#pragmatic conservatism

[pomoculture]

The Wage-Reality

The gender pay-gap was something pushed by a rage-click journalist culture to feed a hellbent activist culture. Often times when I speak to people about the fairness of working less hours and/or laborious jobs for less money, bristles flair, but the sad fact is most people don’t know how those statistics construe hours (part-time employments and/or overtime) and lower paying jobs (How many female firefighters can one expect by ratios?) to be irrelevant to the “Big Title”. There are only so many non-physical jobs that women can fill. It has to be recognized as a limiter and even a second-hand experience limiter for jobs that involve the administration of physical labor. Are we just going to decide, on no other merit than "equality of outcome", that administration is as hard and worth as much as mining? Not only this, but Nordic countries, often considered the most liberal and feminist leaned governments of the world, have demonstrated that with more freedom, men and women choose more stereotypical jobs of their gender. People want to be effective, that’s intrinsic in any effort we care about, can we please stop pushing nonsense for diversity’s sake alone?

[mariacallous]

in our desperation to "learn from" this election i do think people are getting attached too soon to what type of campaign or candidate should be run in future elections (if we have them). obama was not necessarily the logical answer to eight years of bush era conservatism. trump was definitely not the logical answer to eight years of moderate pragmatic progressivism under obama. we don't know what people will want. i certainly didn't know biden would be what (enough) people wanted after trump part one, i was wrong for that. i'm seeing "we can never run a woman" "we're getting another bill clinton neolib now" we don't know any of that, actually, and frankly i think it's dumb to speculate on at this point. let's just get through the next few years.

I tend to agree - I think it was agraybee, fka brainstatic here on tumblr, who made the point that if you had said in 2004 a black man with Hussein in his name would have been not only nominated for president but win, he would have laughed at you. The "What's The Matter With Kansas?" author doesn't mention Obama either, and that came out in 2006. John Edwards was once the young bright future of the party.

[themindmovement]

“In a traditional German toilet, the hole into which shit disappears after we flush is right at the front, so that shit is first laid out for us to sniff and inspect for traces of illness. In the typical French toilet, on the contrary, the hole is at the back, i.e. shit is supposed to disappear as quickly as possible. Finally, the American (Anglo-Saxon) toilet presents a synthesis, a mediation between these opposites: the toilet basin is full of water, so that the shit floats in it, visible, but not to be inspected. [...] It is clear that none of these versions can be accounted for in purely utilitarian terms: each involves a certain ideological perception of how the subject should relate to excrement. Hegel was among the first to see in the geographical triad of Germany, France and England an expression of three different existential attitudes: reflective thoroughness (German), revolutionary hastiness (French), utilitarian pragmatism (English). In political terms, this triad can be read as German conservatism, French revolutionary radicalism and English liberalism. [...] The point about toilets is that they enable us not only to discern this triad in the most intimate domain, but also to identify its underlying mechanism in the three different attitudes towards excremental excess: an ambiguous contemplative fascination; a wish to get rid of it as fast as possible; a pragmatic decision to treat it as ordinary and dispose of it in an appropriate way. It is easy for an academic at a round table to claim that we live in a post-ideological universe, but the moment he visits the lavatory after the heated discussion, he is again knee-deep in ideology.”

— Slavoj Žižek, The Plague of Fantasies

[odinsblog]

Truly impressive what Minnesota accomplished with only a one seat majority

“…in addition to having a one-vote margin, this was not a radical left-wing legislature! There are plenty of moderate Dems here.

But the moderates, unlike (centrist) Dems elsewhere, still wanted to get stuff done and saw progressives as partners in making that happen.”

Rather than looking at the November numbers result and imposing some kind of self-limiting narrative about the scope of their mandate, MN Dems looked at their priorities and said "How much of the list can we get done?"

Turns out the answer was, "Almost everything."

Republicans did not worry about appeasing the sensibilities of Democratic voters when they rammed through Trump’s unqualified Supreme Court Justices, and then gutted Roe v. Wade.

THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS, whenever Dems have political power, instead of performatively agonizing about “reaching across the aisle” to compromise with Fascistic Republicans, or pontificating over & worrying about what Republican voters might think, they need to focus on one thing and one thing only: accomplishing ALL the good they can while they still can. Like Minnesota just did.

Dems need to be bold, and press through their base’s policies whenever they have the opportunity, not finger wag and tell us why the things we want are impossible and won’t ever happen.

“Pragmatically” “triangulating” and waiting for the “right” time, or waiting for a “better” time to do what is right only helps Republicans buy more time to entrench.

Time is a luxury that most poor and marginalized people simply cannot afford. Democratic politicians need to understand what MLKjr meant when he spoke of being wonderfully maladjusted, and the fierce urgency of now! and why he scornfully viewed moderate (centrist) whites as an even greater threat to progress than the KKK.

Minnesota is a solidly midwestern state. Hopefully if nothing else, Minnesota’s impressive list of recent accomplishments will belie the common DNC political “wisdom” that only conservatism-lite will work in middle America.

[lurinatftbn]

Hello! To preface this question: this is truly not intended to be an accusation or anything, I genuinely just want to understand some of the worldbuilding in your novel which I’ve been reading recently. I’m not all the way finished, I think I’m about at chapter 45~? So if this gets brought up later feel free to just let me know and leave it at that.

My question is: why has the gender norm stayed in place in this world? It’s been something I’ve been stuck on since the conversions concerning Fang and Ophelia. In a society where it’s highly recommended that you change the face and general appearance of either yourself or your children to prevent paradoxical incidents, I’m struggling to understand why a firm gender binary would still be socially accepted as correct - wouldn’t a significant amount of people opt for an androgynous presentation anyway to avoid paradoxes from masc/fem instances of the same body? I can understand why the order would have the whole girls to one side guys to the other from a doylist perspective, it helps solidify the conservatism of the order for the reader compared to the protagonists. But I am genuinely struggling with how and why the gender binary persists for any other reason, even in older generations. The way Fang’s talked about is extremely odd considering the casual conversations about sexuality, especially considering the conversation where people tried to figure out what they are that’s mentioned.

Again, very genuine question, and thank you for reading!

Hi, thanks for your question!

To correct what I think might be a misconception first, changing ones appearance in the setting as an adult is not particularly common - when the characters talk about 'distinction treatment', what they're usually referring to is altering their genetics away from that of their seed in utero or early childhood, resulting in them developing a different appearance naturally. Adult distinction treatment or plain cosmetic medicine exists, but is much less common.

As for the rest, the answer is, pretty boringly, that the world of TFTBN is broadly socially conservative, since the cultures in the setting were largely founded by people who rejected the transhumanism of the Imperial Era and then embraced an even more entrenched traditionalism in response to the collapse. I don't think this is an outlook that comes from a necessarily pragmatic or logical place; by nature, social conservatism values the upholding of firm societal roles for their own sake rather than in pursuit of any sort of utility. Obviously even in our own world there are lots of conventions around gender and sexuality that don't really make sense any more, but are upheld for that reason.

There are a lot of ways in which the society of the story is supposed to come across as a little ridiculous in how far it goes to hold on to its perception of a more 'natural' past, and the sort of world that creates when the older generations can never really be forced to cede cultural power in the way they are in reality.

There's more I could say from a doylist angle, but you might be a bit too early in the story for that.

[kiki-de-la-petite-flaque]

In a traditional German toilet, the hole into which shit disappears after we flush is right at the front, so that shit is first laid out for us to sniff and inspect for traces of illness. In the typical French toilet, on the contrary, the hole is at the back, i.e. shit is supposed to disappear as quickly as possible. Finally, the American (Anglo-Saxon) toilet presents a synthesis, a mediation between these opposites: the toilet basin is full of water, so that the shit floats in it, visible, but not to be inspected. [...] It is clear that none of these versions can be accounted for in purely utilitarian terms: each involves a certain ideological perception of how the subject should relate to excrement. Hegel was among the first to see in the geographical triad of Germany, France and England an expression of three different existential attitudes: reflective thoroughness (German), revolutionary hastiness (French), utilitarian pragmatism (English). In political terms, this triad can be read as German conservatism, French revolutionary radicalism and English liberalism. [...] The point about toilets is that they enable us not only to discern this triad in the most intimate domain, but also to identify its underlying mechanism in the three different attitudes towards excremental excess: an ambiguous contemplative fascination; a wish to get rid of it as fast as possible; a pragmatic decision to treat it as ordinary and dispose of it in an appropriate way. It is easy for an academic at a round table to claim that we live in a post-ideological universe, but the moment he visits the lavatory after the heated discussion, he is again knee-deep in ideology.

