Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 43

Thread: Systems

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Systems

    Systems are Ti and Fi, never Si (nor Ni). Ti is about systems of logic, such as what you described. Fi is systems of ethics. After all, Ti is the external statics of fields. Fi is the internal statics of fields. Systems are, by definition, static. If they were not, it would be impossible to build on them.

  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

    Yep.

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why, did anyone say that systems were Si or Ni?

    Anyway, you're right.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i've been getting my mind around the meaning of static and dynamic lately too. and how this plays out. good post.

    ILE

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

  5. #5
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  6. #6
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.
    Yes, the links (or relationships) between things are introverted functions... but Ni and Si are the ever changing relationships between events. Perhaps they are best described as the flow of things. With Ni, those things are abstract (non-physical). With Si, those things are physical (physical stimuli/changes and the physical sensations/states that result). Ni and Si are about about cause and effect relationships.

    Ti and Fi are about systems, or the relationships between fixed things. Fi is the ethical relationships between fixed things. Ti is the logical relationships between fixed things. Perhaps Ti and Fi are best described as a network or structure. In order for a system to exist, there must be points in the system which are fixed so that other parts of the system may be built upon them.

  7. #7
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Completely wrong to an abominable degree.
    Enough of the arrogant bullshit already.

  8. #8
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.
    Yes, the links (or relationships) between things are introverted functions... but Ni and Si are the ever changing relationships between events. Perhaps they are best described as the flow of things. With Ni, those things are abstract (non-physical). With Si, those things are physical (physical stimuli/changes and the physical sensations/states that result). Ni and Si are about about cause and effect relationships.

    Ti and Fi are about systems, or the relationships between fixed things. Fi is the ethical relationships between fixed things. Ti is the logical relationships between fixed things. Perhaps Ti and Fi are best described as a network or structure. In order for a system to exist, there must be points in the system which are fixed so that other parts of the system may be built upon them.
    But that's just it. Ti and Fi are much worse at understanding systems that already exist because they can't quickly bend themselves to understand other people's systems. Si and Ni are very quick at noticing systemacy in the world, understanding and using such systemacy for their own benefit.

    Someone, (I hope it wasn't Phaedrus), mentioned that dynamics, when they play chess, have a habit of trying to understand the opponent's plan. Statics tend to have their own plan that they advance and try to overwhelm the opponent's plan through sheer power.

    Your point about fixed points is excellent. But some fixed points are only temporarily fixed. If a person is involved with a few hundred systems of similar nature each day, Ti would usually use his own system to approximate something close enough and use his own system each time. Si would have to observe each system individually and do case by case work. Extremely inefficient, but far more accurate. Or, if they happened to feel like it, Si could do "whatever" to approach the same issue and just use personal experience.

    Let's make an example of a tractor. I'm being slightly rough myself here, but I hope you'll forgive that. Anyway, Ni would easily get the idea of how a tractor works, but not the spesifics. Ti could probably reasonably well design a tractor and figure how it must work. Fi would understand easily the purpose of the tractor and how it ought to work. Si would have to see a tractor, play with the machinery, test it and observe how it works. This kind of playing around with a system, concrete interaction with it, is in my view necessary for Si to get an internal model of how something works. So if a system is complex enough that there is no simulator and hazardous enough that it can't be played with so as to gain experience, and inaccessible enough that it's functioning can't be directly observed, then and only then is Si unable to do anything. (And then Si will use other, more indirect tools.)
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  9. #9
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.
    Yes, the links (or relationships) between things are introverted functions... but Ni and Si are the ever changing relationships between events. Perhaps they are best described as the flow of things. With Ni, those things are abstract (non-physical). With Si, those things are physical (physical stimuli/changes and the physical sensations/states that result). Ni and Si are about about cause and effect relationships.

    Ti and Fi are about systems, or the relationships between fixed things. Fi is the ethical relationships between fixed things. Ti is the logical relationships between fixed things. Perhaps Ti and Fi are best described as a network or structure. In order for a system to exist, there must be points in the system which are fixed so that other parts of the system may be built upon them.
    But that's just it. Ti and Fi are much worse at understanding systems that already exist because they can't quickly bend themselves to understand other people's systems. Si and Ni are very quick at noticing systemacy in the world, understanding and using such systemacy for their own benefit.

    Someone, (I hope it wasn't Phaedrus), mentioned that dynamics, when they play chess, have a habit of trying to understand the opponent's plan. Statics tend to have their own plan that they advance and try to overwhelm the opponent's plan through sheer power.

    Your point about fixed points is excellent. But some fixed points are only temporarily fixed. If a person is involved with a few hundred systems of similar nature each day, Ti would usually use his own system to approximate something close enough and use his own system each time. Si would have to observe each system individually and do case by case work. Extremely inefficient, but far more accurate. Or, if they happened to feel like it, Si could do "whatever" to approach the same issue and just use personal experience.
    You're describing two different aspects of Ti.

    Let's make an example of a tractor. I'm being slightly rough myself here, but I hope you'll forgive that. Anyway, Ni would easily get the idea of how a tractor works, but not the spesifics. Ti could probably reasonably well design a tractor and figure how it must work. Fi would understand easily the purpose of the tractor and how it ought to work. Si would have to see a tractor, play with the machinery, test it and observe how it works. This kind of playing around with a system, concrete interaction with it, is in my view necessary for Si to get an internal model of how something works. So if a system is complex enough that there is no simulator and hazardous enough that it can't be played with so as to gain experience, and inaccessible enough that it's functioning can't be directly observed, then and only then is Si unable to do anything. (And then Si will use other, more indirect tools.)
    Hmm... the only response I can think of is to follow your description with my own, using the same example, a tractor.

    Se sees the color, size, weight, usability (is it fueled up? is it in working condition?) and horse power of the tractor. How new/old is it? How much is it worth?

    Si sees how the vibration of the tractor may be uncomfortable, notices the fact that it's open will mean that it will offer no protection from the sun (so the driver may want to wear a hat and bring water), hears how loud it is when it runs and knows that the driver's ears will ring later, etc.

    Ni sees how the tractor will most likely be used, thinking of the fields it will plow, the crops that will grow, the harvesting of those crops, the people who will purchase and consume them. At the same time it sees the factory the tractors was designed in, the tractor's purchase and shipping to it's owner, the probability that the owner will eventually sell it or use it for parts once it is old and no longer useful to plow or harvest crops. At the same time it sees the farm and the concept of agriculture, thinking of how we went from the agrarian age to the industrial age to the information age. It wonders what age will be next. It thinks of how farmers during the agrarian age did not have such sophisticated and efficient machinery and wonders what age will be next, and what will become of agriculture. It may also think about the seasons, and how the tractor is used for certain things at different times of the year. (Okay, I may have gotten a little carried away, but you get the idea.)

    Ne sees possibilities... someone help me with this one. I understand Ne, but when I try to verbalize examples I end up going off track (ironically ).

    Te sees the crops being harvested or the fields being plowed or whatever other activity is taking place. It sees the pattern in which the driver is covering the field and may come up with a more efficient method of doing so.

    Ti sees... a lot of things... it's got a place in it's system for the concept of farming. It may see the science behind the way the tractor works (or would that be Ti + Ne?). It sees that the hired help will be plowing because they're subordinates (that would be Ti + Se).

    Seeing the gears and motor and whatnot of the tractor would be Te + Si. Seeing the fields as futures (corn, wheat, etc.) could be Te + Ni.

    This is a difficult example to work Fi and Fe into, too.

  10. #10
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Te can tell you if the tractor works or if it's broken right? Since Te is about "what works"

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    (Se would actually be more likely to tell you that though... )

  12. #12

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Systems

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Systems are, by definition, static. If they were not, it would be impossible to build on them.
    I'm not sure what definition of "system" you are referring to or what exactly you mean by saying that they must be "static". For comparison, the former nuclear physicist and current chess trainer Alexander Shashin sees chess as a complex, dynamic system based on the evolutionary-synergetic paradigm (compare Gulenko's description of "vortex thinking" here: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=14637 ), which he describes briefly in this interview: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/misha15.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Someone, (I hope it wasn't Phaedrus), mentioned that dynamics, when they play chess, have a habit of trying to understand the opponent's plan. Statics tend to have their own plan that they advance and try to overwhelm the opponent's plan through sheer power.
    I don't recall having said that. Are you referring to someone's post on the forum? Do you think that the statement is true or not?

