For reasons of simplification I will begin with this observation: people sometimes love one thing and decide as if they didn't.  For instance, you may love your family, but decide to do them harm.  You may believe in justice but act unjustly.  If you've just paid attention though, you might note that each item in the list has two sides: that which is important to you, and that which you decide to do or not.  In Roman times we may have called the two sides "theoria" and "praxis" but for now I will be referring to the first as "ontological" and the second as "epistemological" for reasons to which I will come shortly.

People have desires.  Abram Maslow laid out one scheme and argued a hierarchical nature  to his scheme, with the highest desire being that of "self-actualization."  I like that concept myself, for as I observe people I find that they strive to live in such a manner that they perceive themselves as important, real, significant, loved, and all that.  In other words, I think we all seek to intensify the ontological world in which we live.  But we don't all "live" in the same world.

This particular paragraph is a condensation of four pages of text explaining the history of the three ontological worlds reflected by language.  If anybody wishes to discuss these three worlds, I can supply the text I cut here.  But, in short, the three ways language presents three ontological worlds are: logo-centric, ethiotic and pathos.  The logo centric is how each communication act presents a reason or logic within it's grammatical and syntactical presentation.  This is what the words on the page mean without the social or poetic context.  Pure math would be the only fully logocentric speech act.  The second world is that of the social relationship.  Every speech act assumes a relationship between the speaker and the audience.  It may say, at the most basic level, present the dominant and submissive positions, challenge the current state of the relationship, or any number of other possibilities.  The third world is that of the poetic or literary and focuses on the nuances of emotion and beauty within the act.  Eloquence is the closest term we have for what is contained in this.  Alliteration, assonance, and other literary devices abound in effective speech.  The three ontological types within every speech act speak to persons in different ways.  Some people are more prone to respond to the social or eithotic aspects of the speech act, and we call them ontological societists.  A second group may attend more to the logo-centric aspects of the speech act and we call them ontological mentalists.  And finally, those who attend more to the poetic or literary aspects of the speech, the "pathos" we call ontological physicalists.

The same three categories are also used to classify how we express ourselves in our decisions and speech.  This, "epistemological" side means that when you speak you tend to emphasize or gravitate toward expressions which reflect one of these worlds more than the others.  Thus, we would speak of you as an "epistemological societist, an epistemological mentalist or an epistemological physicalist.    Thus, there are, in this schema of personality, nine categories.  When referring to these nine it is common practice among the people developing this theory, to use a two word descriptor with the first referring to the ontological and the second to the epistemological sides.  Thus, "physicalist mentalist" would be an ontologicial physicalist (a person who 'lives in' and seeks self-actualization in the physical world - i.e. the external world of action or the internal world of emotion-- but makes decisions and expresses himself or herself in terms of logic and reasoning.

Much of the controversy regarding my own writing stems not from any of the logic or evidence I use, but from the fact that almost all the respondents are societist -- either mentalists or physicalists.

Thus, there are two primary categories of opponents to me in the forums: the societist-mentalist, and the societist-physicalist.  (Societist-Societist are extremely rare, as are mentalist-mentalists and physicalist-physicalists).  In a moment I'll lay out what the two groups are about and see if you don't agree that their language and approach to my postings doesn't reflect their personalities.  But first a short few paragraphs on societists in general.

Remember Plato?  Remember his "guardians?"  Societists are almost always "guardians."  Their reaction to an attack upon the group (remember they read the language act as relationship), is to band together and defend the common values of the group.  In doing so they "actualize" those values and feel more "actualized" themselves. 

In addition, the guardians tend to be active in the social context.  You see them in GC and the forums for that is where the social action occurs.  It is also, I think, why they can't just ignore me.  I'm in "their" bailiwick and I'm making a mess of their comfort zone....in other words, I'm hurting them by attacking their social world by claiming that they are not treating others well and are, in fact, hurting the world of relationships in which they dwell...that is, I'm claiming they are "bad" for there own "world."

