Model B

[Hitta]

In all human thought there is basically an inherent dichotomy present between two categorical trends on a very structure phenomenon. You either love a characteristic, or you hate a characteristic. You either organize or divide(chaos). You either live or you die. The odd thing about this phenomenon is that the individual projects both at the same time(unconsciously). A person has to see non-love to love someone. A person has to see organized structures to divide them. In the end you have a sort of duality in the human mind that the conscious isn't aware of completely.

This could translate to functional criteria in individuals in the realm of Socionics. When we look at model A, there are 2 sets of 4 functions. Each set represents a trend in the individuals characteristics. The beginning of the model begins with the two dominant conscious functions(functions 1 and 2) of the individual. These functions are mainly conscious(though they can drift into unconscious territory). Every conscious function is paired with an anti-thesis unconscious function(functions 7 and 8). Ex: If a person's main functional basis is to divide and analyze, then unconsciously they have structured reality into categories that require dividing. The antithetical functions are the bottom two functions of Model A. The second row of functions(functions 3 and 4) are the motivational functions of the chart. They are basically the motivating influence behind the dominant two functions in the chart. Basically without awareness, the person is accomplishing the purpose behind these functions. If a person is dividing structured categories into chaos(analysis) then the person is true to reach a point of unconditional love or neutrality to all attachments. The third row of functions are the conscious antithetical influences of the individual. They are extremely dominant in the person's conscious mind, but they are protested and even despised. If a person is trying to divide and create chaos, then the person has a conscious connection to and completely despises conditional attachments and non-neutrality. All the functions flow together in Model A as they are extremely connected in how they work and influence the individual.

The Extroverted/Introverted dichotomy within Model A is a bit paradoxical though. All individuals do have Extroverted domination and Introverted domination at the same time. To see this though, one must ask what exactly is “Extroverted” and “Introverted” behavior. The question is completely paradoxical. The reason being that all behavior is extroverted. Whether the individual is completely talkative and aggressive in social conversation or completely quiet and to oneself, the person is still exhibiting traits specific to the extroverted dichotomy due to both actions being observable and overt behaviors. The question is, what exactly does this mean? Take the original scenario from the previous paragraph: If a person is analytical minded and striving for chaos in that it is looking for the pure essence something, how does this translate to overt behavior. There is sort of an antithetical basis between the introverted and the extroverted territories of an individual. If a person is analytical in mind, this will translate to perfectionism overtly. The individual mind that is trying to reach the pure source of an idea usually tries to perfect things on the outside. This could lead to some possible obsessive compulsive behaviors. The individual would be trying extremely hard to purify things on the outside world, having no detailed systematics to base their overt behaviors on. This can lead to “flip-flop” obsessions, where the individual is completely unsure of their overt systematics. For example, take a chemist. The perfect amount of some compound has to be added to properly complete an experiment. Since the individual is trying to break away from systematical isolations, this can be a very difficult task. The individual may keep adding the compound to the experiment, up until the point where most people would stop. This is an individual though has a hard time stopping. He keeps adding extremely small amounts, trying to get the perfect amount of solution. Yet he can not stop himself, because he doesn't have a systematic register to stop. He doesn't know the social parameters in which he should stop. He continues onward attempting to get the magical perfect number that is almost impossible to get. Reversely, if an individual is attempting to structure reality based upon a detailed observation, one that is more stereotypical in regard(common sense smarts), the individual is going to be more confident and rigid in their overt behaviors, attempting to adapt things perfect to their set systematics. The obsessive tendencies would be more internal than external, as the individual is looking for the correct detailed approach based on what they think to be their proven observable components. The individual believes he has the correct and proper way to do it, and he will not stop until it is just the way he envisions it. If the systematic empirical observations are not to the point of where he envisions them before hand, he will continue to push. This individual knows where he wants to stop though. He knows exactly what he wants, and he uses his common sense to achieve it. This is how -Ti/+Te compares to +Ti/-Te.