― Slavoj Žižek, The Plague of Fantasies

[mchiti]

The American black and white thinking is so crazy and the worst part is that it seems like it’s infecting every online space. Like even for minor things like football opinions or music/film reviews you see it. It’s even worse when it’s serious things like what’s happening with Liam. I’m 100% convinced that if Britney Spears were going through her breakdown today, young “progressive” Americans would try to find some problematic thing she said or did to justify bullying her. They like to pretend that they’re better than previous generations but they’re not, they just their cruelty under a progressive veneer.

right? ... just to give you an idea one of my fave korean artists had a minor incident months ago, he fell off an electric scooter by himself (was proceeding pretty slow on the cycle lane and all). he had drank something tho (not much but right enough to exceed) and so had his license revoked and a whole mess followed. now you would expect south korean media to be quite harsh on it because artists there are supposed to be perfect 24/7 (it's ugly but it is what it is) but if you go on certain dominantly american sites (redd*t, ohnoth*ydidnt, any other gossipy-starbiz dedicated forum like that) is full of american lashing their cruelty because "well doesn't matter it was an e-scooter, still ugly, still fucked up, still messed from him, so fuck him, there's no excuse for..." and fuck him fuck him fuck him etc.

like bruh at some point we need to address this toxicity for real and when I say it is embedded in their culture it's because it truly is. USA literally created a bipartisan system, they only have two political parties competing, they divided the whole world into the good side (them + the west) and the bad (ussr + allies) and they keep doing it now (christians vs muslims, west vs east, capitalism vs communism, conservatism vs progress...). it's a very pragmatic culture after all, always has been. you either do good or you do bad, you're either socially acceptable or you're fucked. one single mistake, one single word said wrong and you're fucked for life. this punitive thinking dressed as being progressive and woke... when in fact it sounds pretty fascist to me. extremely fascist.

of course not all americans are like that but in general I don't think usa (and in a minor stance the brits tbh) ever got rid of their inner catholic puritanism tbh. Human beings are complicated and complex and nuanced and deep and sometimes contradictory. they can be beautiful, they can also be terrible, but they are still humans. Cancelling someone over one single word out of place or one single mistake...of course in the case of LP he did way more than that. Of course he had to pay. but what part of me showing some sadness for a young life ended like that means siding with the "oppressor" ? all these big words pronounced and not an once of empathy towards anything or anyone. what world is this really? might work in the individualist capitalist bubble they live in but I'm not into that.

[mswyrr]

In the minds of neoliberal and conservative world leaders, western civilization is a collapsing box. Inside the box, we have habitable land and intact supply lines. Basically, we have the means of survival divvied up by the norms of capitalism. As habitable land decreases and supply lines break, the capitalist solution is not to help the land or displaced people recover. It’s to push more people out of the box as it collapses. From the neoliberal perspective, this will be framed as a matter of pragmatism and inevitability. From a fascist perspective, it will be framed as a recovery of the natural order. Borders are one of the primary mechanisms by which people are boxed out of potential realms of survival. But even within those habitable realms, mechanisms of carcerality also subdivide our access to resources and livable conditions through various modes of containment, including house arrest, institutionalization, and the use of jails and prisons. Deprivation and debilitation are imposed externally and internally by leaders whose primary role is the maintenance of capitalist norms. As mass migration leads to increased conservatism, and mass death and mass murder are further normalized, we will need resistance movements grounded in an ethics of care and a refusal to abandon one another. Antifascist and anti-authoritarian politics must exist in opposition to ideas about human disposability that will be adopted as common sense by the majority of the public. The pandemic has already widened the scope of normalized disposability in the US, with those who cannot survive COVID infections being deemed expendable for the sake of capitalist normalcy.

