Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Exraverted sensing Se and space and will

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Exraverted sensing Se and space and will

    Socionists believe that is the function of space and will. Augusta called it "the external statics of an object or objects". That definition seems to ill-accord wtih the concept of space as a factor of seperation between objects.

    Could it be that sees the world as nothing but will? Particularly, forces and their magnitudes. If one witnesses space in the lense of then, it is the "force" seperating objects from each other. It does not matter that such a force has not been described; it can be implied as simply "there" and immediately evident. If it exists, it is a force.

    Can dominants comment on this reasoning?

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think "space" is referred to not as how you seem to be defining it, but simply with spacial perception.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  3. #3
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default Re: :Se: and space

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Could it be that sees the world as nothing but will? Particularly, forces and their magnitudes. If one witnesses space in the lense of then, it is the "force" seperating objects from each other. It does not matter that such a force has not been described; it can be implied as simply "there" and immediately evident. If it exists, it is a force.

    Can dominants comment on this reasoning?
    I don't know. I don't consciously think about this kind of thing; stuff just happens. Can you reword this so that it fits with something you might experience in real life?
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think "space" is referred to not as how you seem to be defining it, but simply with spacial perception.
    Yes, but is space an external static of objects? If it isn't, then I don't see how could perceive it.

    One possibility is that space is a force. The Big Bang theory suggests that space has increased over time, and its expansion has accelerated. It would make sense that ESTps/ESFps naturally perceive this static of the universe, but wouldn't that make it an internal static of the cosmos instead of an external static? Is the universe an object, or a field? Does the universe interact with other universes? It would seem to me that question would need to be answered, at least hypothetically, to explain the use of to apprehend space and distances.

    Can you reword this so that it fits with something you might experience in real life?
    The question regards the nature of space, so it's difficult to apply to anything immediate... I'll think about it though.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: :Se: and space

    Quote Originally Posted by Herzy
    I don't know. I don't consciously think about this kind of thing; stuff just happens.
    rofl

  6. #6
    from toronto with love ScarlettLux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    TIM
    Beta sx 3w4;7w8
    Posts
    3,401
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah seriously, holy crapperz... field/static/external.. WHAT THE SHIT DOES IT ALL MEAN!? Even when I attempt to slow down and read it thoroughly, it still makes bollocks of sense.


    Dress pretty, play dirty ღ
    Johari
    Nohari

  7. #7
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Look there's a pile of tiles of different size and shape. With Se and Ti you can arrange them in the way that occupies the least space.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  8. #8
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Look there's a pile of tiles of different size and shape. With Se and Ti you can arrange them in the way that occupies the least space.
    well who can't do that?

  9. #9
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Look there's a pile of tiles of different size and shape. With Se and Ti you can arrange them in the way that occupies the least space.
    So and are the functions performed by robots? I guess all those catastrophe movies about revolting robots do make sense.

  10. #10
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I think "space" is referred to not as how you seem to be defining it, but simply with spacial perception.
    Yes, but is space an external static of objects? If it isn't, then I don't see how could perceive it.

    One possibility is that space is a force. The Big Bang theory suggests that space has increased over time, and its expansion has accelerated. It would make sense that ESTps/ESFps naturally perceive this static of the universe, but wouldn't that make it an internal static of the cosmos instead of an external static? Is the universe an object, or a field? Does the universe interact with other universes? It would seem to me that question would need to be answered, at least hypothetically, to explain the use of to apprehend space and distances.
    I would have said internal dynamics, but I think that the actual nature of the universe is not particularly relevant here.
    no it is not particulary relevant....lol.....we're talking about personalities, no?

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  11. #11
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Look there's a pile of tiles of different size and shape. With Se and Ti you can arrange them in the way that occupies the least space.
    exactly. i once saw an estp build a wooden deck with no written plan. came out beautiful!

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Exactly.

    Space is not something you can perceive. It is something that is necessary for perception to occur in the first place. According to Immanual Kant it is one of the two constituents of the "trancendental aestetic", which roughly means that there is nothing you can think, imagine or create that doesn't involve it in one way or another.

    One possibility is that space is a force.
    Doesn't make sense. Forces are described in mathematics as vectors. The existence of a vector neccessitates the existance of a vector-space. If space is the vector, what is the vector-space supposed to be?

    Yeah seriously, holy crapperz... field/static/external.. WHAT THE SHIT DOES IT ALL MEAN!?
    They're basically just names that you can attach to observations... just like types. Tcaud uses them in the way that augusta appearantly intended them to be used in (given the wacky names she chose). This seems to require an incredibly deep familiarity with physics on the part of the interpreter. I presonally don't believe it's possible.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Forces are described in mathematics as vectors. The existence of a vector neccessitates the existance of a vector-space.
    Yes but that's the mathematical treatment. A vector is a ray, for all intents and purposes. (no they aren't exactly the same but really, it's not important to the discussion that they are thought of slightly differently.) A ray can only be described kinetically as a state that translates across a range of points. For this you need a connection between the points undergoing an progressive process.

    Wait now... I remember thinking that for an process to occur, it is necessary for there to exist a container for the process. So there would be two aspects to each of the elements: their requisite, and their activity. Space would be the requisite for force, according to what has been discussed here.

    I think I understand, now. One must consider the requisite for an information aspect in addition to the aspects's manifestation for a complete understanding of the aspect.

  14. #14
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For this you need a :te: connection between the points undergoing an :ni: progressive process.
    Right. But there would also be a relation between any two of such relations, and the totality of those 'secundary' relations would give rise to a spatial image formed by the points.

    How would you define space if not simply as 'continuity'? continuity outside of ones immediate experience perhaps...? From a psychologically 'first-person' view, one item being placed 'next to' another, means that when one rests one's visual field on the item and moves a continual amount of time to the right, one constatates that the visual field is then rested on the other item. When this process is repeated from different angles, a perception of 'space' is created. But where one is a single perception from the first person view, the other is many of such perceptions united in third person. At the same time, multiple spatial continuities are being observed from the perceivers standpoint simultaneously.

    First person: introvert, third person: extrovert
    Field: grouping of objects, object: grouping of fields

    Hmm... if Ni = time and Se = space, maybe augustas definitions make more sense than it first seemed...

  15. #15
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...

  16. #16
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •