Commentary on Doc Love's Article:
DOES GEORGE CLOONEY CARE WHAT'S ON THE INSIDE
If you are not a clown -- you are a fool
Prophet Lev of the Church of Socionics
In the last article Doc Love hinted (consciously or not) that physical attraction is really aesthetic attraction. Beauty changes with fashion, and fashion changes with values. So taste and common sense must work in symbiosis for optimum effectiveness. In "Maid in Manhattan" or "Pretty Woman", the director applied al lhis skill and artistic ability to make a lack of integrity look attractive. But can you show me a director who made Flexibility, Giving and High Interest Level, look elegant, aesthetic, appealing, sexy, or graceful? The presentation is important, because it allows one to dream, to fantasize, to weave a new aesthetic ideal. People have to like a Flexible Giver not just intellectually, as a formula, but also because she has "something quirky", which corresponds to this imaginary image. Only than will the pragmatic Interest Level not clash with the Aesthetic Interest Level. So we have to look at cultures, in which more women are Flexible Givers (Mexicans?), at Historical Periods in which more women were Flexible Givers (1940s?). In the sequence of information metabolism (sensation, collecting data>intuition, general grasp>logical analysis>emotional reaction) thought precedes feeling. So, aesthetic values have to be adjusted as one’s awareness and wisdom increase. Outdated aesthetics can be a great hindrance to personal advancement.
Here is an inspiring text -- an excerpt from Charles Dyckens's Child's History of England. It tells the story of Thomas a Becket's (a Chancellor under Henry II of England, and a Christian Saint) parents.
Once upon a time, a worthy merchant of London, named GILBERT A BECKET, made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and was taken prisoner by a Saracen lord. This lord, who treated him kindly and not like a slave, had one fair daughter, who fell in love with the merchant;
and who told him that she wanted to become a Christian, and was willing to marry him if they could fly to a Christian country. The merchant returned her love, until he found an opportunity to
escape, when he did not trouble himself about the Saracen lady, but escaped with his servant Richard, who had been taken prisoner along with him, and arrived in England and forgot her. The Saracen lady, who was more loving than the merchant, left her father's house in
disguise to follow him, and made her way, under many hardships, to the sea-shore. The merchant had taught her only two English words (for I suppose he must have learnt the Saracen tongue himself, and made love in that language), of which LONDON was one, and his own
name, GILBERT, the other.
She went among the ships, saying, 'London! London!' over and over again, until the sailors understood that she wanted to find an English vessel that would carry her there; so they showed her such a ship, and she paid for her passage
with some of her jewels, and sailed away. Well! The merchant was sitting in his counting-house in London one day, when he heard a great noise in the street; and presently Richard came running in from the warehouse, with his eyes wide open and his breath almost
gone, saying, 'Master, master, here is the Saracen lady!' The merchant thought Richard was mad; but Richard said, 'No, master! As I live, the Saracen lady is going up and down the city, calling Gilbert! Gilbert!' Then, he took the merchant by the sleeve, and pointed out of window; and there they saw her among the gables and water-spouts of the dark, dirty street, in her foreign dress, so forlorn, surrounded by a wondering crowd, and passing slowly along,
calling Gilbert, Gilbert! When the merchant saw her, and thought of the tenderness she had shown him in his captivity, and of her constancy, his heart was moved, and he ran down into the street; and she saw him coming, and with a great cry fainted in his arms.
They were married without loss of time, and Richard (who was an excellent man) danced with joy the whole day of the wedding; and they all lived happy ever afterwards.
This falls in line with Dyckens's observation regarding (regarding Alfred II, the Good Saxon) that "most men who grow up to be great and good are generally found to have had -- an excellent mother". Compare two INFps: A Becket and Prince John Lackland. A Becket exemplifies Backbone and courage, while John is a spineless coward. They belonged to the same melancholic temperament; they both had a low threshold of arousal, combined with the action tendency to withdraw inward. But the key is that they had very different mothers.
