Quote:

---

David Keirsey's landmark book was published in 1978 under the title"Please Understand Me." The second edition "Please Understand Me II" -- which I liberally quote from -- was published in 1998. Just five years out of graduate school, Keirsey first encountered the work of Isabel Myers when he took the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in 1956. The portrait he received -- that he was an INTP "Rational" -- was a profound revelation to him. For the next 45 years, Kiersey has devoted his life to the study of personality and temperament.

About the MBTI I've lifted the following description from another website ( www.bloomfield.edu/orr/mbti.html).....

"The MBTI was developed by Isabel Myers and Catherine Briggs. Their work was based on Carl Jung's theory of Psychological Types.  Having been influenced by World War II, they hoped to develop an inventory that would lead to greater understanding among people -- an effort to lead to a world harmony. "

Isabel Myers was not a fly-by-night 20th century psychobabblist. She was a profound thinker with a pragmatic aim. Her genius was making Jung's cumbersome Theory of Psychological Types practical and available to the scientist and layman alike.

Other predecessors of Myers were Adickes, Kretschmer, Spranger, and Fromm. Quoting Kiersey, these early pioneers of psychology "saw the usefulness of ancient belief that came primarily from the early Greeks and Romans. It was the Roman physician Galen who, developing the ideas of Hippocrates, proposed (around 190 A.D.) that it is neither the stars nor the gods that determine what we want and what we do; rather, it is the balance of our bodily fluids, the four 'humors,' as they were called ....We might smile at this early view of human psychology, but at the same time we must acknowledge it to be a major departure from what had gone before. Our predispositions , said Galen, come in four styles, and from within and not from without."

Kiersey then traces the history of temperament and types further back to Plato, an "Idealist" who predates the Catholic church by more than 4 centuries: "Nearly six hundred years before Galen, Plato had written in 'The Republic' of four kinds of character which clearly corresponded with the four temperaments attributed to Hippocrates. Plato was more interested in the individual's contribution to the social order then in underlying temperament, and so he named the Sanguine temperament the 'iconic' (artisan) character, endowed with artistic sense, and playing an art-making role in society. He named the Melancholic temperament the 'pistic' (guardian) character, endowed with common sense, and playing a caretaking role in society. He named the Choleric temperament the 'noetic' (idealist) character, endowed with intuitive sensibility, and playing a moral role in society. And he named the Phlegmatic temperament the 'dianoetic' (rational0 character, endowd with reasoning sensibility, and playing the role of logical investigator in society."

"A generation later, Aristotle [a "Rational"] defined character in terms of happiness, and not, as his mentor Plato had done, in terms of virture. Aristotle argued that there are four sources of happiness: 'The mass of men,' he said, 'find happiness either in 'sensual pleasure' ("hedone") or in 'acquiring assets' ("propraietari") , while some few find happiness either in exercising their 'moral virtue' ("ethikos") or in a life of 'logical investigation' ("dialogike") ."

Western Civilization owes a significant debt to Vedic lore on the subject of personality types. Starting with Laws of Manu and and the Vedas and culminating with the Upanishads in India. and running a parallel course through the annals of ancient Chinese philosophy, is a schema of a world based on 4 (and sometimes 5) elemental types. The introduction of Vedic concepts to Greek culture is generally credited to a contemporary of Plato named Empedocles of Acragas whose memorable claim was that there are four elements in the universe which account for all its variety.

---

Quote:

---

introverted or extraverted
concrete or imaginative
impersonal or empathic
structured or spontaneous

---

Quote:

---

"The way Rationals reach their objective of maximizing efficiency in systems is by analyzing systems in search of inefficiency, which is to say, they look for error in the order or in the organization of systems."

"They can become single-minded at times, which can be a weakness in their careers, for by focusing so tightly on their own pursuits they can ignore the points of view and wishes of others."

"...because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they drive themselves, they often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy. Their fellow workers often feel as if a Mastermind can see right through them, and often believe that they find them wanting. This tendency of people to feel transparent, and even incompetent, in their presence often results in working relationships which have some psychological distance. Colleagues may describe INTJ's as unemotional and, at times, cold and dispassionate, when in truth they are merely taking the goals of an institution seriously, and continually striving to achieve those goals.... indifference or criticism from their fellow workers does not particularly bother Masterminds, if they believe that they are right. All in all, they make dedicated, loyal employees whose loyalties are directed toward the system, rather than toward individuals within the system. As the people in an institution come and go, these NT's have little difficulty getting on with their jobs."