These functional divisions both compare directly to their opposite dual “feeling” functions. -Ti/+Te to +Fi/-Fe and +Ti/-Te to -Fi/+Fe. These work mutually on a very similar functional level. The +Fi/-Fe attempts to reach some ground of purity(similar to -Ti/+Te), except it relates to objectifications. If -Ti/+Ti is trying to remove systematics, then +Fi/-Fe is trying to remove critical objectifications. It wants to accept all things as equal. It also works antithetically with -Fi/+Fe as the individual who is dominant in this function sees the latter naturally and is attempting to remove it. The +Fe component of the function can come off as somewhat harsh and unwavering to everything. This is because the +Fi portion is attempting to create neutrality towards all attachments. It out of all is trying to treat everyone the same. This can make the individual blunt and always wanting things fair and unbiased. This can sometimes make the individual better in group situations rather than one on one where (especially the logical types) they may come off having a lack for the social norms. Oppositely, -Fi/+Fe is trying to create a divide. It wants to find the perfect person to get along with. This can make the individual critical of everyones faults in comparison to their systematic model created by +Ti/-Te. It wants to separate and divide and find its true companion.


S/I functions to follow

[Hitta]

Jesus Fish

[crazedrat]

I think you are wrong about life being a matter of organization and death being a matter of division. Life is a balance of organization and chaos, death is an imbalance. Life is a golden rule one step deeper than this divide. Other than that I liked the article as far as I understood what you were talking about.

[Hitta]

I think you are wrong about life being a matter of organization and death being a matter of division. Life is a balance of organization and chaos, death is an imbalance. Other than that I liked the article as far as I understood what you were talking about.

Well I didn't really mean it like that. I meant that everything is divided into thesis and anti-thesis. Good v.s. Bad, Black v.s. White, Life v.s. death..... basically Hegelian synthesis and anti-synthesis. Basically for someone to define something, it has to have an anti-definition. Not that death is comparative to divide and life organization.

[crazedrat]

okay, but life is not defined through being opposed by death. Life is its own definition, and death is an elaboration onto life. death is a lack of life, but life isn't a lack of death. Life is deeper than opposition, it is the default unity and balance of everything; balance of opposing forces. An imbalance between opposing forces.. death, can occur. But by default, opposing forces are in balanced opposition. There is no other way they can come into existence. Also, nothing can be entirely imbalanced.. that would arbitrarily recreate a balance; and no imbalance can exceed the definitions of the opposition which defines it. You can't die more than you're alive. And death only returns you to a more basic form of life, life is always present, life is always a default.

To say this easier:
You are saying that for every positive force there is a negative force. so 1, -1; x, -x, etc. I am saying life = 0, or the (= sign) in 2+2=4, .. etc; death = 2+2 = 5 ; but ultimately, 2+2=5 if 2 = 3; therefor 2+2=5 implies a reformation of the equation itself.. a new form of life emerges, life is restored.. death never even really existed.

[Hitta]

okay, but life is not defined through being opposed by death. Life is its own definition, and death is an elaboration onto life. death is a lack of life, but life isn't a lack of death. Life is deeper than opposition, it is the default unity and balance of everything; balance of opposing forces. An imbalance between opposing forces.. death, can occur. But by default, opposing forces are in balanced opposition. There is no other way they can come into existence. Also, nothing can be entirely imbalanced.. that would arbitrarily recreate a balance; and no imbalance can exceed the definitions of the opposition which defines it. You can't die more than you're alive. And death only returns you to a more basic form of life, life is always present, life is always a default.

To say this easier:
You are saying that for every positive force there is a negative force. so 1, -1; x, -x, etc. I am saying life = 0, or the (= sign) in 2+2=4, .. etc; death = 2+2 = 5 ; but ultimately, 2+2=5 if 2 = 3; therefor 2+2=5 implies a reformation of the equation itself.. a new form of life emerges, life is restored.. death never even really existed.

Thats the thing though, and one of the reasons we can't define life completely is that we can't define death. Its impossible to know what it is like to not exist, because it is paradoxical to be conscious of mind when dead. When we think about death we substitute it by thinking of death as being nothing, but without eliminating the conscious mind from it. You can't think about what it would be like to be like without a conscious mind, because everything is of the conscious mind. So technically, we can't truly define life. The alterations of life are created by everyones interpretation of death.

