Section 11 — The ZK-esque Socionics of E. Litrovnik
A brick floats down the river, wooden as glass…
Translator’s notes. (1) The original deliberately preserves Litrovnik’s spelling errors (“they are its ornaments,” per the commentator); those can’t be reproduced in English, though I’ve kept a few deliberately mangled words where an equivalent exists. (2) Double parentheses ((like this)) are the compiler’s embedded comments, as in the original. (3) Rhythm letters: Cyrillic В, С, А, Д, Х are rendered B, C, A, D, X. (4) Type abbreviations kept as transliterations: Ki = Don Quixote (ILE), Dyu = Dumas, Gyu = Hugo, Ro = Robespierre, Gm = Hamlet, Go = Gorky, Zhu = Zhukov, Es = Yesenin, Lo = London, Dr = Dreiser, Na = Napoleon, Ba = Balzac, Ge = Huxley, Gb = Gabin, Sht = Shtirlitz, Do = Dostoevsky. “BOM” = the author’s abbreviation for bessmyslenno oposredovannoye mnozhestvo, “meaninglessly mediated multitude.”
Below follows the original text of some of Evgeny Litrovnik’s “STUPID STORIES” with my embedded semi-comments. These comments should not be regarded as criticism of any kind — they are nothing more than a literary genre: a game of schizo-ping-pong with the author. The story contains spelling errors, but there is no point in correcting them — they are its ornaments.
Litrovnik’s text is, in literary-stylistic terms, utterly brilliant; its semantic part is built on the logic of the absurd (LA), while the stylistics belong to the category of schizoid plaiting, as, for example, in Mark Twain’s story “My Grandfather’s Old Ram.” The genre of the story is logico-psychological fantasy, at whose root lies four-dimensional schizo-intuition. In parentheses a logical commentary is occasionally given, itself humorous in character, since formal logic bears no relation whatsoever to this very amusing and at the same time substantive story. BOM — an abbreviation introduced by the author meaning “meaninglessly mediated multitude” — is precisely the author’s genre. The author’s subconscious knows that he is about to work with logical nonsense, but his conscious mind has not yet grasped this. We nevertheless emphasize that we are dealing with logical nonsense — but from the intuitive point of view it is a texture filled not with one but with many meanings, and an intuitive will manage to understand a great deal over and above the logic. As, for example, in the paintings of Salvador Dalí. All of Litrovnik’s “STUPID STORIES” deserve deep analysis, since in them, in a specific form, his genuinely profound views and developments in socionics are set out, often more than outweighing what most socionics authors have proposed within normative syntax. However, the form in which Litrovnik’s ideas are set out creates difficulties for their perception, understanding, and adaptation to science in general and to psychology in particular. Unlike most socionists, Litrovnik has professional training in invention and rationalization, which to a considerable degree ensures his understanding of the methodological foundations of science.
The name of this variety of socionics — “ZK-esque” — comes from the fact that Litrovnik introduced into the assessment of the manifestation of psychic radicals in Model A, besides the percentage of the functional maximum, special quantities: Z (zet), K (ka), X (iks). Z is when the functional maximum turns out to be below 0%. K is when the functional maximum goes beyond 100%. X is the management of variable volumes. If a functional radical is assessed as ZK, the person turns out to be beyond social control — “couldn’t care less about anything,” as the author puts it. ZK is such an original feature of Litrovnik’s theoretical constructions that it fully justifies putting this symbol into the name of his variety of understanding socionics. The author himself calls the behavioral parameters he has found rhythms.
The key element of Litrovnik’s methodological complex, besides his knowledge of the theory and practice of invention, is the rapid intuitive identification of concepts from different subject areas and the use of one terminological series to service a subject area for which it was not originally intended. In itself this is an interesting phenomenon of reinterpreting terminology, of filling it with meanings different from its original use. But since the new specification is not given, only presumed, this leads to interference between the old and new semantic fields, which makes rational understanding of the text difficult. One may say that Litrovnik, intuitively identifying basic concepts from very different systems of categorizing reality, violates one of the requirements of a rational approach to studying the world — the requirement of justified semantic specification of the concepts used.
STUPID STORY No. N…
One BOM (a meaninglessly mediated multitude)
Evgeny Litrovnik
“…And you just add up kilograms and meters…” — Lena Soldatova ((the argument of a person who holds to common sense (CS) and is trying to talk reason into an intuitive gone off the rails)). “Easy” — that’s me now. ((a person prepared to make sense of absolutely anything. This is a key property of the Balzac. In the position of the IVF — the imperative-temporal function — they have extraverted intuition I, which provides the capacity to fill everything with meaning, including any nonsense.)) This problem is third-grade level. ((indeed — in that grade not everyone has yet internalized the rules of common sense (CS), and they solve any problem with ease)) First of all we need to find out how much 1 meter weighs. ((not bad for a start)) One steel “iron” ruler weighs, approximately, ((there you go: everything’s approximate! — why not take an actual meter and weigh it?)) more than 50 and less than 100 g. ((but why not take a weight, measure its height, and obtain the length of 1 kg? — a fork from which one could go either toward the length of weight (how long is a kg) or toward the weight of length (how much does a meter weigh) — the author chose the latter.))
And that’s when it dawned on me ((that’s it: the “operator” has mounted the “thing,” and now there is no chance — cf. Barbara O’Brien, Operators and Things)). I took 1 kg and divided it by 16 ((the logical link with the preceding is lost → why 16? Aha, TIMs! Consequently he obtained the weight of one TIM in meters. Having obtained the weight of one meter — that is, having seemingly found a connection between meters and kg — an instantaneous intuitive move led him aside; the operator lost that connection and got busy with something else: he forgot that he had just obtained the length of 1 kg and started dividing it by something entirely different — by whatever the operator slipped him)), and got 0.625 g. Wow!!! — it fair took my breath away. ((an emotional reaction: this is what guides the operator — he doesn’t need logic!!! On the other hand, any number is worthy of admiration! — and in schizo-logic there is no point whatsoever in singling one out))
Just imagine: a multiple of “5,” and it folds up into “13” — a sacred number. ((well, 12 would probably have been better…; however, I warn straight away that any references to magical operations, sacred figures and religious rites bear no relation to logic and cannot be used as arguments to prove the claimed properties — not correct)) Hence, whichever way you turn it, there are 16 iron meters in one kilogram. ((whichever way you turn it, from one iron kg you can make 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. — any number of meters up to a hundred, and if you make them from thin wire… then as far as the technology holds out. Now, had he divided by 17, he would have obtained 0.0588235294117647 repeating — an utterly astonishing number consisting of 17 digits that fold into 0!))
