Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: More thoughts on interpreting symbols in socionics

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

    Default More thoughts on interpreting symbols in socionics

    In this thread I will think of a type as the combination of two funtions only, namely those in the type's ego block. Whenever a person of any type uses funtions other than their ego functions, I consider them to emulate or simulate said used functions from the ego block.

    The Accepting function signifies an attitude of pragmatism, orientation to survival, subjectivity, orientation to quick results.

    The Creating function signifies the opposite: an attitude of perfectionism/idealism, orientation to universal correctness, objectivity.

    Dynamic information signifies that which can be fully understood and processed as a whole from the Accepting attitude. It signifies things that are fully encompassed by the subjective registration of it. To represent the material one must simply reproduce it. It is a full representation of itself. In other words to speak of a representation of the thing apart from the thing itself is pointless.

    Static information signifies that which can only be fully understood and processed as a whole from the Creating attitude. It signifies things of which any single subjective percept does not fully encompass what there is to the material. In order for it to be represented one must make an effort at constructing a representation of it from the parts of it that are subjectively registered.

    Static information is composed of Dynamic information.

    Judging information is fact based and concerns sharp distinctions. It distinguishes one thing from another by pointing out a respect in which they differ.
    Perception information is concept/percept based and concerns holistic denotations. It presents a thing simply by denoting it.

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, basically the politically incorrect way to put things is to say that Dynamic is something that can be understood perfectly fine from a shallow attitude, whereas Static is something that needs deep thought to be understood. Dynamic is shallow and stand-alone, Static is deep and composite.

    Now it is not always clear to me what this means to the way Dynamic and Static types should be understood. After all, Dynamics have Creating functions too, so they are just as much interested in depth and complexity.

    What is somewhat easy to detect, though, is an attitude of wonder and curiousity towards complexity that manifests mostly in people of Dynamic types. This is something related to the fact that Dynamic + Creating = Empowering. It's the attitude of a person that has a single piece (Empowering) of a puzzle (Static) but wants the whole (Limiting) of said puzzle (Static).

    Another issue is that of "broadening one's understanding of a problem", something primarily associated with Dynamic types. I don't currently understand how this happens.

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

    Default

    I liked reading back my words in this thread. Perhaps for the first time ever I feel that I've captured the essence of things correctly with these words. They are good basis to build forth on.

    So let's focus more narrowly on one of the symbols. What is Pi? Obviously I use Pi to denote that which the symbols Si and Ni have in common. I want to understand the context in which the associated mechanisms operate.

    Pi is related to the Perceiving/Irrational function axes. It is as such related to something denoted by means of a noun-phrase in language. It is Limiting when Accepting, aka Dynamic, meaning that it is something stand-alone, not composite. Putting both of these things together one might reach an interesting conclusion: Pi is the noun-phrase itself. It is what Frege refers to with the word "sense".

    Now, sense is not necessarily language based. It can just as easily be an image, a sound or a vague impression.

    ...

    I should probably move on to some topics that I don't understand yet.

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Imported from the Progressive Socionics forums:

    Accepting = Perceiving functions in Irrational types, Judging functions in Rational types
    Creating = Perceiving function in Rational types, Judging functions in Irrational types

    Accepting: simple, robust
    Creating: complex, delicate

    Accepting functions govern the kinds of activities and thoughts that do not require prior learning to be employed. They concern quick-and-dirty reactions. Creating functions concern complex topics that can only be apprehended after long periods of deliberation. Creating functions concern information that is "pieced together". They form the coherent structure in which the individual, self-sustaining parts that the Accepting functions deal with find their reconciliation. The Creating information consists in little more than the constatation that several Accepting mechanisms are in agreement with eachother, such that these can be processed in an accelerated way by means of consolidation into a higher order structure.

    Static: Mental functions in Static types, Vital functions in Dynamic types (ordinarily known as Ne, Ti, Se, Fi)
    Dynamic: Mental functions in Dynamic types, Vital functions in Static types (ordinarily known as Ni, Te, Si, Fe)

    Static: behind the screens, noumenal reality
    Dynamic: at face value, phenomenal subjectivity

    Dynamic functions concern information that the thinking subject (processor of the information) is in direct contact with. Static functions concern indirect inference of the specifications of something at a distance.

    Limiting: absolute, necessitated, singular, fully-encompassing, whole
    Empowering: relative, contingent, multiplar, partly-encompassing, part

    Re: Central definition thread
    Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:34 pm
    by the Labcoat

    Perceiving = Ne, Se, Ni, Si
    Judging = Ti, Fi, Te, Fe

    Perceiving: wholistic, comprehended as noun-phrase, denoted rather than expressed
    Judging: reductionistic, comprehended as verb-phrase, expressed rather than denoted

    Re: Central definition thread
    Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:50 pm
    by tcaudilllg

    This is good stuff. This should go on the wiki.

    Something that's worth pointing out: aspects are objects that are said to "belong" to other objects. The entire world is populated by objects, essentially. When we speak of an object belonging to another, then that object is considered as an aspect of the object which possesses it. Determining which objects belong to which other objects is the work and purpose of information metabolism.