"Masterminds are certain that both internal and external consistency are indispensible in the well-run organization..."

"In general, Masterminds rely on their head and not their heart to make these choices, and at times, therefore, they may appear cold and calculating. Even in more casual situations the may appear cold and may neglect to observe small rituals designed to put others at their ease.

"They have a strong need for privacy"

"Above all else, Rationals want to be coherent in their arguments, and so they try to make certain that each phrase and clause advances the argument, introducing nothing that doesn't logically belong, and leaving out nothing that is logically required. This style produces carefully crafted communications..."

"The basis of coherence in Rational though and speech is deductive inference....While we cannot observe deductive thought,...we can observe the language that makes it possible. Defining words to limit their usage is a deductive process, so too is arranging words in logical order to control coherence, and so too is choosing words to control shades of meaning. Thus the coherence, reference, arrangements, and choice of words tend to be done deductively by Rationals."

"Rationals are unsually exacting about definitions....they assume that their distinctions enable them to control arguments and, it might be added, enterprises. The way Rationals see it, whoever controls categories, controls useful operations."

"Many Rationals are dictionary readers, even specialty dictionaries..."

"[They] also tend to enjoy playing with words"

---

Quote:

---

The INTJ is what Keirsey calls "The Mastermind" -- a subtype of the Rationals. Individuals with this typology strive to become the power behind the throne. They are strategic in their thinking and not very empathic as human beings. They can put an ideal an ideology or a system above human needs. Their keen analytical abillities make them masters at spotting blemishes and glitches in a system which they take great pleasure in correcting, And they are experts at bending words to fit their agenda.

Note that they also lack empathy for others. People who cannot make the grade are considered useless. They can often harbor an arrogant disdain for the common man and for common human problems. Do we have any reason to believe any of these attitudes made it into the SRF lessons?

---

Quote:

---

"Guardians seem drawn to the role of social protector, standing watch against the insecurities of life, searching for ways to defend -- both themselves and others -- against loss, defeat, and disappointment, but also against what many of them regard as the irresponsibility of human nature. "

"Guardians naturally assume the role of society's gate-keeper, standing guard at the door and keeping a watchful eye on the coming and going of the people under their jurisdiction. Those without proper credentials (outsiders) cannot be allowed through, those who ignore boundaries (trespassers) must be caught and reprimanded, and those who think they have the right just to barge in (gate-crashers) need to be stopped and expelled --- 'shown the door' as [they] tend to say."

"They are also inclined to caution others about the danger of committing moral transgressions --- 'It wouldn't be right to do that.' And when their warnings are ignored they are the most likely of all to chide or reprove the transgressor, for they are reluctant to let others get away with much."

"Pessimistic in Looking Ahead" ....."Because so many of their efforts are holding actions, trying to maintain the status quo in fast-paced, ever-changing situation, Guardians have learned to expect the worst."

"Change for a Guardian is unsettling" Guardians are the " keepers of tradition, of custom, of continuity with the past.....the new, the improvised, and the innovative, seem almost an affront to time-honored traditions, and are certainly unsettling."

"Let us think of the Guardians as the Security Seeking Personality. "

Vocational Interest of Guardians: "... office work and clerical jobs -- keeping records, checking inventory, attending to correspondence, filing, accounting -- with the brightest of them becoming executives, administrators, plant or office managers, CPA's, bankers, brokers, insurance underwriters..."

---

Quote:

---

"These inspectors are earnest and attentive in their inspecting; to be certified as right and proper, all must go under their scrutiny, so that no irregularities and discrepancies are let go by."

"...inspecting the people and things in their jurisdiction -- quietly seeing to it that uniform quality of product is maintained, and that those around them uphold certain standards of attitude and conduct."

"These hard-nosed and silent Guardians have a distaste for and distrust of fanciness in speech, dress and place. Their words tend to be simple and down home, not showy or high-flown; their clothes are often homespun and conservative rather than of the latest fashion; and their home and work environments are usually neat, orderly, and plain, rather than up-to-date or luxurious."