Now let’s go further ((now one can go anywhere at all — the BOM has already been created, and at the variety-show level it can be spun any which way)). If we multiply 1 kg by 16 iron meters, we obtain an astonishing unit of measurement. This is not simply kg·m; this is already kg·m.i. — a measure of the mental work expended on a meaningless categorical judgment of a given conceptual complexity. ((that is, the author is not devoid of CS, but it pops up in him like Petrushka in a puppet theater, which is, without doubt, interesting from the standpoint of observing the manifestations of the Balzac TIM))
16 kgf × m.i. = 1 BOM — Boyle-Mariotte. ((quite right: the author remembers that pair from physics — but why doesn’t he subtract Stanislavsky from this, or Nemirovich-Danchenko, or, say, Zhvanetsky multiplied by the Apollo Belvedere?))
To grasp this we need to recall physics ((there is no need to grasp this, since it is a BOM)).
PV / T° = const. (1)
I didn’t want to type “the sky is angry” ((that was a correct signal, but the author disregarded it for the sake of the BOM story)), but without it the transition to crystalline, polysocionic ((a term based on an arbitrary assumption)) models of Heaven and Earth ((why be modest about it!)) is not justified.
This passage erased itself twice, all by itself ((also a warning!)). In one BOM there is no error. There, the weight of one iron meter, 0.625 without units of measurement, folds into 13. (If it were in kgf, then = 0.0625 kgf = 62.5 g.) That is, 6+2+5=13. And only by the result of the addition comes the conclusion about the sacred number. Kilograms and meters have been “addded” together — it just doesn’t catch the eye right away. ((of course, within the BOM genre everything is permitted, as in a brainstorm where criticism is forbidden — but now that stage has passed, and what do we have in the dry residue? Psychiatrists call this systematized delusion. Note a logical trifle: the author was asked to add, but he divided and multiplied, and then added up the digits of a number obtained through arbitrary assumptions and no longer having anything in common with kg and m — this is called substitution of concepts, but in the BOM system it is the basic operator. See also Mark Twain, “My Grandfather’s Old Ram”))
It is hard to argue with this assertion ((not hard — meaningless; and arguing with it is as easy as the way it was obtained)). It’s when, reading some highbrow piece on a theme befitting humanity’s most advanced views, you run into a judgment below third-grade level: you begin to feel discomfort, and then it simply irritates you.
If you fill part of the volume of conceptual space with meaningless constructions, then, as a consequence, your pressure or your temperature, or both at once, are simply obliged (see also formula 1) to change. First your ears start ringing “Bom, bom, bom!!!” — then it gets worse. Thus, if while reading something your blood pressure jumps by 16 units and your body temperature by 1 degree, you have encountered nonsense of exactly 1 BOM. From your subjective point of view, of course. ((here the reader should nevertheless be warned not to yield to the embedded commands present in the text — it is dangerous to one’s health, though amusing))
“The diamond, on a 10-point scale, is the hardest…” — TV broadcast, Novy Kanal.
The dwelling of a New Russian should be of such a size that in the corner stands an inconspicuous aquarium in which a hippopotamus swims. ((these two sentences are meant to distract the naive reader from any desire to stay vigilant))
The Lecturer
And now, dear viewers, let us talk about ideal body shapes…
- “…The ideal shape of a geometric body is the sphere,” — in the voice of a hundred-and-fifty-kilo “bubble.”
The Birth of Mathematics
Exact dating of the emergence of the most important concepts — whole number, magnitude, figure — is impossible. ((what is this for?)) By the time written representation arose, the notion of them had already formed. By that time various systems of written numeration of whole numbers had also been worked out. 2000–1700 BC — the first surviving mathematical texts: 2 Egyptian papyri and clay tablets from ancient Babylon.
P. 3.14. Rules for computing the area of a triangle. 2nd c. in Babylon — 3rd c. in Egypt — 3.16 the volume of a pyramid and of a truncated pyramid. 4th century BC: the systematic introduction of logical proofs, a turning point in the development of mathematics. In the Pythagorean scientific school the construction of geometry as an abstract science was begun, whose truths are derived from a few axioms by means of proofs. ((that was Euclid, not Pythagoras)) [№]th century BC: Archimedes develops methods for finding areas and volumes, as well as methods for determining tangents and the greatest and least values of quantities, which he applied to solving problems of statics, hydrostatics, and the theory of equilibrium of floating bodies.
Method. Chronicle of notable dates in the development of mathematics. Reference section, pp. 501–504, DET-2, “Prosveshchenie” Publishers, Moscow, 1965.
Fedorov S.I., “The Doctrine of Matriarchy.”
“The game dictates the rules…” In 1993 I examined the manifestation of invariant forms of the socion’s structure within descriptive models in the form of crystalline structures of various configurations. ((after the BOM this cannot be taken seriously)) The talks “The Socion Assembles into Crystals” and “The Theorem of the Egyptian Pyramid” — from which it followed that if the socion is a certain structural formation describable as a set of elements (octaves, quadras, TIMs) hierarchically subordinated among themselves within some set of links, then from the structure itself, simply by the conditions of its construction, there follows a series of regularities, already conditioned at the setting of the problem, which serve as descriptive elements of the functioning of the systems as a whole ((this is true — only you don’t know the conditions of construction)).
In particular, when examining the combinatorial couplings of relations of the quadral socion on the model of an Egyptian pyramid assembled from 4 irregular tetrahedra, it turned out that within this model only three “refined” cases of assembling the system are possible ((imposing this geometric scheme onto the socion is illegitimate, since the isomorphism of tetrahedron and quadra has not been proven. That is, it is a chance assumption, and to expect that this collection of 4 irregular tetrahedra will reproduce the system of socionic meanings is utterly naive even for an inventor)). These are the cases when one to three relations are laid off at the vertices — “Mirror,” “Activation,” “Duality.” ((once the rules of the game are accepted, the rest no longer depends on you — from here on the conclusions will proceed within the logic of the absurd (LA)))
Moreover, to each of the three cases there correspond four variants of couplings, by construction, following from the conditions of the problem. The paradigm “Mirror” ((what has the word paradigm to do with anything? Just for a fine phrase… But the Balzac fills everything with his own meaning and thereafter carries it about like a treasured possession)) — couplings of 2 relations: either mirage on all 3 corners of the base, or duality ((and here begin the correct conclusions from incorrect premises — the result will necessarily be incorrect. That’s logic)).
