# Thread: Questioning Augusta's definition of Se

1. ## Questioning Augusta's definition of Se

In her text "The Dual Nature of Man", Aushra Augusta states that Se includes the shapes of objects. While I would argue that that Se does indeed have something to do with the perception of an object's shape, shape itself is not Se but a relationship between Se and Fi. This because Fi is character and Se is will, and a shape is nothing but the arrangements of a set of wills into a constant character.

Some may argue that shape has more to do with Ti than with Fi, but I argue that shape is defined by the capacity to resist changes in form, whatever the actual arrangement of its vertices. (consider a sphere has no vertices and therefore, no true structure to speak of). It would seem to me that shape is but one side of something that does not appear to be concretely defined: the general class of concepts apprehended by the superego block.

2. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
In her text "The Dual Nature of Man", Aushra Augusta states that Se includes the shapes of objects. While I would argue that that Se does indeed have something to do with the perception of an object's shape, shape itself is not Se but a relationship between Se and Fi. This because Fi is character and Se is will, and a shape is nothing but the arrangements of a set of wills into a constant character.

Some may argue that shape has more to do with Ti than with Fi, but I argue that shape is defined by the capacity to resist changes in form, whatever the actual arrangement of its vertices. (consider a sphere has no vertices and therefore, no true structure to speak of). It would seem to me that shape is but one side of something that does not appear to be concretely defined: the general class of concepts apprehended by the superego block.

i'll do this one on the fly.....
Ti (regardless of its modifier) is potential structure. Se is the external realization of the Form for such. Form we can say is not observeable directly in the world, but only in our comprehension of it. Having done so, now we can say that there exists shape and shape is observeable in the real world....but what is shape...shape can then be said to be a further Synthesis of a progressional functional attitude. TiSe becoming aquainted with Fe....gives Fe the label of the Will (~Notice ESTps as a whole have great will power)(as will is only inherent in the perception.. of the people around to look over its administration <Fi attempts leads to Fe Appropriateness>.......and Ni (in NiFe) while completing a quadra attitude represents the shape itself (Ni has been refered to as an Intuition of Time and shape takes place thru such future-oriented time) .Thus shape is merely a momentary glimpse at an everchanging phenomena of reality. This perception does not cover truth or some other philosophical giants as they exist in other quadra value tenets.

I hopr that helps.

3. An object's shape is it's external state. It's Se.

If you want to start talking about information elements (as opposed to aspects), then we can get into how every other information element is in some way related to it.

But for the sake of understanding and describing Se aspects, an object's shape in and of itself is indeed a Se aspect.

4. Originally Posted by Joy
An object's shape is it's external state. It's Se.

If you want to start talking about information elements (as opposed to aspects), then we can get into how every other information element is in some way related to it.

But for the sake of understanding and describing Se aspects, an object's shape in and of itself is indeed a Se aspect.
You define shape as the resistance to impressed force, but I think the character that that emerges from that resistance is a more accurate definition. Shape is a relation between Se and Fi aspects; however, the appearance of a shape is indeed Se.

Perhaps we should distinguish between shapes in space, and shapes in vision. Or, would you distinguish between shape and form?

I would enjoy a discussion though about how other information elements are related to Se. The things is, other things are Se too (force, momentum, impulse), so it doesn't seem that Se is a valid enough descriptor for our means of apprehending shape.

@kensi: Fe is not will... it may be the means by which will is communicated (+Fe is signal), but it is not in itself will.

Any type can have strong will... ESTps and ESFps notice will's nuances more easily than other types, but that does not mean they themselves have strong will. Will is about more than moving things around you; it's about moving things that are difficult to move. It is about moving things that offer resistance when you try to move them. An Se type may well know how to get the will to move something, but applying that strategy is another issue because it takes more than will to collect will.

EDIT: I've thought about it and determined that physical shape != Se. The substance of the shape is indeed Se because the shape is defined by the outcome of the subjective resistance of the thing considered versus the objective imposition of the external environment; however, what we are referring to with regard to the relation of shape to an object is a factor of the object's character. Thus geometric shape is Se, but physical shape as an aspect of an object is Fi created from interaction between + and - forms of Se.

...Let me delineate two distinct forms of Se, will and space. I think Augusta made the point that Se was the imposition of one space upon another, that means 1) a collection of points into space and 2) a will that can perform the imposition of the collection upon another such collection.

5. Originally Posted by Joy
An object's shape is it's external state. It's Se.

If you want to start talking about information elements (as opposed to aspects), then we can get into how every other information element is in some way related to it.

But for the sake of understanding and describing Se aspects, an object's shape in and of itself is indeed a Se aspect.

I don't see what Se has to do with shape itself....S is a past and present measurement of the Spatiality of E . For simplificstion purposes you could just say E is shape. But this would be a an over-simplification, no different then Se.

