Gulenko vs Us on the matter of Associativity

[Brilliand]

From Gulenko's "Forms of Thinking":

Here the statics it resists to the dynamics as thinking fragmentary- is analytical to thinking associative- synthetic.

That's nonsense, of course. However, from careful consideration of the context, I take it to mean that Static thinking is fragmented and analytic, while Dynamic thinking is associative and synthetic.

This is in direct opposition to a recent statement by mn0good:

I wouldn't call Ne alternatives. I would call it associations. Thinking about it in the context of semiotics is the best, imo.

So, which is it? Ne? Algorithmic? Delta? Banana?

[marooned]

I thought makes associations between abstract objects (because it's concerned with objects it is static).

As for dynamic being "associative" I'm not sure what context it's meant in in the article (it's hurts my head trying to read translated articles).

[Brilliand]

I thought makes associations between abstract objects (because it's concerned with objects it is static).

Actually, I've never thought of as connections. If anything, that's . is just the abstract objects...

Of course, Ne is always blocked with a Ji function, so the connections are there, but it isn't Ne making the connections.

Now, as for Gulenko's dynamic associations... I figure that even the Ji connections are analytic in nature; they're logical relationships, or ethical relationships, not associations as in "this goes with that." (I suspect that it's Pi, not Je, that makes the associations, but that's rather unfounded.)

EDIT: Fitting Gulenko's very words to this: Analytic -> Ji, Fragmentary -> Pe, Associative -> Pi, Synthetic -> Je. I may have the Dynamic ones switched.

[Creepy-male]

So, in my case, those associations I make are, in my mind:

"Oh, that sounds/looks like/reminds me of that thing! *posts*"

[munenori2]

There are a few other things that might be considered a bit in the realm of the whole Gulenko discussion, and that's that by virtue of his contrasting static versus dynamic characteristics of type we immediately are drawing in a whole hell of a lot more than simply looking at how might be described. Essentially the scope of what we're talking about is so much narrower. It's not enough to simply force the question onto Gulenko's terms.

I'm going to digress a bit and say that I do think that Ne is about picking up something about the objects in your environment. They appear to have this or that quality about them to the perceiver, typically in ways that have a lot less to do with whatever more visible, obvious properties might say. I can also agree that Ti and Fi are what's used to actually codify, delineate, and associate these as similarities (I won't bother with any specifics of how the two are different), in whatever way makes the most amount of consistent sense to the person seeing all these things. That's to say that when Vero talks about Ne as associative in terms of semiotics, particularly when it's in the middle of a discussion on someone's type, that we've gone beyond just talking about some individual function. We're talking about a person's ego block. We're talking about the associations we see being made, and we may be noticing that these are primarily revolving around the sort of qualities Ne is able to 'see'. I don't think many people would look at the above and find it to be all too strange a way of a description or very weird at all to consider as a line of reasoning in support of ILE.

Whew, this is harder to write than I thought! Back to Gulenko though. My point in bringing up the way he differentiates static and dynamic is that we have intra-static and intra-dynamic ways of comparing what falls into each category. In static, we've got Ne vs Se, Ti vs Fi, then the four combos where they're combined (more important as we're talking about types of people, not just the definition of some lone theoretical term). We're capturing more here than we need. Vice versa on the other side we are comparing it to. If we're just trying to select between one element of each group (ILE or SEI), we seem to be widening the discussion without much of a need to. This sounds like I'm more or less dismissing the point you're making about the former being analytic or fragmenting and the latter tending more towards associative/synthetic thinking, but I guess to me it seems like there isn't a contradiction between what you've quoted from Vero and from Gulenko, except as a linguistic or contextual difference. The description I gave up there *points* seems to me that you consistently view the world in a fragmentary way (looking at each object's qualities) and analytically (how to put them in agreement/disagreement with other object qualities) and as a result still being immensely 'associative' (tossing some object into the framework machine and it spitting out a lot of things most people wouldn't immediately comprehend unless they saw a comparable quality, worked under a similar framework, etc).

Ugh, there was more I wanted to write about but I've lost myself. I seriously need to gtfo of my house right now! ARGH.

[Creepy-male]

Nice post, mune!

But, think about this: we've already seen negativism been linked with Ne. T-Reg being IEE (he's a SEI. And how many times does he question his type? About as many times as Bee, another SEI), and of course Gilly, the EIE. How did he get ILE?

