Posted by isaactheblue on March 27, 2001 at 16:36:11:
In Reply to: Visual Types for ^(oo)^ posted by RoTtEn ApPlE on March 27, 2001 at 15:38:13:
: You raise an interesting question to me: Which "geometrical figures" (Platonic "absolute forms?") representing the nature of a type are universal (though slightly fortifiable, I suppose, in consideration of individuality)? My current view: probably none of them, though the majority of them should apply in order for one to be referred to as a particular type
: : O.K.... so no, I can't imagine there is an ABSOLUTE or simple shape/form for type... but I do think there are visual-spatial themes for each type.
this is one of those situations where the thing you're ascribing to the type has at least as much to do with your perception of the abstraction as it has to do with the type. ie, a beanbag chair seems to fit with type 9 because you associate it with 9ish things. it may be that most people make that association, sure, but if we were to try to explain that to people who use slightly smaller heavier beanbag chairs as weapons, they'd be quite befuddled. now that i'm re-reading what i quoted, it looks like we might agree, since you specifically mentioned that there is no absolute. :)
it's neat to do this sort of thing arbitrarily, and bend your mind into new associations. imagine we ascribed colors to each number...
1 violet
2 magenta
3 red
4 deep purple
5 blue
6 green
7 yellow
8 cyan
9 black
and, instead of numbers, we just used these colors to specify the types. it might not seem that some of these colors don't fit, and others do. however, if you just started using these colors, then suddenly blue things would take on a 5ish characteristic in your mind. if someone were to start talking about color associations and egram types, and it was a different system, then there'd be a tendency for us to call him "wrong," when really it's completely arbitrary.
isaac