• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Conversation between John Fudjack and Lenore Thomson

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So what did you think about the conversation?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So what did you think about the conversation?

They both like to ramble on. I finally learned Fudjack's MBTI type. His viewpoint is very reminiscent of Hurley and Dobson's. Does anybody here know about the negative/positive masculine archetype and the negative/positive feminine archetype? Somehow, they believe, the feminine side is exerting itself against male-dominated western culture, leading to societal evolution. Fudjack in the conversation was crying about the over-population of ESTJs in the upper echelons of corporations. ESTJs are also a highly masculine-oriented type. Some females are ESTJs, of course, but it's really not about gender, it's about gender archetypes.

I would be more satisfied to know what a balance of feminine and masculine archetypes would actually look like in society. Fudjack and Lenore can yammer all they want about it, but as usual, ivory tower idealists are very unrealistic about the ideas they profess. Consider that the feminine archetypal idea of corporate structure is highly non-structured, and more democratic. Is the ideal society going to have a little of both?

My interest in this was simply the fact that these two thinkers had a conversation at all, although it was over 10 years ago.

My knowledge of John Fudjack is slim. I have only seen a couple pictures of him, and I know that he likes to ramble on about the evils of "professionalism." (Don't ask me...) Apparently Fudjack worked in a mental hospital as a security guard back in the 1960s, and was disgusted by the treatment of patients. I think it had to do primarily with the holding method which is still in practice today. Somehow, professionalism is to blame for this and other evils.

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page15.html
 
Top