  14. #14
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Completely wrong to an abominable degree. The links between things are introvert functions. Si and Ni are introvert functions. Do the math and stop joking around.
    QFT. Please Joy stop. Every introverted function creates a system, in his own way.

    Think about any form of religion - mysticism - etc - what else are their behavioural representations (usually heavily Se based), if not mappings of a Ni system?

    Now think about a car engine in motion. Think about how ISTps are thought about as being good mechanics (stereotype that I have yet to found to be opposed to reality). 2+2?

    Joy - if you believe systems are exclusively static, please get an education. Or rather - just open your car and look at its engine.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  15. #15
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Every introverted function creates a system, in his own way.
    Necessarily? Why? What is your definition of a "system" then? If you're saying that any introverted perception is a system, ok, but then you're defining it, rather than concluding it.

    Si and Ni are perceptions of flows - that doesn't make them into a system as such, unless that's your definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Think about any form of religion - mysticism - etc - what else are their behavioural representations (usually heavily Se based), if not mappings of a Ni system?
    I think religion, mysticism, etc, it's actually a Ti mapping of a Ni imagery. So the system comes from Ti, not Ni. Not all religious persons are Beta, obviously, but all the major religious leaders and visionaries have been, and imo it's no coincidence. It's the quadra with the unique Ni + Ti combination.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Now think about a car engine in motion. Think about how ISTps are thought about as being good mechanics (stereotype that I have yet to found to be opposed to reality). 2+2?
    ISTps are indeed very often good mechanics, as are quite a few ISFps, by the way. But I don't think it means that Si as such is any "system". If that were so, then ISTps would also be stereotyped as good engineers - which some of them are, but so are many ENTjs and INTjs, with far less Si. What makes ISTps and ISFps good mechanics is the natural inclination to focus on the physical reality in front of them.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  16. #16
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Si and Ni are perceptions of flows - that doesn't make them into a system as such
    Are you saying people have no understanding of their perceptions? Perception is all about context. It is unavoidable to create a coherent (Internally) picture of reality through perception if you are sane.

  17. #17
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Are you saying people have no understanding of their perceptions? Perception is all about context. It is unavoidable to create a coherent (Internally) picture of reality if you are sane.
    Does anyone use only Si or Ni?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  18. #18
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Are you saying people have no understanding of their perceptions? Perception is all about context. It is unavoidable to create a coherent (Internally) picture of reality if you are sane.
    Does anyone use only Si or Ni?
    So you are saying that one is nothing more then a vegetable and a heap of instincts if one is using just perceiving functions?

  19. #19
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Si and Ni are perceptions of flows - that doesn't make them into a system as such, unless that's your definition.

    MMM. Take for example the basic model of economic flux, that in its most primitive way describes how money is given to workers in exchange for labor, which in turn acquire the goods they produce with labor via the money obtained etc.

    That is indeed a flow. It's also indeed a system, in every way the usual word "system" is thought of. What do you think? Did I convince you?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  20. #20
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Si and Ni are perceptions of flows - that doesn't make them into a system as such, unless that's your definition.

    MMM. Take for example the basic model of economic flux, that in its most primitive way describes how money is given to workers in exchange for labor, which in turn acquire the goods they produce with labor via the money obtained etc.

    That is indeed a flow. It's also indeed a system, in every way the usual word "system" is thought of. What do you think? Did I convince you?
    It is not so much that these perceptions are "systems" unto themselves, but they are paired with a rational function which seeks to make sense of this perception. Ni and Si are not systems, but the perception of dynamic Extraverted systems of reality (Te and Fe), but even then, they often seek out a complementary system, either Ti or Fi depending, to reinforce the perception.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  21. #21
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95
    FDG: "neither necessary nor sufficient" (as i argued in the other thread.)

    for example in this context isn't a flow just something which modifies a stock? (wealth, capital, etc.) it's pretty easy to understand the flows without understanding any economic model/system in particular. (most liberal arts students for example lol..)
    yeah i agree, but why would it be different?

    Also, I was referring to both Si and Ni; and, I wasn't trying to prove that they exclusively deal with system, but rather that there is such a thing as a system built upon Si or Ni
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  22. #22
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,631
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    As usual Smilingeyes is perfectly right
    maybe i am interpretting the intended scope of this too broadly..
    He didn't say that only Si creates systems, either, just that Si types create systems with Si.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  23. #23
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    So you are saying that one is nothing more then a vegetable and a heap of instincts if one is using just perceiving functions?
    Something like it.

