the same question occurred to me a while ago...
for a true creative to extrovert at that level is very difficult but not impossible... a true creative sepoy is almost impossible to manufacture, except in cases where the true creative and the external power have no overlap in domain.. saddam was such.. his domain was only personal..
the shells and masks which are assumed by the true creative in stressful circumstances are actually the roles of Shakespeare and the relational of SNB.
Buddhism is extroversion of the true creative and introversion of the sensory..
by positing a vulnerable/active "true self" "protected"/"expressed" by the shell/mask, monotheism denies the universality of the relational and buddhist transformation.
the kshayatha and society are actually in a relational...they each protect each other from themselves and maintain ahimsa and untouchabilty, which in mbti is known as "holding back" but is almost always denied by "practitioners" as inferiority complex/confidence complex... that one is oppressing the other is the monotheist stance, and in mbti the same is expressed as type conflict.. in heathen reality, the presence of ahimsa or holding back means that type conflict is basically nonsensical: the domains will not overlap and there is no overarching for the systematization of experience.
modeling is creative Ne. System work is not creative.... So Modi's assumption of system would be his shell in the face of stress, if indeed he is so, and going by standard mbti... also, in which case, he would be "manageable"
but there are problems with mbti....
Even still they usually do not deny, nor it does not occur to them to deny, that Chameleonization is one way for the empath but not for any others. they do not realize that empath chameleonization is in fact role transformation and retransformation and not just stressed role assumption. the narcissistic can assume roles but never become: the absence of values is posited for the narc and the *presence* of the same for the empath. thus the rubric of 'values' serves to deny that chameleonization is not in fact the operation of the relational but is, rather, the state of not being true to one's inmost self..
the narc that is the monotheist is impelled to shell out any cultural-level creativity which threatens to expose that the empath is not his mirror but is in fact a superset. the narc replaces modeling with system; context and experience with ideovalues; anything that can expose the nontransforming nature and hollowness of the narc must be hollowed out...
So it depends on whether modi has assumed the shadow of system in the face of stress, or if he is treating even system as a relational....
for a true creative to extrovert at that level is very difficult but not impossible... a true creative sepoy is almost impossible to manufacture, except in cases where the true creative and the external power have no overlap in domain.. saddam was such.. his domain was only personal..
the shells and masks which are assumed by the true creative in stressful circumstances are actually the roles of Shakespeare and the relational of SNB.
Buddhism is extroversion of the true creative and introversion of the sensory..
by positing a vulnerable/active "true self" "protected"/"expressed" by the shell/mask, monotheism denies the universality of the relational and buddhist transformation.
the kshayatha and society are actually in a relational...they each protect each other from themselves and maintain ahimsa and untouchabilty, which in mbti is known as "holding back" but is almost always denied by "practitioners" as inferiority complex/confidence complex... that one is oppressing the other is the monotheist stance, and in mbti the same is expressed as type conflict.. in heathen reality, the presence of ahimsa or holding back means that type conflict is basically nonsensical: the domains will not overlap and there is no overarching for the systematization of experience.
modeling is creative Ne. System work is not creative.... So Modi's assumption of system would be his shell in the face of stress, if indeed he is so, and going by standard mbti... also, in which case, he would be "manageable"
but there are problems with mbti....
Even still they usually do not deny, nor it does not occur to them to deny, that Chameleonization is one way for the empath but not for any others. they do not realize that empath chameleonization is in fact role transformation and retransformation and not just stressed role assumption. the narcissistic can assume roles but never become: the absence of values is posited for the narc and the *presence* of the same for the empath. thus the rubric of 'values' serves to deny that chameleonization is not in fact the operation of the relational but is, rather, the state of not being true to one's inmost self..
the narc that is the monotheist is impelled to shell out any cultural-level creativity which threatens to expose that the empath is not his mirror but is in fact a superset. the narc replaces modeling with system; context and experience with ideovalues; anything that can expose the nontransforming nature and hollowness of the narc must be hollowed out...
So it depends on whether modi has assumed the shadow of system in the face of stress, or if he is treating even system as a relational....