Before a “mirror” one either “dreams” or “preens.” And in general the “mirror” is a shield against the Gorgon, as properties of the 2nd function. ((this can be taken as a quasi-definition — and this from a professional inventor! Before a mirror one can do anything whatsoever — just apply the morphological box.))
“Activation.” On this relation (paradigm) rest 2 principles — either 2 variants of combinatorial kindred relations, or the “business” relation may have 2 variants — as the refined case. ((where does this raving come from? All from the same place: the rules have been accepted, and the result no longer depends on you…))
“Duality” — as a paradigm. For this kind of relation, vertically, 4 variants emerged in the enumeration per single relation; in all 4 cases, relations of supervision — 2 cases direct and two reverse.
Recently articles have appeared about situational shift of TIM ((more schizo stuff)) under the influence of external conditions: the articles of V.V. Gulenko — describing the change of direct supervision into reverse ((that’s how Vitya Gulenko understands it)) under conditions of maximal psycho-conformity — and the article of G.A. Shulman, describing a case of TIM shift into the region of miraging ((this is a continuation of Shulman’s mirages — after a series of Shulman’s articles I concluded that he cannot be trusted in theory, since his logic sits in the MMF position)) in cases of external pressure. Curiously, in all cases, across different authors, only particular cases of constructions of one single crystalline form are considered, with precision taken to the impossible, while ignoring the conception as a whole. ((this one is aimed personally at Zhenya)) Only within the “Pyramid” model can one consider a range of variants of the “behavior” of the socium ((and what is that supposed to be?)) in various situations — of them 12 refined, 36 × 2 symmetric. That is when, vertically, 2 by “relations” — simply as combinatorial relations with the corresponding enumeration of relations in the base — and this is the non-symmetric series. Of 2 relations, in couplings 3×1 and 2+1+1 (triune couplings).
I do not undertake to draw far-reaching conclusions, but of the many geometric forms — regular and semi-regular Platonic solids, more complex forms of the type of the 4-dimensional Merkaba (direct), the 5-dimensional “introverted” one — turned inside out… By indirect signs, for describing reality of a certain level of complexity the 4-element pyramid is sufficient as a focal object. At least, practice is beginning to confirm this. See “Stupid Stories,” ch. 2, “Gulenko Caught an Angel.”
3434 4242 2323 4343 3131 1414
4343 2424 3232 3434 1313 4141
3344 4422 2233 4433 3311 1144
4433 2244 3322 3344 1133 4411
3443 4224 2332 4334 3113 1441
4334 2442 3223 3443 1331 4114
2424 4141 1212 3232 2121 1313
4242 1414 2121 2323 1212 3131
2244 4411 2211 3322 2211 3311
4422 1144 1122 2233 1122 1133
2442 4114 1221 3223 2112 1331
4224 1441 2112 2332 1221 3113
72 variants of assembling symmetric constructions (kabbalistic geniuses ((— why, all of a sudden? The author just felt like it?))) in the Egyptian pyramid.
All names are invented; coincidences are accidental. ((and this is the very truth of Litrovnik’s method.))
STUPID STORY No. N+1
”VAS” and “SASA” are solid people
Evgeny Litrovnik
Honestly speaking, I was prompted to write this part of the stupid stories by the talk of Vladimir Davydovich Yermak at the 1998 socionics conference, from which it followed that for full modeling of a person’s psychic manifestations it is necessary and sufficient to consider models of four hypostases of the person: physical, energetic, informational, rhythmic. But he remarked in doing so that socionics should and will occupy itself only with the informational component — probably, if only because the informational model of the person already exists in a fairly developed form: it was created by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė and constitutes, properly speaking, the very basis of socionics as such, whereas creating new models with no basis at all is a rather troublesome and thankless affair (if one takes the 8×16 model as the basis). ((that is, Yermak does not understand that all three metabolisms are joined in the psyche))
And so, extremely briefly. The goal of socionics: to determine and assign each person one or another psychotype and, on the basis of the model, describe his potential communicability in the domain of information with the remaining 15 ((not 15 but 16 — a trifle, but one that speaks of the author’s terminological and conceptual carelessness)); all other factors are ignored ((no!)).
Example: no arms, no legs, doesn’t get off the couch — so, a “Balzac” ((amusing, but neither obligatory nor rigorous — could just as well be a Dyu)); i.e., not an invalid: he is supposed to sit on the couch, that is his social function. The physical plane is completely ignored; a forced communicative model is defined as the TIM, dictated by a non-informational factor.
“What difference does it make to me what type he is, if he himself is a swine. A swine of what kind — physical, energetic, rhythmic, or some other, or all at once? Horned or hornless, does he ‘press or suck,’ and if so, how: situationally or continuously, cyclo-periodically or constantly, drop by drop, or down to the last drop? And none of these factors affect the TIM, but they noticeably spoil the descriptive part of any intertype relations with their criminal past. — And that’s good!”
And why “criminal,” and moreover “past”? Because until now these manifestations had not been legalized by any descriptive function within any useful model of the human psyche from the standpoint of socionics. ((a very cryptic phrase))
Oops!!! Seems it’s starting… The Jester squatted down, clutched his belly and his head at the same time, for some reason with 6 hands — 4 on the head, 2 on the belly, or the other way round — miming agonizing childbirth: well, what can you expect from a fool? ((no comment needed — this is the author’s ego-projection))
The rhythmic model of the human psyche: Model A, the mental block of the informational model within socionics.
Identity \ / Mirror
[ I ]---[ II ]
Kindred / | | \ Supervision
| |
Supervisee \ | | / Business
[ IV ]---[ III ]
Conflict / \ Super-ego
Let’s play: ((here we go…)) Take the 4 functions of the mental block of Model A. Preferably take your own TIM, and let us write out the totality of the 8 relations that represent it. Hence ((it does not follow)): the 1st function is the expression of sympathy ((no, it is the basic instrument)); the 2nd — assessment of the environment, self-defense; the 3rd — defending social interests, scolding for the good of the cause; the 4th — defending one’s own selfish interests, self-control. ((all very approximate, on the level of “heard a bell ring somewhere”… — but it can also be regarded as an axiomatic introduction of semantics into what is by now a new model, “Zh”))
Now recall the rhythms: “O”; B — ray, one-dimensionality; C — impulse, 2-dimensionality; A — volume; D — variable volume, or destruction if there are no corresponding methods of use. ((it is curious that even at the level of letter designations Zhenya introduces chaos: why don’t the letters go in order, why doesn’t the rank of the letter correspond even slightly to the semantics of the rhythm? Moreover, the borrowing from Kalinauskas is in no way indicated or acknowledged… And note that the semantics is very indefinite, partly set by metaphors of dimensionality — but the impulse crept in from somewhere, and only D is linked both with dimensionality and with destruction, and there are no justifications, though phenomenologically, i.e. at the level of observations, this is interesting))
And off we go… we relaxed, froze, “released” the face, arrested the gaze, empty head, complete mental zero on all 4 functions, stupor. ((this is what Zhenya implants into his listeners…))
Rhythm B on 4 functions — the first thought — I am; B on 3 — give, or mine, no matter what; B on 2 — this is formally comprehended; B on 1 — I like it or not. Then an enumeration of two arbitrarily taken B’s: I am — this; give this; this is mine. I like it — I am. Similarly the negative: I am not, this is not mine, I don’t like it, I am (lowered self-esteem), etc. Then the enumeration of 3: I like this, give, I am, give this. And finally: I like this, give me — everything; we are linearly, terrifyingly mental; our total dimensionality of assessment of the surroundings equals 4, one per function — quite sufficient, that is, for a formal assessment of three-dimensional reality. ((this is the Balzac’s assessment of everything and everyone)).
