even in some respects of Personality Integration - yet as part of the overall nature of the Integrated Personality I began developing the idea of Personality Aspects not as part of a Personality, nor as personality fragments, nor even as Personality Apparancies, but rather as separate Personality Sets based upon behavioral functionality. That is my view of Personality Aspects was that each separate Personality Aspect was, in Normal and Abnormal (originally Abnormal did not mean sub-normal, but Hypernormal, or "Beyond Normal Functioning") individuals, a set of personality traits related to function. A persona might have numerous Personality Aspects, all of which act together or even integrate seamlessly into a general harmonious Personality Whole, but each Aspect might operate as a personality sub-set based upon function. A person might seem like a totally different person in any given set of different circumstances, yet this did not in normal or abnormal people entail or display a fracture within the personality, merely a recognition in the individual that different circumstances required different Personality Aspects, or a set of personality behaviors peculiar to a given situation.
For instance at work a certain set of personality traits might be obviously displayed and in evidence within a given individual's behavior range, because at that time a particular "Personality Aspect" might need to be emphasized as signified by that aspect set. But at home another Personality Aspect might either be required, or even encouraged by a different environment. These differences in behavioral range (even if seemingly extreme to an outside observer) might be entirely normal or even desirous given the demands of the separate environments, but did not at all necessarily imply any type of psychological or even personality fragmentation or disturbance or disorder. (The same might not be said of subnormal personality types and individuals where different personality aspects might be either diagnostic cues or clues to underlying personality disorders of a pathological nature.)
In any case, today, while out taking shots in the rain my mind drifted back to this work I did years and years ago, almost 15 years ago now, to my old Russian friend (I wish I could find him again) and what these ideas might imply. Something about being out in the rain, the darkness of the storm, the early fall of the sun as the seasons shift, all of this spurred on my thoughts. So in my head I began to make notes on my own individual Personality Aspects, the way each Aspect functions, and what kinds of basic "sets" of behavior are associated with each Aspect.
Below I have listed each Aspect, or what I would call Major Personality Aspects (The Major and Most Important components of my overall Personality). I haven't listed any particular Aspect in any order, I have listed them as they occurred to me and as I was able to lodge them in my memory until such time as I could reach my daypack and retrieve my notebooks and tape recorders to record what I had been thinking about.
Inventor/Scientist - This aspect prefers to work alone and in isolation, without input from other individuals, though occasionally I will seek out advice from others or wander around in crowds just for the noise and because watching people and animals gives me ideas about functionality and how my inventions might best be designed and employed. Also occasionally by watching people, animals, insects, and biological systems I can get ideas for experiments to conduct or theories to pursue. Most of the time I prefer to work in isolation, or to make observations from a place where I will not be observed, especially in the early stages of any design, experiment, or creation.
Investigating/Analysis/Manhunting - These things I definitely prefer to do alone, both because of the danger and because I operate best alone in this kind of environment and at this type of activity. Manhunting sharpens my senses, makes me far more keenly observant and focused, heightens my mental and psychological faculties, and is intensely enjoyable to me. Hunting criminals and conducting investigations, interviews, and interrogations is also an intensely concentrated psychological activity to me and therefore I prefer to engage in these types of activities completely focused and without any outside distractions. Also in investigating or manhunting it is important to remain intensely focused upon one's goal and being alone helps me to devise a wide range of possibilities and to analyze these possibilities logically and without interfering prejudice. Sometimes though I will seek the advice of others when making an analysis of an investigative or intelligence matter.
Civic/Teaching/Social - I prefer to engage in civic activities in the company of others of course, and occasionally if I lead such events, am teaching, or am taking photographs, or conducting some official function, I don't mind, may even prefer to operate in a large crowd. But usually when it comes to civic activities I prefer a small group of people as a participating audience or a small group of people with whom to operate. Often times in informal or relaxed social settings though or when going out in public I prefer large groups of people. Often, as my friends know I will also act foolishly or clownishly in public, sometimes to the point of being obnoxious. This is great fun to me and I love to clown and joke in such situations with strangers or with people whom I know I will likely never meet again. On these occasions I prefer large groups of people and to exploit humor. Often I enjoy acting this way on the internet as well, as the internet often evokes my satirical and sardonic sense of humor.
