Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 79

Thread: Ne/Fe/Se/Te as potential or kinetic energy

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

    Default Ne/Fe/Se/Te as potential or kinetic energy

    This information was taken from this article by Augusta.

    The different aspects of the objects and subjects that make up our world:
    • Ne: potential energy; potential energy of the observed object and subject, his physical and mental capacity
    • Fe: turning potential into kinetic; the agitation and excitability of objects and subjects, moods and the emotions of the person
    • Se: kinetic energy; the readiness to mobilize, will and force, and beauty of the observed objects and subjects
    • Te: using kinetic energy; the activity of the object and subject, their ability to work

    The relationships and interactions between those objects and subjects:
    • Si: the relation between processes occurring in a space ("space" means the same time and place); the qualities within a space (one's immediate time and place), such as what is happening in that "space" or about the physical state of people located in this "space"
    • Ni: the relation between processes occurring in different times ("time" means the relationships between past, present, and future events); events and behavior in "time", about presence or absence of "time", danger or safety of the future
    • Ti: the readily observable/apparent relations between two objects/subjects and their properties which are consistent with the properties of other objects (system of measurement or a standard of comparison); the relationships between objects based on their weight, value, size, or any standardized/set parameters (within the same system of measurement)
    • Fi: the internal/underlying relations between two objects or subjects (attraction and repulsion); on the attractive or repulsive force of objects and subjects, about their necessity and needlessness of each other, loyalty or aversion, love or hatred


    Note: I thought of changing "subjects and objects" into "people/things", but the word "subject" could also mean idea, so I left it as is. We would probably need to talk to someone who speaks Russian for further clarification.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is slave Beta drivel.

    Notice how some of the claims are impossible to square with the constitution of the socionics model:

    Ne = potential energy
    Se = kinetic energy

    Now what does Augusta say is the change from potential to kinetic energy...? FE FUNCTION?! You put Ne on the left, Se on the right, how the hell does Fe end up between them? I don't buy it.

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

    Default

    It makes sense to me, though there's more to the theory than just that, obviously. It's just another perspective of the IM Elements.

    Keep in mind, it's not a person using Fe to change Ne into Se. A person pretty much just uses Fe to see the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy. (One can harness their knowledge of it as well... a Fe type may be how to inspire/motivate people to do things, for example.)
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  4. #4
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    At first sight, I find the connection far fetched and precise enough, nor easy to understand.

  5. #5
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    This is slave Beta drivel. The kind of stuff that tcaudilllg is notorious for producing bucketloads of.

    Notice how some of the claims are impossible to square with the constitution of the socionics model:

    Ne = potential energy
    Se = kinetic energy

    Now what does Augusta say is the change from potential to kinetic energy...? FE FUNCTION?! You put Ne on the left, Se on the right, how the hell does Fe end up between them? Bull shit if you ask me.
    Agreed. The change must happen via Ti.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  6. #6
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    This is slave Beta drivel. The kind of stuff that tcaudilllg is notorious for producing bucketloads of.

    Notice how some of the claims are impossible to square with the constitution of the socionics model:

    Ne = potential energy
    Se = kinetic energy

    Now what does Augusta say is the change from potential to kinetic energy...? FE FUNCTION?! You put Ne on the left, Se on the right, how the hell does Fe end up between them? Bull shit if you ask me.
    Agreed. The change must happen via Ti.
    Ti as the link between Ne and Se? that would explain a lot.....

    ILE

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

  7. #7
    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 FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    This is slave Beta drivel. The kind of stuff that tcaudilllg is notorious for producing bucketloads of.

