One of the things that sorta (okay, REALLY) irks me is how the forum, in general, uses the Information Elements (IE) in conversation and the strange telephone manner to the point that they lose their original intent and meaning. A lot of subjective and unrelated tags start to pop up that now the IE have more of a colloquial meaning rather than objective that we all understand exactly the same. So I figured I'd try something out to see if I'm completely off-base with this assumption or not.
I purpose to anyone willing to define the IE that is in your creative function. I decided on the creative function position because it seems like, out of all the other functions, where most of our focus goes as we are actively using it and like to recognize it, while our leading function is more like the structure of existence that we take for granted. Plus, my own observations have noticed people being more familiar and chatty about their creative function, so let's just placate me Also, we're defining the IE in the creative function by itself, not paired along with the leading function.
The challenge is to not use any abstract concepts (such as efficiency, logic, aggression) nor infer an innate sense of either the positive or negative, striving to obtain a universal definition that seems right to you, because, well, you're part of the universe The reason I don't go to the wiki for a definition is because of these abstract concepts being present, and how they complicate things concerning subjectivity.
For example, I would be defining . I am NOT looking for something like this: deals with the bonds between people concerning morality and how each person makes the other feel. For me personally, there are a lot of problems with this sort of statement (this was an exaggeration for the sake of an example, of course). First, a definition like that suggests that those without in the ego have some sort of lack of morality, and morality overall differs from culture to culture, and is a hard concept to grasp as an IE since it's so ambiguous. I think that every type has a concept of morality that is most likely shaped by their IE placements and their growth as a human. Also, IEs don't relate strictly to people, they are aspects of reality, therefore spanning all sorts of information. Meaning, you should be able to view information without the involvement of another human being there (I have this issue with the colloquial definitions of as well).
Here is my take on the definition of :
observes the qualitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by qualitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established qualitative consistency.
So, take a whack at it? Or am I just crazy? I figure I'd at least try while I'm interested