Second interpretation of Wallace’s dilemma:
This was the problem with the daughter of Marquise de La Mole in Stendal’s “Red And Black”, when she fell in love with her father’s secretary; but her inflexible mind would not let her believe in the fact that she could love a man like that, unless he was either a lord of equal stature or a romantic villain such as she read about in her romance novels. So he had to play the role of a villain to appease her ego. The truth is, most women can’t help but have a high Interest Level in the glow of charisma which emanates from someone who posesses the three Cs: Challenge, Confidence, and Control; but most of them are also too inflexible to admit that they could love someone who does not fit the yuppie/MTV stereotype of a “real man”, they hate their Interest Level, like Mademoiselle de La Mole hates hers in Stendal's Novel. (This is not the kind of women we want anyway. We are looking for a flexible giver, who’d overlook all her previous notions of what a “real man” should be like.) So this is the case with Wallace, only in the reverse. He has a 95% IL in the girl, but his inflexible mind is telling him that she is not the type of girl he wants to be seen with, he can’t admit to himself that he could be attracted to a girl who is not a bimbo. His true IL in the girl is high, it is the “IL” of his inflexible intellect that is low
DOES GEORGE CLOONEY CARE WHAT'S ON THE INSIDE
If you are not a clown -- you are a fool
Prophet Lev of the Church of Socionics
In the last article Doc Love hinted (consciously or not) that physical attraction is really aesthetic attraction. Beauty changes with fashion, and fashion changes with values. So taste and common sense must work in symbiosis for optimum effectiveness. In "Maid in Manhattan" or "Pretty Woman", the director applied al lhis skill and artistic ability to make a lack of integrity look attractive. But can you show me a director who made Flexibility, Giving and High Interest Level, look elegant, aesthetic, appealing, sexy, or graceful? The presentation is important, because it allows one to dream, to fantasize, to weave a new aesthetic ideal. People have to like a Flexible Giver not just intellectually, as a formula, but also because she has "something quirky", which corresponds to this imaginary image. Only than will the pragmatic Interest Level not clash with the Aesthetic Interest Level. So we have to look at cultures, in which more women are Flexible Givers (Mexicans?), at Historical Periods in which more women were Flexible Givers (1940s?). In the sequence of information metabolism (sensation, collecting data>intuition, general grasp>logical analysis>emotional reaction) thought precedes feeling. So, aesthetic values have to be adjusted as one’s awareness and wisdom increase. Outdated aesthetics can be a great hindrance to personal advancement.
Here is an inspiring text -- an excerpt from Charles Dyckens's Child's History of England. It tells the story of Thomas a Becket's (a Chancellor under Henry II of England, and a Christian Saint) parents.
Once upon a time, a worthy merchant of London, named GILBERT A BECKET, made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and was taken prisoner by a Saracen lord. This lord, who treated him kindly and not like a slave, had one fair daughter, who fell in love with the merchant;
and who told him that she wanted to become a Christian, and was willing to marry him if they could fly to a Christian country. The merchant returned her love, until he found an opportunity to
escape, when he did not trouble himself about the Saracen lady, but escaped with his servant Richard, who had been taken prisoner along with him, and arrived in England and forgot her. The Saracen lady, who was more loving than the merchant, left her father's house in
disguise to follow him, and made her way, under many hardships, to the sea-shore. The merchant had taught her only two English words (for I suppose he must have learnt the Saracen tongue himself, and made love in that language), of which LONDON was one, and his own
name, GILBERT, the other.
She went among the ships, saying, 'London! London!' over and over again, until the sailors understood that she wanted to find an English vessel that would carry her there; so they showed her such a ship, and she paid for her passage
with some of her jewels, and sailed away. Well! The merchant was sitting in his counting-house in London one day, when he heard a great noise in the street; and presently Richard came running in from the warehouse, with his eyes wide open and his breath almost
gone, saying, 'Master, master, here is the Saracen lady!' The merchant thought Richard was mad; but Richard said, 'No, master! As I live, the Saracen lady is going up and down the city, calling Gilbert! Gilbert!' Then, he took the merchant by the sleeve, and pointed out of window; and there they saw her among the gables and water-spouts of the dark, dirty street, in her foreign dress, so forlorn, surrounded by a wondering crowd, and passing slowly along,
calling Gilbert, Gilbert! When the merchant saw her, and thought of the tenderness she had shown him in his captivity, and of her constancy, his heart was moved, and he ran down into the street; and she saw him coming, and with a great cry fainted in his arms.
They were married without loss of time, and Richard (who was an excellent man) danced with joy the whole day of the wedding; and they all lived happy ever afterwards.
This falls in line with Dyckens's observation regarding (regarding Alfred II, the Good Saxon) that "most men who grow up to be great and good are generally found to have had -- an excellent mother". Compare two INFps: A Becket and Prince John Lackland. A Becket exemplifies Backbone and courage, while John is a spineless coward. They belonged to the same melancholic temperament; they both had a low threshold of arousal, combined with the action tendency to withdraw inward. But the key is that they had very different mothers.
Second interpretation of Wallace’s dilemma:
This was the problem with the daughter of Marquise de La Mole in Stendal’s “Red And Black”, when she fell in love with her father’s secretary; but her inflexible mind would not let her believe in the fact that she could love a man like that, unless he was either a lord of equal stature or a romantic villain such as she read about in her romance novels. So he had to play the role of a villain to appease her ego. The truth is, most women can’t help but have a high Interest Level in the glow of charisma which emanates from someone who posesses the three Cs: Challenge, Confidence, and Control; but most of them are also too inflexible to admit that they could love someone who does not fit the yuppie/MTV stereotype of a “real man”, they hate their Interest Level, like Mademoiselle de La Mole hates hers in Stendal's Novel. (This is not the kind of women we want anyway. We are looking for a flexible giver, who’d overlook all her previous notions of what a “real man” should be like.) So this is the case with Wallace, only in the reverse. He has a 95% IL in the girl, but his inflexible mind is telling him that she is not the type of girl he wants to be seen with, he can’t admit to himself that he could be attracted to a girl who is not a bimbo. His true IL in the girl is high, it is the “IL” of his inflexible intellect that is low
Last edited: