Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: On the difference between Cre/Emp Pi and Lim/Acc Pi

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default On the difference between Cre/Emp Pi and Lim/Acc Pi

    I have already established that the Introverted Perceiving functions relate to noun-phrases in language. This makes them fairly easy to recognize.

    The Creating/Empowering Pi functions of the Ej types relate to noun-phrases that refer to objects with a very situational existence. As Empowering functions they are functions of contingency and arbitrariness. The names that they constitute are as such names that exist for very arbitrary reasons.

    Examples: "the IBM organization", "the davis-putnam procedure", "socionics"

    The Accepting/Limiting Pi functions of the Ip types relate to noun-phrases that have a single, unmistakable interpretation. They signify concepts that are in themselves absolute such that they can be understood by a person from the moment they are picked up.

    Examples: "love", "water", "personality", "reality"

    - in as far Static types use Pi functions at all, Ijs use the Creating/Empowering version, whereas Eps use the Accepting/Limiting version.
    - one of the reason I type socionics' descriptors with a capital letter, is because I don't want people to interpret them at face value as most Irrationals would be inclined to. As far as I, or any Rational, is concerned, the names are arbitrary and their usage in the system is what has them make sense.
    - it is in the grey area of the two that the difference between Rationals and Irrationals is most strongly felt. Is, "socionics", for example, an arbitrary name, or one that makes genuine sense? People of different types will give different answers.
    - possible inaccuracy: Si is also responsible for this "arbitrariness" as opposed to the sensibility of Ni
    Last edited by krieger; 01-29-2009 at 05:44 PM.

  2. #2
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks. This is like the first interesting post on socionics I've seen here for year. I'm going to look for this trend. On a first glance this seems like it could be true.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, good luck with that.

    Like I said though, there's a few things obfuscating the issue. The first is that Si is more "arbitrary" than Ni. Perhaps the best thing to do is to put the functions on a scale of arbitrariness as in:

    Cre/Emp Si: the names are there for bull-shit reasons, just work with them (from personal experience; as INTj I "value" this Pi function)
    Cre/Emp Ni: names can be understood, but it's still education that tells you how (???)
    Acc/Lim Si: the names make unique sense in a very private, situational context
    Acc/Lim Ni: names have a unique meaning regardless of context

  4. #4
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Ok, good luck with that.

    Like I said though, there's a few things obfuscating the issue. The first is that Si is more "arbitrary" than Ni. Perhaps the best thing to do is to put the functions on a scale of arbitrariness as in:

    Cre/Emp Si: the names are there for bull-shit reasons, just work with them (from personal experience; as INTj I "value" this Pi function)
    Cre/Emp Ni: names can be understood, but it's still education that tells you how (???)
    Acc/Lim Si: the names make unique sense in a very private, situational context
    Acc/Lim Ni: names have a unique meaning regardless of context
    I can accept/confirm the statements on Creating Ni and Si. I can't speak for the IP temperament but if it's wrong, I don't see it. Anyway, this made my day.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

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

    Default

    I've had a mini-breakthrough an a related topic.

    Examples: "the IBM organization", "the davis-putnam procedure", "socionics"

    Examples: "love", "water", "personality", "reality"

    How to technically specify the difference between these? It isn't immediately clear because I chose the phrases with a bias.

    Look at the determiner. In the above set the determiner limits the focus on a single object, while in the set below it the determiner .. is void.

    A void determiner is something specific to the English language. In French, the determiner would be voiced as "des", "du" or "de la". The meaning of this determiner is similar to that of "all", or "all out of", but it still shouldn't be mistaken for these because there is an important distinction. Where "all" can mean "all objects within a certain frame of reference", "du" means "all possible objects". "Du" is never used in relation to a limiting frame of reference. As such, "[Du] cars have wheels" does not mean that all cars we are currently thinking of have wheels, but that all cars that will ever exist will have wheels regardless of wether we see them or think of them.

    (in the case of "socionics", there is a different kind of void determiner: "the one and only")

    And that is what the difference between Rational and Irrational speech resides in: the usage of determiners that limit focus to a number of objects being considered on one hand and determiners that specify properties of entire catagories of objects on the other.

    - Depending on the kind of determiner that is used, the verb phrase alternates in form. In the Rational speech, the verb phrase has an unvoiced "happens to" or "contingently" in front of it. In the Irrational speech the verb phrase has an unvoiced "always", "necessarily" or "inherently" in front of it.

Posting Permissions

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