Artist/Composer/Photographer - When drawing, sketching, painting, composing or taking photographs my general preference is for solitude and even absolute isolation if possible. Very much like when I am manhunting or engaged in a particularly fascinating investigation. The two exceptions are that occasionally when sketching or drawing I prefer to go into a crowd of people to get subject matter and occasionally I also like to take other people with me when taking photographs, people such as interesting friends, or one or both of my daughters.
Family Man/Husband/Father - In these situations I prefer the company of my family, and like to play around and joke with them. I enjoy wrestling with my daughters (hopefully one day with a son as well), taking trips with them, doing things around the house, and being outdoors together, maybe tracking or playing with my dogs. With my family I am usually very sociable and my most relaxed. I am also though, at the same time, at my most intensely focused regarding security matters.
Priest - When ever I feel a deep religious or spiritual conviction I prefer to be alone. I almost always think of them as circumstances involving my priestly, or more deeply spiritual and religious nature. Strangely enough though I prefer isolation when I am absorbed in my "Priestly Aspect" or nature. I will also however often wander about alone when in these moods looking for a stranger or some lone person or small group of people I may assist. When I was younger I usually most often associated this Aspect and these moments with deep meditative experiences, powerful prayer experiences, melancholy, dreams, visions, and trances. Nowadays, as I age, I associate them more with wandering alone, and with assisting others, but on an individual or personal basis. Almost pastorally. Still, for the most part my priestly nature is solitary and contemplative. The one exception is usually Communion, in which I feel priest-like in a crowd of people or in the congregation.
Vadder/Explorer - I most often associate this aspect with activities that I psychologically consider similar in nature, such as investigations and even manhunting. Whenever I engage in Vadding or Exploring especially to places I have never been before or which I suspect to be dangerous I prefer to go alone. Always well equipped, but still alone. Occasionally I will take friends with me hiking, camping, mountain climbing, etc, and recently I have started training my daughters to Vad, but usually whether I am Rudding or Vadding I go alone. Often I go alone because of the danger. I know many people who say you should always Vad in a team, that one should never go alone to avoid disaster, being trapped, severe injury, or even death. But I have basically Vadded alone since I was about 12 to 13 years old, or even younger if you count the many expeditions I took alone when I lived in the city (a place I love to visit but hated living there), and see no reason to change my natural habits or inclination.
Businessman - This may the single most social Aspect of all my Personality Aspects. From my business experiences I learned to develop deep, rich, and extensive networks. This later bled over into the idea as I aged that I should develop equally deep and rich social, political, civic, professional, religious, law enforcement, investigative, military, intelligence, communicative, institutional, and scientific networks, and also eventually helped me develop my theory of the Modern Renaissance Man. When involved in any type of business, financial, brokerage, capital, or start-up project I prefer to be as social as possible, to work with as many different individuals and groups as possible, and to delegate out work over as wide an area of expertise and capability as possible. When engaged in business I am my most social and feel the least need for solitude.
Well, those are the most important 8 Aspects of my various Personality Aspects.
Comment if you like, either on what I said, or about your own Personality Aspects.
Today I took some very interesting shots, including shots of two animal corpses. I'll post those soon.
© JG, Jr. 2006
Today, after helping teach class I went and took shots. It was raining so all the shots I took were taken either in a moderately heavy rain or during a full-fledged storm. While taking some of the shots I began thinking back to a time when a friend of mine at the University of Saint Petersburg (back then it was Leningrad) and I were working together on a new Theory of Personality.