    Re: Central definition thread
    Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:07 pm
    by the Labcoat

    Aspects belong to objects, yes, but they are not objects themselves. An aspect is more like a grouping of objects that have a certain property (the aspect) in common. And yes, this is a circular definition, but it serves to establish the near equality of an aspect and a grouping. These two are almost the same things.

    But no, I can not see "aspects are objects" as a meaningful utterance.

    Re: Central definition thread
    Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:13 pm
    by tcaudilllg

    the Labcoat wrote:Aspects belong to objects, yes, but they are not objects themselves. An aspect is more like a grouping of objects that have a certain property (the aspect) in common. And yes, this is a circular definition, but it serves to establish the near equality of an aspect and a grouping. These two are almost the same things.

    But no, I can not see "aspects are objects" as a meaningful utterance.



    But where does the aspect come from? Consider, color is an aspect. Objects have color. Yet color is also a (mental) object which can be apprehended as having aspects of its own. Hue and shade are both aspects of color, which is an aspect in itself. The only way to consider heiarchial relations between aspects is to consider them as objects, because heiarchy is itself an aspect processed by Te(S).

    Re: Central definition thread
    Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:04 pm
    by the Labcoat

    You're already analyzing composite "aspects" (those composed of "has" and an object), which unnecessarily complicates things.

    X walks.

    Walks is an aspect of the most simple kind. It is under no circumstance an object.

    I can reformulate the sentence in terms of "has" and some object:

    X has the aspect of walking.

    But this is trivial. "has the aspect of walking", which is the part of the sentence that is equivalent to "walks" is still not an object.

    Re: Central definition thread
    Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:18 am
    by tcaudilllg

    I see. So it is only true when not speaking of verbs.

    Re: Central definition thread
    Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:19 am
    by tcaudilllg

    Actually I think that since walking is an energy, it is technically an object, if only a temporary one. Perhaps "object" is too broad? Is "concept" better?

    Re: Central definition thread
    Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:55 pm
    by the Labcoat

    Walks =/= walking.

    Wikipedia says that an aspect is the subject-bound equivalent of a property. The former is subject-bound, the latter object-bound. I am purposely not using the words "subjective" and "objective" as these have multiple meanings, some of which do not apply here.

    I think the Dynamic Judging functions can be said to concern "aspects", whereas the Static Judging functions can be said to concern "properties". I prefer to use the term "measurement" to denote the former with, though.

    Something more about Static types and Dynamic types...

    Statics think deeply, but narrowly. They put the emphasis on absolutes intrinsic to things at a distance from themselves. They are either certain about complex things, or desperately looking for such certainty.
    Dynamics think shallowly, but broadly. They put the emphasis on the absolutes in their own knowledge. They are certain about things they can acknowledge at face value and have only a limited interest in complexity beyond it's surface level.
    [/quote]

    Dynamics think shallowly, but broadly. They put the emphasis on the absolutes in their own knowledge. They are certain about things they can acknowledge at face value and have only a limited interest in complexity beyond it's surface level.
    I've changed my mind about the bolded part. To say they have no interest in complexity would be to say they have no Creating functions. I need a way to specify that their Creating functions are not Limiting. The best I can do is: they believe that certainty in complex matters only exists as an ideal.

    Perceiving: wholistic, comprehended as noun-phrase, denoted rather than expressed
    Judging: reductionistic, comprehended as verb-phrase, expressed rather than denoted


    Another thing I've changed my mind about. Wholism and reductionism describe attitudes of whole types, not of functions. I'd like to call the two Whole and Part, but that would conflict with the definition of Limiting/Empowering. Still they both mean something along these lines. Finding exactly in which ways the interpretation of whole and part differs between the two seems integral to understanding how the two mesh and work together in the system

    This is what I know about the topic so far:

    A Creating/Limiting/P function is a whole of which all parts have been specified. It's a technically specified composition. Something defined in terms of technicalities.

    An Accepting/Limiting/P function is a whole of which no parts have been specified. It is a stand-alone percept (a definition of Dynamic).

    Now what happens when one interpretation of Whole is meshed with an interpretation of Part:

    What is Empowering P?
    What is Limiting J?

    Good questions, those. I think I'll end up not interpreting Limiting/Empowering as whole/part after all. It's still involved in explaining the dichotomy, though.

    Static: behind the screens, noumenal reality
    Dynamic: at face value, phenomenal subjectivity

    Dynamic functions concern information that the thinking subject (processor of the information) is in direct contact with. Static functions concern indirect inference of the specifications of something at a distance.

    This is the first and most important thing to understand about this material.

    I hope I worded it the right way. "Subjectivity" is an annoying term because it carries some ambiguity. In this case it does not mean ideosyncracy of judgment. It means "private experience" or "private data". Actually Dynamic information can easily be public. It is just in a format that corresponds perfectly with the stuff that people handle privately in their minds. It is flat information. It is uncompositional, impossible to break down. Words, images and sounds are of this variety. Actual objects that produce these things are not, because these are 3-dimensional (better put: multi-dimensional), compositional and can be broken down into parts, as are their representations in the mind.