Only one small matter remains: by what means shall we express this — by sound —— by gesture, sound —— grimace —— an indistinct sound, an extremely indefinite grimace, the expression of the eyes? In other words, in further work with the elementary manifestations of rhythmics in psychic activity, a person experiences significant difficulties of a purely methodological nature: there is nothing with which to manifest himself in this, by any means whatsoever.
Situation: Mom scolded a little boy for misbehaving in the street, turned away from him, and walked off. He stands by the wall and monotonously, hysterically wails “A-a-a!!!” — for about a minute, maybe more; then, seeing that mom is not reacting in any way, he tried, without changing the wail, to catch up with her. Nothing came of it; he fell over almost at once. It proved too difficult for him to perform 2 actions in different rhythms: running, moving his legs — C, and shouting monotonously “A-a” — rhythm B. From about the third or fourth attempt he adapted and ran after mom quite steadily, shouting “Ai-ai-ai!” Thus, in a critical situation a person is capable of mastering communicative models with a higher integral dimensionality of perception. For the given case: the boy standing at the wall, shouting ((this is a valuable example, revealing the author’s semantics)) —
B 1–2 B: He does not evaluate himself by 4 — I am bad. B?O 4–3 B: He begins to act by 3 — shouts at Mom. He evaluates the situation: mom is leaving for some reason. He is terribly displeased at this, and so he shouts that he is displeased with mom; by 1, he does not want to express sympathy. Realizing the ineffectiveness of the shout by self-assessment — a wail won’t bring mom back — he will try to move to a more decisive form of contact. From B on the 3rd function he passed into C, i.e. he rushes to catch up while shouting, given a formal self-assessment of the situation. B — B B — C Why exactly so: had he realized on the 4th function, at least at “C,” that mom is bad only because “I am bad,” he would have caught up and set about expressing sympathy by 1; as it was, a couple of steps short he stopped and trudged along behind, muttering something indefinite under his breath.
Rhythm C. Dimensionality 2, impulse. To the same degree that the world-vision of the impressionists of the beginning of the century differs from the habitual world-perception set out in successive contours, within the various schools, by the classical painters — to exactly that degree does rhythm C distort the sense of reality compared with rhythm B on the 1st function. ((the impressionists are precisely D — so the author, too, makes mistakes by his own paradigm))
The holistic world-perception of a sequence, computable logically within deduction ((and where is that?)), is replaced by an enormous quantity of fragments behind which one can barely catch something globally generalizing, with difficulty resembling a shape — of at least a stool. ((this is the author about himself))
“B” on the 1st function — a very clear vision of the final goal, ignoring all normative and intermediate constructions. B on 1 is always a leader: “I am.” B on 2 — the assessment of reality is always one-sided in character, depending on convictions and paradigm. B on 3 — activity is always linear in character, with a final result; obstacles practically do not exist, nor do unfeasible actions. B on 4 — self-esteem is linear in character: if “Yes,” then “Yes”; if “No,” then “No.” Reorientation without a change of rhythm is impossible. Assessment of the environment is impulsive in character: a sense of discomfort, of situational defenselessness, a state of heightened anxiety.
Sergei Dovlatov has a very interesting criterion of truth. Truth can be “clear” and “deep.” A “clear” truth always has a lie standing in opposition to it; a “deep” one — a no less deep truth.
- A clear truth — a lie.
- A deep truth — a still deeper truth.
- A deep truth of ultimate depth — a clear truth. In “C” on the 1st and 2nd functions truth is always “clear.” I agree with my own point of view because I share it — sometimes to the point of total marasmus.
“C” on the 3rd function: activity is plainly destructive in character, since the person takes on everything at once, without seeing clearly the sequence of his activity; as a rule, having brought nothing to completion, he abandons it in a completely incapacitated state, having burned through a heap of resources — all the while displaying amazing dynamics of process, incredible industriousness, and an utterly stunning external appearance of something for which no use can subsequently be found. ((here the author does not understand the meaning of the 3rd function, and describes C in the negative. My own description of the degrees of the 3rd function: lowest level (1) — impulsive defense, however it comes out, any old how; assessment of the situation is absent…; (2) — a primary assessment of the situation: is there at least something at hand one could use…; (3) — the defense is built skillfully, with knowledge of the matter; the person possesses means of resistance and combines them with ease…; (4) — the situation is perceived as a challenge from Fate, which is adequately worked through, and the subject remains the victor… Comparing this assessment with Zhenya’s, one may say that his operators, or constructs, are not rhythms at all — that term has been dragged in by the ears — but as levels of mobilization they are quite serviceable))
If B is a sequence with reference to authorities, norms and so on — everything “like people do,” but not humanly — then C is “not like people do,” it is “only my way,” and as a rule badly, though outwardly extremely imposing. Defends both production interests and his own at the level of fisticuffs. And lies most shamelessly while at it. C on the 4th function. Since self-esteem is unstable in character — you understand, this isn’t even lying. The person quite sincerely forgives himself all his mistakes, shifting the blame, for “objective” reasons, onto those around him — and does so with utter virtuosity: with a sweet smile on his face he will make a complete idiot of you and bathe you in dung. ((on the 4th function the reaction in 85% of people is always impulsive — it is the conservative-critical function, and only with special working-through — in training or by force of circumstance — does a person prove capable of lowering the level of self-importance… therefore the distinctions Zhenya introduces do not measure up to a construct))
Methodological support of the manifestation of rhythm B.