    Nobody uses only any one function at any time, not the way I understand them, and I think it makes sense. I think anyone who'd use only one function belongs in a lunatic asylum.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  24. #24
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    It is not so much that these perceptions are "systems" unto themselves, but they are paired with a rational function which seeks to make sense of this perception. Ni and Si are not systems, but the perception of dynamic Extraverted systems of reality (Te and Fe), but even then, they often seek out a complementary system, either Ti or Fi depending, to reinforce the perception.
    That's pretty much the way I see it.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  25. #25
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    So you are saying that one is nothing more then a vegetable and a heap of instincts if one is using just perceiving functions?
    Something like it.
    Hmm, let me rephrase, are you claiming that for understanding rationality is required?

  26. #26
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    So you are saying that one is nothing more then a vegetable and a heap of instincts if one is using just perceiving functions?
    Something like it.
    Hmm, let me rephrase, are you claiming that for understanding rationality is required?
    Understanding =! System
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  27. #27
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Understanding =! System
    Understanding == System

  28. #28
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Understanding =! System
    Understanding == System
    Why?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  29. #29
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca

    Understanding == System
    Why?
    Because understanding is complex.

  30. #30
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca

    Understanding == System
    Why?
    Because understanding is complex.
    How so? And does complex necessarily mean or equate to a system?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  31. #31
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca

    Understanding == System
    Why?
    Because understanding is complex.
    How so? And does complex necessarily mean or equate to a system?
    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    What?

    Systems are simple tho... if understanding is complex and systems are simple.. then how are they equal.
    Complex as in multistructured, possessing structure. And because it is composed of elements it's a structured set of elements. It's a system.

    [spoil:c16c1faa44]Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
    sys·tem /ˈsɪstəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sis-tuhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –noun
    1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.
    2. any assemblage or set of correlated members: a system of currency; a system of shorthand characters.
    3. an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought: a system of philosophy.
    4. a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government.
    5. any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge.
    6. due method or orderly manner of arrangement or procedure: There is no system in his work.
    7. the world or universe.
    8. Astronomy.
    a. a number of heavenly bodies associated and acting together according to certain natural laws: the solar system.
    b. a hypothesis or theory of the disposition and arrangements of the heavenly bodies by which their phenomena, motions, changes, etc., are explained: the Ptolemaic system; the Copernican system.
    9. Biology.
    a. an assemblage of organs or related tissues concerned with the same function: the nervous system; the digestive system.
    b. the entire human or animal body considered as a functioning unit: an ingredient toxic to the system.
    10. one's psychological makeup, esp. with reference to desires or preoccupations: to get something out of one's system.
    11. a method or scheme of classification: the Linnean system of plants.
    12. (sometimes initial capital letter) the prevailing structure or organization of society, business, or politics or of society in general; establishment (usually prec. by the): to work within the system instead of trying to change it.
    13. Geology. a major division of rocks comprising sedimentary deposits and igneous masses formed during a single geologic period.
    14. Physical Chemistry. a combination of two or more phases, as a binary system, each of which consists of one or more substances, that is attaining or is in equilibrium.
    15. Computers. a working combination of hardware, software, and data communications devices.
    16. Checkers. either of the two groups of 16 playing squares on four alternate columns.[/spoil:c16c1faa44]

  32. #32
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca

    Understanding == System
    Why?
    Because understanding is complex.
    How so? And does complex necessarily mean or equate to a system?
    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    What?

    Systems are simple tho... if understanding is complex and systems are simple.. then how are they equal.
    Complex as in multistructured, possessing structure. And because it is composed of elements it's a structured set of elements. It's a system.
    But what structure does a perceiving function have unless it has been given structure by a rational function? Ni and Si perceive but do not form systems.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  33. #33
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    But what structure does a perceiving function have unless it has been given structure by a rational function?
    There is no need to implement structure as the information naturally posses it.

    EDIT: The difference is that you manipulate the structure indirectly through altering the ways in which you perceive.

  34. #34
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    But what structure does a perceiving function have unless it has been given structure by a rational function?
    There is no need to implement structure as the information naturally posses it. You create structure through altering the ways in which you perceive.
    Then it is not a system, but the perception of a system.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  35. #35
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited my post above. You can manipulate structure, build systems, through awareness of perception (Or altering one's perception willfully).