I don't know the specifics that went into typing those people, but it seems to be a similar scenario to mine. That's why Gulenko is relevant, imo. It raises the question of "What is and isn't Ne?" <- and I feel this is a major problem in this community. I think Socionics is also at fault for making Ne Everything.

Also, it's not just me who notices similarities to the EIEs. Isha arrived at ESE because of how the similarly unstable sense of identity I share with Gilly... another dialectical/algorithmic thinker.

I'm amazed, really. I'm not a unique case. Am I the only one who sees this? Will Bee or T-Reg come riding in on shining armor to back me up? Or JJ and Gilly?

And the ILEs make me </3. They're not my identicals.

EDIT

*inhales deeply*

I mean, is that Fi PoLR? Jumping down everyone's throats? Being belligerent assholes? Because that's bullshit

I don't want to be their dual when they're like that. Maybe this is just a screwed up environment for ILEs, because there's CRITICAL MASS OF IDENTICALS. But you guys make my poor SEI heart break. And you do it in real life too. Is that my purpose in life? Running around playing Manhole with all the people you start fights with? Because that sucks. You suck. I don't like you

I don't do that. I hate fights. At least ESEs know when it's time to STFU because people are getting wangsty. I mean, sure, they're domineering belligerent assholes, but they aren't stupid as well. Those eyes actually DO something. You know? They can see.

I'm sick of this

I want a type. I want everyone to be crazy happy hippy Alpha bastards. I want to be a real person, I want to not constantly feel like I'm a haze of nothing. I want lots of things. I'm sad angry and pissed and on a caffeine buzz and I'm going to read this and T_T even more tomorrow.

ILEs </3

</emo>

EDIT

<emo>

And why the fuck am I smiling at that rant? Am I so screwed up with all the depressing negative bullshit that's happened to me that I can't even take myself seriously when I feel like crap? Was there any depressing negative bullshit? Aren't my duals supposed to lurch me out of my head and make me lulzy and goofy and crazy and happy or something?

Because you aren't. You're making me QQ. Vero and Jake especially. And Ephemeros. That's a bloody huge number. I mean, you're identicals. Can't you see what's happening? Or something? Because I can, and it's like, "Oh God. Another ILE fight breaking out." And it's not just with other ILEs. It's with everyone with a brain and a mouth (or hands in this case). You guys suck. </3 ILEs.

Just ask Bee. You're useless. You make us feel like crap and we can't talk to you because you're too busy being neurotic or pushing some agenda or not wanting to back down

</3 ILEs.

Ok. I'm not feeling better... but that needed to be said. Maybe I am ILE or something. But that's what I'm thinking, right now. This is a direct correspondence with my brain and whatever strange neurochemical cocktail is making me feel so crappy and 'y. Use it for whatever, man.

Just stop FYTAN. Or I'll start moaning and griping and hating myself again.

MORE EDIT

Oh, right, the "point" is (because you obviously need a point to every point) that I need a hug

[Brilliand]

There are a few other things that might be considered a bit in the realm of the whole Gulenko discussion, and that's that by virtue of his contrasting static versus dynamic characteristics of type we immediately are drawing in a whole hell of a lot more than simply looking at how might be described. Essentially the scope of what we're talking about is so much narrower. It's not enough to simply force the question onto Gulenko's terms.

I'm going to digress a bit and say that I do think that Ne is about picking up something about the objects in your environment. They appear to have this or that quality about them to the perceiver, typically in ways that have a lot less to do with whatever more visible, obvious properties might say. I can also agree that Ti and Fi are what's used to actually codify, delineate, and associate these as similarities (I won't bother with any specifics of how the two are different), in whatever way makes the most amount of consistent sense to the person seeing all these things. That's to say that when Vero talks about Ne as associative in terms of semiotics, particularly when it's in the middle of a discussion on someone's type, that we've gone beyond just talking about some individual function. We're talking about a person's ego block. We're talking about the associations we see being made, and we may be noticing that these are primarily revolving around the sort of qualities Ne is able to 'see'. I don't think many people would look at the above and find it to be all too strange a way of a description or very weird at all to consider as a line of reasoning in support of ILE.