    Notice how some of the claims are impossible to square with the constitution of the socionics model:

    Ne = potential energy
    Se = kinetic energy

    Now what does Augusta say is the change from potential to kinetic energy...? FE FUNCTION?! You put Ne on the left, Se on the right, how the hell does Fe end up between them? Bull shit if you ask me.
    Agreed. The change must happen via Ti.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    At first sight, I find the connection far fetched and precise enough, nor easy to understand.
    Are you referring to the correlation between energy and the IM Element (Ne and potential energy, for example), or are you referring to the changes in energy form (from potential energy to kinetic energy, for example)?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  8. #8
    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

    Joy, Ne->Ti->Se

    If you look at the definition you have given, this is a rather obvious step.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

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

    Default

    In a way, maybe. The "step" "between" Ne and Se would be Ti or Fi (I laughed because you said it was Ti specifically without any mention of Fi), if I understand what you're referring to. I don't see it happening in a clean, step by step manner like that though (it depends whether you're talking about information aspects or information elements).
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  10. #10
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  11. #11
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

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

    Default

    I can see why Ti people may disagree though. They might want to find a way to connect them to each other when they should more be compared/contrasted than connected.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  13. #13
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    Are you referring to the correlation between energy and the IM Element (Ne and potential energy, for example), or are you referring to the changes in energy form (from potential energy to kinetic energy, for example)?
    I'm referring to the correlation between energy and IM elements. I find it hard to compare energy with mental capacity etc.

    In this way you can compare a lot of things, which haven't got that much similarity's at all. But if it's my shortsightedness I gladly hear it.

  14. #14
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The energy isn't something that you're doing, it's something that you're perceiving in an object or subject.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  15. #15
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    I can see why Ti people may disagree though. They might want to find a way to connect them to each other when they should more be compared/contrasted than connected.
    I think that it has more to do with how the functions are blocked. The only functions that can go with either Se or Ne are the static elements of Fi and Ti. While Fe is the complementary function to Ti, I am not sure that Fe is necessarily the bridge between these two functions.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  16. #16
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My point is that this energy concept doesn't work by thinking of which IM Element each of the other IM Elements could "go with". (At least not that as I understand it.)
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr
    Good article by Augusta, good find Joy.
    Thanks. :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    I can see why Ti people may disagree though. They might want to find a way to connect them to each other when they should more be compared/contrasted than connected.
    I think that it has more to do with how the functions are blocked. The only functions that can go with either Se or Ne are the static elements of Fi and Ti. While Fe is the complementary function to Ti, I am not sure that Fe is necessarily the bridge between these two functions.
    I think it's perfectly understandable why Fe is the bridge between Ne and Se. Te would be the external change that results from this cycle.

    Fe is the dynamic element that converts the static element Ne into the static element Se.
    The change itself is not Ti, which is the static "formula" of the change, the rule as abstracted within a person, a person's understanding of the rules is Ti but not the dynamic occurrence itself.
    But on the other hand... Fe is an extroverted IM Element, so as is the case with all extroverted IM Elements, it's not dealing with relationships/connections. It doesn't bridge one thing to another, or it would be an introverted IM Element. What a mess, huh?

    Basically, no one information element can exist in a vacuum. They are all present in every thought process, every situation, every object, etc. all of the time. Trying to figure out what "bridges" or "goes with" different IM Elements will only confuse matters when you're looking at them as they are described here. If you want to understand the energy of each of the extroverted IM Elements, you have to look at each of them in and of themselves, not in connection with any other IM Element. (At least according to my understanding of this energy theory.)
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  18. #18
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The way you're using the word "object" it means "a person/thing/idea in and of itself" (not related to anything else).
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  19. #19
    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 hkkmr
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    The way you're using the word "object" it means "a person/thing/idea in and of itself" (not related to anything else).
    I don't use the word objects like that, but how I view extroverted functions is that they do not deal with relations and concern a single object within what Augusta is presenting in the article.

    Extroverted functions do not concern the relation of a object as it is perceived with another object.

    The relations between objects is fields.

    This is the basis for the object/field terminology in Augusta's work.

    Extroverted functions are all related to a object, and treats such a object without relation to another.

    The Introverted functions are all related to fields, and go into the relations with other objects including the perceiver.
    Yeah, that's what I was talking about. (I had misread your last post. Sorry about that.)
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  20. #20
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The problem with a lot of these is that they make it out as if Rationals are like Irrationals but better and more advanced. It's like that while Ne and Se leadings recognise potential and kinetic energy respectively, Fe and Te can recognise and manipulate them.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  21. #21
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    In a way, maybe. The "step" "between" Ne and Se would be Ti or Fi (I laughed because you said it was Ti specifically without any mention of Fi)
    You still haven't understood the theory then. Fi changes Se into Ne, not the opposite. Remember that Ti is a well-defined function, and Fi isn't. How can a not-well-defined function change a not-well defined function into a well-defined one? You have ENTp->ESTp and ISFj->INFj, but not INFj->ISTj. That's why I did not mention Fi. Study more!
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I so do not understand what this is supposed to mean. It actually seems contrary to model A. What she's saying seems generally incomprehensible. Fe mediating Ne and Se? I don't think there is a connection.