[the-microphone-explodes]

In my opinion, radical anything, isn’t good. That’s why I dislike posts like “what radicalized you” or “[blank] radicalized me”. Any ideology that refuses to examine nuance and build itself towards pragmatic solutions can very quickly turn dangerous and often, I would say, fascist. This goes for both radical leftism and radical conservatism. Radicalization is not a good thing.

[nostalgicamerica]

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

This quote uttered by Reagan is curious so I had to look up when it was first said by him. I agree with the concept of this quote and have always lived by this credo. The current attitude toward the January 6 riots that went on at the Capitol and his divisiveness in the Country is something we haven't ever experienced before. Trump Republicans want to sweep all of this aside and move on. I don't agree with that. Online chatter is fueling a lot of these dangerous people to come out in full force in a violent wave. The people involved in the Capitol riots that day are getting their day in Court and will be held accountable for their actions. While I think that the Former President did incite the insurrection, he never told them to break into the Capitol and bludgeon Police officers. The people that did that should be held accountable for those actions. Lady Justice is a patient entity.

Reagan made this statement twelve years before he became president, at a Republican platform meeting in 1968.  He said it in response to the urban rioting that was taking place in the aftermath of the Martin Luther King assassination.  He was arguing that the people who were breaking the law were responsible for their actions.  He was right.  He was also arguing that he and all of his like-minded conservatives had absolutely no responsibility for the societal conditions that existed at the time.  He was wrong.

In the book of Genesis, the Fall of Man is attributed to their consumption of a fruit (traditionally an apple) from the Tree of Knowledge.  The effects were immediate and tragic and eventually led to the murder of their second-born son, Abel, by their first-born son, Cain.

When Cain was questioned about his brother’s whereabouts, he asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”  It is interesting that conservatives, many of whom consider their conservatism a moral byproduct of their faith, cling to a quote that seems to be answering that question with a firm no.

Well spoken, although I respectfully disagree with a point or two.

I don't consider my conservatism as an offshoot of my faith.

While my political beliefs have shifted from time to time (I was a flaming liberal in my college days), my religious beliefs have never changed to any great degree. The two are not at all intertwined.

In my case, politics is based in the pragmatic and emotionless belief that the central government should be run as spelled out in the Constitution. I'm a 10th Amendment deconstructionist which basically means the federal government has a few enumerated powers and all other issues should be left to the states. Period.

We have it all backwards.

----

My faith, on the other hand, does tell me I am my brother's keeper. I have an obligation to help my fellow travelers if I am able, to love my neighbor as myself, and be a good steward of this earth.

----

As to the 'January 6' debacle, I have a completely different take. I do not believe Trump incited anything. It is my considered belief that a largely innocuous incursion by unarmed grandmothers, and a few barking moonbats (who were invited into the Capital Building by security guards, by the way) has been hyped as the greatest threat faced by the republic by the media, democrats, and establishment republicans.

Please! These are the same folks, who, only months before were calling violent, destructive riots in major cities across the country 'peaceful protests' and urging people to join in the burning.

In my view January 6 was nothing more than a useful and expedient political tool to 'get' Trump. Boy howdy, knocking over a few stanchions and sitting in the Speaker's chair sure did threaten the underpinnings of our way of life. I have to say I was curled up in a fetal position in one of my closets, quivering in fear, until at least January 9th.

Of course, I could be wrong...

[pomoculture]

The Beginning

Post-modern philosophy has a lot to answer for in the reformation of western culture. Spear-headed by the famous philosopher, Jacques Derrida, post-modernism, or POMO, makes a series of logical steps to reduce reality to all be social construction. Since our minds are wired in a mostly consistent way with each other, we manage to ascribe reason and likeness similarly. But “Nay!” says Derrida, these natural constants are just arbitrary paradigms that could’ve been so rearranged as to undo truth itself. “Perception is reality” is the word on the street, and like most catch phrases, it has its place where its very applicable, but I take issue when I hear people say this as if it’s a universal truth (which I have more than I want to count). Reality is only found by the exchange between minds, not in the unchecked opinions or fantasies of individuals. Undermining that understanding can often produce some very funny results, but its begun harming people and shifting the very Overton Window of our culture. If you’re already in a camp similar to mine, I’ll be posting some thoughts of how we got here. If you’re undecided or all for it, I’ll be making arguments for why it’s wrong, harmful, and maybe if I’m feeling frisky, even posit what I think is right in its stead.