"Most often reporting to higher authorities, Inspectors tend to work behind the scenes, only rarely having to confront others with their findings."

"At work, they are apt to see the company picnic or holiday office party as a necessary nuisance, but are likely to enjoy those events once they arrive and loosen up a bit."

"As administrators, they are patient with their work and with procedures within an institution, although not always patient with the individual goals and unauthorized behavior of some people in that institution."

"These Inspectors are comfortable when people know their duties, follow the guidelines, and operate within the rules -- rules are there to be followed, they say, not gotten around for personal reasons."

INTJ "Inspector" as quoted from David Keirsey's book "Please Understand Me II"...


"For their part ISTJ's will see to it that goods are inspected and schedules are kept, that resources will be up to standard and delivered when and where they are supposed to be. And they would prefer that everyone's attitudes and actions be this law-abiding."

"They can be adamant about the need for rule-compliance in the workplace, and do not hesitate to report irregularities to the proper authorities."

"In orientation they tend to be fatalistic, pessimistic, and stoical as they guard the gateways and look to yesterday."

"They base their self-image on being seen as dependable, beneficent, and respectable."

"...interest in thoroughness, detail, legality, standard procedures, and orderly flow of materiel."

---

Quote:

---

The designated moniker -- "Mother Center" -- implies an organization who is the parent and whose members are its children. So let's see what Keirsey says about ISTJ "Inspector" parents....


"In their parenting role, Inspectors are firm and consistent in handling their children; they make the rules of the family clear and expect them to be followed. A rebellious, non-conformist child may have a difficult time with an ISTJ parent, and visa versa."

"Inspectors care about passing along their work ethic to their children, and will often require them to help with household chores and projects. They patiently teach their children basic home maintenance skills, cooking, gardening, carpentry --- time-consuming activities which sometimes leave them little opportunity to play with their children. The Inspector child is apt to be obedient and a source of pleasure to parents and teachers."

---

Quote:

---

According to the book "Do What You Are" by Paul Tieger and Barbara Barron-Tieger, the ISTJ (SRF Organization) is culpable of the following work related weaknesses...


Reluctance to embrace new, untested ideas

Discomfort with or resistance to change

Impatience with processes that take too long

Unwillingness to focus on future needs at the same time as present ones

Inflexibility; inability or unwillingness to adapt when necessary

Inability to focus on "the big picture" and see the implications of actions

Lack of sensitivity as to how people will be affected by policies and decisions

Reluctance to change directions and shift gears when warranted

Unwillingness to instigate or support needed change and calculated risks


...The author's final advice to ISTJ's is " The secret of success for an ISTJ is learning to be open to possibilities, consider implications for people, and embrace change."

Listen up oh "Mother of Compassion"!!!!

---

Quote:

---

pub78.ezboard.com/fsrfwal...D=43.topic


Raja Begum
11/28/01


This Is Your Right-of-Passage!

Are you abstract, intuitive and imaginative in your thinking? Are you friendly and find yourself concerned with how people feel about themselves? If so, you might be a member of that small category of people (10 %) who David Keirsey calls "The Idealist" temperament.

SRF is a microcosm of the greater world. In our midst we find various temperaments. Keirsey, in his landmark book titled "Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence," thoroughly describes four temperament types which constitute the family of man: The Guardians (40% -45% of the population), The Artisans (35% - 40%), The Idealists (8% - 10%), and The Rationals (5%-7%).

More than the other three types, The Idealists are uniquely concerned with issues of authenticity. In fact, their very self-confidence is based on how much they are allowed to strive for and attain it. In an environment which stifles personal creative expression, the mutual exhange of ideas, and the opportunity to intitiate meaningful change, the Idealist becomes numb and estranged from himself like a fish out of water.

SRF is an organization which for the moment is run primarily by Guardians. Guardians tend to feel secure when there is a high degree of compliance among its members. The idea of people striving for authenticity and individual expression is threatening to stability-seeking Guardians. Clearly the two are each others' opposites. And when opposites have to live, work and worship together, there will either be an exchange of the best each has to offer or there will be friction and polarization.

