Information Aspects

[Gilly]

This is my attempt to clarify the nature of the terms used in information aspect analysis.



Internal/External
The existential nature of perceived information - contrived vs. extant

Internal elements focus on information that arises purely as a result of experiential analysis. Intuition and Ethics do not analyze the concrete aspects of what is perceived, but rather the interpretive nature of whatever information they are exposed to.

External elements examine information that arises as a direct result of existence, or its direct applicabilities or relations. Sensing and Logic focus on the immediate nature and properties of entities, and how they are relevant to other extant entities.



Abstract/Involved
The method of distillation of information - formulation vs. experience

Abstract functions distill information by way of detached mental process: organizing matter into a functioning whole. Intuition and Logic both make cognitive deductions and take steps away from what is directly perceived in order to make sense of it.

Involved functions distill information directly, and take it at its experiential face value. Sensing and Ethics do not question their perceptions, but rather experience them directly; their information does not require any analysis beyond the immediate perceptions through which they are received and the comparisons that can be made between them.



Object/Field
The method of apprehension of information - discreet vs holistic

Object functions take information from outside the self and use or compare it in reference to other information obtained from outside the self. All extroverted functions require input, and take their input at face value, considering the information they receive to be discrete and existing in its own right, without considering its relevance to the self, but only, rather, how it matches up with other perceived information.

Field functions are subjective in the sense that they interpret the relation of all information to the self; they gauge the relevance of all perceived information to the self, using subjective reactions to interpret connections in the forms of patterns and consistency. All input these functions receive is translated within the pre-established parameters of the self, and assimilated or judged based on how it interacts with a prior internal state or conception.


Static/Dynamic
The perceived relation of information to time - fixed vs. mutating

Static functions analyze properties or relations that are perceived to be unchanging, fixed in time. They do not consider whether or not these things may change, but merely that it is true at the moment it is perceived in relation to.

Dynamic functions analyze properties and relations that are perceived to be in motion. They analyze change and development, and do not consider things discretely or in relation to a particular moment in time, but rather consider the mutating and contiguous aspects of that which is perceived.

[tcaudilllg]

I don't have a problem with this.

[Gilly]

My next step will be to break down each function by pair combinations of these defining terms. I think that could do a lot of good for operational clarification, and help people see what really differentiates the functions, where the lines are drawn between them, so to speak. I'm sick of watching people wade through seas of generalities and buzz words; the human brain operates along very specific parameters, just like any computer, and if those parameters remain unrefined in the minds of the users, well, people will never know what they can really do with this model.

[Gilly]

Man, I don't even know why I try. Two threads in the last week that are pure gold, and you people turn your noses up like you even have this shit down already. This shit was new for me, so I KNOW most of you could use it.

[Suz]

THANK you for doing this Gilly!! This clarified a lot of my confusion of these terms, i appreciate it.

[Gilly]

...that's it? It's all crystal clear, just like that?

I'm so confused.

[Suz]

...that's it? It's all crystal clear, just like that?

I'm so confused.

No not all crystal clear yet, but your post clarified many of my confusions. At some point I'll sit down and make sense of it all.

[Gilly]

Ok.

[Cyrano]

Man, I don't even know why I try. Two threads in the last week that are pure gold, and you people turn your noses up like you even have this shit down already. This shit was new for me, so I KNOW most of you could use it.

I could use some examples. It's all a little over my head.

[Gilly]

Is there one in particular you're having trouble with, so I know what to get at?

[stanprollyright]

My next step will be to break down each function by pair combinations of these defining terms. I think that could do a lot of good for operational clarification, and help people see what really differentiates the functions, where the lines are drawn between them, so to speak. I'm sick of watching people wade through seas of generalities and buzz words; the human brain operates along very specific parameters, just like any computer, and if those parameters remain unrefined in the minds of the users, well, people will never know what they can really do with this model.

I am anxiously awaiting this ^

(I didn't want to spam this thread because if it gets long and convoluted with peoples' shit then you have to dig for the actual information)

[anndelise]

I didn't say anything on it because this is the stuff I've been working with for years now. Back when noone wanted to even consider the aspects, back when even Rick said he regretted mentioning the aspects on that website of his.

I don't, however, agree with how you've defined object vs field. But then, when given two definitions nearly side-by-side, some people prefer the one you've chosen, some prefer the other one (which I use). But since I'm not big in trying to argue points, I hadn't said anything.

But yeah, just be happy noone's calling you stupid.

I am, however, happy to see that you're not dismissing the abstraction/involvement as meaningless like many still do.

