Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Truth

  1. #1
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Truth.

    Sorry I'm a bit stoned and just thnking aloud, really but can anyone confirm whether this is correct.

    Ti + Te = truth

    By this I mean that once you have an idea that reconciles both Ti and Te you have a practical truth.

    e.g. A scientist for example may would formulate a theroy using Ti after making Ne connections and will then do practical Te observations to see if the theory actually works. As I've said I'm quite stoned but if anyone can help me clarify this matter it would be much appreciated.

  2. #2
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti + Te is impossible perceptually. They have no need for eachother and their external validation is based on completely differnt criteria.

    Ti is not "logical coherency" and Te is not "empirical evidence collecting". Those are things which have been somewhat correlated to behaviors those types express. If you think the elements are those things (or if you make no distinction), then you will falsely believe that they work with eachother.

    Those kinds of truth finding are not the actual elements themselves. Ti is external field statics (abstract judging) and Te is external object dynamics (abstract judging). Ti does not need Te and vice versa. Ti works with Fe and Te with Fi. If you look at the elements as ways of processing information (not processing different sources of information), then you will see how elements are dependent on their complements.

    Also none of the elements are more "true" than any others (T is not more true than F), they are ways not ends.

    However, you are high and thinking about "deep shit" and that is an amusing activity, so
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  3. #3
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    Ti + Te is impossible perceptually. They have no need for eachother and their external validation is based on completely differnt criteria.

    Ti is not "logical coherency" and Te is not "empirical evidence collecting". Those are things which have been somewhat correlated to behaviors those types express. If you think the elements are those things (or if you make no distinction), then you will falsely believe that they work with eachother.

    Those kinds of truth finding are not the actual elements themselves. Ti is external field statics (abstract judging) and Te is external object dynamics (abstract judging). Ti does not need Te and vice versa. Ti works with Fe and Te with Fi. If you look at the elements as ways of processing information (not processing different sources of information), then you will see how elements are dependent on their complements.

    Also none of the elements are more "true" than any others, they are ways not ends.
    Sorry I still may be incorrect, however I think there has been a degree of misunderstanding.
    I'm not suggesting that the elements are true or false in themselves.
    What I am saying is that if an individual processed information by both Te and Ti and that the conclusion from this were contradictory then you cannot have an objective truth.

    And I'm not saying tha this information would would processed consciously simultaneously, however a mind would still process both either consciously at different times or simultaneously one element consciously and the other unconsciously.

  4. #4
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm saying that an individual cannot process information by both Ti and Te (simultaneously or not) and that there is nothing special about those two elements that has to do with "objective truth". Once again, I think you are confusing logic coherency and empirical evidence with Ti and Te.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  5. #5
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    I'm saying that an individual cannot process information by both Ti and Te (simultaneously or not) and that there is nothing special about those two elements that has to do with "objective truth". Once again, I think you are confusing logic coherency and empirical evidence with Ti and Te.
    So to clarify - a Ti type does not at any stage process information by Te.
    So at the same time an Fi type will not process informationat any time using Fe?

    That does not seem to fit my knowledge of myself or my understanding of Model A

  6. #6
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thinking doesn't have a monopoly on truth... I keep editing this post and giving different answers, so I'll just list my suggestions briefly:
    • Every external element can cover all truth
    • Any Xi and any Xe working together can cover all truth
    • Every element can independently cover all truth
    Last edited by Brilliand; 10-02-2009 at 03:36 AM.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  7. #7
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    I'd consider "truth" , , and ... but you don't need to balance them to know truth. Really, when any one of those four elements reaches omniscience in your mind, you are omniscient; the others are only good for learning things in a different order. Internal elements work differently... they are never omniscient, just extremely accurate in their estimates.

    EDIT: Yeah, we'll never be omniscient... the external elements' potential for omniscience cannot be realized within a finitely large brain, whereas the internal elements have no such potential for omniscience.
    Thank you, this is a clear and satisfactory answer.

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Functions are much more malleable than people realize, so the option 'Every function covers every truth' is probably the most accurate.

  9. #9
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Functions are much more malleable than people realize, so the option 'Every function covers every truth' is probably the most accurate.
    I think that maybe that our own definition of truth may be dependent on our base function (this is pure speculation on my part)

    For example for me my current truth is the best truth until I find a better truth. I do this by trying to get as much information and trying to see the broadest perspective possible and then trying to reach an answer that reconciles all the possible viewpoints.