Why are we talking about shape again? To correlate it to our understanding of Se?.....Are we talking about Se's existance in the ego or where?

6. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

1.@kensi: Fe is not will... it may be the means by which will is communicated (+Fe is signal), but it is not in itself will.

2Any type can have strong will...

3EDIT: I've thought about it and determined that physical shape != Se.

4from interaction between + and - forms of Se.

1. Why can't Fe be Will...it is a living entity and it symbolically is established in the real world(E). All types use it... just a question of where in their makeup.
(i'm only saying this if i had to choose amongst the 8 functions and not as a statement of an IM process.)
2. I agree.

3. Se would be the most obvious candidate, yes.
So is your concept of Will still Se under this scenario ?

4. What is this +/-. A lot of people believe that it is an unfounded concept in Socx. I will reserve judgement on it till a later date. Do you know of any good articles that explain this without blowing up more confusion about it......if you do...that would be very usefull for me.

7. Originally Posted by kensi
1. Why can't Fe be Will...it is a living entity and it symbolically is established in the real world(E). All types use it... just a question of where in their makeup.
(i'm only saying this if i had to choose amongst the 8 functions and not as a statement of an IM process.)
2. I agree.

3. Se would be the most obvious candidate, yes.
So is your concept of Will still Se under this scenario ?

4. What is this +/-. A lot of people believe that it is an unfounded concept in Socx. I will reserve judgement on it till a later date. Do you know of any good articles that explain this without blowing up more confusion about it......if you do...that would be very usefull for me.
- is object, + is subject.

For example, -Se would be, relative to you, someone trying to force you to do something. +Se in that case, would be your resistance to it. It could also be the other way around: if you try to move something (say, a ball), then the force you exert is +Se relative to you, and the ball's inertia is the -Se resistance you experience. From the ball's perspective, your +Se is -Se, and its intertia is its +Se.

It's a matter of relativism. Notice that physical shape is the substance of the clash between the integrity of the object which has the shape, and the forces which. The object has shape only because the +Se is greater than the -Se with regard to its spatial integrity.

As regards which blocks process shape, shape is an abstraction so it's the superego block which processes it. This is easy to prove: Einstein's type was ENTp, yet space -- particularly its shape -- is what is specifically mathematically defined by the equations of general relativity. For Einstein to consider space at all, it must have been the outcome of a mathematical formula because -Se was his third function.

8. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
- is object, + is subject.

As regards which blocks process shape, shape is an abstraction so it's the superego block which processes it. This is easy to prove: Einstein's type was ENTp, yet space -- particularly its shape -- is what is specifically mathematically defined by the equations of general relativity. For Einstein to consider space at all, it must have been the outcome of a mathematical formula because -Se was his third function.
So as an ENFp does that mean that i use -Se too in my 3rd function ?

and if so why isn't it +Se ?

9. Originally Posted by kensi
I don't see what Se has to do with shape itself....S is a past and present measurement of the Spatiality of E . For simplificstion purposes you could just say E is shape. But this would be a an over-simplification, no different then Se.

Why are we talking about shape again? To correlate it to our understanding of Se?.....Are we talking about Se's existance in the ego or where?
What does spatiality of E mean?

10. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
You define shape as the resistance to impressed force, but I think the character that that emerges from that resistance is a more accurate definition. Shape is a relation between Se and Fi aspects; however, the appearance of a shape is indeed Se.

Perhaps we should distinguish between shapes in space, and shapes in vision. Or, would you distinguish between shape and form?

Se:The ball is a sphere. (that's the external state of the object)
Fi: I like the ball. (that's my internal connection to it)
Ti: A ball is a sphere, and a box is a cube. (that's an external comparison between the two)
Te: The ball is rolling. (that's the activity of the ball)
Si: The ball is rolling down the hill. (that's the activity relationship between the two)

11. @Joy: your aspect definitions are not the only definitions. They are only half the story.

To all: what do you think the correct definitions for the aspects are? (taking into account that "external statics of objects/fields" means next to nothing without supplementary interpretation).

Rick disagrees with you Joy: he says that Si is "how something feels". Augusta defines it as "the internal reflection of one object in another".

Your definitions, Joy, seem more like accounts of energy rather than perceptions. And I do think your attatching a political subtext to your Ti definition, because you're paying particular attention to need to conserve thoughts and perceptions by saying "A is a B".

12. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
@Joy: your aspect definitions are not the only definitions. They are only half the story.

To all: what do you think the correct definitions for the aspects are? (taking into account that "external statics of objects/fields" means next to nothing without supplementary interpretation).
Field: connections
Object: the things being connected

Static: state (of the thing/connection)
Dynamic: activity (what the thing/connection is doing, what's happening)

I know that I often use short definitions that don't sufficiently cover the topic at hand in an attempt to be minimalistic, but I really believe that the when it comes to objects/fields and static/dynamic, the minimalistic descriptions I've posted (or similar ones) are the easiest way to understand the concepts. If you try to analyze it further it stops making sense.