Whew, this is harder to write than I thought! Back to Gulenko though. My point in bringing up the way he differentiates static and dynamic is that we have intra-static and intra-dynamic ways of comparing what falls into each category. In static, we've got Ne vs Se, Ti vs Fi, then the four combos where they're combined (more important as we're talking about types of people, not just the definition of some lone theoretical term). We're capturing more here than we need. Vice versa on the other side we are comparing it to. If we're just trying to select between one element of each group (ILE or SEI), we seem to be widening the discussion without much of a need to. This sounds like I'm more or less dismissing the point you're making about the former being analytic or fragmenting and the latter tending more towards associative/synthetic thinking, but I guess to me it seems like there isn't a contradiction between what you've quoted from Vero and from Gulenko, except as a linguistic or contextual difference. The description I gave up there *points* seems to me that you consistently view the world in a fragmentary way (looking at each object's qualities) and analytically (how to put them in agreement/disagreement with other object qualities) and as a result still being immensely 'associative' (tossing some object into the framework machine and it spitting out a lot of things most people wouldn't immediately comprehend unless they saw a comparable quality, worked under a similar framework, etc).

Phew, there's a lot of fluff here! But in response:

• is Static. It is never Dynamic.
• Every element takes in information and brings results that some other element wouldn't get from the same information.
• Therefore, this is not an argument for Gulanzon being :Ne ego.
• Taking a cursory glance at Semiotics, it seems extremely ...

EDIT: One of my bullet points needed some cleanup:

In a dynamic association, the connection is simply "is associated with." This is as opposed to a static association, where the connection may be "part of" or "results from" or some such thing.

Correction:

Every Xi element has its own type of connection. Ti has its vast hierarachy of logical bonds... part-of, is-a, greater-than, is-as-is-to, negation-of (OK, it's probably vast because that's my base)... Fi has its liked-by, appropriate-for and better-than... Si its smells-like, looks-like and sounds-like; and Ni has its goes-with, leads-to and theme-of.

I may have everything but Ti a little off, but I didn't want to leave such a strong Static bias in place.

[munenori2]

Nice post, mune!

Phew, there's a lot of fluff here! But in response:

• is Static. It is never Dynamic.
• Every element takes in information and brings results that some other element wouldn't get from the same information.
• Therefore, this is not an argument for Gulanzon being :Ne ego.
• Taking a cursory glance at Semiotics, it seems extremely ...

I agree with 1 and 4, but I don't see how 1 and 2 lead to 3, assuming those are premises and a conclusion?

[Brilliand]

I agree with 1 and 4, but I don't see how 1 and 2 lead to 3, assuming those are premises and a conclusion?

Actually, 2 by itself leads to 3. That was in response to your last sentence.

You gave another description to avoid "associative" meaning the same thing for Ne as for Algorithmic, but I think your new description can apply to any mental process - not only Ne by any means.

[munenori2]

Actually, 2 by itself leads to 3. That was in response to your last sentence.

You gave another description to avoid "associative" meaning the same thing for Ne as for Algorithmic, but I think your new description can apply to any mental process - not only Ne by any means.

Idk, man. I mean my point was to bring together what Vero said and what Gulenko said and, looking at the two, realize that they aren't so contradictory exactly because the meaning of associative being used by each was different in the first place.

I'm also not sure it can be used for any mental process equally well. Definitely see how it fits in the case of the statics (as it was meant to try to fit both Se and Ne with Ti or Fi) since that was what I had in mind. I'd have to think about the dynamics and see if it plays in my head just as good. I just don't feel like the way it happens is as discrete as what was said about statics. I guess I don't see what's wrong with there being a way in which statics associate things and the way dynamics do it under the associative heading gulenko's got.

Would it be cool if they had different names? Yeah! But the point I was making is how they are different kinds of associations altogether, that gulenko's 'associative' description was in all odds not what was being referenced in the first place or meant to 'switch off' whatever he's got for....whatever it is he's got. I admit I'm pretty ignorant of what he would say ILEs or Ne leading or Ne egos or whatever should think like, much less SEIs.

It just seems obvious to me that if you take the apparent contradiction that appears to be presented in the OP, you can see how it needn't necessarily be that. I mean, lol, it's painted like the two come flying at each other from opposite sides of the room where only one can be left standing, when in reality they could totally meet in the middle and be all, "Oh hey, I get how we're not doomed to do the highlander deal. Let's go get some coffee, etc etc etc". Instead of fighting tooth and claw, a coffee friendship is born!

[Brilliand]

Idk, man. I mean my point was to bring together what Vero said and what Gulenko said and, looking at the two, realize that they aren't so contradictory exactly because the meaning of associative being used by each was different in the first place.