    This is perhaps why I felt it necessary to have both Te and Ti analysis of logical truth. Although I am not sure of this.

  10. #10
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by somavision View Post
    e.g. A scientist for example may would formulate a theroy using Ti after making Ne connections and will then do practical Te observations to see if the theory actually works. As I've said I'm quite stoned but if anyone can help me clarify this matter it would be much appreciated.
    I think that just means it works and is real-world valid.

    I don't fully know what truth is... Truth is the white light inside... the problem is that it's inconstant so it starts not meaning anything rather quickly.

    If only Phaedrus were here to address the topic.

  11. #11
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    eel 0 eel
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  12. #12
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by somavision View Post
    Sorry I'm a bit stoned and just thnking aloud, really but can anyone confirm whether this is correct.

    Ti + Te = truth
    it's incorrect.

    Te is more practical, empirical, realistic truth
    Ti is more speculative, logical coherent, hypothetical truth

    Old school philosophy is based on Ti (rationalism)
    New school philosophy is based on Te (pragmatism)

  13. #13
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And ancient philosophy was very Ni (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato even). For that matter, you could argue that the so-called "sophists" were at least Fe valuers, if not Fe ego.

    There is no function that embodies "truth". In fact, what one considers to be "truth" in the most important sense of the word, insofar as it is not socially overdetermined, is partially determined/influenced by type. Some people consider Ti sorts of "truth" (as in: Kant, Descartes, etc.) utterly worthless. Some people consider Te sorts of "truth" utterly worthless.

    Me, I think the Ni revelation I get from poetry is the "truth" of the matter. I think semi-mystical revelation is how we get to "truth". Truth is an unbelievably difficult word to define. Maybe truth is actually just a series of facts. Who knows? But it's all about a balance between the "kinds" of truth, and socionics provides a decent set of metaphors for kinds of thought, and therefore for categories of truth.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  14. #14
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    it's incorrect.

    Te is more practical, empirical, realistic truth
    Ti is more speculative, logical coherent, hypothetical truth

    Old school philosophy is based on Ti (rationalism)
    New school philosophy is based on Te (pragmatism)
    I'm not sure if I agree with your categorical breakdowns (i.e. a realistic vs. a hypothetical truth).

    Ti: focused on a priori knowledge/arguments
    Te: focused on with a posteriori knowledge/arguments
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  15. #15
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Truth is not a destination, rather a journey.

    The journey as described by the scientific method(a mechanism of inquiry concerning truth) is:

    A. Discovery of causation(Characterization)
    B. Determine rules of interaction(Hypothesis)
    C. Prediction
    D. Experimentation and directing of effects

    The mechanism of investigation also follows the mechanism of information.
    It's not merely that truth is pursued in this fashion willingly but also efficiently maybe even necessarily..

  16. #16
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    it's incorrect.

    Te is more practical, empirical, realistic truth
    Ti is more speculative, logical coherent, hypothetical truth

    Old school philosophy is based on Ti (rationalism)
    New school philosophy is based on Te (pragmatism)
    Yeah so basically this is exactly the shit I was talking about.

    Uhg.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  17. #17
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,936
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by somavision View Post
    So to clarify - a Ti type does not at any stage process information by Te.
    So at the same time an Fi type will not process informationat any time using Fe?

    That does not seem to fit my knowledge of myself or my understanding of Model A
    You are correct - what he says does go against Model A.

  18. #18
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    For example for me my current truth is the best truth until I find a better truth. I do this by trying to get as much information and trying to see the broadest perspective possible and then trying to reach an answer that reconciles all the possible viewpoints.
    That's a very ENFp thing to do.

  19. #19
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    Yeah so basically this is exactly the shit I was talking about.

    Uhg.
    Yeah, we are such a good example of contrary relations.

  20. #20
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    A. Discovery of causation(Characterization)
    B. Determine rules of interaction(Hypothesis)
    C. Prediction
    D. Experimentation and directing of effects
    The "prediction" stage is sometimes (often?) a very mathematical thing - plugging parameters into the rules from step B. That wouldn't be ...



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  21. #21
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    The "prediction" stage is sometimes (often?) a very mathematical thing - plugging parameters into the rules from step B. That wouldn't be ...
    lol

Posting Permissions

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