Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: the existence of static/dynamic aspects of reality

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

    Default the existence of static/dynamic aspects of reality

    Quote Originally Posted by Elzo
    I don't believe in static or dynamic functions.
    I don't know if you mean functions or IM Elements or whatever... perhaps you can clarify... I'm going to assume that you're talking about aspects of reality though. We can work out the semantics when you post.

    If there's no such thing static or dynamic aspects of reality, it means there cannot be 8 different aspects of reality.

    The theory states:

    extraverted intuition = internal statics of objects
    extraverted sensing = external statics of objects
    extraverted logic = external dynamics of objects
    extraverted ethics = internal dynamics of objects
    introverted intuition = internal dynamics of fields
    introverted sensing = external dynamics of fields
    introverted logic = external statics of fields
    introverted ethics = internal statics of fields

    If you remove the static vs dynamic aspect of these, you're left with:

    internal of objects
    external of objects
    internal of fields
    external of fields


    My point is... it doesn't work. You have to have static/dynamic aspects of reality in order for the theory to work.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: the existence of static/dynamic aspects of reality

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by Elzo
    I don't believe in static or dynamic functions.
    I don't know if you mean functions or IM Elements or whatever... perhaps you can clarify... I'm going to assume that you're talking about aspects of reality though. We can work out the semantics when you post.

    If there's no such thing static or dynamic aspects of reality, it means there cannot be 8 different aspects of reality.

    The theory states:

    extraverted intuition = internal statics of objects
    extraverted sensing = external statics of objects
    extraverted logic = external dynamics of objects
    extraverted ethics = internal dynamics of objects
    introverted intuition = internal dynamics of fields
    introverted sensing = external dynamics of fields
    introverted logic = external statics of fields
    introverted ethics = internal statics of fields

    If you remove the static vs dynamic aspect of these, you're left with:

    internal of objects
    external of objects
    internal of fields
    external of fields


    My point is... it doesn't work. You have to have static/dynamic aspects of reality in order for the theory to work.
    Static/dynamic is sheer nonsense.

    Grrr, socionics!

  3. #3
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol

    I don't understand why people are having such a hard time with static/dynamic lately. Perhaps a thread is in order.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  4. #4
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    lol

    I don't understand why people are having such a hard time with static/dynamic lately. Perhaps a thread is in order.
    another thread isn't going to help make it less bullshit (and I'm speaking of the Reinin dichotomy... not the definition of the elements)

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    lol

    I don't understand why people are having such a hard time with static/dynamic lately. Perhaps a thread is in order.
    I'm not having a hard time with it. It's bullshit, that's all there is to it.

    EDIT: That is to say, oversimplified -> bullshit.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: the existence of static/dynamic aspects of reality

    @ Joy

    I was talking about actual functions (which are meant to be based on Information Elements).

    extraverted intuition = internal statics of objects
    extraverted sensing = external statics of objects
    extraverted logic = external dynamics of objects
    extraverted ethics = internal dynamics of objects
    introverted intuition = internal dynamics of fields
    introverted sensing = external dynamics of fields
    introverted logic = external statics of fields
    introverted ethics = internal statics of fields
    The info in the quote marks is just so abstract that its connection to current function descriptions is very weak. IMO Exxp and Ixxj perceive all the functions statically, and Ixxp and Exxj perceive all the functions dynamically.

    I gave the example of Fe in this thread:
    oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=14842

  7. #7
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: the existence of static/dynamic aspects of reality

    Quote Originally Posted by Elzo
    IMO Exxp and Ixxj perceive all the functions statically, and Ixxp and Exxj perceive all the functions dynamically.
    I very much agree.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  8. #8
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another option to use in differentiating the functions instead of using static/dynamic is
    "abstract" aka detached/detachment or separate from self (N and T) vs
    "the involvement" aka involved or from/within self (S and F)

    example
    S = apparent aspects involving the self..aka sensory information
    F = underlying aspects involving the self....aka emotions
    T = apparent aspects separate from self...aka "thoughts" (since a lot of people prefer to separate thoughts from emotions; btw, "logic" is an attempt to remove emotions from one's thinking and/or communications)
    N = underlying aspects separate from self...aka "intuition" (for example jung's archetypes and/or collective unconscious talk about underlying aspects as if they were separate from one's self)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  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 anndelise
    (since a lot of people prefer to separate thoughts from emotions; btw, "logic" is an attempt to remove emotions from one's thinking and/or communications)
    I'm going to have to disagree with this one. There are a lot of people (otherwise known as logical types lol) who automatically think of the Ti or Te aspects of something and actually have to make an effort to understand (or even be aware of) their own emotions much of the time.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  10. #10
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd have to look for the link where I got the actual socionics stuff from but I had found something in russian that described
    N, S = continual'nost' (integrity);
    F, T = discretion (divisibility)
    Suggesting Fi and Ti deal with discrete relationships (implying "statics") while Si and Ni deal with integral relationships (implying "dynamics")

    the follwing is a chat transcript between a friend of mine and i regarding static/dynamic which I had posted once before:

