Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

I've been stuck a couple of days pondering language to use about Rims.

It's not that hard to identify what they're like. Rather, it's hard to do it in language that I think they also will find acceptable and not insulting.

The single most useful metaphor in the Hub vs. Rim extreme is that Hubs connect to the center, which means the depths, while Rim connect to the circumference which means the surface. Both of these are valuable. However, while our society (if anything) values Rims most of all, our society also demeans the idea of "surface" in language. The word superficial should mean nothing more than that it attends most to the outer face of things, but has an implication that nearly means "worthless."

It's quite easy to describe most Hubs as deep and most Rims as shallow in the SPECIFIC sense of attending outer things. One nonjudgmental example (since there are two or more respected theories on the matter) is that most Rims (Jung being a stunning exception) view who someone is by how they act - behavior (what's on the "outside") being used to assess identity. Most Hubs, however, view who someone is by something deeper something at the center that either does or does expose itself on the surface.

BTW, I've been forced to revise my view (inherited from Fagan) that Rims are most often in motion. They really aren't. Some of them (about half) even seem quite lazy. But they set OTHERS in motion. They are much more likely to motivate, empower, dispatch, or drive others than to be active themselves, though they keep a strong hand on the helm. Consider that they are most often executives and managers, whose job is more to ensure others are working than to do the same work themselves. For a gruesome but accurate example, think of Manson who actually didn't do any murdering himself but, rather, dispatched others to do it. It does seem that Rims (most obvious in double Rims) only feel their world is right when those around them are stirred into motion or, if need be, into commotion.

So my problem isn't really seeing them. It more like I haven't a clue about what they really value or how to talk about it. I'm a Spoke-Hub, which is another way of saying I'm an un-Rim.

I would find this much better if I could define exactly what - in the context of Rims - I mean by THE SURFACE. For example, it's not the same as saying what is evident to the senses. This function of sensation (one of the Jungian types) is something quite different. Similarly, I have to be careful not to wander into extraversion-introversion distinctions in the sense of attention and valuation turned outward more than inward. That, too, is quite a different thing.

I've toyed with defining in my head "the surface" as that space wherein there is more movement, more shifting or change. I have to be careful because I do tend to view the transient judgmentally, and (for example) see much of the spiritual path as the journey from attention on and valuing the transient to attention on and valuing the eternal (or that which has characteristics of the eternal). To me, the transient is fictional while the enduring is true. This perspective would seep through my words until I get clear on what's going on.

This idea of viewing the surface as the space on which change most occurs leads to one whole path of defining the three quadruplicities to myself. The idea is to think of them as three different ways of favoring (or responding to) characteristics of change. Obviously, things are always changing - that's basic of the phenomenal world.

Rims' world feels most right to them only when those around them are stirred into motion (living in a world of motion, or of evidence of change); therefore, they are the very best at managing the space of constant change, i.e., worlds of business, management, finance, and all the other things the world widely values and changes.,

If Hubs, in contrast, most favor (following out this model) those things that least change, that are the pivot-points or seeds of change but not the phenomena of change (which occur "out there at the rim somewhere), then it makes sense that what Hubs bring forth tends to endure. Spokes, then, would be seen as those who navigate smoothly between the extremes, who easily translate the relationship between the enduring and the transient.


I have been thinking of other models, as well. These models are just for my own mind, not to put out as "Oh, here's another theory!" into the world. (Ha! Theories like that are transient! Being a Hub, I want to write the enduring. ) One of these, though, spins off the observation that those who look longest at a thing tend to start seeing into it, into its depths. I don't think one group looks at things longer than another, but I'm seriously considering that they have neurological differences that have a similar consequence. This also has optical metaphors. I'm still digging around those.

I thought, though, that while sorting through these, if I wrote it out here it might help my mind clarify and process the questions, and some of you might find it interesting or have something to say.