[crazedrat]

I disagree because I think consciousness emerges from a void which every aspect of our mind obeys, and which we don't have to acknowledge for it to exist and continue existing. consciousness can disappear but the void remains; and every one of us has contained within us the essence of the void. It is the source of all creativity.

[Hitta]

Now note, that models of human behavior are based on human behavior and are empirical as everything else is. 2+2 in essence could equal 5 as humans have an isolated perspective, it can't be defined absolutely. Yes their are voids in everything that we know.

[crazedrat]

In that case I think a person has lost touch with life. If you tell me a person can have an imbalance in their mind due to the limitations of their perceptions, I tell you they need to detach themselves from their perceptions. This is what I mean by getting in touch with the void.

[Hitta]

I disagree because I think consciousness emerges from a void which every aspect of our mind obeys, and which we don't have to acknowledge for it to exist and continue existing. consciousness can disappear but the void remains; and every one of us has contained within us the essence of the void. It is the source of all creativity.

The human condition is an isolated perspective, we have a hard time interpreting things on a cosmic scale. Maybe humans are cosmic energy that has distinctified. Maybe the moment we realize the interconnectivity of everything, we will no longer be human, but everything.

To me creativity is when the human condition shows signs of merging with everything, seeing alternate pathways beyond the scope of the mind.

[crazedrat]

To me it is when you balance everything you are aware of, depriving it all of distinction and meaning, and find something altogether new emerging from what you've done despite yourself. The creation takes on a life of its own, and you follow it where it leads you. At that point the number 0 is taking over for you. You are merely riding the wave of your perceptions.
True a persons perceptions are isolated. But the acknowledgment of this isolation is not the expansion of perception to a cosmic scale, but the realization of ones perceptions as meaningless. That is a difficult but not impossible task.

[Hitta]

To me it is when you balance everything you are aware of, depriving it all of distinction and meaning, and find something altogether new emerging from what you've done despite yourself. The creation takes on a life of its own, and you follow it where it leads you. At that point the number 0 is taking over for you.

Exactly. At that point though, you are losing your human qualities and become more interconnected and pure. Its the point in which you realize that the mind and the ego are not truth, and that there is something more pure. At that point, life and death are arbitrary, as everything is both of them. You are human and distinct, but at the essence of everything.

[crazedrat]

I disagree, at that point I say life is paramount and death cannot be seen.

[Hitta]

I disagree, at that point I say life is paramount and death cannot be seen.

Well I see where you are going with that I think. The way I am defining life though is like life and death on a organism level, not the moment or the essence of everything. You are defining it in a way in which life is everything, the moment and the essence of all ex: everything is life. And I agree with that.

[crazedrat]

ah. Yeah, good talk. ; )

[Hitta]

aye same

[ArchonAlarion]

hello.

[Brilliand]

That must have been Ni.

So... why would I want to stop being human? I've thought about that, and realized that even though I'm aware of the limitedness of human thought, it's not like there's any other option. Best make the best of it.

[Hitta]

That must have been Ni.

So... why would I want to stop being human? I've thought about that, and realized that even though I'm aware of the limitedness of human thought, it's not like there's any other option. Best make the best of it.

Human mind is paradoxical in itself. False awareness and the ideologues upon itself keep the human mind from becoming something more infinite and of higher conscious. The ego in itself is debatable, as is all human thought. Why anyone wouldn't want something more pure is beyond me. Even if our minds are pure, we still can't wrap the mind around it as being pure.

[Brilliand]

Human mind is paradoxical in itself. False awareness and the ideologues upon itself keep the human mind from becoming something more infinite and of higher conscious. The ego in itself is debatable, as is all human thought. Why anyone wouldn't want something more pure is beyond me. Even if our minds are pure, we still can't wrap the mind around it as being pure.

Y'know, the absence of limitation, while infinite, is by the same token nonconscious. Limitation is necessary to individual existence. Is it worth it to be infinite at the price of not existing?

[Hitta]

Y'know, the absence of limitation, while infinite, is by the same token nonconscious. Limitation is necessary to individual existence. Is it worth it to be infinite at the price of not existing?

