LVFE - "Lao Tzu"

LAO-ZY 

1) LOGIC ("dogmatic") 

2) WILL ("nobleman") 

3) PHYSICS ("the underdog") 

4) EMOTION ("gawker") 

When one imagines Lao Tzu and with him the type of "Lao Tzu," one sees a thin, not to say handsome man. The face is oval. The gaze is calm, absent-minded, tilted into itself, without glitter. Gesture and facial expressiveness, free. Lao Tzu prefers freedom in his clothes as well, they are usually not flashy and trivial. Her speech flows without difficulties, but is distinguished by emphasized severity of constructions and is replete with expressions, carefully indicating the consistency of her thoughts, such as "firstly, secondly, and so on". In his vocabulary he avoids expressive and expressive turns of phrase. In matters of everyday life, economic, sports seems to be a creature almost helpless. Chadolyubov. The opposite sex is to him what the sun is to the sunflower, but not directly, but as if in impersonalities. 

* * * 

To be fair, it would probably be better to call this type by a double name: "Lao Tzu - Heraclitus". Both philosophers had the same order of functions, and besides they perfectly complement each other by their biographies and works. Almost nothing is known about the life of Lao-tzu, but his main work has survived. Only a few quotations have survived from the works of Heraclitus, but something resembling a biography does exist. Therefore, speaking of the "Lao Tzu" type, we will further appeal to the memory of Heraclitus as well. 

It is only known about Lao-tzu that at the end of his life he left China for the West (for the ancients "west", the side of the sunset, is a common symbol of the afterlife). But at the border he was stopped by a customs officer and at his request wrote a philosophical treatise "Tao de Jing", which immortalized the name of Lao-tzu. That's pretty much it. 

The story of the creation of the Tao de Jing, Lao Tzu's only work, is plausible if not true. What seems credible in it is that Lao Tzu immortalized himself as if in passing, almost forcibly. And it could be so, because a "dogmatist" is a very uncommunicative person, and having solved the most important questions for himself, he usually settles down on this, not sharing the spoils unnecessarily in the future. 

Lao Tzu's 1st Logic is also indicated by the fact that the Tao de Jing is a result, not a process. The Chinese philosopher's views set forth in the treatise are not a subject for discussion, but a dogma that can either be fully accepted or fully rejected. There is no sense of dialogue in the Tao de Jing. The treatise from beginning to end was thought out by one person during the years spent in the silence of the study, very strict, very consistent and does not presuppose objections even in theory. Moreover, the treatise makes an obvious claim to universality, to the fact that its principles would be equally applicable to all elements of existence: significant, insignificant, all kinds. Is it necessary to remind the reader that the monologism and craving for universalism are the brightest of the features of the 1st Logic? 

Although only fragments remain from the works of Heraclitus, the capital and unapologetic nature of his judgments is such that the Greek philosopher's identical position of Lao Tzu on the steps of the functional hierarchy raises no doubts. His intellectual arrogance, which allowed him to entitle his work "About Everything", and declare that he was self-taught, "investigated himself and learned from himself", is an extra confirmation of this. The 1st Logic is clearly indicated by the effective lapidary style of Heraclitus, which was considered "incomparable" in antiquity. 

* * * 

The 2nd Will of this psychotype dictated Lao Tzu and Heraclitus and the very principle of their philosophizing. Both of them are dialectics, i.e. all elements of being are arranged in their systems not hierarchically vertically, but horizontally: being is a derivative of two equal, opposing and interpenetrating principles (light and darkness, good and evil, man and woman, etc.). Every stirring constantly taking place in the universe is the fruit of just such an interpenetration, interflow, leading to the complete transformation of one element into another. This, however, changes nothing on the cosmic scales, which are invariably in equilibrium. Extra-caste is a typical feature of the "noble" psyche. The merit of Lao Tzu and Heraclitus lies only in the fact that they realized the intuitive usually horizontal perception of the world by the 2nd Will and elevated it to the cosmic principle by the 1st Logic. 

In life Heraclitus also behaved quite "noble". He belonged to the royal family, but when the citizens of his native Ephesus thought of seating him on the vacant throne, the city delegation found Heraclitus playing with the children at doughnuts and completely deaf to such a tempting offer. 

There are no clear indications in the literature that Lao Tzu and Heraclitus had the 3rd Physics. Perhaps, only Heraclitus' statement that "sight is a lie" directly testifies to it. Since it is to the products of the activities of the low-ranking functions that man is most distrustful and emphatically, aggressively distrustful of everything related to the Third Function. Therefore, Heraclitus' crude philippicism against vision, a bodily sense, is a weighty argument in favor of the assumption that his Physics is vulnerable. 

Indirectly, it is possible to confirm the presence of the 3rd Physics in both philosophers by the method of exclusion. Emotion was clearly not the Third. Both are so free, so shameless in expressing their feelings, so prolific and easy on brilliant images in conveying dry, abstract philosophical categories, as no "dry men" could do. So the order of functions of Lao Tzu and Heraclitus is correct: 3rd Physics and 4th Emotion. 

* * * 

The "Lao Tzu" type is quite rare and is one of the chief purveyors of class mentalists. I think the names of Aesop, Marcus Aurelius, Shankara, Dionysius the Areopagite, Scotus Erigena, Bonaventure, Pope Sylvester II, Montaigne, Spinoza, Sakharov are able to confirm the high reputation of this psychotype. 