Eventually, I'm sure, you'll get to the analog (P) vs digital (J) aspects.

Meanwhile, I mostly just read, and watch what's happening, how people are using the aspects, how people are dismissing some or all of the aspects, etc.

[Gilly]

And what is the other Object/Field definition? I suppose their could be some confusion here because the language I use is rather detached, perhaps a tad too objective, in terms of describing the processes, but I hesitate to use words like "feeling" and "subjective," simply because of the broad strokes they imply and confusion that could be possible with other aspects, mostly internal/external.

[Gilly]

Eventually, I'm sure, you'll get to the analog (P) vs digital (J) aspects.

You should stop being an arrogant miser and talk to me! I've opened it up here, now you get to come in and tell us what you've learned. Or don't you want to? If anyone calls you stupid or crazy, I will ban them

[anndelise]

And what is the other Object/Field definition?

fields as simply the interrelationship between objects (the observer could be one of the objects...or not, depending on the context)

(bolded and lined emphasis is mine)
Socionics :: Information Elements

Socionics founder Augusta and her associates viewed reality as consisting of both objects and fields (interrelationships between objects), statics and dynamics (rest and motion), and internal and external qualities.

(bolded and lined emphasis is mine)
Notes on "The Socion, or Socionics Basics" -- pg. 2

Eight facets of reality

In the psyche [these facets] clearly differentiate from one another and even differ in their degree of awareness. The individual uses them differently. In addition, one particular perceptual element of bodies in extraverts and one perceptual element of fields in introverts is leading.

Four perceptual elements of bodies (with their symbols):

1. — Perception of the appearance and shape of an object
2. — Perception of the inner content and structure of an object
3. — Perception of the external dynamics of an object — its movements in space
4. — Perception of the internal dynamics of an object — the changes taking place within it

Four perceptual elements of relations (with their symbols):

1. — Perception of the internal situation of an object
2. — Perception of time
3. — Perception of an object's position in space
4. — Perception of an object's attraction and repulsion

These are the four components of relations of objects with other objects. Or — four different ways of correlating them. How an object fits into the context of other objects is defined by these four relations.
To summarize, we can say that (time) and (internal state) are two forms of interaction between processes (an object in a process) and that (attraction of an object) and (awareness of the positions of objects in space) are two forms of interaction between objects (an object at rest). The first two we will call irrational elements after Jung, and the second two rational.

The leading perceptual function defines one's type of intellect, because it implies the ability to reconstruct through this particular aspect everything once learned or experienced.

Each of them talk about relationships as between two objects.
As I've mentioned before, elsewhere, I'm fully capable of observing the relationship between two things, two animals, two people, two ideas, etc, without necessarily having to reference myself into a triangle with them.


However, I also recognize that for jung purists, (ignoring the alterations that socioncis did to jung's works), the above conflicts with jung's ideas of introverted functions vs extroverted functions.

One way of trying to reconcile that, however, is to ask
1) what makes introverted perceptions + extroverted judgments = "dynamic"
(how does relating objects to ME via N or S result in "dynamic"?)
2) what makes extroverted perceptions + introverted judgments = "static"
(how does relating objects to ME via F or T result in "static"?)




-----
This is actually where the continuous vs discrete (P vs J) thing comes in handy.
"dynamic" = continuous (analog) fields (interrelationships)
"static" = discrete (digital) fields (interrelationships)

In other words, dynamic fields are ideas and sensations that are so interrelated that it's difficult to break the relationships down into discrete parts. So it's easier to consider discrete bodies, rather than discrete fields. Thus giving the sense of 'motion', 'interrelating', etc.

Static fields are ideas and sensations that aren't so interrelated, so can be broken down into discrete parts. When you're dealing with discrete relationships, you can build up a structure or model of an idea, etc by adding in the relationships one by one. Giving a sense of staticness to the information.

With dynamic, small changes in the interrelationships results in small changes in the perception.
With static, small changes in the bodies results in small changes in the perception.

[Mattie]

Information Aspects is what I've been focusing on as well (which is why I've been in the same titled thread with Aiss and Dynamicism a lot) and I've been trying to learn from the ground up. Go from the abstract to understand the parameters of each IE and then narrow it down until I can make logical conclusions about manifestations of these aspects and IEs.

My main concern is just to remind others to not hold onto this reductive method of analyzing the aspects for too long, though it seems necessarily in order to grasp definitions so abstract. I actually kinda wish you could merge this topic with the other thread going called Information Aspects so we can have one center for this conversation. I feel like the exercise going on there will supplement understanding these because there's effort to capture the essence, if you will, of each aspect that isn't necessarily explained by all of its parts.