[mariacallous]

Back in September, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that the Kremlin was hoping for a Harris victory in the U.S. presidential election. Though the statement drew widespread skepticism, there may be some logic behind it, given the Kremlin’s expectations of what could unfold if she won. Kremlin insiders told Meduza that Putin’s political team was banking on Republicans refusing to accept the results and sparking protests that could lead to civil unrest — conveniently diverting attention from the war in Ukraine. For more insight into how Putin’s administration views Trump’s victory, Meduza special correspondent Andrey Pertsev spoke with sources inside the Kremlin.

In the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election, the Kremlin’s political team hoped the results might spark protests reminiscent of the January 2021 riot at the Capitol, insiders told Meduza.

“Society there is even more polarized now, and back then, protests escalated to the point of storming the Capitol. Protests could have been a logical outcome of that polarization [after this election]. The main bet wasn’t so much on any particular candidate winning but on the losing side refusing to accept the results,” said a source close to Putin’s administration. Another Kremlin insider confirmed this account.

According to these sources, the Kremlin hoped such a crisis would force American authorities to focus on domestic issues rather than their standoff with Russia. However, that bet doesn’t seem to have paid off, as U.S. media reports show Democrats are preparing to concede defeat.

For a long time, Kremlin insiders told Meduza, Russian officials saw Kamala Harris’s victory as the most likely, “baseline” scenario, and expected Republicans to reject the outcome and stage protests. Yet a few weeks ago, they shifted their view toward Trump, citing Harris’s “lackluster campaign,” despite U.S. experts and polls indicating both candidates had roughly equal chances.

Both sources close to the president’s office noted that Russian elites generally have a “soft spot” for Trump. One of them explained:

It’s not exactly rational. He’s just a familiar type, a flashy guy — no, not just a guy, more like our kind of guy. He talks about conservatism, he’s rich, successful, and he doesn’t insult Russia. A decent guy. It was the same eight years ago. Sure, the optimism waned after some of his actions [like the sanctions he imposed during his first term], but the fondness remained. Trump is still somewhat ‘our guy’ — in the sense that he’s like us.

In comparison, Kamala Harris “was perceived as someone totally incomprehensible,” the source added.

A senior regional official who spoke to Meduza on condition of anonymity said that he’s also sympathetic to Trump, whom he sees as a “flashy politician” who “might try to resolve the conflict [with Ukraine].” A State Duma deputy from the United Russia party echoed this sentiment: “The mood is like, what if? What if he really tries? The current president [Joe] Biden or [Vice President Kamala] Harris certainly wouldn’t make any gestures towards Russia.”

However, a source close to the Russian government and one of the sources close to the Kremlin expressed doubt that Trump’s election can drastically change the relationship between Russia and the U.S.

“The [reason for optimism] is not very clear. Trump is an impulsive person — he wants to get his way,” said the source close to the government. “Maybe he’ll have some impact on Ukraine, but a deal means making concessions, including from Russia. And so far, it doesn’t look like President [Putin] is ready for any concessions. Trump may have a businessman’s approach, guided by pragmatism. But the people on our side aren’t businessmen — that’s the issue.”

A source close to the Kremlin summed up the situation like this:

The [Russian] president is building an anti-Western coalition, including with people who Trump considers enemies — like China, for example. This is no longer the Putin we had in 2016. Concessions are no longer part of his approach.

[acti-veg]

are people who are left wing wishful thinkers? would the economy be damaged in a very left wing society?

I don’t think that left wingers are any more wishful thinkers or ‘naive’ than right wingers are. Many right wing people hold on to blatantly anti-scientific views, many think unfettered capitalism will somehow solve our current crises despite it being their chief cause, many refuse to reckon with the long history of conservatism resulting in economic recession - all of that is clearly wishful thinking.

