Abstract Visualizations of the Elements

[tcaudilllg]

-- --




-- --




with


with


with


with

[krieger]

Interesting... I'll have a go at this too when I get the time.

First impression (honest and blunt): not symmetrical enough to be correct. Interesting though.

[tcaudilllg]

Interesting... I'll have a go at this too when I get the time.

First impression (honest and blunt): not symmetrical enough to be correct. Interesting though.

What do you mean?

[krieger]

God how do I explain if it's not obvious...

Fe and Te are both fuctions of extroverted judgment. Apart from that one is external whereas the other is internal, they are completely identical. The socionics system is swarming with symmetricallities like this one, and they must be taken in account whenever one tries to formulate any theory as to how they 'work' or how they should be visualized.

Te in your model is visualized as two arrows traversing the space between two circles. I take it this is meant to describe an interaction between two entities that are not further defined in any way.

Fe on the other hand is visualized as a circle that has arrows 'swimming' around inside one circle.

What's identical between the two? They both deal with cicles, but apart from this they are different in every way. The Fe deals with a single circle, the Te deals with two. The Te has smoothly curved arrows, the Fe has 'wiggly' ones.

Now add in Ti. Te and Ti are both defined in the system as external functions, so at some fundamental level, they too must have a commonality. You visualize them as completely different. It's pointless to look for similarities as there clearly arent any. Trying to find similarities between Ti and Fe makes even less sense.

In my views... a correct visualization of the functions would show an demonstrable simmilarity between Te and Ti that would exist in the exact same form between Fe and Fi. Likewise, a simmilarity between Te and Fi would exist, and would exist in the exact same form between Fe and Ti... etc. etc. rinse repeat, try again and again, don't give up until the model fits. I've tried it many, many times, and failed.

[tcaudilllg]

I've tried it many, many times, and failed.

And that's exactly the point. , in particular, does not lend it itself to a "symmetrical" representation because it is anti-logical. We know that, it is literally the antithesis of logic. How can you structure the unstructurable at all? Granted one can structure the content, but never the actual process. The best we can do is a suggestion that various things are underway within an object.

As for vs , I tried to portray both in a way that illustrated their respective substances. is, as you observed, the exchange of information between objects. is a perception of structure, the observation of effects that are the result of various causes, which in turn are the effect of causes, etc.

Obviously the two have something in common, but it's not always clear. says with regard to , "can these two causes work together to produce this effect?" says with regard to , "what effect indicates these two causes are working together at all?"

How does one demonstrate that visually?

[krieger]

I can feel us a approaching an impasse here...

There's no such thing as anti-logical. 'Logics' is just a referent, 'ethics' obeys the laws of logic as part of the system that is socionics. It has to, because everything without exception obeys the laws of logic.

Space, time, logic, mathematics... these all exist on a level at the fundament of reality; socionics is one step above that and has to be described in their terms. Any other description only gives an account of how socionical concepts appear to us. In itself to formulate such descriptions is a noble and useful purpose, but there are limits to how far one can go at it before the description becomes plain bull-shit.

Then again maybe you're doing this with different aims than I thought. Not really my bussiness in that case.