    Ann Delise: i finally figured something out to help me distinguish the dynamic Xi from the static Xi
    Ann Delise: in that one attempt of mine to get people to help work on translating a chart, it had S, N as continuous and F, T as discrete/divided
    Ann Delise: so when it comes to relationships, Fi and Ti are discrete relationships; Ni and Si are continuous relationships
    Ann Delise: discrete relationships sounds more static than continuous relationships
    Ann Delise: though i'm still having issues with "continuous objects" = static; "discrete objects" = dynamic ???
    [friend]: yes ... dynamic might be continuous (like an analog signal) and static might be discrete (like a digital signal) .... I have no idea what a "continuous object" is though
    Ann Delise: it makes sense for the relationships, thought, right?
    [friend]: no, not really .... but I don't understand the object/relation thing
    Ann Delise: hmmm, i wonder if a continuous object would be something that is expected to ..last...a long time...say a situation, or a person, etc. while a discrete object would be something that is expected to only last a short time..say a spark, or a brief signal
    [friend]: or vice versa
    Ann Delise: i can't see it vice versa
    [friend]: well, my monitor is an object ... it is a discrete entity ... I can see the boundaries that define the object ... at the same time it exists continually in that state
    Ann Delise: ah, k
    [friend]: I mean, the shape of the object will be the same tomorrow as it is today
    [friend]: hopefully ... you never know when it might get tossed out a window
    Note: upon checking after the conversation, (and after making the diagram) the translation had been
    N, S = continual'nost' (integrity);
    F, T = discretion (divisibility)[/quote]
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  11. #11
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    (since a lot of people prefer to separate thoughts from emotions; btw, "logic" is an attempt to remove emotions from one's thinking and/or communications)
    I'm going to have to disagree with this one. There are a lot of people (otherwise known as logical types lol) who automatically think of the Ti or Te aspects of something and actually have to make an effort to understand (or even be aware of) their own emotions much of the time.
    having to make an effort to understand or beware of their emotions says nothing about whether or not their emotions affect their thoughts

    think of all the therapies out there that try to help you adjust your emotions by adjusting your thoughts...
    and the reactionary therapies that focus on adjusting your emotions in order to adjust your thoughts

    and think of how many times on this forum we've seen "logical" types yelling and bitching and calling someone names all the while claiming to not be being emotional about it.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  12. #12
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why does discretion = divisibility?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  13. #13
    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 anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    (since a lot of people prefer to separate thoughts from emotions; btw, "logic" is an attempt to remove emotions from one's thinking and/or communications)
    I'm going to have to disagree with this one. There are a lot of people (otherwise known as logical types lol) who automatically think of the Ti or Te aspects of something and actually have to make an effort to understand (or even be aware of) their own emotions much of the time.
    having to make an effort to understand or beware of their emotions says nothing about whether or not their emotions affect their thoughts

    think of all the therapies out there that try to help you adjust your emotions by adjusting your thoughts...
    and the reactionary therapies that focus on adjusting your emotions in order to adjust your thoughts
    I agree, but I don't understand what that has to do with Socionics logic.

    and think of how many times on this forum we've seen "logical" types yelling and bitching and calling someone names all the while claiming to not be being emotional about it.
    I also don't understand what that has to do with whether one is ethical or logical (Socionics terms).

    That said, everyone acts like that sometimes.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  14. #14
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    (since a lot of people prefer to separate thoughts from emotions; btw, "logic" is an attempt to remove emotions from one's thinking and/or communications)
    I'm going to have to disagree with this one. There are a lot of people (otherwise known as logical types lol) who automatically think of the Ti or Te aspects of something and actually have to make an effort to understand (or even be aware of) their own emotions much of the time.
    oh, and think of the comments about how irrational F types are and how rational T types are
    and the theories out there that talk about what separates man from beast is his ability to be rational (also said as his ability to think)



    anyways, i didn't post the alternatives in order to argue anything...i was just trying to show that there have been alternative ways of dividing up the functions without resorting to the terms static/dynamic
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  15. #15
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Why does discretion = divisibility?
    i dunno, that was how it translated
    something to do with the term "discrete" as in "separate"
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  16. #16
    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 anndelise
    anyways, i didn't post the alternatives in order to argue anything...i was just trying to show that there have been alternative ways of dividing up the functions without resorting to the terms static/dynamic
    but then what's this?

    Suggesting Fi and Ti deal with discrete relationships (implying "statics") while Si and Ni deal with integral relationships (implying "dynamics")
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  17. #17
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol I still don't get it. That's okay though... it's probably better for me not to have more socionics material to dive into right now.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

Posting Permissions

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