IDM

The Properties and Methods of Personal and Social Identification

(copyright © 2002-2003 C. J. Lofting)

Original Distinctions

Given the previous description of basic differentiate/integrate patterns, symbolically I can map-out the steps of an analysis such:

Initial differentiation: A from NOT-A

second level: A and NOT-A elements WITHIN A, as well as A and NOT-A elements WITHIN NOT-A. This gives us a context of A and distinctions of finer details WITHIN that context. This also gives us a context of NOT-A and distinctions of finer details WITHIN that context.

This second level differentiation process aims to identify the purest elements of A as well as those elements of NOT-A that in fact, upon closer examination, reflects qualities of A.

We can make-up the following list to reflect the differences (where the symbol '~' means 'NOT'):

Quality of 'pure' A in the form of AA.

Quality of 'not so' pure A in the form of A~A

Quality of 'not so' pure NOT-A in the form of ~AA

Quality of 'pure' NOT-A in the form of ~A~A

This differentiation process acts to extract details of something, and the something itself, from the realm of 'all else' and as such the realm of 'all else' is an integrated whole out of which we have 'isolated' a part.

We can in fact replace the A/~A terms used above with the concepts of differentiation (D) and integration (aka NOT-D represented as I) in that the A of the dichotomy is the differentiated something, and so a particular, and the ~A is that from which we have differentiated, and so more of a general.

Thus the concept of AA reflects a process of Differentiation to Differentiate, or differentiation within/after differentiation. The other list members have been presented in the previous section.

The four processes reflect methods to derive meaning and as such the completion of each process results in the establishment of a feeling, a sense of meaning, of identification.

Referring to the previous list by number, both (1) and (4) reflect focuses on purity, on 'wholeness', but using different methods to achieve that identification - the (1) through repeated differentiations to get to the 'point', the (4) through repeated integrations to get to the 'pattern', the linked 'whole'.

Note that (1) has a bias to explicit identification as it zooms-in on the point or 'dot', whereas (4) has a bias to implicit identification as it established links to, once in place, imply a 'whole'. We can identify the precision of (1) with the concept of 'dot' precision, and the precision of (4) with the concept of 'field' precision where the patterns of relationships reflect a geometric pattern indicating something. What is noticeable here is that the geometric nature of (4) reflects recognition of dimensions. When we zoom-in using differentiations we move from a geometric perspective to a more algebraic perspective where the focus is on the dimensionless - the dot - as shown below:

The overall focus on 'wholeness' of the previous list's categories of (1) and (4) can be represented by another term - blending, to become, to be, ONE. We can also include the concept of un-blending.

Both (2) and (3) above reflect entanglements of the D and I distinctions and as such reflect maintaining the distinctions of D and I in a clear manner, there is a 'line' or 'border' between them where FIRST is X and THEN is Y. The sum of this process reflects the concept of a boundary, of a distinct requirement of two processes and as such the concept of PARTS, where the whole is made-up of two parts, a D element and an I element; thus the products of (2) and (3) lack the 'pure' wholeness of (1) and (4). The overall 'partness' of (2) and (3) is represented by the term 'bounding' to reflect boundaries, enclosures, paths, the sharp distinctions of 'this from that' as compared to the distinctions of 'pure' wholes as 'this'.

As such the above list identifies the concepts of WHOLES and PARTS, with the concepts each containing two methods of identification, the processes of differentiation and integration.

What is noteworthy is that the concept of PARTS still reflects a 'pointedness', a sense of 'something' that is tangible and as such represents a whole in a relationship to a greater whole and as such an understanding of 'objects'; there is still an aire of 'differentiation' in these categories but as we shall find in the next section this aire changes when we zoom-in for finer distinctions.

As an initial example of the above four generic categories appearing in our more 'refined' categorisations we can consider the following categories related to persona typologies, and so 'meaningful' patterns sourced recursively, of the MBTI®/Keirsey Temperament Checker:

The emphasis is here on the 'buzz', the particular sensation and as such we see a focus on differentiations with a clear drive to identify a local sensation from a universal context perspective and/or to assert identity. The differentiating perspective forces a strong sense of self, even if delusional at times - the emphasis on 'This'.
The emphasis here seems to have its roots in fear whereby the differentiation skills of sensation seeking are combined with a more 'careful', more structured, approach to sensations through identifying and so mapping-out sensations - we recruit integration techniques to aid in identification. The possible root of this persona is in having 'bad' sensations and as such identifying those sensations and their locations to protect one as one seeks sensations. The focus is still differentiating in that the individual works from behind a boundary based on a rationalist, true/false, perspective and so a focus on 'facts' and 'this from/with that'. [note that the root in fear need not be so in that genetic diversity can allow for this type to be born, not made. As such they, like the security seekers below, can have feelings of fear that have no foundations!]
The emphasis here is like that of DI types, having roots in fear, but more from an identity seeking perspective where 'bad' experiences have led to the recruitment of the differentiating processes. The security seekers thus work from behind a boundary but from a more moralist, good/bad, perspective and so a focus on 'values'. The initial act of integration forms a group and that is then used to differentiate 'us' from 'them'.
The emphasis here is more on attempts to establish a universal identity but stemming from a sensitivity to local context and so seeing behind a sensation, seeing its 'hidden' relationships. The emphasis on identity seeking reflects the fact that a context sensitive perspective reflects the PUSH of a context on the expression of identity and as such the focus is more integrating than differentiating. In an idealist collective, one that favours clear, universal, identifications, this type of persona is easily categorised as 'identity seeking' in that the persona recognises the sensitivity to local context that the sensation seeking type does not see. The issue with a more integrating approach rather than differentiating is that it is always less precise and as such more IMPLICIT in identifications - and so a continual attraction to 'aspects' of persona and an aire of identification of 'not this, not that'.

We can see these differences in temperament reflected in a normal distribution curve that maps energy levels that reflect the general distribution of energy 'outside' of the individual, into the context, to assert identity. As we move from the energy-conserving NF to the energy-expending SP so we narrow the context dependency until we cross-over from links to local context to attempts to assert one's own context - we move from an integrating/balancing perspective to a more differentiating/replacement perspective:

Back to Index Page