I personally would like you to go into further detail with Abstract/Involved, as it gets the least amount of airtime than the other dichotomies you have here. I'm also hoping for some clarity that doesn't involve comparing dichotomies against one another in order to define themselves, for example, I think you involve the ideas of Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling, and use the differences between them to create the definition of each dichotomy. And while that's the basic premise of what a binary does, I think stronger definitions can be attained when it isn't self-referential. You do this for Abstract/Involved and Internal/External, and they seem the most unclear to me.

[Aiss]

I like it, although I think internal/external and abstract/involved are still less than obvious, though well put in theoretical terms.

Since you aren't satisfied with intimidating the masses into silence, here you have some mere mortal's thoughts.

As a more conventional description, I'd add that internal/external can be seen as holistic vs modular approach - not to be confused with bodies/fields. External elements perceive parts directly and focus on that content, analyzing it, putting it together, deducing from it etc. Internal elements see them as a whole and fill the voids, focusing exactly on that perceived rather than deduced, hidden, implicit content, yet often failing to pay attention to explicit details themselves. An example applicable to everyone, but hopefully illustrating the difference, would be seeing the dots as opposed to seeing the object which contour they outline. Internal elements do the latter all the time and to everything, render the explicit input subconsciously, though it can probably be reverse engineered with some effort. Fe doesn't consciously analyze body language and other nuances, but likely does so subconsciously, offering a feel of a person's emotionality without necessarily realizing physical reasons for it, like what is wrong with the smile that makes it fake. (I use Fe here purposefully since it's the only aspect I understand mostly from theoretical point of view and therefore least likely to be subject to bias by direct experience. If I'm wrong about it, I'm probably wrong about the dichotomies.) The use of holistic and modular here refers to the fact that when dealing with parts subconsciously, we can't separate them and their influences on the end result - internal content.

On the other hand, abstract/involved is more of a universal vs situational difference. Abstract elements deal with conceptualizations, which are widely applicable, whereas situational ones live within the context, being too acutely aware of its intricacies to naturally draw parallels - because these would be seen as requiring oversimplification? - yet able to maneuver with ease in the present. An example of it would be - again, an illustration of difference, accessible to everyone - seeing the forest rather than a dense group of trees, which is different from other groups of trees seen in the past and therefore not the same thing. Abstract elements conceptualize everything without necessarily realizing what past experiences it is compared to.

Interestingly, if the above understanding follows the theory, the difference in irrational and rational as uninterpreted vs interpreted content comes to light - because Sensing is involved due to its externality, due to a focus on details which makes it dependent on a situation with all that is attached to it, yet Feeling is involved exactly by its holistic approach, the impossibility of interpreting the elements independently of each other, which makes it equally dependent on a specific context. That is, Sensing and Intuition focus on content itself - where conceptualization is implicit, unobvious by nature - while Feeling and Thinking focus on its interpretation, which is explicitly conceptual and only implicitly applicable.

[anndelise]

And just so you don't think I'm pulling random stuff out of my ass:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...html#post98840
(have to type in the link that's under the image to get to the original russian page)

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post239264

As I mentioned in the drawing thread, I just finally figured out the P, J thing (after what...3-4 years?? argh!!!)
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/660170-post29.html

[Gilly]

anndelise: I am responding to this, and I am excited because I feel like this conversation has the potential to be very progressive and productive for this forum's understanding, as well as my own, but I ran out of Ti half way through and am going to have to finish my response in about 30 minutes but I wanted you to know I am working on it, and I think this is going to be good.

[Gilly]

for example, I think you involve the ideas of Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling, and use the differences between them to create the definition of each dichotomy.

Actually I think what is really necessary is to come from the core of human perception, which is not what S, N, T, and F do; they are emergent properties, in my opinion, of the combinations of these dichotomies, which is what I hope to illustrate by breaking them down fully first, and then discussing them in pairs.

And while that's the basic premise of what a binary does, I think stronger definitions can be attained when it isn't self-referential. You do this for Abstract/Involved and Internal/External, and they seem the most unclear to me.

Yeah, those are the two dichotomies that really are integrally interchangeable when trying to get at the core of the functions using a triad to indicate an element, and they are also the most abstract, both in comprehension and expression. So bear with me

[Gilly]

fields as simply the interrelationship between objects (the observer could be one of the objects...or not, depending on the context)

This is the view I used to subscribe to, but given my observations of the rather apparent manifestations of functions, I tend to think it is not entirely the case; I tend to think that Introverted functions represent more of what are typically thought of as right-brain processes that we incorporate into our perception, being capable of processing larger quantities of information at once, but manifesting their conclusions as "feelings," if you will, because they encompass too much information to be processed on a fully conscious level without taking more time. I do think the abstract/involved dichotomy makes for an interesting potential conflict, given the "subjective" bent of both, but I think my definitions make the distinctions fairly clear, if you understand them.

