Exraverted sensing Se and space and will

[tcaudilllg]

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?

[Gilly]

I think "space" is referred to not as how you seem to be defining it, but simply with spacial perception.

[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.

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.

[discojoe]

I don't know. I don't consciously think about this kind of thing; stuff just happens.

rofl

[ScarlettLux]

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.

[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.

[Creepy-bg]

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?

[snegledmaca]

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.

[Blaze]

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?

[Blaze]

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!

[krieger]

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.

[tcaudilllg]

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.

[krieger]

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...

[krieger]

...

[Creepy-Diana]

.