    ...Or is she talking about the links between the rings? Fe follwing Se in the INTj, for example? Then yes, you can see the manifestation of the following extroverted function in the preceding one, but only in its energy. So to say, this is incognizant without dual-type theory, unless the theorist considers the energy forms by intuition and not the (at the time non-existant) logical model.

    Actually this is how insight functions, I believe.

  23. #23
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are two links between Ne and Se. They must be judging functions because of the aspects of perception that exist. Judging functions are linked to perceiving functions. The two links with Ne and Se are Ti and Fi. Extraverted Perceiving function goes with introverted judging function. All the functions can be divided into +/- aspects to denote how certain functions exist within people. + goes with -(though theoretically + might be able to go with + and - with -, though I haven't gotten into that yet). +Ti and -Ti both exist. +Ne and -Ne both exist. There are two combinations that exist with these rule sets. +Ti with -Ne and -Ti with +Ne. There is also a Ti link with Se. There is +Ti and -Ti again, and there is also +Se and -Se. There are two combinations here also, +Ti with -Se and -Ti with +Se. This is a more expansive way of looking at things. This is basic information, these are basic possibilities. How can you say that these possibilities do not exist. I've made the hypothesis that there is a link between +Xi functions and -Xe functions, an equilibrium so to speak. What one does internally, they exert it oppositely. If one organizes things in their mind, when they put it into production they do it in a very disjunctive way. If one thinks idealizes about anarchical systems, they they will produce the anarchy in a very organized manner. Its basically a balance. Its a balance that exists in all aspects of our perception of reality. Newton said, "With every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Maybe this exists in all aspects of reality. Maybe existence is balance. Maybe we exist, because we are in between two parallels, two incomprehensibles. Just a thought.

    And again, I know I am miles ahead of everyone here as far as socionics are concerned, so its ok that you don't understand. Maybe someday you will. Maybe someone day someone will come along and preach my work in a way in which it is understandable for everyone here and around the world. I mean theoretically it has to happen. Everything is infinite, everything will come to happen again, at least within our perception of things. My opinion of this forum is that the people here are vultures of understanding. They peck at only what they can see, not caring about what they can't. Too much time is spent here on the arbitrary, the comprehensible. Maybe this is the right path. It keeps your own understanding of what makes you happy stay with you throughout your life, never getting to the point in which you feel like everything is meaningless and redundant. You've learned what makes you happy, and you thrive to seek it out, the bare cognition of our accepted perception of reality. The question I find to be most important is one that not everyone seeks, actually its probably the least asked question of them all. Why?
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  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 hitta
    And again, I know I am miles ahead of everyone here as far as socionics are concerned, so its ok that you don't understand. Maybe someday you will.
    Who else says things like that? "I have studied this subject more than anyone else in the world" -- let me think, let me think --
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  25. #25
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    wasn't really a statement to make myself look good, was more of a statement to say that a lot of the people here are peons
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  26. #26
    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 hitta
    wasn't really a statement to make myself look good, was more of a statement to say that a lot of the people here are peons
    It's ok, I wasn't really amused by your supposed intentions in making it; I was amused by its sheer stupidity.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  27. #27
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    And you're so smart
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  28. #28
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    And again, I know I am miles ahead of everyone here as far as socionics are concerned, so its ok that you don't understand. Maybe someday you will. Maybe someone day someone will come along and preach my work in a way in which it is understandable for everyone here and around the world. I mean theoretically it has to happen. Everything is infinite, everything will come to happen again, at least within our perception of things. My opinion of this forum is that the people here are vultures of understanding. They peck at only what they can see, not caring about what they can't. Too much time is spent here on the arbitrary, the comprehensible. Maybe this is the right path. It keeps your own understanding of what makes you happy stay with you throughout your life, never getting to the point in which you feel like everything is meaningless and redundant. You've learned what makes you happy, and you thrive to seek it out, the bare cognition of our accepted perception of reality. The question I find to be most important is one that not everyone seeks, actually its probably the least asked question of them all. Why?
    is the most important question you ask "why" or are you asking us why we are such blithering idiots? or perhaps you are asking for "our" opinions on why you are delusional?

    i cannot tell how serious you are being, not about your theory, but in the way you present yourself. do you expect to win over the world with this proselytizing fluff?

    and since when is the forum a collective whole? last time i checked there were individual users with minds of their own. it's not you against the world. if you'd quit the combative bullshit, you might be more composed to address the unenlightened forum with your prophetic words.

    btw, you might want to give me a smiley sticker for today because, ta da, my favorite pastime is getting to the point where i feel like everything is meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    The different aspects of the objects and subjects that make up our world:

    * Ne: potential energy; potential energy of the observed object and subject, his physical and mental capacity
    * Fe: turning potential into kinetic; the agitation and excitability of objects and subjects, moods and the emotions of the person
    * Se: kinetic energy; the readiness to mobilize, will and force, and beauty of the observed objects and subjects
    * Te: using kinetic energy; the activity of the object and subject, their ability to work


    The relationships and interactions between those objects and subjects:

    * Si: the relation between processes occurring in a space ("space" means the same time and place); the qualities within a space (one's immediate time and place), such as what is happening in that "space" or about the physical state of people located in this "space"
    * Ni: the relation between processes occurring in different times ("time" means the relationships between past, present, and future events); events and behavior in "time", about presence or absence of "time", danger or safety of the future
    * Ti: the readily observable/apparent relations between two objects/subjects and their properties which are consistent with the properties of other objects (system of measurement or a standard of comparison); the relationships between objects based on their weight, value, size, or any standardized/set parameters (within the same system of measurement)
    * Fi: the internal/underlying relations between two objects or subjects (attraction and repulsion); on the attractive or repulsive force of objects and subjects, about their necessity and needlessness of each other, loyalty or aversion, love or hatred
    Ti seems the odd one out. why is this the only introverted function that is about "readily observable/apparent" relations?
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  29. #29
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    And again, I know I am miles ahead of everyone here as far as socionics are concerned, so its ok that you don't understand. Maybe someday you will. Maybe someone day someone will come along and preach my work in a way in which it is understandable for everyone here and around the world. I mean theoretically it has to happen. Everything is infinite, everything will come to happen again, at least within our perception of things. My opinion of this forum is that the people here are vultures of understanding. They peck at only what they can see, not caring about what they can't. Too much time is spent here on the arbitrary, the comprehensible. Maybe this is the right path. It keeps your own understanding of what makes you happy stay with you throughout your life, never getting to the point in which you feel like everything is meaningless and redundant. You've learned what makes you happy, and you thrive to seek it out, the bare cognition of our accepted perception of reality. The question I find to be most important is one that not everyone seeks, actually its probably the least asked question of them all. Why?
    is the most important question you ask "why" or are you asking us why we are such blithering idiots? or perhaps you are asking for "our" opinions on why you are delusional?

    i cannot tell how serious you are being, not about your theory, but in the way you present yourself. do you expect to win over the world with this proselytizing fluff?

    and since when is the forum a collective whole? last time i checked there were individual users with minds of their own. it's not you against the world. if you'd quit the combative bullshit, you might be more composed to address the unenlightened forum with your prophetic words.

    btw, you might want to give me a smiley sticker for today because, ta da, my favorite pastime is getting to the point where i feel like everything is meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    The different aspects of the objects and subjects that make up our world:

    * Ne: potential energy; potential energy of the observed object and subject, his physical and mental capacity
    * Fe: turning potential into kinetic; the agitation and excitability of objects and subjects, moods and the emotions of the person
    * Se: kinetic energy; the readiness to mobilize, will and force, and beauty of the observed objects and subjects
    * Te: using kinetic energy; the activity of the object and subject, their ability to work