- Logic. Logical analysis. The method of deduction. Syllogisms. Koller’s method.
- Sensorics. Deductive. The universal-shop method. Problems on application.
- Ethics. The analytic aspect. Manifestation of linear emotions, and the empathic sensations connected with them.
- Intuition. Synthetic. The method of focal objects. ((a complete miss — that is, the reliability of a C result))
We are speaking here of the cultural support of the psychic functions in different rhythms, both analysis and synthesis.
Methodological support of rhythm C. Logic. Morphological analysis. Sensorics. None. Ethics. Manifestation of emotions of an impulsive character, and the empathic sensation of them. Intuition. The method of garlands of associations; visualization of a single projection of the object. The description is given as a repetition of part 1.
Method A. Description: 3, volume. An extremely rarely encountered property of the psyche. In practice, the person possesses expert abilities in the field of manipulating volumes — and not only expert ones. Methodological support: Logic — the method of the morphological tree; subordinated morphological matrices. Sensorics — sensing a vibrational volume; an instantaneously filled volume.
- Intuition — visualization of moving surfaces (computer or slide graphics) or of static volumes.
- Ethics — the creation of vibrational spaces filled with stable emanations.
“A” on the 1st function. A personality possessing independence, life experience and a normative basis, capable of finding a way out of dead-end situations even without methodological support. “A” on 2. A very meticulous analysis of the situation — sometimes even more than is required; a feeling of complete safety, or of impunity. “A” on the 3rd function. A creator on the 3rd function is a rarity; a conflict-maker — any time you like. Say, some general designer capable of holding the entire project of something complex in his head, or a strategic military man who fixes in mind the plan of a whole operation. “A” on the 4th function. A person in perfect command of himself, able to defend his interests with dignity, feeling full responsibility for all manifestations of the third function.
Rhythm D. Dimensionality 4, and variable volume. Methodological support of the manifestation of rhythm D: — Logic — something to do with the fractalization of morphological trees? Very remote. And if one considers that logical synthesis is impossible, then there is no way at all on this aspect. Ethics — empathizing — the translation of variable emanational volumes. Sensorics — does not occur, by the conditions of the problems. Intuition — visualization of variable volumes, or of something static, 4-dimensional — for example, a variable emanation. In general, slim pickings, but a very clear tendency of manifestation in the ethics–intuition region, as the region most fit for using the rhythm of dynamics. ((all very approximate…))
“D” on the 1st function (if the TIM and the filling allow) — and if not? Someone possessing selfhood, life experience, a system of norms, in command of the situation, and consciously improvising in the given area. “D” on the 2nd function can be destructive for more primitive forms of manifestation of the psyche’s mentality. “D” on the 3rd function — either a terminator, or a generator of variable volumes exerting a controlling influence on other manifestations of the psyche’s mentality. “D” on the 4th function — from destructive “self-digging” to the destruction of one’s opponent when defending selfish interests.
Further, one can play at a morphological enumeration of all 5 rhythms — O, A, B, C, D — over the 4 functions of the mental block of Model A (table attached). From 4 “O” to 4 “D,” but with one restriction: unless you claim a 32-aspect psyche, the total rhythmic dimensionality must not violate the condition of the tetraktys, 4+3+2+1=10. But not in just any set. Example: if your 1st function is 4-dimensional, then for filling the remaining 3 you have only 6 left. 3. — If you are too refined [intelligentny], you are defenseless, helpless, and hardly control yourself when it comes to defending your own selfish interests — a coward. If you consciously, situationally, lower your own Self to zero, 4 spare dimensionalities are immediately freed up for work, for control of the situation and of yourself. That’s something worth playing for. Note: forms of mentality lacking rhythm A in the EGO block — i.e., on at least 2 functions — are soulless, and are therefore merely curious as forms of degradation.
The first “living” one:
B —— A
Σ = 4
O —— O
A leader in comfortable surroundings; a deranged idler; a softie; a “darling of fortune.” Next:
B —— A
Σ = 5
B —— O
All the same, only aware of his own inactivity: a sufferer who finds no use for himself, who has everything — green misery. Then:
B —— A B —— A
Σ = 7 Σ = 8
C —— O D —— O
Up to and including suicide. Suddenly!!!
B —— A
Σ = 5
O —— B
Has taken up work — but extremely primitively. And then — like “VAS”!!!
B —— A
Σ = 6
O —— C
Fussy, nervous, muddled. Has taken up work, capable of “tearing apart” anyone who stands in his way; utterly possessed, deranged, fearing no one — or having bought off everyone worth fearing. A portrait of today’s local leaders, “tsarlets” and “princes of…” at every level.
B —— A
Σ = 7
O —— A
Constructive, but will not become a leader; cannot “tear apart” a competitor — at best will get himself “covered by a krysha” [criminal protection]. And, finally:
B —— A
Σ = 8
O —— D
A conscious killer, removing all the “discontented” with impunity; deranged; not in control of himself. That’s it — the 4th function, self-control, has switched on.
B —— A B —— A
Σ = 9 limit Σ = 10
B —— D C —— D
Beyond that — forms of mentality. BD — disintegration. And onward through CD — no translation needed — straight on to the next ensouled ones.
C —— A C —— A
from … to Σ = 10
O —— B A —— C
The first limiting, non-destructive one, endowed with a “soul.” Formally, methodologically provided-for in the manifestations of all 4 functions. Wow!!! Now that’s something!!! D!!! Yes?! Yes??? Oh! What’s got into her!
“SASA” — the “Manipulator.” Range: from + /SASA/ (“tsatsa” — a darling, a trinket) /S/ to − /SASA/ (“kaka” — a nasty) /K/ She possesses one astonishing property: always blind in one eye. Either the rhythmics on the 1st function is a consequence of the absence of stereoscopic vision, or, conversely, the rhythmics, influencing the person’s genotype, provides the pathology. What matters is something else: blind in the left eye — “one-eyed Likho” [the folkloric evil one], a folk omen. The left eye — the right hemisphere, with all the ensuing consequences — and precisely the left.
Now let’s play. In “Stupid Stories 1” there was described the case of a factory entrance-checkpoint twice remodeled in “Eurostyle” and then closed, which — as a consequence of one-dimensional functioning, as became clear only 2 years later — turned out, after the reconstruction, to be located in a structurally unsound building that had needed reconstruction for a long time already. Between “Bats” and “Tsatsa” lies a whole mental abyss. This “miracle” of rhythmico-methodological technology — the things she will manage.
Reconstruction of the ampouling section, 1998–1999. Coming to power: she entered the collective very quickly.
