A general reaction from me is this:
- Let us take a look at a huge program code. It is complex, right? Well, not by design, only by intention and by will.
When we look at the core itself, program codes boil down to a few very basic patterns. You have declarations, the if/while/for statements, all that jazz - and you start to invent layers of layers of layers of "stuff" from them. Some result in a video game. Some result in an operating system.
BUT it is not a good approximation to the archetypes. I think that when we look at a full spectrum, a full layer of possible interactions, the more difference you make determines the complexity of the interactions, but not only that! It also has a deep implication that for everything that is declared to have a quality, it also have a list of qualities that are lacking!
Which means that archetypes rely on each other, are apart of each other, even when unlisted. One cant study one archetype without studying, acknowledging all of them. It is like having an RGB mode of determining a color: no matter what color you pick, you need to state how much red, blue and green it contains, even if it contains none of it.
Now, complexity is maybe not having RGB but a different system when you have a WYSTRHUJK system. No matter which one you go with, you will still need to look at the full picture, but as more variables are chosen, stuff gets hard to keep track of pretty fast, no matter how similar the underlying principles are in both cases.
I find it curious how I missed that quote from Ra before, and how it pops in now. Without that declaration, things are simple, huh.
Another angle for this: matrix and potentiator. Father and mother. What if we look at this two concepts and imagine them as two halfs for one single item? Now we just reduced complexity, while acknowledging that none of them exist without each other: you cant have a half of a coin without having SOMETHING on the other side. By separating concepts and describing interactions between them, we are not acknowledging that they are different facets of a single "item", that rely on each other, but rather we pretend to forget/ignore that. When you have a dice with 6 sides, and dwell into the probabilities and patterns, somewhere along the line, you might forget that they all are just sides for one single item!
- Let us take a look at a huge program code. It is complex, right? Well, not by design, only by intention and by will.
When we look at the core itself, program codes boil down to a few very basic patterns. You have declarations, the if/while/for statements, all that jazz - and you start to invent layers of layers of layers of "stuff" from them. Some result in a video game. Some result in an operating system.
BUT it is not a good approximation to the archetypes. I think that when we look at a full spectrum, a full layer of possible interactions, the more difference you make determines the complexity of the interactions, but not only that! It also has a deep implication that for everything that is declared to have a quality, it also have a list of qualities that are lacking!
Which means that archetypes rely on each other, are apart of each other, even when unlisted. One cant study one archetype without studying, acknowledging all of them. It is like having an RGB mode of determining a color: no matter what color you pick, you need to state how much red, blue and green it contains, even if it contains none of it.
Now, complexity is maybe not having RGB but a different system when you have a WYSTRHUJK system. No matter which one you go with, you will still need to look at the full picture, but as more variables are chosen, stuff gets hard to keep track of pretty fast, no matter how similar the underlying principles are in both cases.
I find it curious how I missed that quote from Ra before, and how it pops in now. Without that declaration, things are simple, huh.
Another angle for this: matrix and potentiator. Father and mother. What if we look at this two concepts and imagine them as two halfs for one single item? Now we just reduced complexity, while acknowledging that none of them exist without each other: you cant have a half of a coin without having SOMETHING on the other side. By separating concepts and describing interactions between them, we are not acknowledging that they are different facets of a single "item", that rely on each other, but rather we pretend to forget/ignore that. When you have a dice with 6 sides, and dwell into the probabilities and patterns, somewhere along the line, you might forget that they all are just sides for one single item!
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)