The next socionics model

[tcaudilllg]

needs to recognize the difference between "dark" and "light" forms of the elements.

If -Ti is the degree to which structure exists, but is distinct and self-contained, then what is destruction outright? Or, is -Ti the absence of structure altogther that must be raised to a given level? The question is begged: if the purpose of the IM elements is to create, then how does one destroy? Socionics fails to account for the motive to destruction.

There is a clear distinction between LII -Ti before +Ne and -Ti after +Ne , but Model B does not seem to make it. For that matter, which comes first, the -Ti or the +Ne? Are there different ways to use the functions together given the situation, and if so, what are they? The current models appear to be lacking given the variety of work we observe between the elements....

[machintruc]

The question is begged: if the purpose of the IM elements is to create, then how does one destroy? Socionics fails to account for the motive to destruction.

Positivist elements "create" the positive.

Negativist elements "destroy" the negative.


For example, you have a 50cl glass with 25cl of beer in.

You fill the glass to have a pint of beer. You may see it as having destroyed the 25cl of void or created 25cl of beer, that's basically the same thing : - vs. +.

[tcaudilllg]

As a case in point, consider the INTj who sees work going on in a compound. Every bit of work implies an accompanying bit of structure distinct to it, because Te bonding on basis of Fi is absolute and therefore, structural. If there is more Te than Fi, then there . There is ALWAYS Te in proportion to Ti, and vice versa: the question is whether or not it has been apprehended. Even in the context of +Ti, structural units are distinct. For example, the human body is a structure, made up of organs, nerves, and muscle fibers, each of which is composed of a cellular substructure. +Ti sees that the cells combine to form muscles, which combine with the other organs to form the body. -Ti sees the body, then it sees the muscles, then it sees the cells, and so forth. +Ti's clue that structures are interconnected is the presence of only a limited amount of energy channels between them, suggesting that there must be a strict organizing principle at work between the structures. -Ti's clue that there are many substructures is the observation of a multitude of different kinds of work within the superstructure. +Ti sees superstructure, -Ti sees substructure.

It would appear thus that one assesses the substructure of a construct against the backdrop of superstructure... which means that +Ti actually comes first in LII. It is +Ne's job to perceive the -Ti in +Ti, the - in the +.

In summary...

• in LSI, +Ti sees a disproportionate level of Te (-Te) between -Ti substructures... this indicates a Se organizing principle which groups the -Ti substructures into a larger superstructure. It would appear to be the substance of deductive logic.
• in LII, -Ti sees a higher level of work (+Te) than is necessary to maintain the +Ti superstructure, implying the existence of substructures. This seems to be reductive logic. ...Allow me to clarify: +Te sees more work than correlates to the existing +Ti superstructure, implying that there is missing Ti. (the missing Ti is +Ti) +Ne observes the type of this structure, which allows its observation.

[tcaudilllg]

Positivist elements "create" the positive.

Negativist elements "destroy" the negative.


For example, you have a 50cl glass with 25cl of beer in.

You fill the glass to have a pint of beer. You may see it as having destroyed the 25cl of void or created 25cl of beer, that's basically the same thing : - vs. +.

Yes but... what creates the negative? What destroys the positive?

To put it more succinct... what room is there in this model for Satan? For evil?

Well now wait... what value judgement goes on +Te to the LII? Is the +Te good, or bad? Obviously, it's in the eye of the beholder. It would seem to me that +Te in the INTj actually correlates to negative work, and -Te eliminates positive work... or is this a subjective observation? If I look at say, string theory, and see the huge efforts going into building these gigantic, probably wasteful particle colliders, then isn't the fact that more and more money is going to these efforts +Te? And, doesn't the money reinforce the (to my mind, corrupt) +Ti physics hiearchy? The functions, it would appear, can go either way... this is why we need a better model, and only an ENTp, I suspect, has the mind for the job.

So the question is, who is "seeking" the meaning of good and evil?

[machintruc]

Yes but... what creates the negative? What destroys the positive?

To put it more succinct... what room is there in this model for Satan? For evil?

Well now wait... what value judgement goes on +Te to the LII? Is the +Te good, or bad? Obviously, it's in the eye of the beholder. It would seem to me that +Te in the INTj actually correlates to negative work, and -Te eliminates positive work... or is this a subjective observation? If I look at say, string theory, and see the huge efforts going into building these gigantic, probably wasteful particle colliders, then isn't the fact that more and more money is going to these efforts +Te? And, doesn't the money reinforce the (to my mind, corrupt) +Ti physics hiearchy? The functions, it would appear, can go either way... this is why we need a better model, and only an ENTp, I suspect, has the mind for the job.

So the question is, who is "seeking" the meaning of good and evil?

Information aspects have nothing to do with Good and Evil.

[tcaudilllg]

Information aspects have nothing to do with Good and Evil.

They must, because good and evil are perceptions of information.

[machintruc]

They must, because good and evil are perceptions of information.

No, they aren't.

1. Good exists by itself.
2. Evil doesn't exist by itself, but only as compared to the Good.

A priest explained me so :

- You kill some guy with a gun. That's good.
- You can trigger the gun. That's good.
- The bullet fires, therefore the gun works. That's good.
- The bullet can damage the guy's heart's tissue. That's good.
- You can kill him. That's good.

- But the intention of killing him for evil reasons was evil.


Trying to suppose that positivist/negativist means good/evil may lead to mistyping. That's what I call "the yin/yang effect" : correlating things that have nothing to do.

You suppose yourself that reality has 16 aspects. You can't suppose Heaven has only 8.

It's like when you're playing chess and you have 10 pieces remaining. Positively, you have still 10. Negatively, you're lacking 6. That's not evil.

If "negativist" things didn't exist, we'll not live in a material world, but in a solid cube where's only one possible building block. I couldn't even have movement and write what I'm writing right now. Negativism is no Evil. Gulenko may say so, but he was wrong.

[machintruc]

i agree. in the Bible, it says that God has enscribed the commandments on the human heart (which we can "read" by listening to our consciousness).

Fi frameworks i think very much wither match those enscribed commandments or not.

Religion has nothing to do with information aspects either

[tcaudilllg]

But the intention of killing him for evil reasons was evil.

Yes I think you're right on this. Using a positive function to enhance a negative function of the same element would seem to correlate to negative intention, because the negative function would obliterate the positive, would it not?