We never finished our work together but a large part of my contribution of the work involved Personality Aspects. (I used and use the term differently than it is commonly applied.) Not fragments of personality but the idea that each person has different Aspects of Personality, or to use Greek and Latin influenced interpretations, Mask Faces. (Persona means "Mask" and Aspect means "Face.")
Now the general theory was a Theory of Integrated Personality for the Normal and Abnormal Personality Typologies, or even in some respects of Personality Integration - yet as part of the overall nature of the Integrated Personality I began developing the idea of Personality Aspects not as part of a Personality, nor as personality fragments, nor even as Personality Apparancies, but rather as separate Personality Sets based upon behavioral functionality. That is my view of Personality Aspects was that each separate Personality Aspect was, in Normal and Abnormal (originally Abnormal did not mean sub-normal, but Hypernormal, or "Beyond Normal Functioning") individuals, a set of personality traits related to function. A persona might have numerous Personality Aspects, all of which act together or even integrate seamlessly into a general harmonious Personality Whole, but each Aspect might operate as a personality sub-set based upon function. A person might seem like a totally different person in any given set of different circumstances, yet this did not in normal or abnormal people entail or display a fracture within the personality, merely a recognition in the individual that different circumstances required different Personality Aspects, or a set of personality behaviors peculiar to a given situation.
For instance at work a certain set of personality traits might be obviously displayed and in evidence within a given individual's behavior range, because at that time a particular "Personality Aspect" might need to be emphasized as signified by that aspect set. But at home another Personality Aspect might either be required, or even encouraged by a different environment. These differences in behavioral range (even if seemingly extreme to an outside observer) might be entirely normal or even desirous given the demands of the separate environments, but did not at all necessarily imply any type of psychological or even personality fragmentation or disturbance or disorder. (The same might not be said of subnormal personality types and individuals where different personality aspects might be either diagnostic cues or clues to underlying personality disorders of a pathological nature.)
In any case, today, while out taking shots in the rain my mind drifted back to this work I did years and years ago, almost 15 years ago now, to my old Russian friend (I wish I could find him again) and what these ideas might imply. Something about being out in the rain, the darkness of the storm, the early fall of the sun as the seasons shift, all of this spurred on my thoughts. So in my head I began to make notes on my own individual Personality Aspects, the way each Aspect functions, and what kinds of basic "sets" of behavior are associated with each Aspect.
Below I have listed each Aspect, or what I would call Major Personality Aspects (The Major and Most Important components of my overall Personality). I haven't listed any particular Aspect in any order, I have listed them as they occurred to me and as I was able to lodge them in my memory until such time as I could reach my daypack and retrieve my notebooks and tape recorders to record what I had been thinking about.
Inventor/Scientist - This aspect prefers to work alone and in isolation, without input from other individuals, though occasionally I will seek out advice from others or wander around in crowds just for the noise and because watching people and animals gives me ideas about functionality and how my inventions might best be designed and employed. Also occasionally by watching people, animals, insects, and biological systems I can get ideas for experiments to conduct or theories to pursue. Most of the time I prefer to work in isolation, or to make observations from a place where I will not be observed, especially in the early stages of any design, experiment, or creation.
Investigating/Analysis/Manhunting - These things I definitely prefer to do alone, both because of the danger and because I operate best alone in this kind of environment and at this type of activity. Manhunting sharpens my senses, makes me far more keenly observant and focused, heightens my mental and psychological faculties, and is intensely enjoyable to me. Hunting criminals and conducting investigations, interviews, and interrogations is also an intensely concentrated psychological activity to me and therefore I prefer to engage in these types of activities completely focused and without any outside distractions. Also in investigating or manhunting it is important to remain intensely focused upon one's goal and being alone helps me to devise a wide range of possibilities and to analyze these possibilities logically and without interfering prejudice. Sometimes though I will seek the advice of others when making an analysis of an investigative or intelligence matter.