    The relationships and interactions between those objects and subjects:

    * Si: the relation between processes occurring in a space ("space" means the same time and place); the qualities within a space (one's immediate time and place), such as what is happening in that "space" or about the physical state of people located in this "space"
    * Ni: the relation between processes occurring in different times ("time" means the relationships between past, present, and future events); events and behavior in "time", about presence or absence of "time", danger or safety of the future
    * Ti: the readily observable/apparent relations between two objects/subjects and their properties which are consistent with the properties of other objects (system of measurement or a standard of comparison); the relationships between objects based on their weight, value, size, or any standardized/set parameters (within the same system of measurement)
    * Fi: the internal/underlying relations between two objects or subjects (attraction and repulsion); on the attractive or repulsive force of objects and subjects, about their necessity and needlessness of each other, loyalty or aversion, love or hatred
    Ti seems the odd one out. why is this the only introverted function that is about "readily observable/apparent" relations?
    Agreed, I probably mis-worded the paragraph. I shouldn't have stated it as if it were the whole forum. Though, to state something against you, you are just as likely to be delusional as I am. Hell, everyone could be delusional. Its like giving a child a grenade with the pin half way sticking out and just accepting that the child won't blow himself up. Then you could come up with the rational argument that even if the child did blow himself up in our accepted context of reality, did he really blow himself up in the absolute objective world. I should have identified the people as individuals; those individuals that are incapable of looking at all the different perspectives of reality, those that just accepted the malignant repercussions of the stable tower that is there accepted context of socionics; hell even their accepted context of reality. Everyone is a proselytizer, trying to find a back bone for the things that they have learned. Everything a person knows, everything that a person does has been learned in some way or another. Everything that a person does is predicative. Your statements were mind drawing as well. Am I supposed to read what you say and see the light? Are you the creator of all causation. Are you the absolute teacher? In the end all we know is meaningless, everything we do is just a causation of what we already know and what we know is what we have picked up from other "delusional" people. If I am to be considered delusional, you shall sit right next to me.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  30. #30
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ahh, that is a post.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  31. #31
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yea .... -Ni
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  32. #32
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Agreed, I probably mis-worded the paragraph. I shouldn't have stated it as if it were the whole forum. Though, to state something against you, you are just as likely to be delusional as I am. Hell, everyone could be delusional. Its like giving a child a grenade with the pin half way sticking out and just accepting that the child won't blow himself up. Then you could come up with the rational argument that even if the child did blow himself up in our accepted context of reality, did he really blow himself up in the absolute objective world. I should have identified the people as individuals; those individuals that are incapable of looking at all the different perspectives of reality, those that just accepted the malignant repercussions of the stable tower that is there accepted context of socionics; hell even their accepted context of reality. Everyone is a proselytizer, trying to find a back bone for the things that they have learned. Everything a person knows, everything that a person does has been learned in some way or another. Everything that a person does is predicative. Your statements were mind drawing as well. Am I supposed to read what you say and see the light? Are you the creator of all causation. Are you the absolute teacher? In the end all we know is meaningless, everything we do is just a causation of what we already know and what we know is what we have picked up from other "delusional" people. If I am to be considered delusional, you shall sit right next to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by excerpt from [i
    Physics of the Stoics[/i] by S. Sambursky]A result of extreme significance follows for the Stoics from their concretization of causes as bodies, in conjunction with their doctrine of the complete community in which all bodies exist by virtue of the dynamic medium, the pneuma. They realized that in every given instance on has to reckon with a multiplicity of causes, since the complex texture of natural phenomena reduces the conception of one single body acting upon another to a mere abstraction. Taking account of this complexity they arrived at a formulation of the law of causality which was transmitted to us by Alexander as follows: "In view of the multiplicity of causes, they (the Stoics) equally postulate about all of them that, whenever the same circumstances prevail with regard to the cause and the things affected by the cause, it is impossible that sometimes the result should be this and sometimes that; otherwise there would exist some uncaused motion. this postulate comes remarkably near to our present notion of causality. Today we are aware of the fact that the causal law in its strict sense can be applied only to systems which can be (nearly) isolated from the rest of the world and which can be subjected to recurrence, 1.e. where the same constellation can be (nearly) restored. With these qualification we could postulate that if a state A leads to a state B, a state A' closely similar to A will lead to a state B' closely similar to B. The deficiency of the Stoic definition derives from the fact that the conception of artificial isolation and wilful recurrence -- both of which have sprung from the technique of systematic experimentation -- were unknown to Greek science. However, it should be noted that the Stoic statement, which simply reads "ever time A is restored B must follow again," is the first statement on causality on record which introduces the element of recurrence and the idea of reproducibility of a situation B from a situation A. This implies the possibility of the prediction of events and thus leads straight from causality to determinism, to the concept of heimarmeme (fate).

