We don’t find freedom by knowing fear inside and out. We merely find that we can be free and hop back in the hole most times. People are in love with the devil they know.
How many domains of function are there? There have been both mystical and newer “scientific” systems to identify personality traits. There are many four quadrant models, and even math can in a sense apply to this. Psychology identifies only two broad personality types in both genders, so in a sense again a total of four.
Everyone familiar with learning styles? It has been recognized that every person favours one or two modes of taking in information: visual, auditory, tactile input, etc. And even what amounts to an almost kinetic, purely impulse style of processing. None of these methods are better or worse then the other.
Now to use the psychological types (and public industry uses them heavily), there are hysteric and schizoid females, and there are phallic and schizoid males. How they differ from each other is either identification with the body first, or primary identification with the mind. There is an observable dominance or recessiveness of biological traits in temperament. Strangely, the most common “learning style” or personality type is the intuitive. It keys in on broad pattern recognition, but seizes few concrete details. It is a heavily criticised way of thinking and learning, but it does often occur when a teacher confronts a student on how they got an answer, and they can honestly only reply, “I just knew.”
In the corporate world, we use this all the time, but it’s not permitted and we have to back it up in another fashion. We waste a lot of time, and if you won’t accept the intuitive response, your productivity often drops. We don’t work well reverse engineering things and rejecting our own way, or personality type so to speak. In metaphysical symbolism, this intuitive way of understanding things is often associated with the element of air. It is expansive, but “not visible”.
A very common way of functioning that is also not publicly well esteemed is the tactile. It’s marginally admired in athletic efforts, but we also have the insult “dumb jock”. Muscle memory, and actually, kinesiological feedback. Ever notice a lot of doctors seem like a weird “intellectual jock”? These people have a very well developed sense of the body and the physical. Most of the worlds great tacticians are this type. Metaphysically, they could be called “earth people”. Jack, in the series “Lost”, is a very earthy character. No long abstract deliberation, but experience, a deep physical knowing, then action. Many of the women praised as “good mothers” are earth people. This is why we have the phrase Earth Mother.
Now a common prejudice is also very much mistaken. The intuitive person is not more capable of perception than the physical/tactile person, but we have a very rigid paradigm about the physical, and the tactile child is often very kinetic. So we tell this tactile child to “focus” and that their feelings should be kept in check. What motivates this person is their feelings, so they are often subdued people in later life. Has anyone experienced this?
So there is still a balance? Yes, it is sort of like chemistry. Mixtures can be very complex, but in naturally occurring things to some degree, it’s all in there.
The next aspect is the visual. Visual people are commonly seen as shallow. Visual people like the sun to a greater or lesser degree, and they like light, and contrary to popular belief they are actually less shallow about how things look than the average person. Each type navigates the world in an identifiable way, and are often poorly understood by others who aren’t as strongly oriented that way. Visual people can’t really be shallow about looks, because it’s how they process everything to some degree. If I say something abstract like “love”, their mind will create a visual symbol of the idea. Where an intuitive will have a abstract, but complex and well developed concept, and the physical person might recall hugging someone. Also as kinetic as physical people are, visual people are more so. They don’t generally want to hear about something. They want to see it.
Aren’t we all of them to different extents? Yes, this is true, and nothing I describe is totally absent from anyone.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.