It is the Idealists who seem to understand keenest of all how a disproportionately high emphasis on monastic thinking in the SRF teachings has created the most inhospitable environment for their own self-evolution. Consider the following analogy: Suppose we were to liken SRF to a plot of soil in which certain plants will be grown. Before we plant, we need to know the pH balance of the soil. Most plants do best at a pH of 6 to 7 which is neutral. Some such as rhododendrum, azalies, cranberries, blueberries, and some potatoes do best in acid soils of around a pH of 5.0. Alfalfa, on the other hand, prefers an alkaline medium. Using this analogy, it is clear to see that rhododendrums and cranberries would probably not bode well next to alfalfa. One or the other will end up with a compromised development.

Attitudes, ideas, and beliefs are very much like the substance of an alkaline or an acid. Their addition affects an environment and makes it hospitable to one thing and not to another. And so in considering our beloved SRF as the principle medium in which our lives have taken root, it becomes a necessary question to ask "Has that medium been optimimum one for our flourishing? And if not, why not?"

As an Idealist, I can clearly see that the SRF environment has always been too alkaline for the good of my psychological and emotional development. For as long as I can remember, there was always this feeling that something essential and nutritive was missing. But it was more than a mere deficit that I sensed. I also detected the presence of value system which had a curiously depleting effect on me. At first I thought it was me with the wrong attitude and found plenty in SRF who were more than willing to support that theory. But then I kept meeting others like myself who complained of the same symptoms. I began to wonder what it was that linked me and so many others to the same baffling fate.

As I probed, I was destined to discover that, what many of us had in common, was a similar typology. This wasn't guesswork. I actually had my friends take the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. I administered it to my family, I recruited fellow employees, strangers, anyone who had a half hour to spare. I discussed these ideas for many hours with professionals in the fields of psychology and sociology, and I read the best supplementary books on the subject, In effect, I became an armchair expert in the field of typology and got so good at it that I can't read a novel or watch a movie without seeing how the differences in types generate most of the dramatic tension of a plot.

Knowing one's type is a surreal experience. You spot ones like yourself standing out in a crowd. So it happened in SRF that I found a tiny constituency, my type-kin, on the Walrus site and among the disenfranchised long-timers who became sickened of the status quo -- all of them involutarily prodded by their conscience to become the first rebels en masse of Self Realization Fellowship.

I see now that I was tricked into duty. When I first began this journey into my unknown self, I wanted above all to exact a painful revenge on the organization which starved me on half truths and never looked twice when I stumbled and fell. With as much zeal as I once served the organization, I now found myself wanting to subvert it, to subject it to the same experience of frustration that had plunged me into a crisis of identity and, consequently, a life altering depression.

I must admit experiencing the most intense satisfaction in vindicating myself. It was cathartic like nothing else. Like tearing down a dilapidated house nail by nail until only the foundation is exposed. The very act of sabotage was like muscle pumping in a gym -- I couldn't wait to go back and do more. I sometimes wondered who this new person was. He certainly resembled nothing like the "dear one" (in Daya Mata parlance), the sweet devotee he once was. The new person was more like a Bengal tiger with the scent of blood in his nostrils. He deserved a new name for his new life. The title I felt most accurately fit my mood: Raja Begum.

With my jaws deep in the flesh of SRF, cutting to bone and sinew, I made a discovery about myself accidentally. I discovered quite shamelessly that this predatorial bloodfest was exactly what was required of my growth. It and whatever phases were to follow were leading me onward and upward through the stages of differentiation and individuation. Facing down the gods, deposing false ones, making Matas into mincemeat, I found the Confident One long buried underneath the striations of unqualified deference and perpetual pronams. Only recently is it entirely obvious to me that one's being certain of the spiritual authority of another and the very act of putting that person above one's self are all supreme acts of fiction and projection. If someone is above my comprehension, how can I profess to know what they are? I can't. I can only know myself. The rest is fraternity. That's why Babaji washed the feet of the sadhu at the Kumbha Mela -- because there was nothing else he could be to that sadhu that would make sense. To be the almighty Babaji would have no meaning to the sadhu unless he also shared Babaji's realization. So Babaji, with a profound sense of utility, met the man where he could be comprehended best -- as a humble pedicurist!. Among lesser luminaries, it becomes mandatory for the preservation of our own authenticity that we never give anyone so much awe as to make our own selves invisible to ourselves. Thus finally confronting the the Sernior leadership of SRF and their tenets, I found myself entirely out of their spell. It happened so suddenly that I almost wondered if I'd ever been mystified in the first place.