    it is interesting to see that some of the objections raised in modern times against the usual formulation of the causal principle were voiced already in antiquity in the criticism directed against the Stoic view. A conspicuous example can be found in Alexander Aphrodisiensis' book De fato. Alexander rejects the unqualified connection of the notion of causality with the regular succession of an event B upon A. "We see that not all the events succeeding each other in time occur because of those which occurred before them. . . neither is night caused by the day. . .nor summer by the winter." The criteria for the non-causal character of the relation of day and night have been discussed by Mill and others. The relevant fact that the light of the day is always connected with the sun is brought as an argument by Alexander: "We observe that the mutual order of day and night has one and the same cause, as has also the change of the seasons. For winter is not the cause of summer, but the common cause of both is the revolution of the divine body and the inclination of the ecliptic in which the sun moves, this being the cause alike of all the phenomena mentioned." In justice to the Stoics we may assume that they would have argued as Alexander did; in the cause of the succession winter-summer, at least, evidence for this can be found in their definition of the seasonal changes as due to the movements of the sun.

    Before turning to the Stoic doctrine of determinism, we must focus our attention on the last sentence of their law of causality which refers to the "uncaused motion" and which is ostensibly directed against the Epicurean idea of the spontanous, uncaused swerve of the atoms. According to the Stoic conception, every transition from the state A, characterized by a certain constellation of bodies, to another state B, happens by way of motions that represent the effects of the causes leading to that transition. As all of these motions are on the one hand linked by the causal nexus to A and on the other hand do inevitably lead to B, a situation C different from B could only arise if there were at least one motion different from the others. But such a motion would not be accounted for by the sum of all causes represented by the state A and would therefore be acausal. Such an uncaused motion is inconceivable in the Stoic world governed by the strict continuity of the pneuma and its dynamics, where nothing can be added to or subtracted from the sum total of occurrences. As a result of this trend of thought, the Stoics were led to identify strict causality with some kind of principle of conservation: "They say that an uncaused event resembles a creation ex nihilo and is just as impossible. We have here before us, in a way, an anticipation of the connection which Newtonian mechanics established between the fundamental laws of dynamics (which are a mathematical expression of the law of causality) and the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. Moreover, the passage quoted alluded also to the doctrine of the "conservation of the existing," formulated by the Atomists, which excludes every creation from nothing.

    The Stoic argumentation against the causeless event was not restricted to purely theoretical deliberations: it also referred to experience, as the following quotation shows: "Chrysippos confuted those who would impose lack of causality upon nature by repeatedly referring to the astragalos and the balance and many other things which cannot alter their falling motions or inclinations without some cause and variance occurring in themselves or outside them." The game of dice is possibly mentioned here because of its common usage in antiquity and because it was evident to everyone that dice would only fall if thrown. However, by mentioning the balance Chrysippos might have been referring to the laws of the lever discovered by Archimedes who was Chrysippos' contemporary. Postulates 2 and 3 of his Equilibrium of Planes start from the equilibrium of the balance and regard its inclinations as effects of the increase or decrease of one of the weights. This statement leaves no doubt that there exists a cause of the perturbation of the equilibrium. In all those cases where such a cause cannot be discovered by any external symptom, Chrysippos, excluding any chance, postulates its existence thus: "For there is no such thing as lack of cause, or spontaneity. In the so called accidental impulses which some have invented, there are causes hidden from our sight which determine the impulse in a definite direction. This is in complete aggreement with the definition of chance as "hidden cause," often attributed to the Stoics.