C —— A
A —— C
Very industrious; can work “from the fence till lunchtime”; pleases the eye with her operational dynamics. In just half a month she re-equipped the boxes — essentially rebuilt them from scratch in accordance with GMP norms. It immediately became very beautiful: lots of shiny little things, intricacies of hand-polished stainless piping, new measuring vessels, reactors which without her simply could not have been pushed through. A highly erudite specialist, formerly deputy director for science in some structure or other. At first glance, 2 or 3 inessential errors catch the eye. The box door opens against the flow, when it should be the reverse. The bidistillate material line has an appendix of 5 superfluous meters, which is inadmissible. And the 220V sockets are installed such that to carry the dosers from sterilization to the machine you must open 3 doors with “who knows what” — a sterilizer in your hands, the doors on latches. After a while it turned out that the measuring vessel could not be used: the stainless steel rusts along the seams; the unusable one had to be swapped for another. The second vessel stood there just so, for solidity, as decoration, with no material line connected: as it had been hooked up through a makeshift line, so it stands. Water can be drawn into the vessel only with great difficulty; then a new one is to be installed. The pressure filter was bartered away for 2 stainless-steel reactors: the old filter had chips in its enamel and looked “dull.” During installation, straight away, 3 design miscalculations connected with the absence of volume perception: the supports were placed so that the filter material could not be fed in together with the mesh; the supports were redone; it then turned out the mesh from the old filter did not fit the new one, and the required piece of PTFE sheet was never found; the working zone does not allow the clamps to be tightened properly. In short, the gleaming box was left without a filter. The nitrogen line was never assembled. Temporarily, the nitrogen cylinders stand in the changing room behind the lockers, out of sight — for a year now. The cylinders have smashed the floor tiles. During this year’s repairs, instead of replacing the pipe and putting an end to this idiocy, they replaced the tiles. So now, once again, 10 cylinders must be hauled by hand from the loading rack up to the third floor. Within one year she became head of the shop.
The situation and the position of rhythm A. If you aimlessly pour out twice as much water while cutting an inflow calculated for the old norm, then — quite naturally — the water will cease to suffice at all: the section will simply stop, or it will “sit down” the adjacent structures. Whole production commissions made up of “VAS” search in vain for a way out of the “dead-end” situation. “For the cow to give more milk and eat less, it must be… milked more and fed less!” To Tsatsa’s delight — quite a harmless amusement… How do you grow a pig 5 meters long? Tie a piglet to the fence by its tail and every day move the feeding trough about 5 cm further away. But the water does keep flowing — rhythm “D” — ultimately through someone’s pockets. SASA is not in the habit of paying for her amusements; they are above the perception of those around her; complete impunity. What’s more, she plays quite consciously — at anything whatsoever. Try to take her “toy” away and you may suffer badly — just like that, from an accident. Open persecution begins. If the mauling fails — the sweet smile returns. And all this with a formidable intellect. She has one single weak spot: she is afraid of the truth about herself. Everyone for some reason kept scolding me, though the work was supervised by the shop head personally, through the mechanic — who brushed me off with the phrase: “I don’t want to get f***ed over.” At about 12 midnight, when the solution had somehow been topped up, a foreman drove by — some line foreman or other.
B —— B
A —— C
He didn’t get the bit about the hare. This is the man who managed to assemble the new pump three times — and all three times wrong. He was terribly displeased, and long and stubbornly addled my brains as he pleased — or rather, as best he could manage. At two in the morning he finished and fell asleep. The whole paradox is that the breakdown has little to do with the installation of the additional unit — unfinished though it is, it is more useless than harmful — but the reaction to it…!!! You have to turn 4 knobs instead of two, plus additional readjustment, plus the menacing appearance: 6 burners, which is quite another matter than three. Within a week the machine was over-regulated to such a degree that a thing which could easily have run for at least half a year gave out. Section chief L.V. Smolyarenko: you did almost nothing for 2 weeks. You had 2 weeks to repair this machine. Why this one exactly? And 2 weeks instead of a month — is that really so much? For the capital repair of this machine, 2 days were squeezed out with difficulty. And straight away — until “hands were laid” on the machine — it worked comparatively well. A machine that has run for almost 30 years cannot work well. But even that is not the main thing. What matters is the approach to this kind of activity. If we consider the process as a set of variable factors, from the standpoint of the logic of the “flame regulator”: 2 gas feeds, 2 oxygen feeds, the burner-lowering cycle, the holding time. With unequal flame flows, the burners can clog at any moment. It turns out that one cannot merely look at the flame-sealing process — one must also feel it: feel the flame and feel the glass. Just two factors by “O,” rhythm “C,” plus one’s attitude to one’s own sensations: either you like what is happening, or you don’t. The aspect rhythm “B” as a sufficient minimum. On the whole, an easily achievable task. For 14 years a “Dumas” worked at that machine — Tonya, until she was “eased out.” The section now loses more per day than she was paid per year; the fitter on one of the shifts was a Shtirlitz. B–B–C–A. Hence the result. In the morning I noticed that in the timesheet, the day on which I had worked 12 hours had been whited out. SASA was for some reason too bashful to log three weeks with a single day off, 13 of which were to be nights. Though those 12 hours were paid — simply crossed out for the “beauty of the timesheet.” The right-eyed Tsatsa is “one-eyed Likho” precisely because everything she takes up, manipulating all the one-dimensional ones, ceases to exist — and in general she is a very subtle diplomat. She considers manipulation to be politics. What I don’t get is: why are they all such respected people? Ah! Oh, I nearly forgot. Many interesting people came to the international socionics conference last year, in 1998: psychologists, scientists, the simply curious, and so on. Events unfolded near the “α-Capital” bank. There is a bench not far from the entrance. In a break between talks, several people — myself included — sat there smoking and peacefully chatting among ourselves. Up walks some
O —— B (a "banana," in short)
D —— A
“You can’t be here; please move along. Solid people gather here.” If the conference was attended by an actual member of the New York Academy of Sciences, several professors, and so on — then who, in Ukraine, counts as a solid person?!! Just then a “tricked-out ride” pulled up, and out of it stepped He and She. That very thing. The Jester first pulled a moronic face with darting little eyes, then blossomed and became charm itself — true, with a beastly grin, but a quite unnoticeable one; just a touch.