I'm also not sure it can be used for any mental process equally well. Definitely see how it fits in the case of the statics (as it was meant to try to fit both Se and Ne with Ti or Fi) since that was what I had in mind. I'd have to think about the dynamics and see if it plays in my head just as good. I just don't feel like the way it happens is as discrete as what was said about statics. I guess I don't see what's wrong with there being a way in which statics associate things and the way dynamics do it under the associative heading gulenko's got.

Would it be cool if they had different names? Yeah! But the point I was making is how they are different kinds of associations altogether, that gulenko's 'associative' description was in all odds not what was being referenced in the first place or meant to 'switch off' whatever he's got for....whatever it is he's got. I admit I'm pretty ignorant of what he would say ILEs or Ne leading or Ne egos or whatever should think like, much less SEIs.

It just seems obvious to me that if you take the apparent contradiction that appears to be presented in the OP, you can see how it needn't necessarily be that. I mean, lol, it's painted like the two come flying at each other from opposite sides of the room where only one can be left standing, when in reality they could totally meet in the middle and be all, "Oh hey, I get how we're not doomed to do the highlander deal. Let's go get some coffee, etc etc etc". Instead of fighting tooth and claw, a coffee friendship is born!

OK, I can agree with this.

[ArchonAlarion]

Nice post, mune!

But, think about this: we've already seen negativism been linked with Ne. T-Reg being IEE (he's a SEI. And how many times does he question his type? About as many times as Bee, another SEI), and of course Gilly, the EIE. How did he get ILE?

I don't know the specifics that went into typing those people, but it seems to be a similar scenario to mine. That's why Gulenko is relevant, imo. It raises the question of "What is and isn't Ne?" <- and I feel this is a major problem in this community. I think Socionics is also at fault for making Ne Everything.

Also, it's not just me who notices similarities to the EIEs. Isha arrived at ESE because of how the similarly unstable sense of identity I share with Gilly... another dialectical/algorithmic thinker.

I'm amazed, really. I'm not a unique case. Am I the only one who sees this? Will Bee or T-Reg come riding in on shining armor to back me up? Or JJ and Gilly?

And the ILEs make me </3. They're not my identicals.

I think Tereg is INFj and I'm not sure on Gilly. Also I think Mune (as awesome as he is ) is INFj

Ne basically breaks up objects into discrete abstractions. JRiddy had a good example of this where he discussed how a "book" is a loosely defined concept composed of numerous other concepts like "chapter" "text" "word" "literature" "media". It seems that Ne starts large and then spirals downwards creating more and more partitions of larger concepts. Its reductionistic.

EDIT

*inhales deeply*

I mean, is that Fi PoLR? Jumping down everyone's throats? Being belligerent assholes? Because that's bullshit

I don't want to be their dual when they're like that. Maybe this is just a screwed up environment for ILEs, because there's CRITICAL MASS OF IDENTICALS. But you guys make my poor SEI heart break. And you do it in real life too. Is that my purpose in life? Running around playing Manhole with all the people you start fights with? Because that sucks. You suck. I don't like you

I don't do that. I hate fights. At least ESEs know when it's time to STFU because people are getting wangsty. I mean, sure, they're domineering belligerent assholes, but they aren't stupid as well. Those eyes actually DO something. You know? They can see.

I'm sick of this

I want a type. I want everyone to be crazy happy hippy Alpha bastards. I want to be a real person, I want to not constantly feel like I'm a haze of nothing. I want lots of things. I'm sad angry and pissed and on a caffeine buzz and I'm going to read this and T_T even more tomorrow.

ILEs </3

</emo>

k

EDIT

<emo>

And why the fuck am I smiling at that rant? Am I so screwed up with all the depressing negative bullshit that's happened to me that I can't even take myself seriously when I feel like crap? Was there any depressing negative bullshit? Aren't my duals supposed to lurch me out of my head and make me lulzy and goofy and crazy and happy or something?

Because you aren't. You're making me QQ. Vero and Jake especially. And Ephemeros. That's a bloody huge number. I mean, you're identicals. Can't you see what's happening? Or something? Because I can, and it's like, "Oh God. Another ILE fight breaking out." And it's not just with other ILEs. It's with everyone with a brain and a mouth (or hands in this case). You guys suck. </3 ILEs.

Just ask Bee. You're useless. You make us feel like crap and we can't talk to you because you're too busy being neurotic or pushing some agenda or not wanting to back down

</3 ILEs.