    We have seen that the Stoics regarded cause as a body and effect as a movement affecting another (or the same) body. As this body in turn can be the cause of other effects, one arrives at the conception of a chain of causes stretching continuously in space and time and thus forming in their totality the course of the universe. "From everything that happens something else follows depending on it by necessity as cause, and every event has a forerunner, the cause upon which it depends." The reason for this is easily found in the continuum doctrine: ". . .because there is nothing in (the cosmos) which is separated and divorced from all that happened before." Here we see another aspect of the uncompromising attitude of the Stoics towards the Epicurean clinamen (deviation) of the atoms. The elimination of one single link from the causal chain would be necessity lead to the destruction of the chain as a continuous whole. The concatenation of causes establishes an interdependence whose disconnection would amount to a dissolution of the cosmos. "The cosmos would break up and be scattered and could not longer remain a unity administered by one order and plan, if some uncaused movement were to be introduced into it."
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  33. #33
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    And again, I know I am miles ahead of everyone here as far as socionics are concerned, so its ok that you don't understand. Maybe someday you will.
    Oh my god you arrogant bastard.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  34. #34
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hitta, it is amusing to see you go on and on about how you know so much more about Socionics than everyone else and how everyone but you is wrong. Especially considering that you do not understand the basics of the theory and will not seriously answer my posts pointing out anything contrary to your theory, such as fucking gulenko's own +/- quadra descriptions. btw, did you see this? After all, I posted it specifically for (or perhaps because of) you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    The problem with a lot of these is that they make it out as if Rationals are like Irrationals but better and more advanced. It's like that while Ne and Se leadings recognise potential and kinetic energy respectively, Fe and Te can recognise and manipulate them.
    Yes, but that's another subject. Like I said before, the explanations of each of the IM Elements is not intended to describe something that people do.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    In a way, maybe. The "step" "between" Ne and Se would be Ti or Fi (I laughed because you said it was Ti specifically without any mention of Fi)
    You still haven't understood the theory then. Fi changes Se into Ne, not the opposite. Remember that Ti is a well-defined function, and Fi isn't. How can a not-well-defined function change a not-well defined function into a well-defined one? You have ENTp->ESTp and ISFj->INFj, but not INFj->ISTj. That's why I did not mention Fi. Study more!


    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I so do not understand what this is supposed to mean. It actually seems contrary to model A. What she's saying seems generally incomprehensible. Fe mediating Ne and Se? I don't think there is a connection.

    ...Or is she talking about the links between the rings? Fe follwing Se in the INTj, for example? Then yes, you can see the manifestation of the following extroverted function in the preceding one, but only in its energy. So to say, this is incognizant without dual-type theory, unless the theorist considers the energy forms by intuition and not the (at the time non-existant) logical model.

    Actually this is how insight functions, I believe.
    No. I don't know how else to say this. Read through my previous posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    Ti seems the odd one out. why is this the only introverted function that is about "readily observable/apparent" relations?
    Contrast it to Fi, which is the same as Ti except that it's about underlying or internal relationships. Ti by contrast is about relationships/connections that are measurable or readily apparent.

    Ti: She is my mother.
    Fi: I have a good relationship with her.

    Ti: The chemical composition, temperature, ingredients, etc. of ice cream.
    Fi: I love ice cream.
    (Si: Eating ice cream makes me feel good. Leaving ice cream out makes it melt.)

    Ti: It is bad to mug a person because it is illegal.
    Fi: It is bad to mug a person morally wrong.

