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.
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
The end is nigh
Sorry I still may be incorrect, however I think there has been a degree of misunderstanding.Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
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.
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.
The end is nigh
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
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 02:36 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
Thank you, this is a clear and satisfactory answer.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.
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.
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.
eel 0 eel
The end is nigh
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)
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.
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
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
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..
Yeah so basically this is exactly the shit I was talking about.
Uhg.
The end is nigh
You are correct - what he says does go against Model A.
That's a very ENFp thing to do.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.
Yeah, we are such a good example of contrary relations.
The "prediction" stage is sometimes (often?) a very mathematical thing - plugging parameters into the rules from step B. That wouldn't beA. Discovery of causation(Characterization)
B. Determine rules of interaction(Hypothesis)
C. Prediction
D. Experimentation and directing of effects...
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
lolThe "prediction" stage is sometimes (often?) a very mathematical thing - plugging parameters into the rules from step B. That wouldn't be
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