For what it's worth, I don't find the word superficial offensive at all, but shallow feels like it skirts that edge. Without, ahem, thinking too long or deeply about it, shallow gives me an idea of there not being much depth to something or someone, while superficial means attending to the surface without disregarding that there is something deeper, or at least without assuming that there isn't. Someone has to keep, ahem, the wheel turning—and someone has to keep being turned by the wheel, perhaps.

I do think transience gets close to what Rim is about. It might nail it. Sense-orientation was what first came to mind, but as you said, it misses the mark.

I think radial and bias are good words to describe rim's. Radials are best at high speed, high heat and tight corners, where as Bias tires are best for off road, slow, low heat and straight motion.

I find it interesting that if the tire/rim are not mounted on the spokes correctly, going against the surface instead of with it, then the tire/rim and spokes is destroyed and potentially the axel/hub. You cant just put any tire any which way and have it do what it was designed to do. There are even Mark's on the tires to show this motion.

Thanks, V. (And typo fixed.)

Jim Eshelman wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 5:38 pm I have been thinking of other models, as well... One of these, though, spins off the observation that those who look longest at a thing tend to start seeing into it, into its depths. I don't think one group looks at things longer than another, but I'm seriously considering that they have neurological differences that have a similar consequence. This also has optical metaphors. I'm still digging around those.

I just detail this thinking just to run out the tape loop to its end.

Given that one of these types tends to look more deeply (valuing depth) and another type primarily keeps attention on the outer surface of things, one wonders why the difference. A really good possibility involves neurology: different ways of the brain assessing what it is seeing.

Even in the earliest stages of meditation practice, it's evident that the longer one looks at a thing, the more likely one will look more deeply into it, past the surface. I don't think this is controversial. I suspect it has strong among neuroscientists.

I don't think Hubs look at things longer than Rims. (They might, if we attribute hastiness or superficiality to Rims. I don't observe this being true, though.) I think it more likely that something in the respective brain patternings leads Hubs to register depths, and Rims register surfaces, from birth. This would develop comfort with looking at things that way habitually. (This almost translates to Hubs suspecting that there is always more to something than they see, and Rims to conclude of a thing, "It is what it appears to be." I'm not ready to conclude that is an actual pattern, though it IS consistent with the tendency of Hub writings to be massive and dense, as if it takes so much more to tell the whole story: Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Longfellow, Wagner, e.g.)

A simple physical difference that would set this up is if Hub brains process incoming data slightly faster than Rim brains. That gives the same effect as looking at a thing longer. With identical social standards of how long one looks at a person or thing, it would take them to different places.

This starts to resemble the effects of eyeball sphericity that contributes to visual tendencies to myopia or hyperopia: With the former ("near-sightedness"), distant objects are most focused by the eye's lens at a point in front of the retina, so more distant objects seem out of focus and it is easier to concentrate on things closer up, at a shorter distance. Hyperopia is the opposite distortion of the shape of the eye: Distant objects come into focus behind the retina and can be seen much more clearly, while close objects are blurrier.

We translate these physical characteristics into behavior, then language places judgements on the conditions. We praise far-sightedness and derogate short-sightedness, yet complain that the former group "can't see what's right in front of it's eyes," for example.

I'm not saying these are direct causes; for example, I'm specifically not saying that double Rims suffer ophthalmological myopia and double Hubs ophthalmological hyperopia. I am, however, pointing out how simple physical differences create conditions that alter (literally) how we see the world - and behavior differences arise from this. I am also explicitly using this example to analogize to the earlier remarks about how rapidly the brain processes what it's perceiving, with the likelihood that this, too, creates distinct behavior patterns.

Possibly a neurological difference between Hubs and Rims is found here (with Spokes being the usual "something in between") example.

BTW, the optical metaphor for Spokes is then that they have a smaller f/stop (to put it in camera terms). For those who have never studied or worked with a manually adjustable camera, there are two factors that control how much light a camera admits. (This is important in order to expose the film just right to get a good picture.) One factor is how big a hole you let the light pass through; the other is how long you let the light pass through the hole. Once you get a right balance calculated, you can keep the amount of light in balance by adjusting these two factors in opposite directions; for example, you can use a smaller hole but expose the film for a slightly longer period of time; or you can do the opposite, use a slightly larger hole to expose the film for less time.