    Disclaimer that should be unnecessary: These are just examples of possible manifestations of each, certainly not definitions. The examples are meant only to contrast Ti from Fi (in the context of answering reyn's question), not give all encompassing explanations of them.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  35. #35
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    hitta, it is amusing to see you go on and on about how you know so much more about Socionics than everyone else and how everyone but you is wrong. Especially considering that you do not understand the basics of the theory and will not seriously answer my posts pointing out anything contrary to your theory, such as fucking gulenko's own +/- quadra descriptions. btw, did you see this? After all, I posted it specifically for (or perhaps because of) you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    The problem with a lot of these is that they make it out as if Rationals are like Irrationals but better and more advanced. It's like that while Ne and Se leadings recognise potential and kinetic energy respectively, Fe and Te can recognise and manipulate them.
    Yes, but that's another subject. Like I said before, the explanations of each of the IM Elements is not intended to describe something that people do.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    In a way, maybe. The "step" "between" Ne and Se would be Ti or Fi (I laughed because you said it was Ti specifically without any mention of Fi)
    You still haven't understood the theory then. Fi changes Se into Ne, not the opposite. Remember that Ti is a well-defined function, and Fi isn't. How can a not-well-defined function change a not-well defined function into a well-defined one? You have ENTp->ESTp and ISFj->INFj, but not INFj->ISTj. That's why I did not mention Fi. Study more!


    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I so do not understand what this is supposed to mean. It actually seems contrary to model A. What she's saying seems generally incomprehensible. Fe mediating Ne and Se? I don't think there is a connection.

    ...Or is she talking about the links between the rings? Fe follwing Se in the INTj, for example? Then yes, you can see the manifestation of the following extroverted function in the preceding one, but only in its energy. So to say, this is incognizant without dual-type theory, unless the theorist considers the energy forms by intuition and not the (at the time non-existant) logical model.

    Actually this is how insight functions, I believe.
    No. I don't know how else to say this. Read through my previous posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by reyn_til_runa
    Ti seems the odd one out. why is this the only introverted function that is about "readily observable/apparent" relations?
    Contrast it to Fi, which is the same as Ti except that it's about underlying or internal relationships. Ti by contrast is about relationships/connections that are measurable or readily apparent.

    Ti: She is my mother.
    Fi: I have a good relationship with her.

    Ti: The chemical composition, temperature, ingredients, etc. of ice cream.
    Fi: I love ice cream.
    (Si: Eating ice cream makes me feel good. Leaving ice cream out makes it melt.)

    Ti: It is bad to mug a person because it is illegal.
    Fi: It is bad to mug a person morally wrong.

    Disclaimer that should be unnecessary: These are just examples of possible manifestations of each, certainly not definitions. The examples are meant only to contrast Ti from Fi (in the context of answering reyn's question), not give all encompassing explanations of them.

    Well when someones argument against a theory is that the person doesn't understand the original theory good enough, something is wrong. Although I don't really understand where you're coming from with the "you don't understand the original theory" bullshit, I didn't know that an original idea had to be so closely attached to the old ideology behind something. I've done my best to make clear precise arguments, yet you've been unable to make a decent argument in response. In that aspect I am miles ahead.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  36. #36
    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 hitta
    And again, I know I am miles ahead of everyone here as far as socionics are concerned, so its ok that you don't understand. Maybe someday you will.
    laffachoo

  37. #37
    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 hitta
    Well when someones argument against a theory is that the person doesn't understand the original theory good enough, something is wrong. Although I don't really understand where you're coming from with the "you don't understand the original theory" bullshit, I didn't know that an original idea had to be so closely attached to the old ideology behind something.
    It doesn't, but the author of a spin off theory should at least understand the original theory. (S)he may use or discard or build on whatever (s)he wants from the original theory after a thorough study of said theory. In the very least, (s)he should understand the basics of the original theory.

    But the most significant thing is, if I understand you correctly, you're trying to say that your explanations and descriptions are of the original theory itself (as opposed to being a spin off).

    I've done my best to make clear precise arguments, yet you've been unable to make a decent argument in response. In that aspect I am miles ahead.
    I guess our definitions of "clear", "precise", and "decent" are not the same.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  38. #38
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  39. #39
    Khamelion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    U.S.
    TIM
    SEE-Fi 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    3,828
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see the bias.
    SEE Unknown Subtype
    6w7 sx/so



    [21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
    [21:29] hitta: and not dying
    .

  40. #40
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Joy, Ne->Ti->Se

    If you look at the definition you have given, this is a rather obvious step.
    or Fi.
    Nooooooo

    You go from Se to Fi to Ne BUT NOT

    from Ne to Fi to Se!!
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

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
  •