    Statics think deeply, but narrowly.

    Dynamics think shallowly, but broadly.

    This wasn't nice to say. I get the impression everybody who reads this will feel insulted one way or another. Apologies if this was the case.

    The gist of it is still right. The Static way of thinking is often called "analysis". It is the process of zooming in on something, narrowing down one's scope of interest and focussing it on a single thing. Likewise, the Dynamic way of thinking is called "synthesis", the process of widening one's scope of interest in order to apprehend the way things are situated, in so doing losing track of the full identity of the things in question.

    Tcaudilllg says:
    I recommend giving examples. Lots of examples. You're observing these things about entire categories of functions. You need to prove these observations on a case-by-case basis. You say the static functions are limiting, right? How is logic limiting? How is imagination limiting? How is motivation limiting? How is potential limiting? How is coherence limiting? How is movement limiting? Space? How is comparison limiting? How is contact limiting? How are the senses limiting, for that matter? Explain these, and I will understand you.

    You say the static functions are limiting, right?


    No. Static functions are Limiting when Creating. To understand them, the person needs to make an effort. S/he needs to piece words, images and experiences together.

    Dynamic functions are the opposite. They are Limiting when Accepting. You can understand Dynamic information just by looking at it. There is nothing more to be understood when you just know about it. Dynamic information are the words, images and experiences that one pieces together to understand Static information.

    Quote:
    How is logic limiting?


    Logic is Limiting when Creating because to understand a logical causation, one needs to have observed a situation from many perspectives. It is something arising from the understanding of something quite complex (= Creating).

    Quote:
    How is imagination limiting?


    Imagination can involve both Ni and Ne. In as far as it concerns Ne (= Static intuition), it concerns compositional, 3-dimensional things. How do you convey the complete identity of a 3-dimensional thing using flat images? You can't use just one, you have to use many images and organize them rationally. This is why Ne is Limiting (fully understood) only when Creating (involving the piecing together of data).

    (strictly speaking, 3-dimensional should read multi-dimensional. even a 2-dimensional image is already a composite and is as such Static information)

    Quote:
    How is motivation limiting?


    Again, to infer a motivation one needs to have a very intricate understanding of a situation with a high information depth. Motivation is peculiar to people, and people are complex, not simple things. Hence why to apprehend motivation is also a complex (= a definition of Creating) operation.

    Quote:
    How is potential limiting?


    To infer the potential of something, one must again observe something from many perspectives and create an understanding by piecing together these perspectives. Same story: complex operation in which data from many sources get united: Creating.

    Quote:
    Space?


    This is a very interesting one, but the most difficult to describe. Multi-dimensionality is the very definition of Space. In this sense, I can prove that Space is Limiting when Creating just by citing it's meaning. But to help the intuition, consider how any 2-dimensional representation of a 3-D world contains ambiguities. No 2-dimensional image represents a 3-D object completely. One, can, however, use multiple 2-dimensional images and organize them rationally. The more images you put together, the more accurate your represenation becomes. Hence why, to have a fully encompassing, accurate (= Limiting) representation of a 3-d world, you have to put together many 2-d representations of it. This is exactly what I describe "Limiting when Creating" to mean.

    Quote:
    How are the senses limiting, for that matter?


    Sense data is an example of something opposite to Static information. It is Dynamic information. It is stand-alone and understood immediately upon being taken in. It can usually not be broken down further, and if it can then we can simply refer to as Dynamic the parts that resulted from the breaking down of it. What matters is that this is very basic information, something so simple and trivial that to ask for an explanation of it is absurd. How do we explain the letter t, for example? How do we explain the concept of truth? How do we explain roundness? Some of these questions have answers, but each of the answers raises more questions until at a certain point you reach a set of terms that really can't be broken down further at all. This is when you've pin-pointed a Dynamic term. The senses tend to provide such indecomposable impressions a lot.

    I'm not sure how the rest of your terms relate to socionics functions.

    Labcoat:
    Accepting when Empowering means there is a possibility that enables new ventures of thought. One does not try to understand the information, but simply to use it as a bridge to get elsewhere.

    Our (INTjs') Ti is like this... This is a very important thing to realize about your identity. Ne is the thing that we focus on and try to pin-point. Ti is just the tool towards that end.

    The Ti is triggered by an Fe event. It is an optional response to the event. Optional in the sense that it is one out of many choices, and one with particular consequences.

    I *suspect* that Accepting Empowering Ti (our Ti) is something that is used after understanding of the situation has been reached through Ne. It can be seen as the goal of thinking for INTj: the freedom to be able to make choices.

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

    Default

    Last edited by krieger; 11-23-2009 at 11:38 PM.

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Reference appears to be something attributed to- or supposed of Senses.

    For every group of Senses there exists a possible Referent. The set of Referents is the powerset of the set of Senses.

    Not all Referents turn out to be useful. It can probably even be said that some Referents are real whereas others are not.

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I need some input on which parts of my theories are difficult to understand. In particular I would be interested in hearing which parts look interesting and almost comprehensible to readers. If I can just give a few explanatory comments to help others understand, I would be pleased to oblige.

Posting Permissions

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