Each of them talk about relationships as between two objects.
As I've mentioned before, elsewhere, I'm fully capable of observing the relationship between two things, two animals, two people, two ideas, etc, without necessarily having to reference myself into a triangle with them.

True, but the key, IMO, to understanding the concept of fields, is that no comparison actually exists between the two without an observer; the correct perception of both objects is assumed, and integrated, in their comparison, whereas perceiving an object in a stand-alone fashion requires no sense of internal objectivity; it is merely taken as it is, used for what it is, whereas any comparison is automatically self-referential, and always requires something beyond perception for its own sake or immediate usage.

For me, the example that demonstrates the necessity of this distinction is the comparison between Fe and Si/Ni. All three can be said to "look inside" of a person, to see what is happening with them "internally." Fe does this by reading natural emotional cues, and making an internal deduction about how another person may/must be feeling based on these cues; Si and Ni, however, read others by way of instinctual reaction, responding to the resonance of another's state with their own.

However, I also recognize that for jung purists, (ignoring the alterations that socioncis did to jung's works), the above conflicts with jung's ideas of introverted functions vs extroverted functions.

Actually until somewhere in the last 6 months, I was a harsh critic of those who attempted to incorporate Jung's works as part of the interpretive basis for Socionics, and have only recently begun to see the full value of incorporating his teachings, albeit more as a supplement to understanding Socionics theory rather than as the groundwork.

One way of trying to reconcile that, however, is to ask
1) what makes introverted perceptions + extroverted judgments = "dynamic"
(how does relating objects to ME via N or S result in "dynamic"?)

Well given that it is a theory of information metabolism, taking for granted that this is how the brain parcels together information, I like to think of the definitions as attempts to characterize the processes, rather than the processes as emergent perceptions of the definitions, and that the information aspects are the actual mechanisms of perception used by the brain, rather than S, N, T, or F; in my opinion these are the emergent properties of the functions (and, as such, what Jung was initially able to observe) rather than more basic characterizations of their integral processes, which are represented by the terms I provided definitions for in the OP.

So I suppose the more accurate question to ask would be, from my framework, "why are field-dynamics characterized as irrational, and object-dynamics as rational?" My answer is that, when you examine the dynamic aspects of information, the observer has two things to focus on, two areas of dynamic perception, if you will, from which he can obtain information: the outside world, and himself. His perceptions of the outside world can change instantaneously; he may shift his focus to another target and thus, the perceptions of this outside world are considered discrete, or rational. The things outside himself which are changing, which can potentially affect him, are things he must attempt to gain control over, things he must harness or reign in. His perceptions of his own constantly changing reactions and involvement are, however, contiguous, existing in one constant stream, inseparable from each other. That which is inside himself, and is inherently changing, must be allowed to change freely; thus, irrational.


It is this emphasis on IM being the properties of the actual mind's focus, rather than simply methods by which reality can theoretically be broken down, that convince me both of the value of Jung's work in interpreting Socioncs functions, and of my particular definition of objects and fields. I am, of course, open to your interpretation, if you would give me your own answer to such a dilemma.

2) what makes extroverted perceptions + introverted judgments = "static"
(how does relating objects to ME via F or T result in "static"?)

To apply the same formula, with regard to the theoretical assumptions of the model and nature of the functions that I outlined earlier, to this question, I would change the question to "what makes field-statics rational, and object-statics irrational?"

Well, if we go again with the assumption that the divide in perception is of that which is inside the self, and outside the self, then we can easily see that the things which we consider as static and unchangeable outside ourselves are those things which we have no control over, which cannot be dissected or broken down; thus, they are irrational. Conversely, the things inside ourselves which are static are those things which we must maintain constant control over, to keep them in place and maintain their boundaries; thus, rational.

So you see it is this convenience in description, the ease with which this breaks down and how apparently flawless this dissection is in its consequences in how everything is broken down, how it is no longer simply a method for dissecting the outside world, but becomes an accurate model of how people perceive and conceive of reality, that is a large part of what convinces me that, in order to use the functions as a medium for properly understanding the psyche and the way information is processed, factors both objective, outside the self, relating to the concrete world, and subjective, people's reactions and integration of what they perceive must be considered the domain of the functions, because, quite simply, information is processed through and of both of these means, and is given to affect them both.


