Internal vs. External
This is where it gets more difficult to identify which something is (compared to static/dynamic and object/field).
Internal: beneath the surface, underlying, abstract
External: readily observable, immediately apparent, easily definable
It is important to note something that is inside of something else and or not visible can still be external, such as the human skeleton or the juices of a beet.
Why do you always make these threads? Not that they're incorrect, but it seems like you're reassuring your own understanding in some indirect way.
Not entirely related but I can't wrap my mind around the difference between "internal dynamics of fields" and "external dynamics of fields".
Did you visit the link I posted in the other topic?Originally Posted by strrrng
I'm not sure what to say beyond the definitions already provided unless you're looking for examples. If so, I'm still not sure what to say because it's difficult to provide concrete examples of Ni.
uh. a skeleton is internal. and so is beet juice, until you squeeze it out that is.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
An excellent example of why I said the following:
You do realize that most English words have more than one definition/connotation, right? And that the theory was written in a different language and then later translated into English?Ridiculous.
Yes, and I found your definitions accurate, for the most part.
yeah but a skeleton is a great example of Ti IMO.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
indeed.
In an abstract sense, yes. Not in a physical context. The idea of a skeleton is Ti. A skeleton is not Ti.
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
I brought it up because that thread is the reason I posted these topics again.
i remmebered describing my Ti as feeling like i was calcifying
Skeletons are definitely Ti in large part. They're also largely Si. (This goes back to the two types of "systems" that were discussed a while ago. Some systems are static, such as the names of the parts of a skeleton and what attaches where. Some are dynamic, such as the way the musculoskeletal system actually works.) And there's also a Se aspect to them, of course.
see, this is the trouble with socionics, it artifically separates things. you could say the above about almost anything, no?
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Most things have many aspects to them. I do think skeletons are more Ti, Si, and Se than they are any other information aspect though. The same cannot be said of all (or even most) things.
That's not an artificial seperation; it's the recognition of an a priori attribute of something which had not been previously discerned. All objects have all aspects, because all objects have traits private to themselves, and traits shared with other objects.
@Joy: two objects interacting isn't Si, nor is the interaction of two collections of objects. (the collections are themselves objects from a point of view). Action = work, therefore you're talking about Te. Now the influence one form of work has on the performance of another form of work... THAT is Si. If the work of a virus is obstructing the work of my cells, then I am experiencing illness, no? And to the degree that obstruction also affects other processes indirectly, I am experiencing dischord.
Acting: Te
Interacting: Si
(or Fe and Ni, if we're talking about dynamic internal aspects)
If the aspect is one of my bones is moving, it's Te. If the aspect is the muscle is causing the tendon to cause the bone to move, it's Si.
Then what is the health or illness of a thing? Is that not also Si? Is not the sonance or dissonance of a musical passage Si?
I didn't intend to make it sound like the muscle/tendon/bone thing is all that Si is.
When the temperature in an area is low and a person does not have a warm enough coat/sweater/blanket, the heat radiates from his/her body and (s)he feels cold. That's a Si aspect. The things you listed also are (not the states of health or illness, but the processes involved).
lol
@joy: still, you can apply multiple socionics interpretations to almost anything including type and interaction. which is what i think is its major limitation.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
