I suppose I'll get more clarity when you say more on your stance that "you don't have all 9 types". Until then, however, I'm curious why, if each point is structurally interconnected with its adjacent points as you said, that its unreasonable to conceive a person being "lopsided" and having their egoic "center of mass" nearer to one adjacent point than the other. It also seems that the over-under dimension you described could coexist with the notion of wings- it doesn't appear to be mutually exclusive.
All that said, if your fundamentals are different than mine, the details are a moot point.
Curious what more you next have to say on the core fixation process.
Each point is interconnected, but it is a structural implication instead of an expressive one. It’s embedded in the ‘fabric’ of the type: it aids in compositing the expression, but it is not the entirety of it, only a minute supporting building block. A shoe and a hat can have a thread of leather running through it, but a shoe and hat are fundamentally different. The leather is simply an aid in its composition. That would be the adjacent type in this case.
It is mutually exclusive in my view because they are misinterpreting the mechanism happening to generate the under- and over- expressions. The subtypes somehow act as an exaggerated replacements for the core type’s gravity, that ‘lop-sidedness’ you talk about is accounted for *within* the type itself, not borrowing outside of it. Yes, the shoe contains a leather thread (the adjacent point), but it is the blue Swede (the movement of dichotomy) that is giving it the blue expression, not the leather. It is a separate distinction located within the type, not as ‘borrowing’ from outside of it.
I hope this explains it in a way that helps you. 💙
I suppose I'll get more clarity when you say more on your stance that "you don't have all 9 types". Until then, however, I'm curious why, if each point is structurally interconnected with its adjacent points as you said, that its unreasonable to conceive a person being "lopsided" and having their egoic "center of mass" nearer to one adjacent point than the other. It also seems that the over-under dimension you described could coexist with the notion of wings- it doesn't appear to be mutually exclusive.
All that said, if your fundamentals are different than mine, the details are a moot point.
Curious what more you next have to say on the core fixation process.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Each point is interconnected, but it is a structural implication instead of an expressive one. It’s embedded in the ‘fabric’ of the type: it aids in compositing the expression, but it is not the entirety of it, only a minute supporting building block. A shoe and a hat can have a thread of leather running through it, but a shoe and hat are fundamentally different. The leather is simply an aid in its composition. That would be the adjacent type in this case.
It is mutually exclusive in my view because they are misinterpreting the mechanism happening to generate the under- and over- expressions. The subtypes somehow act as an exaggerated replacements for the core type’s gravity, that ‘lop-sidedness’ you talk about is accounted for *within* the type itself, not borrowing outside of it. Yes, the shoe contains a leather thread (the adjacent point), but it is the blue Swede (the movement of dichotomy) that is giving it the blue expression, not the leather. It is a separate distinction located within the type, not as ‘borrowing’ from outside of it.
I hope this explains it in a way that helps you. 💙