Rick disagrees with you Joy: he says that Si is "how something feels".
That's a manifestation of it, but any external dynamic of fields is Si. It's certainly not limited to connections between something and one's body. Si includes things like one gear turning another.

Augusta defines it as "the internal reflection of one object in another".
I can't really answer that without seeing the context.

Your definitions, Joy, seem more like accounts of energy rather than perceptions. And I do think your attatching a political subtext to your Ti definition, because you're paying particular attention to need to conserve thoughts and perceptions by saying "A is a B".
I take back what I said about Ti as it relates to the ball... I instead want to use this thread as my example.

13. *interrupting this thread to tell Joy that I really like the quote in your signature*

14. thanks (:

15. I can't say you're wrong anymore than I can say you're right, Joy. Thus I will consider your definitions of the aspects as half the entire aspect story.

My definitions:

objects/fields: same as yours

statics: a relationship between elements in which its associated numeric values are changed, but not the relationship itself. (Fi "like"/"dislike" can be accented by events, but its basis cannot be changed. An object's mass, velocity, etc. can change, but these changes never change the properties of the object except in numeric terms)
dynamics: a relationship between the elements that causes a change in their properties but not a change in their respective numeric values. (work can deform an object, but even deformed an object's mass will remain the same)

16. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
statics: a relationship between elements in which its associated numeric values are changed, but not the relationship itself. (Fi "like"/"dislike" can be accented by events, but its basis cannot be changed. An object's mass, velocity, etc. can change, but these changes never change the properties of the object except in numeric terms)
Your definition of static just sounds like a description of Ti to me.

I'm not sure I understand the part in bold.

dynamics: a relationship between the elements that causes a change in their properties but not a change in their respective numeric values. (work can deform an object, but even deformed an object's mass will remain the same)
Yeah, I believe I see what you're saying here. Dynamic events can cause states to change though.

17. Originally Posted by FDG
What does spatiality of E mean?
It can be argued that E is spaciality itself...i guess.

18. I have no idea what you're talking about.

19. Originally Posted by Joy
Your definition of static just sounds like a description of Ti to me.

I'm not sure I understand the part in bold.
Perhaps an example will illustrate. Imagine that you have a crush on someone, a case, furthermore, of unrequited love. You have that feeling no matter what because it's a genetic disposition that you will relate to that person's genes in that way. No matter what happens, an aspect of your Fi for that person is conserved. Yet, you know that they do not have a conservancy of Fi for you, so the only way to fulfill your desire for relationship with them is to act as likable as possible. In so doing, you are accenting their variable social Fi that is shaped through experience. Rather than appeal to their aspect, you are appealing to the element which processes like vs dislike.

The question of whether or not such a relationship is healthy is not a matter of interest in this particular case. What is of interest is the observation of an Fi aspect that directs and shapes the element of the processor, and an Fi element that is independent of the aspects it apprehends. This grants us two very different sides of Fi, a part of it that is conserved and another part that is variable depending on how the person who has it is treated. This is an irregular dynamic though; the regular relationship between the two forms of Fi is Fi's existence as an a priori condition, the fulfillment of which elevates the like/dislike of a person in proportion to the frequency of the fulfillment.

20. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Perhaps an example will illustrate. Imagine that you have a crush on someone, a case, furthermore, of unrequited love. You have that feeling no matter what because it's a genetic disposition that you will relate to that person's genes in that way. No matter what happens, an aspect of your Fi for that person is conserved. Yet, you know that they do not have a conservancy of Fi for you, so the only way to fulfill your desire for relationship with them is to act as likable as possible. In so doing, you are accenting their variable social Fi that is shaped through experience. Rather than appeal to their aspect, you are appealing to the element which processes like vs dislike.

The question of whether or not such a relationship is healthy is not a matter of interest in this particular case. What is of interest is the observation of an Fi aspect that directs and shapes the element of the processor, and an Fi element that is independent of the aspects it apprehends. This grants us two very different sides of Fi, a part of it that is conserved and another part that is variable depending on how the person who has it is treated. This is an irregular dynamic though; the regular relationship between the two forms of Fi is Fi's existence as an a priori condition, the fulfillment of which elevates the like/dislike of a person in proportion to the frequency of the fulfillment.
Okay, so it's just a matter of aspect vs. element. (I very much appreciate it when someone gets the difference, btw. It doesn't seem all that common.)

I usually talk about aspects instead of elements because elements are always used in combination, so it's difficult to isolate examples.

21. Originally Posted by kensi
It can be argued that E is spaciality itself...i guess.
Well yeah, otherwise Ne would be something akin to seeing into another dimension.

22. Originally Posted by FDG
Well yeah, otherwise Ne would be something akin to seeing into another dimension.
Not all E is space-related.

#### Posting Permissions

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