The word "nonconscious" is something that you really can't explain. We are stuck in the mind-frame of boundary thinking, so its impossible to know what other possible trains of existence could exist. Also, non-conscious could also in humanistic terms be considered all-inclusive as well, or fading into everything.

[krieger]

So... why would I want to stop being human? I've thought about that, and realized that even though I'm aware of the limitedness of human thought, it's not like there's any other option. Best make the best of it.

Because there is a little greedy capitalist megalomaniac inside of you that agrees with Nwabudike Morgan:

[Brilliand]

The word "nonconscious" is something that you really can't explain. We are stuck in the mind-frame of boundary thinking, so its impossible to know what other possible trains of existence could exist.

You demonstrate with your next statememnt that it is in fact comprehensible to humans...

Also, non-conscious could also in humanistic terms be considered all-inclusive as well, or fading into everything.

Precisely; you pose that we shoudl become all-inclusive. I pose that in doing so, we eliminate all of the properties of ourselves that give us identity. What's the point of being infinite if in doing so you lose your uniqueness - everything that makes you you?

It's like a blank disk. A full hard disk has lots of interesting stuff on it - pictures, movies perhaps, articles... What does an empty hard disk have? Plenty of potential. No limitations; you could put anything on it. There's more possibilities in that blank hard disk than in the full one. But when that potential is fulfilled... it will never be more than the full hard disk was. So should you erase your hard disk, just so you can waste your time filling it up again? Or admire the restrainedness of it, that it isnt' limited to containing anything in particular? No - the hard disk can only be as good as the stuff it contains, and there's no point in being nothing... everything... it's the same thing.

[Hitta]

You demonstrate with your next statememnt that it is in fact comprehensible to humans...



Precisely; you pose that we shoudl become all-inclusive. I pose that in doing so, we eliminate all of the properties of ourselves that give us identity. What's the point of being infinite if in doing so you lose your uniqueness - everything that makes you you?

It's like a blank disk. A full hard disk has lots of interesting stuff on it - pictures, movies perhaps, articles... What does an empty hard disk have? Plenty of potential. No limitations; you could put anything on it. There's more possibilities in that blank hard disk than in the full one. But when that potential is fulfilled... it will never be more than the full hard disk was. So should you erase your hard disk, just so you can waste your time filling it up again? Or admire the restrainedness of it, that it isnt' limited to containing anything in particular? No - the hard disk can only be as good as the stuff it contains, and there's no point in being nothing... everything... it's the same thing.

Infinity is impossible to comprehend from our standpoint. Our uniqueness is apart of infinity, not separate, but we can't see that. There isn't a person on this planet that wants to lose their sense of self. 2+2 doesn't always have to equal 4. Everything that the human mind knows is debatable. It is completely limited. If everything is limited, then what is the point? No truth, no certainty? What is the point? If there isn't a purpose or a truth then it is arbitrary. The ego in itself a border, a false personification of existence based on the false ideal that you are different from everything else. If a being doesn't have a foundational grounding, then how do we know that we even exist? We have nothing to base it on except or own fragmented idealizations of it. The human condition, or mental boundaries are a single fragment of the entire scope of possibilities. We are incomplete; the consequence of infinite possibilities(the possibility of discrimination of truth itself). Descartes said it best "I think, therefore I am". We are here because we are a fragment.

[Brilliand]

If everything is limited, then what is the point? No truth, no certainty? What is the point? If there isn't a purpose or a truth then it is arbitrary.

I have thought about this before, but you don't know what you're asking. If there is a final certainty, what happens when you err? Is it the end of you? Does the slightest mistake doom you to being an Error? There must be room for drift... or no one can endure. Even God cannot save without a margin of error to draw from.

Are you an LII, man? I see in your words echoes of my pain from just a few weeks ago. My current view is that that can be cured by close interaction with any EJ type... though an Fe base would be decidedly more pleasant than the alternative. I personally pulled out by getting in a fight with an EIE.

[Hitta]

I have thought about this before, but you don't know what you're asking. If there is a final certainty, what happens when you err? Is it the end of you? Does the slightest mistake doom you to being an Error? There must be room for drift... or no one can endure. Even God cannot save without a margin of error to draw from.