Civic/Teaching/Social - I prefer to engage in civic activities in the company of others of course, and occasionally if I lead such events, am teaching, or am taking photographs, or conducting some official function, I don't mind, may even prefer to operate in a large crowd. But usually when it comes to civic activities I prefer a small group of people as a participating audience or a small group of people with whom to operate. Often times in informal or relaxed social settings though or when going out in public I prefer large groups of people. Often, as my friends know I will also act foolishly or clownishly in public, sometimes to the point of being obnoxious. This is great fun to me and I love to clown and joke in such situations with strangers or with people whom I know I will likely never meet again. On these occasions I prefer large groups of people and to exploit humor. Often I enjoy acting this way on the internet as well, as the internet often evokes my satirical and sardonic sense of humor.
Artist/Composer/Photographer - When drawing, sketching, painting, composing or taking photographs my general preference is for solitude and even absolute isolation if possible. Very much like when I am manhunting or engaged in a particularly fascinating investigation. The two exceptions are that occasionally when sketching or drawing I prefer to go into a crowd of people to get subject matter and occasionally I also like to take other people with me when taking photographs, people such as interesting friends, or one or both of my daughters.
Family Man/Husband/Father - In these situations I prefer the company of my family, and like to play around and joke with them. I enjoy wrestling with my daughters (hopefully one day with a son as well), taking trips with them, doing things around the house, and being outdoors together, maybe tracking or playing with my dogs. With my family I am usually very sociable and my most relaxed. I am also though, at the same time, at my most intensely focused regarding security matters.
Priest - When ever I feel a deep religious or spiritual conviction I prefer to be alone. I almost always think of them as circumstances involving my priestly, or more deeply spiritual and religious nature. Strangely enough though I prefer isolation when I am absorbed in my "Priestly Aspect" or nature. I will also however often wander about alone when in these moods looking for a stranger or some lone person or small group of people I may assist. When I was younger I usually most often associated this Aspect and these moments with deep meditative experiences, powerful prayer experiences, melancholy, dreams, visions, and trances. Nowadays, as I age, I associate them more with wandering alone, and with assisting others, but on an individual or personal basis. Almost pastorally. Still, for the most part my priestly nature is solitary and contemplative. The one exception is usually Communion, in which I feel priest-like in a crowd of people or in the congregation.
Vadder/Explorer - I most often associate this aspect with activities that I psychologically consider similar in nature, such as investigations and even manhunting. Whenever I engage in Vadding or Exploring especially to places I have never been before or which I suspect to be dangerous I prefer to go alone. Always well equipped, but still alone. Occasionally I will take friends with me hiking, camping, mountain climbing, etc, and recently I have started training my daughters to Vad, but usually whether I am Rudding or Vadding I go alone. Often I go alone because of the danger. I know many people who say you should always Vad in a team, that one should never go alone to avoid disaster, being trapped, severe injury, or even death. But I have basically Vadded alone since I was about 12 to 13 years old, or even younger if you count the many expeditions I took alone when I lived in the city (a place I love to visit but hated living there), and see no reason to change my natural habits or inclination.
Businessman - This may the single most social Aspect of all my Personality Aspects. From my business experiences I learned to develop deep, rich, and extensive networks. This later bled over into the idea as I aged that I should develop equally deep and rich social, political, civic, professional, religious, law enforcement, investigative, military, intelligence, communicative, institutional, and scientific networks, and also eventually helped me develop my theory of the Modern Renaissance Man. When involved in any type of business, financial, brokerage, capital, or start-up project I prefer to be as social as possible, to work with as many different individuals and groups as possible, and to delegate out work over as wide an area of expertise and capability as possible. When engaged in business I am my most social and feel the least need for solitude.
Well, those are the most important 8 Aspects of my various Personality Aspects.
Comment if you like, either on what I said, or about your own Personality Aspects.
Today I took some very interesting shots, including shots of two animal corpses. I'll post those soon.
© JG, Jr. 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
