[Rachel45]

I have been researching translogical thinking, how it is employed and why. It is the ability to place paradoxical and antagonistic thoughts into a single entity creating new, interesting, and very unique patterns of thought. It is written that it can be used by the psychotic, but it is also one of the methods employed during the creative process. It consists of two forms of thinking, Janusian and Homospatial. Janusian thinking is the combining process between the paradoxical and the antagonistic and homospatial thinking is the honing of this process during the development of creative ideas. INTJs are so very logical and rational and I was wondering do any of you resist this way of thinking or do you use it as a potential back-up?

[blueranger]

Any chance of rephrasing that lot in laymans terms

[Baccara]

Can you give an example or two?

If you're talking about putting opposing ideas, concepts, or ideologies together and shaping them into something new, I've long believed that this is the only time true creation can happen. Humans are naturally contradictory creatures. When facing a jumble of confusing thoughts, it's easiest just to discard or repress those thoughts that cause doubt or disrupt whatever schema and mentalities we've already built. BUT, though this may be simple and safe, it doesn't allow movement or growth.

I prefer conflict myself. Though it's often distressing, in the long run it can be enlightening. From past experiences, I've built up a pretty strong instinct to automatically consider possible contradictions to any idea that makes its way into my brain, and being "rational," I tend to do this as methodically as I can. It gets to be complicated, going back and forth between pros and cons and alternatives, feeling the thoughts shifting and changing just a little each time I revisit them. Sometimes it's overwhelming, but often it leads to the understanding that no one thought is any more valid than the others. And when that's the case, the best solution is to try and form the discordant thoughts into some new, cohesive whole (ayes, opposition still allows cohesion. In fact, I think it may be a prerequisite for cohesion).

As an artist and writer, the blending of paradoxes and contradictions often inspires my work, gives it depth. Antagonistic thoughts can repel, but also attract and stimulate when they can be visualized, especially when they come from someone else's head.

Not sure if any of this relates to the question you had in mind.

[NoOne]

The entirety of your discourse is overshadowed by one sad fact. You make an undefined distinction between a thing and itself.

Apparently you never asked the big question, If man does not yet know the foundation for common grammar, what makes any think they know much about logic, since common grammar is just one member of the set of Logic?

It is only by not knowing first principles that you do not blush using such silly terms as translogical.

I am a firm believer that if one does not know 1 they cannot count to ten.

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by NoOne To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If man does not yet know the foundation for common grammar, what makes any think they know much about logic, since common grammar is just one member of the set of Logic? It is only by not knowing first principles that you do not blush using such silly terms as translogical.

It seems you have equivocated upon the symbol [Logic]. I believe your reference would commonly be expressed as Classical Logic, as studied by ancient Greek philosophers. I believe the OP was referencing a specific set of psychological phenomena. The set of things referenced by the OP when she uses [logic] or [translogical] will contain different constituents than the set of things encompassed by [Logic] as you use the word.

Noone, your insights may be fruitful, but I don't believe they contribute to the context of this discussion. It seems you are eager to demand that other members of this forum adhere to your set of naming conventions. This to me seems both arrogant and stifling. I encourage you to accept that others may actually succeed in communicating without using your predetermined set of definitions for each symbol/name.

[Transmorfer]

	Originally Posted by Rachel45 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	INTJs are so very logical and rational and I was wondering do any of you resist this way of thinking or do you use it as a potential back-up?

INTJs are also known as "Free Thinkers", open minded to new ideas and able to see a system, idea or complex from all sides. We think through, behind and around things, which seems to be within the concept of "translogical thinking"as I understand it.

Some of us may come across as rigid persons, but that is probably more because of our "lack" of "F" (and to some extent "S") than stemming from a rigid way of thinking.

I tried reading a bit about tt on the net, but I am not really sure about the point of suggesting such a "thinking concept". Part of it seems to arise from someone having philosophical thoughts about how (or why) geniality and mental illness may be coupled. For this part, it is surely possible to be mentally ill without being a genius - I am however not sure about the statistics on how many genial persons suffering from personality disorders/being mentally ill.

It would be interesting to see some valid data on this.