In addition they take askance at my putting myself in the role of their "teacher."  What I see as offering information and reasoning, they see, as putting myself "above" them, meaning by contrast I am putting them down...a definite no-no to the societist of the world as social standing is very important.  Neither of us is wrong.  It is not something reflecting "wrong" or "right" so much as what we hear in language.  And as long as we don't understand each other, we will continue at loggerheads.

But there is hope.  And while I am tempted to name names (and actually wrote this part with names laid out), I will not, but leave it up to the reader to review the posts of my opponents and see if you can find what I find.

If you remember I said that there are two sides to a persons personality?  I've been speaking of the ontological side.  That's the "world" in which you live.   Get this if you get nothing else: none of this has anything to do with how "smart" a person is.  It's not about intelligence, but about the world in which you "live."  I thought I'd clarify that at this point because, being a mentalist, you might be tempted to think I belief mentalists smarter or more capable than non-mentalists.  Now back to the program.

So what about the other side?  What about the epistemological side?

The epistemological side of a persons personality deals not with what he or she hears, but what he or she speaks and decides.  In other words, the subject may be the social (the ontological) but if a person is a epistemological mentalist he or she will speak in a more measured or reasoned manner. 

In addition, an epistemological societist will decide thing based upon his or her sense of the groups beliefs about right and wrong.  I'm not speaking about the groups stated or formal creed (though that too in part of the mix), so much as what is appropriate ...that which protects the groups identity, enhances the groups experience, etc...

Now the epistemological mentalist is more cautious and is more committed to the creeds of the group exactly because those creeds are often more formal.  An epistemological mentalist take his or her time making decisions because he or she has to work it out. 

And what of the epistemological physicalist?  They are the most intuitive of the bunch often leaping to conclusions other do not see (and perhaps are not warranted), and using experience, intuition and passion to present their ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc.

And that's at the highest level of personality measurement.  We do four levels and the total breakdown, based upon language usage is 144 types.  But I'm not about to go any deeper than I've already gone.  (Did I hear a collective sigh of relief here?)

I once, in writing this, promised to name names. but I'll now leave it to you.

[8 players listed here] and a few others are all, in my opinion and based upon their posts, societists-mentalists.  (It's pretty funny but all my close friends end up being societist-mentalists because the match up is pretty good...but I won't bore you with even more details about match ups).  These, you might note, present ideas more gently and with more curiosity, and, because they are societist, with a (good) tendency to attempt to clarify other peoples points  Like all societist the unity of the group is of prime importance and when they experience a higher level of cohesiveness they achieve a higher degree of self-actualization.  These are the glue that hold thing together in groups.

The writings of these types are focused on reconciling members of the group by presenting understanding.  If challenges are made they are measured and civil. 

Another list of names.

[4 members mentioned by name here], and several others are, in my opinion, societists-physicalists.  Thus, their wittings, in contrast to the societist-mentalist are more terse, pointed and intense.  Because their world is one of concrete focus their ideas often are more rigid and and give a sense of trying to show proof to construct a point.  They focus on actual examples and legal definitions more.  As with all physicalist it is the observational aspect of truth which speaks to them and so they sometimes get frustrated by the theoretical and/or esoteric.  These are the enforcers of the group cohesion.  And they are the ones most likely to take disagreements to the physical level.

My own personality type is mentalist-physicalist.  If you've given this some thought you can see that, I don't have a lot of sensitivity to social cues because neither of my sides focuses on that.  Thus, any social claims you may make about me may be perfectly clear to you, but I just can't see them.  Each of us has a blind spot because there are three worlds, only two of which we use effectively.

The point of all this is simple.  As the old French adverb says: "To understand all it so forgive all."   Thus, if for no other reason I find these descriptions account for much of the tension I've experienced in Illyriad.