There are left wingers who engage in wishful thinking for sure, just as there are people on both left and right who are very pragmatic or even cynical. I think that is more a personal disposition than something owning to your political stance. There is certainly nothing inherently ‘wishful’ about left wing politics, it’s mostly a lazy trope I will say though, that those ideologies which work on the basis of assuming the worst in people are usually right wing.

The last part of your question is difficult to answer, because ‘left wing’ is an umbrella term encompassing a vast array of completely different, often competing views, just as ‘right wing’ is. I’m not sure what you mean by a left wing society so I can’t really comment on that.

[howieabel]

“In a traditional German toilet, the hole into which shit disappears after we flush is right at the front, so that shit is first laid out for us to sniff and inspect for traces of illness. In the typical French toilet, on the contrary, the hole is at the back, i.e. shit is supposed to disappear as quickly as possible. Finally, the American (Anglo-Saxon) toilet presents a synthesis, a mediation between these opposites: the toilet basin is full of water, so that the shit floats in it, visible, but not to be inspected. [...] It is clear that none of these versions can be accounted for in purely utilitarian terms: each involves a certain ideological perception of how the subject should relate to excrement. Hegel was among the first to see in the geographical triad of Germany, France and England an expression of three different existential attitudes: reflective thoroughness (German), revolutionary hastiness (French), utilitarian pragmatism (English). In political terms, this triad can be read as German conservatism, French revolutionary radicalism and English liberalism. [...] The point about toilets is that they enable us not only to discern this triad in the most intimate domain, but also to identify its underlying mechanism in the three different attitudes towards excremental excess: an ambiguous contemplative fascination; a wish to get rid of it as fast as possible; a pragmatic decision to treat it as ordinary and dispose of it in an appropriate way. It is easy for an academic at a round table to claim that we live in a post-ideological universe, but the moment he visits the lavatory after the heated discussion, he is again knee-deep in ideology.” ― Slavoj Žižek, The Plague of Fantasies

[razistoricharka]

I disagree with liberal conservatism on almost all key points but it's as far out as I can Understand on pragmatic grounds, like with social democracy and other eurocrat shit. Social conservatism and right-wing populism, however, necessitates a sub-dog intellect.

[phlve]

IS(T) — Introverted Sensation supported by Thinking

Whiner, finds reasons to feel bored, does not rejoice often, complains of losses, does not feel gratitude, gloomy and preoccupied, greed, jealous suspicions. He is more aggressive in words than in actions. Secretlv collects additional information. Owner. Always dissatisfied. There is no open aggression. Not enough activity: encountering opposition he retreats. Makes an impression of a dissatisfied, joyless grumbler. Quarrels with relatives. Systematic. carries responsibility especially well, matter-of-fact, excellent adaptation to routine, absorbs and enjoys using a number of evidences. sources and realistic. pragmatic data. He bases his idea on a deep solid abstraction, aesthetic accumulation, "painting", of its own sense ot realism. Stores impressions and artistic metaphors, practical and efficient. Extreme stability: they know how to concentrate and relax, they understand their senses and how reality works, he trusts his own sensations, but protects himself from the exaggerated stimuli the world gives. They lend stability and harmony to everything they work with, all connected points of space are areas of comfort. Habitually relates one impression to another, one sense to the other, developing a network o sensory links; synesthesia. Emphasizes logic, analysis, procedures, correct and efficient work useful investments, decisiveness, certainty. Some manifestations are morally righteous, carrying a sense of law and justice based on the rules of society and common sense; the collective's ideals and knowledge. Lawyers and accountants. Would give any amount of help if they can see that it is needed, but their logic rebels against requirements or expectations to do things that lack logical sense. A distinguishing trait of this type - is concern for and a striving to create material wellbeing and comfort in their lives. They are discerning in art and design, and typically have a good sense taste. The type is often able to organize profitable businesses in commerce or production. Experiences difficulties in expressing his feelings and emotions. Being secretly afraid of being misunderstood, he will prefer to hide his real attitudes towards other people, and won't show them at all. However at he is humiliated or made fun ot in public he can burst into tears lose their temper and start shouting at the offender. Representatives o this type remember the smallest offenses, and after serious quarrels they are capable of breaking relations forever. Has a desire to plan their affairs in advance. This is also the root of their excessive conservatism and caution. He will never make a final decision without a thorough analysis of all aspects of the situation.