Dimensionality and rhythms. ((there are no definitions here… and indeed — why these terms at all? Dimensionality has nothing to do with it: it presupposes a space, and then the functions would be located in spaces of different dimensionality; but if we accept the analogy between psychic functions and physiological organs — organs are, after all, all three-dimensional…))
Practically simultaneously ((incorrect: Kalinauskas proposed his system of tempo-rhythms back in the mid-1980s, and dimensionality is a geometric concept that itself still needs thorough justification…)) there appeared in socionics the concepts of the dimensionality of psychological functions and of rhythmics, as a way of describing the conceptual complexity of using an aspect.
Rhythmics as a way of describing the conceptual complexity of using an aspect. ((Let us take this apart. The concept of rhythmics presupposes a vibrational carrier, the change of whose parameters transfers the operator into the plane of being accessible to him, wherein goal-setting and the character of the means of achieving the goal may change. Rhythmics is not a way of description at all, but a direct instrument for controlling the states of the operator (the subject). “Using an aspect” is a jargon expression that distorts the meaning of the concept of aspect. An aspect is not used — within its frame the realization of the functional possibilities of the TIM-carrier takes place. Dimensionality: the realization of a linearly independent parameter.))
Using V.D. Yermak’s definitions — selfhood, norm, life experience, situation ((these concepts are not socionic — their level of generality is lower and altogether different)) — one can conceive of the complexity of using aspects as the accessibility of manipulating one or several semantic variables simultaneously, i.e., using dimensionality within some culturally accessible paradigm, ethnos, as a given — personal shortcomings ((one feels that some meaning stands behind this, but what exactly is unclear)). Moreover, if we speak of the subjective complexity of the conceptual apparatus from “A” downward on the first function, we may state a very low level of use of consciousness as a whole: the work of the 1st and 2nd neurological ((what is that???)) circuits, roughly the same as in ordinary prides of higher primates, with their manifestation of animal instincts — and this given normal filling of the remaining mental functions with a use-dimensionality of 2 or lower. If, through some situational manifestations, the Σ dimensionality exceeds 8 — i.e., 4 “C” — quite severe psychic and somatic states result; above 10 — simply death: heart attacks, strokes, and so on.
((Methodological romanticism — Zhenya has created his own jargon and his own personal neuropsychology and psychoanalysis, which he wields rather convincingly — because in the hands of a master everything works. Everything else he uses as terminological material lying at hand, filling it with his own intuitively caught meanings. His basic methodological instrument is the inventor’s mindset: solving a problem of application. However, whereas in the world of things and processes an unusual or non-standard application of a thing simply expands or reveals its hidden functional field, in the world of a strictly coordinated conceptual system one must specially prove the correctness of linking a term belonging to one system with other concepts; otherwise a homonymic shift occurs — the term acquires a new meaning while the illusion of its identity is preserved, and the logical law of identity is violated.))
((An example of Litrovnik’s (= L’s) toolkit in action: Zhenya = Zh (a different one — a client) — a man of 30; at age 7 he was hit by a motorcycle, soon afterward — for that reason — fell ill with diabetes, and has been on insulin ever since. L uses three fundamentally different instruments:
- the projective test “SHIP, SUN, FLAG, ANIMAL (MONKEY = DYNAMICS; BIRD = FREEDOM; DEER = EMOTIONS, PASSION; etc.); ON TOP A PALM IS DRAWN, AND THE DRAWING IS TURNED OVER — the author holds that in this process a subconsciously adequate alignment of the meridians (physiological markers) with the projective dominants of the test takes place”;
- the “rhythmics of aspects”;
- the “intuitive-clairvoyant percentage-scoring of types-relations.“))
Zh’s percentage score: Alpha: 100% (Ki), K (Dyu), 100% (Gyu), Z (Ro) = K; Beta: K (Gm), Z (Go), K (Zhu), ZK (Es) = K; Gamma: Z (Lo), K (Dr), ZK (Na), K (Ba) = Z; Delta: Z (Ge), 75% (Gb), K (Sht), ZK (Do) = ZK. Rhythmics: L: _BC; l: 0BCAD; E: _BCA; e: _BCAD; S: 0BCA; s: 0BCAD; I: 0BCA; i: BCADX.
Specification: 100% — the percent of command of the type-relation. K < 0 > 100%: inverts the Yu model and makes the type triply black — e.g., Ki = ILE → SLE-i (a triply black Dyu). Z < 0: will barge in where needed and where not ((impulsive behavior with a complete absence of control)); inverts the Yu model and makes the type triply white — e.g., Ki = ILE → sle-I (a triply white Dyu). ZK lives in the range sle-I – SLE-i. = ZK: a five-dimensional battery (draws energy from anywhere). Zh’s drawing: the sun is full of holes (the personality is broken); he placed the monkey in the lower right corner (renunciation of his own dynamics); the little ship is drawn thoroughly and has three sails (he has several uncoordinated aspirations). L’s conclusion: 3ZK — built for any emergency, but the reaction lasts a long time; all variants of behavior are possible. _ — absence of control 0 — controls the aspect B — one-dimensional thinking C — impulse, two-dimensional thinking A — three-dimensional thinking D — variable volume X — operating with variable volumes
((Commentary: it is characteristic of a Ba (Litrovnik) to operate intuitively with a large number of variables, filling them almost instantly with intuitive meanings. The interlocutor is hypnotized by this stream of variable categories and variations of meaning. To raise an instant objection here is nearly impossible, because the presence of some meaning is suggested to you by the stream itself. However, the conclusions and recommendations the client receives are extracted by the operator (L) from his own subconscious in the process of compiling the percentage score — at that moment he is working as a pendulum, and the categories merely serve as decorative framing for an already finished result. What the client is offered is a metamodel description (after “Erik Milton” [sic — the commentator garbles Milton Erickson]) — gypsy fortune-tellers command this superbly — but since the operator (L) works on the automatism of his own talent, and what matters to the client (Zh) is that someone is looking after him, everyone ends up satisfied. In the hands of a master everything works; but on stepping out of the inner world into the outer, one must adapt the form of exposition so that it satisfies minimal scientific requirements — otherwise scientific communication breaks down.