Why are our personalities as they are?  I believe that it's he wiring we get. Or maybe  our experiences.  Or maybe both.  And since that covers it all, it means I don't know.  But like I said, concepts that are pragmatically useful do not need to be ontologically real.

And how are these useful here in Illyriad? 

First, it's useful for me to remember that I'm speaking primarily to societists, which is normal in politically charged debates.  Most guardians cannot resist the urge to guard their social group even if the guy attacking is sitting over in a closet, the door of which is closed and of which nobody need open.  Most societists are guardians at heart and the ultimate truth is social cohesiveness.

Mentalists, on the other hand, find ultimate truth in ideas.  They are relentless analysts and in cannot help but answer any statement with, "yes, but..."  If they are on the metaphoric side they tend to be far in front of the pack in theory, but sometimes end up wandering into spaces strange and challenging to their social peers and even, horror of horrors, irrational.  But not always.

In addition, if they are not mentalists-societists, but either mentalist-mentalists (extremely rare) or mentalists-physicalist (not as rare, but still pretty unique) they are very insensitive to the social nuances of their words and often appear to be attacking when, to themselves, they are merely using the actual grammatical meaning of the words to convey the truth.  One of the things they constantly ask is: what in the words I used is not true?   In other words, language to them is like a set of building blocks.  They put them together into a wall, not noticing that, due to the colors of the blocks, if you step back, the wall reads, "you are an idiot."  The societist would immediately read the wall and assume the insult was intentional and any denial simply aimed at "plausible deniability" or some other social slight of hand to make an excuse.

Reverse the situation though and see how hard it would be for a societist to actually face a truth which would harm the cohesiveness of the group.  If the wall separates the group, even if it doesn't say "your an idiot" it separates the group.  It's an attack on the group.  Attacks on relationships are attacks on reality, to a societist.  Thus, it is very difficult for them to take any implication that the group is being self-destructive by using this or that line of reasoning.  In our current situation I make a moral argument which paints some people in a bad light.  It's not my intention, but to a societist it's an attack on the person or persons to claim they are doing something morally harmful, for morals are the very foundation of social cohesion.

On the other hand, I get very frustrated when I perceive a refusal to "own up to" the truth and logic of what I am saying because to me, that is to deny reality itself.  As a mentalist I live in a world of ideas, and the logic of my ideas is as real to me as relationships are to a societist.

Thus, we miss each other.  I want societists to take my words as logic and truth in a concretes sense because to me ideas are concrete.  Most societists want me to stop hurting their vision of the cohesiveness of the group because that is what reality is to them.  That is their "truth."

Bridging this gap is not easy, but can be done, I think.

First, remember I'm an idiot when it comes to hearing the relationship part of language.  Thus, I will sound condescending, I will sound like I'm attacking the group, and I will sound like I don't care.  But I do.  And I hope people do see that when I say I'm sorry it's because somebody has pointed out the exact place where I implied something about somebody I did not intend to imply and from their showing me, I could see it. 

Second, I will continue to not take offense when you do not engage (in my opinion) in the actual logic of what I'm saying, and will try to tone down the terseness that is so often seen as a "diatribe."  It will be hard because I've been trained to attack, attack, attack, the logic or lack of logic (as I see it) of my opponents and to not spare their feelings in the matter.  But feeling do matter and I need to try to see where I'm causing harm needlessly.

So, as I'm constantly reminded, "words have consequences."  That we react differently to the same words and wonder why what is clear to us isn't clear to the others, only suggests we live in different worlds. 

In the end understanding our different approaches to language which reflect our personalities might help us to remove a lot of the tension that has built up.  I've tried to increase my willingness to say I'm sorry -- which means I've tried as of late to "hear" better the social communication of what others are saying.  I've tried to move the conversation back to the "logic" of things, but understand that I also need to focus more on how the actions impact the health of the game and less on the moral aspects. 

"And that's my theory and I'm sticking to it"  LOL

AJ