In all his characteristics, Lao Tzu is a typical intellectual: absent-minded, low-communicative, eternally immersed in his own thoughts, though not alien to aesthetic demands. He is firm in his principles, but tolerant, kind and honest in the details. His appearance is usually unassuming, he is prudish, ascetic, neoprotivleness, pacifism, though in dreams rare brawler and roving. As any "dogmatist", "Lao-tzu" is rather heavy in communication, categorical, dark in speech and not delicate in conclusions, but since his "dogmatism" is colored by "nobility", even being in his native element of reasoning, he is not so hopelessly deaf to other people's opinions as one could expect, and in general he is intellectually completely relaxed person, if not to say - an intellectual cynic. 

In everything that does not concern the delicate intellectual sphere, however, Lao Tzu is open, accessible, and tolerant. He has no aesthetics of his own (4th Emotion), so he is omnivorous in the arts and his art criticism is non-partisan. Lao Tzu's rich soul and skinny purse are always open to his neighbor, and there is some truth in the words of those who knew Bonaventure when they said, "By Brother Bonaventure one would think that Adam had not sinned. 

* * * 

How the "Lao Tzu" looks and acts in the political arena can be seen in the examples of English Prime Minister Gladstone and Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. 

The biographer of Marcus Aurelius describes him as follows: "Already from his early years he was distinguished by his seriousness...As a boy he studied philosophy intensively. When he was twelve years old, he began to dress like a philosopher, and observe the rules of abstinence; he studied in a Greek cloak, slept on the ground, and his mother hardly persuaded him to lie down on a bed covered with skins ... 

He was distinguished by his pliability, and could sometimes be induced to go to watch a hunt in a circus, to appear in a theater, or to attend a spectacle. He was also engaged in painting under the direction of Diognetus. He loved fist-fighting, wrestling, running, and catching birds; he had a special inclination to play ball and to hunt. But from all these inclinations he was distracted by philosophical pursuits, which made him serious and concentrated. From this, however, his affability did not disappear... He was honest without intransigence, humble without weakness, serious without sullenness... 

When his family asked him why he accepted the imperial adoption with such sorrow, he outlined to them the troubles of imperial power... 

During the famine he issued bread from Rome to the Italian cities and in general he took care of the bread supply. He restricted in every way the spectacles at which gladiators performed... 

Among other proofs of Mark's humanity the following manifestation of his solicitude deserves special mention: he ordered to put cushions for the rope dancers, after several boys fell; since then and to this day a net is stretched under the rope...( a very expressive, but long forgotten gift to the world circus from the 3rd Physique wrapped in the imperial purple - A.A.) 

He addressed the people as was customary in a free state. He showed exceptional tact on all occasions when it was necessary to keep people from evil, or to induce them to good, to richly reward some, to justify - by showing leniency - others. He made bad people good and good people excellent, calmly tolerating even the ridicule of some." 

An important indicator of psychotypic stability is that "Lao-tzu's" politics does not depend on the political system in which he is nurtured, but grows as if from an internal, autonomous from the environment, core of the personality. To see this, it is enough to compare the portrait of the absolute monarch Marcus Aurelius with the portrait of William Gladstone, Prime Minister of a semi-democratic country, as England was in the Victorian era. 

William Gladstone, who served repeatedly as prime minister, was one of the most remarkable figures of Queen Victoria's time, a jewel in the English political firmament. According to Gladstone's biographer, who has attempted to paint a political portrait of him, "In the literature on Gladstone one may find the opinion that in fact he was always independent among his comrades and did not really belong to any party. There is much truth in this. Gladstone himself once said that parties are not in themselves a good thing, that party organization is necessary and indispensable only as a sure means to a higher end. In addition to his independence with regard to questions of party organization, another important feature of Gladstone's political outlook, which is already hinted at in his speech to the electorate on October 9, 1832, is his firm conviction that "sound general principles" must be the basis of political action in the first place. The peculiar properties of his outstanding mind, clarity and logical thinking developed in him this characteristic trait, which appeared early and never weakened. Throughout his activity, he was constantly looking for and finding a fundamental basis for the views and actions of each moment... The more the range of phenomena available to his observation, the clearer the democratic movement of the century appeared before him, the more convincing became his legitimate demands. He could not help doubting the justice and correctness of the views which the Conservative party continued to hold. Gladstone's intrinsic desire to find the principled basis of any social movement, in connection with his highly honest views of life and demanding attitude to himself, helped him to arrive at the right answer to the question: where is truth, where is justice... Gladstone was fundamentally a foe of war and of all violence ... Gladstone's 1850 definition of the role of Foreign Secretary, in an argument with Lord Palmerston over Greek affairs, is highly characteristic. His task is "the preservation of the world, and one of his first duties is the strict application of that code of great principles which has been bequeathed to us by former generations of great and noble minds." He ended this speech with a fervent invitation to recognize the equality of the strong and the weak, the independence of small states, and generally to renounce political interference in the affairs of another state. Gladstone allowed, however, and even demanded, deviations from the latter rule if humanity dictated it. 

Summarizing everything said before about Marcus Aurelius and Gladstone, we can reduce the characterization of the "Lao Tzu" engaged in the political field to one phrase: he is a thoughtful figure, a natural democrat, a man, almost excessively compassionate, caring and peaceful (1st Logic, 2nd Will, 3rd Physics).Which, depending on the political context, can be both a plus and a minus.