Litrovnik’s basic category — rhythmics — is likewise unjustified. The term is partly borrowed by the author from Kalinauskas, who in turn borrowed it from Stanislavsky. Stanislavsky, with regard to the form of an actor’s behavior on stage, uses the concept of tempo-rhythm, analogous to its use in music, where it means the speed at which the rhythmic unit — the bar — is performed. Since the concept fully corresponds to dance forms, it can be transferred relatively easily onto the actor’s movement sequence on stage. Stanislavsky distinguished 10 tempo-rhythms, from maximally slowed (1) to maximally accelerated (10). The parallel with the musical concept of rhythm is obvious here. Kalinauskas borrows the term from Stanislavsky but fills it with fundamentally different content. He combines two parameters: 1) a limiting worldview form — perception of the world as a whole, as a living being, as a machine, or as chaos — a highly generalized informational component; and 2) one of three generalized psychic functions — physical tonus, emotionality, and rational thinking — which he projected onto the body, linking physical tonus with the lower abdomen, emotionality with the middle of the chest, and rational thinking with the head. With each of these parts of the body Kalinauskas associates a certain energy center — physical, emotional, and mental. Uniting the three psychic functions into a “chord,” Kalinauskas obtains a fourth center in which the three psychic functions act as a single whole. Multiplying the worldview and energy components, Kalinauskas obtains a matrix of 16 units, each of which can be regarded as a radical forming a quite definite, though highly generalized, variety of behavior. As we see, of Stanislavsky only the term remains, filled with entirely different content. Presumably, Stanislavsky’s tempo-rhythms could easily be combined with Kalinauskas’s categories; then in each of Kalinauskas’s states one could exist at different speeds. Litrovnik’s “rhythms,” by contrast, appear to have no connection at all with the semantics of rhythm. Rhythm is a configuration of elements of movement. One and the same rhythm can be performed at different tempos, which is why one can speak of tempo-rhythms — rhythms performed at different speeds. Litrovnik’s categories describe something else entirely: namely, the degree of freedom in handling functional material, which, at the level of metaphor, is most comparable to spatial dimensionalities — to which Litrovnik indeed appeals, alongside the concept of rhythm, which here lacks sufficient grounds. Nonetheless, it is evident that we are dealing here with a psychic fractal that provides a genuinely observable component of behavior and that had, until now, remained un-introduced into the nomenclature of scientific psychology. Litrovnik holds that the parameters he has discovered are connected with the socionic functions, but not rigidly — alternatively: that is, Litrovnik’s parameters (LP) may be distributed among the functions in any order and in any set. These parameters can be described as levels of orientation within, and command of, functional activity. Judging by his texts and statements, these parameters are innate and do not change, or change only very weakly, in the course of acquiring life experience. Any function with parameter B (fB) yields output on the subject matter it processes at the lowest level of operational command of the material. Conventionally speaking, this is the level of incompetence — of the fool. The material is almost unfamiliar to him, uninteresting, and of no value; often these are fragmentary bits of information randomly snatched from the stream. In the case of fC (a function with parameter C), output on the subject matter is produced at the level of simplified command of the material. This is the level of a formal attitude toward the material — the bureaucrat’s level. Here the material is known formally, but is of interest only within the bounds of executive necessity — that is, insofar as one must account for it. The most the subject is capable of here is a simplified ordering of the material for more convenient storage and handling, in case it must be produced on demand. In the case of fA, the functional output is distinguished by meaningfulness and effective orderliness; one senses interest in the subject matter and operational command of the material. This is the expert’s level. In the case of fD, the subject not only commands the material freely and sees it systemically, but is capable, when necessary, of perfecting it — creating new thematic constructs, analyzing and productively criticizing that part of the thematic material which has lost its value or acquired a tendency toward degeneration. This is the creative level. Clearly, the creative or expert level in one sphere may easily coexist with the level of the fool or the bureaucrat in another. Parameter 0 indicates inertialessness in a thematic area: the subject is able not only to engage with a topic but also to exit it at will. This sounds plausible. Z is when the functional maximum turns out to be below 0%. K is when the functional maximum goes beyond 100%. If a functional radical is assessed as ZK, the person is beyond social control — “couldn’t care less,” as the author puts it. These three definitions are difficult of access for theoretical and practical comprehension, and moreover fall somewhat outside the terminological series A, B, C, D. X — the management of variable volumes — partly overlaps with parameter D. Unquestionably, the LP demand deep investigation.))
Now let us assess Zh’s rhythmics: I: 0CD; ((PPF — should be interested in questions of how the world is arranged, but his thinking is mythological in character)) l: 0BCD; ((KZF — should discuss highly abstract topics freely, but has difficulty grounding them logically)) S: _B; ((ANF — in critical situations, such as aggression, he becomes lost, or uses withdrawal as a psychological defense, but repression comes hard to him)) e: _BC; ((KKF — this is the point of least resistance — very shy, because he subtly feels every nuance of relations; does not manage relations)) s: 0BCAD; ((ERF — fastidious and demanding in satisfying his needs, but sometimes prepared to endure inconvenience)) E: _B; ((MMF — acutely needs emotional support across a wide range of situations; does not command his emotions)) i: BCADX. ((IVF — exceptionally sensitive, thorough, and conscientious in matters of handling the inner world — his own and others’)) L: _BCAD; ((RTF — performs physical work carefully, with thorough preliminary preparation and all-round thinking-through)) ((All of this corresponds quite well to the Ba type.))
A meter-long error. [a pun on mètre/maître] ((here the author plays on the use of the word “maître” in socionics, introduced by Yermak, who began — half-ironically, perhaps? — calling the leading socionists “maîtres,” thereby setting up an opposition between neophytes and the conditionally advanced socionists))
Unlove, fear, and pride are my mortal sin — or that which crossed out the whole of the work. The books were written with malice toward primitive mental forms — and in vain: they too are people; in them too there is, somewhere, a divine spark; and they are not to blame that they cannot do better, and one must not hate them for it. Hatred begets evil and death, and no lofty constructions will help. This world must live by love, regardless of any constructions; a person must have a loving heart. Malice really does kill. And the more complex the construction, the more implacable the law. I got clobbered over the head so hard it was no joke. ((there you go…))
CONCLUSIONS:
- Weak on logic — do not forget the AXIOM OF IDENTITY and the AXIOM OF SUFFICIENT GROUNDS: in this author, the AXIOM OF IDENTITY is deformed almost continuously, and the AXIOM OF SUFFICIENT GROUNDS is replaced by intuitive discernments.
- Assumptions must not be arbitrary — they must be justified.
- The coherence of constructions does not guarantee the truth of the result.
- As literature, this is interesting — though not for every audience.
- As science, it is an example of how not to do it — or rather, of what one must not stop at; it is the intuitive phase of a scientist’s work, but beyond it a rigorous logical elaboration is necessary…
- But in the hands of a master, everything works…
- E. Litrovnik has discovered certain psychic parameters of behavior which, it appears, have never been identified by scientific psychology. His material is sufficient for professional psychologists to attempt to evaluate the phenomenon he has singled out in a strictly controlled experiment. In doing so, Litrovnik’s authorship of the phenomenon he discovered must, of course, be preserved.))