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    But what structure does a perceiving function have unless it has been given structure by a rational function?
    There is no need to implement structure as the information naturally posses it. You create structure through altering the ways in which you perceive.
    Then it is not a system, but the perception of a system.
    Structure. It naturally posses structure. It's perception of structure. From which, through altering perception, we can build systems.

  36. #36
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Edited my post above. You can manipulate structure, build systems, through awareness of perception (Or altering one's perception willfully).
    Why would the structure change just because you look at it differently or just by being aware of the perception? If I exchange a pair of green-tinted glasses for rose-tinted glasses, the perception changes but the structure of what I am perceiving does not change.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  37. #37
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Edited my post above. You can manipulate structure, build systems, through awareness of perception (Or altering one's perception willfully).
    Why would the structure change just because you look at it differently or just by being aware of the perception?
    Through altering perception you get to see new objects. Ok, this is how it goes, the only difference between systems built through perception and rationality is that in rationality you build the pieces while in perception the pieces already exist. In rationality the puzzle is manufactured. In perception you have to go and look for it. That is why through altering perception you "manipulate" structure. In reality you are just finding new pieces, but effectively you are "manipulating the structure" of the same piece.

  38. #38
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Ok, this is how it goes, the only difference between systems built through perception and rationality is that in rationality you build the pieces while in perception the pieces already exist.
    Ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    In rationality the puzzle is manufactured. In perception you have to go and look for it. That is why through altering perception you "manipulate" structure. In reality you are just finding new pieces, but effectively you are "manipulating the structure" of the same piece.
    I think I get what you mean.

    Anyway, to me the point is not that Si or Ni could not perceive, or be associated with, structures; the point was that some people seem to be claiming that any introverted function, in isolation, creates systems. I find this questionable, and downright absurd the notion that Si is uniquely connected to structures.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  39. #39
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Anyway, to me the point is not that Si or Ni could not perceive, or be associated with, structures; the point was that some people seem to be claiming that any introverted function, in isolation, creates systems. I find this questionable, and downright absurd the notion that Si is uniquely connected to structures.
    Well it is plausible, if not mandatory, if we assume reality itself to be structured. Then through simply perceiving it would be uniquely connected to structures/(Aspects of reality). But that's just technically, not effectively, which I presume is what you are trying to say. That they don't effectively build systems. Ok, with an introvert function you have to necessarily be aware of all the interconnections between things, because they are observing fields, which is another name for interconnections between things, and these interconnections form a system. In essence introvert functions are working *in* a system so it is quite necessary that systems and structure are associated with them and are what they produce. You can only explain interconnections through a system.

    For Si this is the system of how things work/complement each other concretely. This goes with his, that doesn't go with that, put that bracket there, Why? Because it complements the other parts, and so on. Like smilingeyes said, after filing tax payment for years you get a feel for what needs to be done, for how to do it. That's a Si system. When you just know what need to be done and how.

    IMO that is. I'm not entirely sure if this is true. But it's my current understanding of it.

  40. #40
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Anyway, to me the point is not that Si or Ni could not perceive, or be associated with, structures; the point was that some people seem to be claiming that any introverted function, in isolation, creates systems. I find this questionable, and downright absurd the notion that Si is uniquely connected to structures.
    Well it is plausible, if not mandatory, if we assume reality itself to be structured. Then through simply perceiving it would be uniquely connected to structures/(Aspects of reality). But that's just technically, not effectively, which I presume is what you are trying to say. That they don't effectively build systems. Ok, with an introvert function you have to necessarily be aware of all the interconnections between things, because they are observing fields, which is another name for interconnections between things, and these interconnections form a system. In essence introvert functions are working *in* a system so it is quite necessary that systems and structure are associated with them and are what they produce. You can only explain interconnections through a system.

    For Si this is the system of how things work/complement each other concretely. This goes with his, that doesn't go with that, put that bracket there, Why? Because it complements the other parts, and so on. Like smilingeyes said, after filing tax payment for years you get a feel for what needs to be done, for how to do it. That's a Si system. When you just know what need to be done and how.

    IMO that is. I'm not entirely sure if this is true. But it's my current understanding of it.
    But again, you are essentially just describing the perception of a system and not the formation of a system.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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