Ok. I'm not feeling better... but that needed to be said. Maybe I am ILE or something. But that's what I'm thinking, right now. This is a direct correspondence with my brain and whatever strange neurochemical cocktail is making me feel so crappy and 'y. Use it for whatever, man.

Just stop FYTAN. Or I'll start moaning and griping and hating myself again.

MORE EDIT

Oh, right, the "point" is (because you obviously need a point to every point) that I need a hug

Tbh, thats what we're like. ENTp's are not just silly clowns with calculators. We can be and I'd rather have fun than not, but there is a hefty aggressive side to us. We walk a thin line between openmindedness and stubborness and as most of us carry a 6 fixation we duke it out early and often.

Sorry man, its BS to water us down, thinking we're lightweights. Ti can be a nasty, manipulative, rigid, cold bitch. All of the elements have a dark side though. and having Ne in our ego is not going to turn us into puppy dogs.

That being said, its unfortunate that there is so much flaming here. I don't like it. I doubt any ILE likes it.

[Creepy-male]

GTFB2BETA Yake.

And Vero is hereby exiled to Gamma.

Now I'm happy again and can go frolicking with the LIIs :redface:

[ArchonAlarion]

well I was never in Beta technically, so I'd be a virgin Beta.

And yeah I think Vero is a definite ESFp :laughsarcasticallywaitingforinevitableliteralresp onse:

[xerx]

Ne basically breaks up objects into discrete abstractions. JRiddy had a good example of this where he discussed how a "book" is a loosely defined concept composed of numerous other concepts like "chapter" "text" "word" "literature" "media". It seems that Ne starts large and then spirals downwards creating more and more partitions of larger concepts. Its reductionistic.

That's Ti not Ne. Ne is the actual content of each chapter.

[ArchonAlarion]

Why is that Ti?

Ne breaks up objects into static abstractions. Sorta like those annoying commercials, where people are moving empty frames around and then those frames become a new scene and so on. Si builds a fluid organic physical realm from these conceptual frames.

So take for instance a human. We could say a human is an animal, a sapient being, a collection of parts, therefore humans are abstractions, our hearts are a transport mechanism for oxygen distribution, our brains are stimulation reactor complex, our hands are graspers, our fingers fine detail manipulators, our bones are a rigid support structure, the body is an emergent hive of millions of smaller organisms and those cells are made up of millions of molecules and those molecules atoms and those atoms sub-atomic particles. The Ne-er sees objects as composed of abstractions, so that objects are only "real" and "tangible" when Si is added to the mix, building up the pieces into an environment (the object, now becomes a field) among other environments inside of larger environments, containing smaller environments. Such is the nature of fields.

[Brilliand]

Why is that Ti?

Ne breaks up objects into static abstractions. Sorta like those annoying commercials, where people are moving empty frames around and then those frames become a new scene and so on. Si builds a fluid organic physical realm from these conceptual frames.

Ne does not divide. Ti divides. Ne comprehends. Ne is objects - it is the things themselves, not the relationships between them. A book - that may be Ne. A page - that may be Ne. A page is in a book - now that is a logical concept.

Another angle on what I think is the same thing:

Ne interprets an abstraction in a particular way. When strong, it can interpret the same abstraction in many ways in a short period of time. However, it is still Ti or Fi that relates these interpretations to each other.

[ArchonAlarion]

But I never implied a relationship.

I'm saying that Ne sees objects as composed of abstract nuggets. And of course you can take those nuggets and divide them further.

I disagree about Ne being unable to divide.

The "Internal statics of objects" or "Internal object statics." Both imply plural. Meaning the conceptual nuts and bolts making up a discrete object.

[xerx]

Why is that Ti?

Ne breaks up objects into static abstractions. Sorta like those annoying commercials, where people are moving empty frames around and then those frames become a new scene and so on. Si builds a fluid organic physical realm from these conceptual frames.

So take for instance a human. We could say a human is an animal, a sapient being, a collection of parts, therefore humans are abstractions, our hearts are a transport mechanism for oxygen distribution, our brains are stimulation reactor complex, our hands are graspers, our fingers fine detail manipulators, our bones are a rigid support structure, the body is an emergent hive of millions of smaller organisms and those cells are made up of millions of molecules and those molecules atoms and those atoms sub-atomic particles. The Ne-er sees objects as composed of abstractions, so that objects are only "real" and "tangible" when Si is added to the mix, building up the pieces into an environment (the object, now becomes a field) among other environments inside of larger environments, containing smaller environments. Such is the nature of fields.