This type is satistied with standard explanations; the reality is much more important: the exact knowledge of facts, an objective representation of the surroundings. Theories are necessary, yes, but it is not this type's strong side. Theoretical, abstract problems are solved by standard methods. He would never argue or explain anything - it is just not interesting. For him, knowing the world is its practical mastering. They count money well and know how and when to save. In the world around them there is alwavs something that needs to be fixed and but in order. He wants to make life easier, more convenient. and less expensive. Obsession with innovations or investments, new methodology. This type physically feels the real world; he has its qualities and laws at his fingertips. They have exact knowledge of laws and their current application. He is a practical person; he is a fine clerk, bookkeeper and lawyer. "If I love someone, then I am a good person; if I do not like somebody (anybody) - then I am bad.". Good attitude to other people is a reason for a good attitude to oneself. This type tries to protect their emotional sphere from the intruding outsiders in every possible way. They usually make the impression of integral souls, a bit abstracted. Idealizing people, they persistently move away from them setting a distance where the ideal would have no chance to get in conflict with the disappointing reality. The aspiration to an ideal love in the course of time makes moralists of them. Respects the traditional social standards of communication, the norms of politeness, and the etiquette. "If there is a problem with my attitude to somebody, then it is necessary to alter the relationships." He solves problems by means of regulation of the personal distance. Some manifestations display a heavy sense of humor and snarky remarks. Using the terms of a meditative process, we can say that he has a fear of going within himself, and study the inner self. His fear may grow when he meditates. He is able to think about his inner state onlv in medical terms of health condition. He hardly differentiates the inner states and moods. This is why people of this type often seem to be even-tempered, as if they are always living in just one and the same state. He avoids the states he cannot control.

Looking for a place to stay where there is no external conflicts, where there is an external harmony, positive atmosphere and avoid places where it is not. According to this principle can and pick up his personal life, work. It can get involved in unexpected ideas for the structure of the world, inspired bold innovative ideas. He loves nature because it is constant, not changing, always calm and harmonious. It inspires any external harmony and dislikes when it is destroyed. If this happens, just go back to where it is, without trying to change something. Often harmony for it is still there. where he feels the center of some of the situation around him "everything revolves." They love to visit festivals, carnivals, festivals, because they are foreign harmony holiday atmosphere. Usually this type of people absorb the the atmosphere, the harmony, the situation that prevailed at the time when they were children, and then reproduce in their lives is it really love to remember his childhood as something to which they'd like to come back. Very talented people like bearing outer harmony: the creators of art, musicians, artists, poets, sometimes willing to support them, even financially for the opportunity to be in their company, often dragging them to her house to place as if lit outer harmony. Looking for people who believe that all will be well in the future only, believe in a positive future. He does not like the unpredictability, the chaos of the future situation, someone has to help him to seek the correct options to catch the desired capabilities, so it is very suggestible and trusting in matters of decision-making. He likes predictability, to move "from target to target." If this the sequence is disrupted and unexpected event happens, it may fall into a "stupor", so usually tries to "podstelit straw", to provide in advance all the options. His unhurriedness reflects his general tempo of life: a combination of relaxation and perfection. He will scarcely spend his energy for futile work. He is a born inventor, but he does not hurry with the implementation of his ideas, until conditions for maximum effect will ripen. He is proud of his capability of not doing unnecessary things; adores comfort and conveniences. When performing common tasks together with somebody else. everything very easily and without pressure from his side goes the way he likes. All space accessible to him is organized ideally for work and rest. He is calm under any circumstances, but calm in a different manner. He remains cold and unapproachable when he loves, and does not hurry to trust feelings. He is very jealous and mistrustful: he is horrified that his emotions will be ridiculed.