Are you an LII, man? I see in your words echoes of my pain from just a few weeks ago. My current view is that that can be cured by close interaction with any EJ type... though an Fe base would be decidedly more pleasant than the alternative. I personally pulled out by getting in a fight with an EIE.

I'm confused by what you are asking.

[Brilliand]

Infinity is impossible to comprehend from our standpoint.

Oh - and really, just set aside all limitations and see what gives you when you don't have any rules at all. It's a fairly simple operation...

Remember, "Nothing" is a contradiction; "Everything" is no rules.

[Brilliand]

I'm confused by what you are asking.

By which paragraph? My argument about certainty or my psychoanalysis?

[Hitta]

Oh - and really, just set aside all limitations and see what gives you when you don't have any rules at all. It's a fairly simple operation...

Remember, "Nothing" is a contradiction; "Everything" is no rules.

When did I ever say I don't have rules?

[Brilliand]

When did I ever say I don't have rules?

That's not what I was saying - I was saying that if you set aside all knowledge of the form "X is Y, not Z" - and all forms too for that matter - if you still know anything, set that aside - what's left is Everything, an unbounded realm of possibility. It's also Nothing, because thet's where you atarted when you were born; none of those possibilities have been realized. (I think this is LII-only, but I also think you are LII.)

In contrast, when there's a contradiction - i.e. all possibilities have been excluded - that's Nothing proper: not even possibility exists. Actual knowledge exists somewhere in-between, where there are only some possibilities.

[Hitta]

That's not what I was saying - I was saying that if you set aside all knowledge of the form "X is Y, not Z" - and all forms too for that matter - if you still know anything, set that aside - what's left is Everything, an unbounded realm of possibility. It's also Nothing, because thet's where you atarted when you were born; none of those possibilities have been realized. (I think this is LII-only, but I also think you are LII.)

In contrast, when there's a contradiction - i.e. all possibilities have been excluded - that's Nothing proper: not even possibility exists. Actual knowledge exists somewhere in-between, where there are only some possibilities.

You are still missing my point. It has nothing to do on whether we go through with the possibilities are not. That is a facet of our mind, which in itself is a form of truth. The collective whole doesn't exclude the human condition. Everything that we do in life is a form of truth.

[Brilliand]

You are still missing my point. It has nothing to do on whether we go through with the possibilities are not. That is a facet of our mind, which in itself is a form of truth. The collective whole doesn't exclude the human condition. Everything that we do in life is a form of truth.

Okay... I'm sure I don't understand the most important word in this post. What's "truth"?

[Hitta]

Okay... I'm sure I don't understand the most important word in this post. What's "truth"?

Truth is relative.

[crazedrat]

Lets say a detective has compiled clues which lead him into a forest out back of a suspected murderers house. The detective is not aware of what is in the forest. Still, though, he knows the clues have led him up to the forest, and he sees an empty spot in the clues which needs to be filled in. By recognizing this empty spot isnt he aware that he is unaware?

[Brilliand]

Truth is relative.

Excellent. So the truth is that there is no certainty? You realize that if truth existed for something that was not limited, it could not be relative?

[Hitta]

Excellent. So the truth is that there is no certainty? You realize that if truth existed for something that was not limited, it could not be relative?

Truth is relative because we have a fragmented perspective of all possible occurrences. We don't have a universal perspective.

[Brilliand]

Truth is relative because we have a fragmented perspective of all possible occurrences. We don't have a universal perspective.

OK, so there is some truth that is not relative. That means truth overall isn't really relative... so let's talk about that non-relative truth. I think you've answered my question, nonetheless... truth is the entire tree of possible timelines. Going back to what you said about truth... you seem to think that any facet of the truth is still the truth. Fair enough. So, you want to step back from your present experiences and see the entire possible flow of the world (and want others to do the same). Am I right so far?

[Trevor]

Truth is relative because we have a fragmented perspective of all possible occurrences. We don't have a universal perspective.

Phaedrus would say:"that's not truth, that's knowledge". And he's quite right.

[Brilliand]

Phaedrous would say:"that's not truth, that's knowledge". And he's quite right.

Words mean whatever you want them to mean. I'm agreeable to speaking his language...

[crazedrat]

Even so you still must acknowledge some definitions are better than others