Taxonomy is a rational process. It's also an introverted process because you are chaining the data to a "personal" or subjective system of classification. It's external because it deals with actual physical, linguistic, numerical (or anything else discrete) attributes of objects. This is the domain of Ti through and through.

Ni (e.g.) generates irrational and more etheric systems of classification because of irrational and internal.


Ne doesn't reduce anything. It tries to maintain the entire complexity of the object under its microscope while simultaneously manipulating it to explore different avenues of thought (preferebly as many avenues of thought as possible). Ne generates complexity and is explorative. It's not at all reductive.

[ArchonAlarion]

Maybe we are arguing over the meaning of "reduce"?

I mean that it sees the discrete abstractions that make up objects. And as you split up an object into various parts (statics) you can then take those parts as a new object and futher divide them.

Ti would come in when you wish to decide how the conceptions relate or yes, putting them into a system of classification.

Ne is the parts (Attributes) and Ti is the bonds (Links)

But even then Ti needs the objects to make up its framework. So I dont feel I need to modify what I've said about Ne. Its discrete (static) abstract parts (internal) of a thing (in this case an object).

Objects are wholes, fields are sets made of wholes.

But when we focus on an object, it becomes a field, and its parts are turned into objects. Therefore, Ne focused on the objects (the conceptual snapshots) until it chooses one of those objects (abstract part) and divides it up into new objects. You could work upwards too.

[marooned]

I think it's most useful to compare to . Quite simply, in each passing moment, sees external objects and their external (concrete) properties... as though these objects are fixed and memorialized for all time. sees the abstract (internal) nature of the same object, which is why "potential" or "possibility" are often used... It's that the object can have a multiplicity of abstract qualities at the same time and since none of them are (yet) manifested in the external world, they remain only potentials. So the abstract nature of the object is seen as a concept of "potential" qualities the object may have or things it could become or that could become of it. The concept may well end up being (an external object) if it becomes something externally recognized and discussed; but the firsthand insight into this concept that saw the hidden properties and potentials, was .

What Brilliand said in response to my first post was right. makes no associations itself and it does not compartmentalize anything... because it's not a field element and it can't see those connections. So if an "internal object" contains several other objects inside it, can see all of it as one object, or see into the objects inside the larger object... but it can't make any structural connections about these objects and how they're connected. It doesn't know how that's related (it doesn't relate things) unless the relationship itself is seen as an object/concept, and even then, it could only see the potential nature of that object (not too helpful).

Since I fear this is written as a convoluted mess and since it's trying to write out a still-changing understanding in the first place, I don't mean (despite my tone) to imply it is some gospel truth of socionics or anything. I also probably won't bother responding to any corrections of it, either because I think that would be futile anyway, or I've lost interest suddenly, or because such corrections might really be needed.

[ArchonAlarion]

okay I agree and once again I dont feel I said contrarywise.

I mean, my attempt at giving exmples of Ne might be tainted by my Ti and I apologize for that.

[marooned]

okay, got it... sorry, I hate when that happens to me and I just did it to you! Anyway.

[ArchonAlarion]

No, I didn't mean you specifically man. Like if you meant I was wrong then yeah I was clarifying, I guess.

Maybe I was putting Ti into my description, I didn't notice.

[xerx]

Maybe we are arguing over the meaning of "reduce"?

I mean that it sees the discrete abstractions that make up objects. And as you split up an object into various parts (statics) you can then take those parts as a new object and futher divide them.

Ti would come in when you wish to decide how the conceptions relate or yes, putting them into a system of classification.

Ne is the parts (Attributes) and Ti is the bonds (Links)

But even then Ti needs the objects to make up its framework. So I dont feel I need to modify what I've said about Ne. Its discrete (static) abstract parts (internal) of a thing (in this case an object).

Objects are wholes, fields are sets made of wholes.

But when we focus on an object, it becomes a field, and its parts are turned into objects. Therefore, Ne focused on the objects (the conceptual snapshots) until it chooses one of those objects (abstract part) and divides it up into new objects. You could work upwards too.

Friend, if focussing on an object turns it into a field, then you are using a field function as your focus.


When you divide something you lose information about its form, unless self-division is itself a natural consequence of its form. A perceiving extrovert (esp. ILE) wants to perceive as much information as possible, and as wholly as possible. Why would he destroy his source of information?

