RE: THE SYNTAX OF PERSONALITY

* * *
Afanasiev’s system has only two drawbacks.

The first is the sheer amount of information and terminology that one has to learn and get used to. The student must memorize the name that Afanasiev gave to the WELB type («Akhmatova»), the LWBE type («Laozi»), etc. In my case, this process took two months, even though my memory is quite good, and I studied his system quite intensively.

The second drawback is the less-than-perfect naming. While the system as a whole has been mapped out and described impeccably, the assignment of particular people to psychological types – even when made by Afanasiev himself – is sometimes erroneous. For instance, it turns out that the philosopher Laozi was most likely not LWBE (this subject will be addressed below), and this psychological type is in need of a different name.

Besides, the name originally given by Afanasiev to the system as a whole – «psyche-yoga» – is rather infelicitous; his second choice – «psychosophy» – is hardly better, since it can easily be confused with Rudolf Steiner’s mystical doctrine. Personally, I would call this science «psychonomy» (to distinguish it from psychology, by analogy with astrology and astronomy); unfortunately, though, it turns out that this term is already used – in a sense different from the one intended by Afanasiev. Therefore, the most neutral name (for now) is «Afanasiev’s Typology».

Finally, I think that The Syntax of Love, as a book, contains flaws that do not detract from the system itself, yet may perplex the reader. This is because, in addition to describing the modus operandi of the four «functions», Afanasiev also lays out his conjectures regarding their evolution, as well as some other thoughts. This material is much more controversial and (in my opinion) unnecessary – at least for the general reader. It is difficult to process, and would lead only to fruitless discussions. Therefore, I would advise most readers to skip the detours into evolutionary history and other difficult passages, and concentrate on his indisputable discoveries.

* * *
After reading The Syntax of Love, I wrote to Roshchin, the author of the fateful article. Since the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I offered him a kind of mutual psychological supervision: trying to determine each other’s psychological type. A correspondence sprung up between us. We successfully determined each other’s types, as well as those of numerous other historical characters (after some initial missteps that served as learning experiences).

I found out that Yelena Konstantinovna Afanasieva, Alexander Yurievich’s widow, still lives in Moscow and does all she can to rescue his legacy from oblivion. Among other things, she publishes his books. I purchased several copies of The Syntax from her. I was surprised to discover that the posthumous edition of the book assiduously kept the original dedication: «To Irina» – that same girlfriend of Afanasiev’s whose troubled relationship with him had led him to his discovery. It turns out that Afanasiev met Yelena Konstantinovna at an advanced age, when The Syntax was already written, and that, thanks to her, his last years were happier than his earlier life, despite his failing health.

I called my sister and told her about Afanasiev’s typology. We talked for about two hours – probably the longest conversation we’d ever had. Since then, we have begun to discuss these questions on an almost daily basis. The poor compatibility between our psychological types, which used to poison our relationship, turned out to be a boon for scientific collaboration: we see everything from different angles, have very different life experiences, and serve as a source of valuable information for each other.

Incidentally, the previous negative relationship experience also proved an invaluable aid for mastering the art of typifying people…

* * *
When I described Afanasiev’s typology to my family, friends, and acquaintances, their responses were varied. Actually, this variation was easily predictable – in perfect accord with the typology itself.

Some took it to heart, and eventually learned it quite well.

Others were initially curious, but soon lost interest.

The third category (mostly those with Logic-1) listened politely, yet retained their adamant conviction that such things are impossible.

The fourth group responded hesitantly: «Well, there are all kinds of theories… Have you heard of Jung’s scheme?… And there are lots of others… How can you possibly know that this theory is the right one?» (Such a response is typical of Logic-3, although Logic-4 may also respond in this fashion.)

The fifth kind of people (mostly BLWE) greeted it with hostility, declaring it quackery or nonsense.

The sixth bunch (usually, these were also people with Logic-2) grasped everything at once, yet avoided discussing it.

Two individuals became my constant interlocutors on these subjects: Olga Proshchitsky, a poet and librarian, my and Miriam’s cousin; and my new acquaintance Alexander Burtyansky, a physicist by training, who soon became my husband and got on splendidly with my children (as we had foreseen, thanks to the science of psychosophy).

In 2013, we set up a website dedicated to Afanasiev’s typology: http://www.psychotype.info, and used it to share our observations, ideas, and doubts.

A poem by Boris Zakhoder

This poem was written in 1992. I don’t know whether Zakhoder was aware of Afanasiev and his discovery, and whether it was written with him in mind. However, in my opinion this poem fits Afanasiev’s case rather nicely.

Call a genius by his rightful name,
And you’ll give the people a hearty laugh.
After all, proving such a claim
(They would tell you) is rather tough!

But these same people will be overawed
– thanking God till their voices crack –
When the title of «Genius» is bestowed
On a charlatan and a hack.

Then, they won’t ask for proof, nor examine his lineage.
He’s a genius in their own image!