You may find yourselves undergoing a similar transformation. After many years asleep you are finally waking up to the authentic you, and you can't understand why it had to happen under such bitter auspices. But that's a judgment. In truth the method of your awakening was entirely sensible.. How does one become authentic if he or she continues to put others' thoughts and feelings above his or her own perceptions? It doesn't happen. The only surefire way back to self-authenticity is to eradicate the supremacy of influences of anything that is non-self. This is such a beautiful way to approach God. And it in no way harms our relationship with our guru since, by definition, he is one with us. So the more we approach our essence, the more we shall find him present. The stripping down of outer influences and living authentically by my inner rule -- this is about the only form of renunciation I can practice with any sense of naturalness.. The rest seems like a masquerade of Guardian protocols. My only problem now is to consider what of SRF remains for me?

I'm going to switch from tiger talk to the subject of rhododendrons, cranberries and alfalfa. If what I am is a cranberry, and if what you are is a rhododenron, and if where we sprawl happens to be on the highly alkaline plains of alfalfahood....brother!...we ain't got a chance.. And if all that alfalfa can't see why that's a problem for the rest of us, it doesn't mean there isn't a problem. One of the most revered senior monastics told a close friend of mine that the teachings will not change and, if he didn't like it, he could find another path.. My friend is has been a long time member. So what we've got here is Mr. Alfalfamoy telling Mr. Rhododendron to get lost. But Mr Rhododendron doesn't want to get lost. So he introduces changes into the soil to make it more hospitable. Suddenly the alfalfas are in a panic while the Rhododenrons are reviving their colors. What ought to be a benign pasture turns into another Kurukshetra. . This is what SRF is becoming and will continue to be as long as some higher concilliatory intelligence doesn't enter into the picture.

I can no longer feel the same anger towards the leadership of SRF that I once did. Anger would only mean I feel helpless and vulnerable in my relationship (or lack of it) with them. Instead I feel calm, cool resolution. I know that SRF will change because I see the pieces falling into place. How was I to know that, by walking away, I would come full circle back to the center of the movement. Only this time, I feel I am uniquely giving to it something true of my soul.

What this means? A thorough reexamination of the lessons, the way the teachings are presented, and ultimately there must be some hard questions asked about the leadership and its tendency to douse every aspect of our sadhana with monastic-centric thinking. .

How do you feel? The same as me? Perhaps you are one of the 10%, If so, this world is your oyster. The more you pry at it and make it change, the more you defy that pat Guardian Dictionary definition of "devotee" and become an authentic individual in relationship to the work, the more the work becomes what it is destined to be. You are the message. Don't hold back. Is an Idealist disobedient and disloyal because he followed his Idealist dictionary and not a Guardian one? Can a bird be insubordinate to a fish? Or a rhododendron to an alfalfa?

Trust yourself -- your thoughts, feelings and instincts. There is work to be done. This is your right-of-passage.

---

Quote:

---

I have in my files a quote by Dr. Nathaniel Branden explaining the damaging consequences of dissociation. If you feel inspired, you can pick up a copy of his book "The Art of Living Consciously" wherein this eloquent quote can be found:

"To disown means to cease to recognize as our own. We can be alienated from -- inadequately conscious of --- our bodies, our needs and wants, our feelings and emotions, our actions and reactions, our thoughts and values, or our abilities and capacities. We can be strangers to ourselves in many different possible respects. We can act without recognizing the roots of our actions. We can be afraid without knowing what we are afraid of and long without knowing what we long for. These are some of the meanings of self-alienation and self-disowning. "
"A consequence of this process is that we radically restrict our sense of self. We have less access to our inner signals, and consequently we become more dependent on signals from others. We may need others to tell us what to think, how to live, when to express which emotion (if at all), what is right or wrong, and so forth."

"At minimum, we pay a price in suffering, when we inappropriate in our responses and frustrated in our life. But sometimes we pay even a worse price, as when, for instance -- 'What stress are you talking about?' asks a driven, workaholic salesman of forty-eight a moment before he drops dead of a heart attack."

---