[xerx]

What Brilliand said in response to my first post was right. makes no associations itself and it does not compartmentalize anything... because it's not a field element and it can't see those connections. So if an "internal object" contains several other objects inside it, can see all of it as one object, or see into the objects inside the larger object... but it can't make any structural connections about these objects and how they're connected. It doesn't know how that's related (it doesn't relate things) unless the relationship itself is seen as an object/concept, and even then, it could only see the potential nature of that object (not too helpful).

Not bad for an Ni valuer.

Suppose you come accross two contradictory possibilities.

An ILE's Ne (+Ne) will try to combine those possibilities into a single encompassing explanation of the most general form. A theory of everything. If a possibility has to be discarded, then an exact reason can be specified. Ti valuing ftw!

An IEE's Ne (-Ne) will combine only the parts that can be used or have direct palpable effect, and quite possibly discard the rest, quickly selecting the best possibility. Te valuing ftw!

[ArchonAlarion]

Friend, if focussing on an object turns it into a field, then you are using a field function as your focus.

Lets take a simple example

You have a kitchen. This is your world. This kitchen contains many objects. One of these objects is a bowl of fruit.

When looking at the bowl of fruit as an object among others (an object in a field: the kitchen) it is a singular entity.

Now lets zoom in.

The bowl of fruit is our world (field). The individual fruit and the bowl are the objects that make up this field.

Zooming further.

Now an apple is our field. The parts that make up the apple are our objects.

etc.


So... if you make an object your entire frame of reference... then you'll begin splitting the former object into a field.

[Creepy-male]

Ok, but then you're splitting Ne from Si.

Let's both use them as Irrational functions: they store stuff.

Si: the apple is red.

Ne: the apple is edible.

In both cases, these elements store data, but Si stores data transmitted through the senses (colour), while Ne stores data transmitted through timeyness (I could eat this thing).

What you're doing, Yake, is treating Ne and NeTi block as the same thing.

Or, maybe I just managed to say nothing at all

[Not A Communist Shill]

To an Ne type, the wider field would be of little relevance.

[xerx]

Lets take a simple example

You have a kitchen. This is your world. This kitchen contains many objects. One of these objects is a bowl of fruit.

When looking at the bowl of fruit as an object among others (an object in a field: the kitchen) it is a singular entity.

Now lets zoom in.

The bowl of fruit is our world (field). The individual fruit and the bowl are the objects that make up this field.

Zooming further.

Now an apple is our field. The parts that make up the apple are our objects.

etc.


So... if you make an object your entire frame of reference... then you'll begin splitting the former object into a field.

The premise is faulty. If you made an object into your entire frame of reference, then you're not using Ne anymore. If you ignore the bowl by focusing on the apple, then you're reducing the amount of information coming from the apple. I use Ti to get a better grasp of the apple before I generalize it to its role in the bowl.

[ArchonAlarion]

Ok, but then you're splitting Ne from Si.

Let's both use them as Irrational functions: they store stuff.

Si: the apple is red.

Ne: the apple is edible.

In both cases, these elements store data, but Si stores data transmitted through the senses (colour), while Ne stores data transmitted through timeyness (I could eat this thing).

What you're doing, Yake, is treating Ne and NeTi block as the same thing.

Or, maybe I just managed to say nothing at all

Imo there are four macro elements which I have to make names for

Ne/Si
Se/Ni
Fe/Ti
Te/Fi

You cannot have Ne without Si. They build from eachother, so you obtain Ne information inferred from Si and the Si is given an interpretable form via Ne information.

Its like a landscape of playdough. Without something to put the playdough into obvious shapes, to "individuate" parts of the vast playdough soup, separating one part from another, than its just gonna be brownish goop.

And without the playdough, there is no tangible manifestation of these forms we wish to see. Just empty space.

So Si is the playdough. In a pure Si world there are no objects. No individual parts. Its just one big chaotic maelstrom of matter. Ne is how we differentiate and separate objects from eachother; from the Si flow.


So we Ne/Si-ers have an interesting deeply ingrained philosophy where we don't mind if individuals are sacrificed to the many... In terms of the physical world.

Let me elaborate:

To us, the world is a stream of rock, water, dirt, metal, fire, light, vegetation, flesh, etc.

Its okay if these things are melded together, systhesized, liquified and melted into the fluid "background".

Like when you use solder. The solder actually fuses with the circuit board, melting and becoming "one" creating a new material.


