First off, I should defend my posting here as regards the topic of exertion.
Exertion is not necessarily Augustan socionics. However, Gulenko has begun studying it and there may be others who are studying it, also. In particular there seems to be discussions of a "informational-energic level" in recent Socionics Institute articles. I do not know what is meant by this because I have no access to the articles themselves (they are not linked), however the discussion seems to be highly and it is probable that an abstract parallel would exist to the formalized thoughts of Gulenko and myself. I think that exertion has a place in formal socionics discussion, not only because it is being discovered but because, it allows us to participate more effectively in what we are really here for: to learn more about ourselves and each other.
Having stated my position as regards this post, I continue on to the topic of my interest.
Given that and differ only as regards the matter of time, as each is a function of possibility, the same truths that hold for hold equally for as regards exertion. To wit:
Similarly, is the analysis of sequences of apprehended events. The question, as regards the topic of exertion, is "what events are being apprehended"? Similarly, as regards producing , we ask, "what is it that is being planned?" Although at first we would say "it could be anything", is that really the case?Augusta
describes the internal statics of objects as their potential, equivalent to
the physical concept of potential energy owing to a state of position to act.
The question as to what potential is existant, then, is a matter of the
activity the apphrended object is capable of performing. The nature of this
activity, which we reckon as apphrehensible only by means of a corresponding
information element, is a question of the exerted element which serves
The answer is no, of course not. And why it is not, is because we hold true to our own interpretations of a situation. Another person of the same type as ourselves may describe the situation by means of a different focus, one which we had never considered relevant to our situation. And why is that? The answer lies in the existence of the exerted type, for even after we are made aware of the alternative viewpoint we hold true to our own and try to scrutenize the situation even closer by our own means. We agree that the alien viewpoint is relevant to the situations, but even as we do that we argue that it is irrelevant to us. Instead we say, "let him deal with that aspect then, it is not my place." This dominance of focus is indicative of a heiarchy of outlooks not unlike a Model-A type.
For , a focus would be a sequence of conversations. A focus would be a series of points of view or feelings observed in the environment. A focus would be the observation of one's own internal feeling flow. A focus would be a progression of forces at work. A focus would be a pleasant cascade of sensations. A focus would be the observation of random sequences of occurence. A focus would be the observation of thought's evolution; and an focus an endless series of independent progressions.