The size of the hole behind a camera lens is called the f/stop. How long you keep it open is called the shutter speed. When you click a camera, it opens a whole behind the lens to the size of the f/stop, for the duration of the shutter speed.

Photographers have reasons to use one of these strategies or another. For example, why would you want a different shutter speed? Well, if you're filming fast action, like a football game, you don't want blur so you make the exposure time as short as possible. In that case, you decrease the shutter speed and increase the f/stop (shorter time, bigger hole).

But sometimes you want the smallest f/stop possible. Why? Because a small hole (small f/stop) gives greater depth of field. It means that more of the picture is in perfect focus (more area closer to you AND farther from you than the expect spot on which you're focused). A larger hole reduces the depth of field: Sometimes you might not care how much off the main subject is in focus, or you might intentionally want everything else a little softer so that it leads the eye right up to the sharp, intended object. (Portrait photographers commonly use a larger aperture, intentionally blurring everything but the primary subject.)

Much of the technical side of photography planning is based on balancing the consideration of how fast an object is moving (which drives shutter speed down and f/stop up) vs. how much depth of field you want (which drives f/stop down and shutter speed up). When you can't get enough light in to meet both of these requirements, you switch from available light to flash, or you use a film that has a faster exposure rate (reacts to light faster). All of these decisions have other trade-offs.

What's the astrological point? It's that Spokes have greater depth of field. This is at least true psychologically. If (metaphorically) we see that Hubs most easily focus on what's farther (deeper) and Rims most easily focus on what's closer (right before their eyes), then it is easy to see that Spokes have an f/stop/shutter speed balance that maximizes depth of field, that makes it easy for them to wander their attention forward and backward from closer to farther (shallower to deeper) without it seeming any more strenuous than for the others. In this analogy, the difference between Hubs and Rims is how far away or close-up the lens is focused. [Aside: Flash is only effective on closer objections in contrast to quite distant objects. Therefore, the concept of "flash" only applies, in these metaphors, to Rims, which is quite interesting.]

Common questions Rims ask about things:

What can you do with it?
What good is it (what does it do)?
What's it for?
Yeah, but what is it really?
What can we make happen?
What's right here that we have to deal with? What does that look like?

What's right in front of them - the short focal length question - may be exactly what I'm looking for in lieu of "surface."

It's not limited to sensory input. "What's right in front of me" can also be intellectual, emotional, values, etc. I run risk of confusing it with "immediacy," another Aries word, though I see that side most clearly in a double Capricorn I know. In most cases, it's a "no frills" way of dealing with things, but that's not always the case (certainly not the case with most Cancers). It might be close to what in politics is considered pragmatism instead of ideology, but I'm not read to slice that dichotomy into this at the moment.

What's right in front of them. This also ties into "do something now" in the sense of "pick something up off your desk and do something with it." I think of several of these people who say things like, "I guess that's all we can do right now" (which I'd never noticed before has an implicit statement of "We have to do something right now.")

Of course, such ideas as "favors the outermost" (or any synonym set) is a Hub way of describing things. The Rims don't necessarily pay any attention to such abstract generalizations as what they favor. It loses their attention.

Aha! Taking the same statement and leading with the action changes that around, makes it more accessible to Rims (as best I can tell, being the un-Rim). I'm inclined more to establish the principle and then let it expand out into particulars (a Hub-to-Spoke approach). That probably drives Rims crazy. Consider these two identical statements and how they land differently from a Rim perspective:

• Favors the outermost (surface), where motion, change, and outcome can be seen most readily (what is in front of them).
• Favors spaces where motion, change, and outcome can be seen most readily (the outermost, surface, what is in front of them).

Or, even better:

• Finds conditions where motion, change, and outcome are readily visible the most useful (the outermost, surface, what is in front of them).