• labster's explication of functions

    labster's explication of functions

    Je is extraverted judging (rational) element, Fe & Te
    Ji is introverted judging (rational) element, Fi & Ti
    Pe is extraverted perceiving (irrational) element, Se & Ne
    Pi is introverted perceiving (irrational) element, Si & Ni

    What Te and Fe have in common is both being Je elements. What is true of Te on basis of it being an extraverted rational element, should also be true of Fe. This applies to other pairs as well. Thus any element can be looked at as a combination of its dichotomic orientations: Te = T + Je; Ni = N + Pi, etc.

    labster's explication of functions:
    original discussion thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ls-vs-changing

    "The second definition is pretty much already incorporated in the fact that Dynamic P is always Field... Field in Ji means something rather different from Field in Pi. i find the word "Field" to apply to Pi much better than to Ji, because J refers to distinctions rather than to entities.

    The issue is that object/field is much less of a quantitative, technical marker in socionics than Static/Dynamic. object/field at best raises a subtle, qualitative connotation that is much better denoted with the words objective/subjective. But these words themselves have issues of interpretational variability, so one needs to address the combinations of object/field with static/dynamic individually:

    Pi: ontological subjectivity; the perspective-dependent description of an entity; how the thing appears to you; phenomenology
    Je: epistemic objectivity; heuristic-independent knowledge; distinctions that can be made on the basis of sense experience alone without the need for complex inferences and compositions
    Pe: ontological objectivity; the thing-in-itself represented so as to eliminate the influence of perspective as fully as possible
    Ji: epistemic subjectivity; heuristic-dependent knowledge; distinctions made on the basis of inferences and compositions based on training from prior personal experience

    Je: epistemically unproblematic knowledge
    Ji: epistemically challenging knowledge

    To understand why Pi and Je go together, closely examine the empiricist definition of objectivity: objectivity consists in premising knowledge on sense experience. sense experience happens from a perspective. hence, epistemic objectivity is ontologically subjective. the challenge of human thinking is to arrive at ontologically objective descriptions despite this constrained starting point.

    Static constructs are premised on Dynamic fundaments, but the point of the Statics is to, at one point, lend the basis for a "prediction" on the Dynamic plane again. so while Dynamics are the unequivocal starting point, the progression is potentially from Dynamic to Static back to Dynamic, back to Static, etc, etc.

    all categories play a role in the workings of all types' cognition... another thing that needs to be incorporated is the fact that Accepting/Creating distributes the Focal/Diffuse quality over the functions. for example, in IxTp, Je is in the ego block, but Ji is Focal. this manifests in a tantalizing consideration for a final truth that is upheld as a kind of asymptotic ideal and never reached (or even addressed) in practice.


    Pe is "objective" in the ontological sense. Ji is too, because it is applied to Pe.
    Je is "objective" in the epistemic sense. Pi is too, because it is what Je is applied to.

    now if i am to trust the subjective/objective qualification as commonly interpreted to be signified by introvert/extrovert (which i am not singularly inclined to do, but anyway), i reach by means of inference:

    P is concerned with being; J is concerned with pertinence
    Pe = noumenology
    Pi = phenomenology
    J = epistemology
    P = ontology


    This article was originally published in forum thread: Stable universals vs. changing started by Jonathan View original post