You can see this with Ne/Si architecture. Its smooth, rippling, fluid, organic. We sacrifice individual parts to strengthen the sum.

We kill the Se to feed the Si.

However, we still retain individuality through Ne. The Ne is like points of luminescence under the surface of a pond. Its there, but buried. Latent, inside, internal, potential, abstract, etc. The thing that separates objects from one another, what gives people, places, things an individual status is Ne for us. We separate the colorful flow of Si with abstractions that divide the Si into independent objects which we can now see as separate things.


This contrasts with the Se/Ni peeps, who individiate based on Se and the summation is Ni.

Thats why Se types (Ni ego types especially) need piercing stabs of physical stimulation to keep them from falling into an abyss of Si. The way Si destroys and melts the physical individual suffocates them. They can't find the Ne, so all Si is to them is a blanket of mud.

[Not A Communist Shill]

This is rubbish...the stronger your Ne, the weaker your Si.

[ArchonAlarion]

Umm... what?

First of all you're straw-manning me because I never said "The stronger your Ne the stronger your Si"

Secondly, I said you cannot have one without the other. There was no implication of strength or weakness. I was implying presence not degree.

Thirdly I don't even go by strong vs. weak. Seems overly simplistic.

[krieger]

Imo there are four macro elements which I have to make names for

Ne/Si
Se/Ni
Fe/Ti
Te/Fi

You cannot have Ne without Si. They build from eachother, so you obtain Ne information inferred from Si and the Si is given an interpretable form via Ne information.

Yes, that is exactly how I see it. Ne is just a way of grouping Si percepts together when it comes down to it.

There are names for these function axes, though. You may see them mentioned in some places. See for yourself how useful these are:

Ne/Si: Reasonable (aka Judicious)
Se/Ni: Resolute
Fe/Ti: Merry/Subjectivist
Te/Fi: Serious/Objectivist

[ArchonAlarion]

Ah true, the reinin's.

I might try to create more accurate names.

Maybe deontological for Fe/Ti, teleological for Te/Fi? idk those are too specific and debateable, so probably something else

[Not A Communist Shill]

Umm... what?

First of all you're straw-manning me because I never said "The stronger your Ne the stronger your Si"

Secondly, I said you cannot have one without the other. There was no implication of strength or weakness. I was implying presence not degree.

Thirdly I don't even go by strong vs. weak. Seems overly simplistic.

If you are describing how an individual uses Ego block , you shouldn't say how they also use unless you are saying how the individual lacks it and needs it from another individual.

[ArchonAlarion]

unless I don't think that, which is the case.

1. The IME's are filters of information. They just sit there taking stuff in. passive input filters
2. Based on the filtration we develop certain thought patterns
3. Based on those thoughts and conceptions we act in a certain way

Being able to "perceive" (input) Si is something that every Ne ego can do quite well.

Being able to "produce" (output) Si inspired projects is something Ne egos want help in.

When you say "lack" it seems all or nothing. Like I would not say I lack Si/Fe only that my understanding of it is basically barbaric and primitive. But I can still see it and I will even act upon Si/Fe stimulation.

imo its a matter of emphasis. I emphasize Ti the most, I utilize Ne, I want to produce and manipulate Si, and I need others to charge my Fe battery.

[ArchonAlarion]

Only if you make "ethical" into a meaningful classification and I do not.

Same with "perceptive function" and all that jazz.

Sorry, but that's just BS on your part.

"ethical" wtf does that even mean?

And why are individuality and collectivity monopolized by "Internal statics of fields" and "Internal dynamics of objects"

Where is the connection?

[Not A Communist Shill]

unless I don't think that, which is the case.

1. The IME's are filters of information. They just sit there taking stuff in. passive input filters
2. Based on the filtration we develop certain thought patterns
3. Based on those thoughts and conceptions we act in a certain way

Being able to "perceive" (input) Si is something that every Ne ego can do quite well.

Being able to "produce" (output) Si inspired projects is something Ne egos want help in.

When you say "lack" it seems all or nothing. Like I would not say I lack Si/Fe only that my understanding of it is basically barbaric and primitive. But I can still see it and I will even act upon Si/Fe stimulation.

imo its a matter of emphasis. I emphasize Ti the most, I utilize Ne, I want to produce and manipulate Si, and I need others to charge my Fe battery.

An individual's Ne is inversely proportional to their Si (and hence an individual's need for Si is inversely proportional to their Ne).

[ArchonAlarion]

So sayeth thou.