I think both of these examples seem to work with your comparison of digital and analog: digital elements existing independently of one another, signifying division and the formation of boundaries, and analog elements existing in some form of unity or comparison, signifying irreducibility.

[anndelise]

True, but the key, IMO, to understanding the concept of fields, is that no comparison actually exists between the two without an observer; the correct perception of both objects is assumed, and integrated, in their comparison, whereas perceiving an object in a stand-alone fashion requires no sense of internal objectivity; it is merely taken as it is, used for what it is, whereas any comparison is automatically self-referential, and always requires something beyond perception for its own sake or immediate usage.

So, when I say the store is 1/4 of a mile from the school, (which is relationship of distance), then I'm referencing myself in that? Even though I used a map?

Or that a penny is 19.05mm (the diameter's distance from one edge to the opposite edge), I'm referencing myself in that? Even though I used a ruler to measure it? (does this mean that the ruler self-referenced in order to make the measurement? rulers can process information??)

When I say that note is 3 decibels louder than the previous note, I'm referencing myself in that as well? Even though I read a device that did the measuring? (does this mean that the device self-referenced in order to make the measurement?)

Or when I see a cat's ears perk up, and then turns it's head to stare at something, I look, and see a mouse, I can infer that the cat is attracted to the mouse. Where am I in the relationship between the cat and the mouse? Would the cat not be interested in the mouse if I wasn't there...or would it have ignored the mouse? (damn I wish I had so much power over how people and things relate to each other)

If we say that the fields are self-referential, and thus have a subjective value to them...
then what about the involved aspect? that would also be a self-referential aspect...
but then, so would the abstract aspect, since it IS a person having to conceptualize something...
as well all the internal elements, since they are vague and ambiguous, requiring inferences, which can only be done by the person inferring...
so..um...the self-referential aspects are all the Xi (Ni, Si, Fi, Ti)....
plus all the involved aspects (Si, Se, Fi, Fe)....
plus all the conceptual aspects (Ni, Ne, Ti, Te)...
plus the internal elements ....(Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe)
that makes...uh.......oh, hey...every element is then self-referential, and all is subjective, right? :wink:


You say that "no comparison actually exists between the two without an observer".
Does an object actually exist without an observer?
Does an object exist without a sensorer?
Does a concept exist without a conceiver?
Can an inference be made without an inferer? or an implier?
Can something be clear and unambiguous...without anyone to perceive it?

I'm actually asking these questions. Because the quoted statement implies those following questions.

(Oh, and since we know I don't follow philosophers and such, please state in your own words as best you can, without referencing a philosopher.)

Well given that it is a theory of information metabolism, taking for granted that this is how the brain parcels together information, I like to think of the definitions as attempts to characterize the processes, rather than the processes as emergent perceptions of the definitions, and that the information aspects are the actual mechanisms of perception used by the brain, rather than S, N, T, or F; in my opinion these are the emergent properties of the functions (and, as such, what Jung was initially able to observe) rather than more basic characterizations of their integral processes, which are represented by the terms I provided definitions for in the OP.

If by this you mean that the aspects are the basic mechanisms of information metabolism, while the elements are the emergent properties of the combined aspects, then I'd agree with that.

If you're saying something else, would you clarify for me?

So I suppose the more accurate question to ask would be, from my framework, "why are field-dynamics characterized as irrational, and object-dynamics as rational?" My answer is that, when you examine the dynamic aspects of information,the observer has two things to focus on, two areas of dynamic perception, if you will, from which he can obtain information: the outside world, and himself. His perceptions of the outside world can change instantaneously; he may shift his focus to another target and thus, the perceptions of this outside world are considered discrete, or rational. The things outside himself which are changing, which can potentially affect him, are things he must attempt to gain control over, things he must harness or reign in. His perceptions of his own constantly changing reactions and involvement are, however, contiguous, existing in one constant stream, inseparable from each other. That which is inside himself, and is inherently changing, must be allowed to change freely; thus, irrational.


It is this emphasis on IM being the properties of the actual mind's focus, rather than simply methods by which reality can theoretically be broken down, that convince me both of the value of Jung's work in interpreting Socioncs functions, and of my particular definition of objects and fields. I am, of course, open to your interpretation, if you would give me your own answer to such a dilemma.




To apply the same formula, with regard to the theoretical assumptions of the model and nature of the functions that I outlined earlier, to this question, I would change the question to "what makes field-statics rational, and object-statics irrational?"

Well, if we go again with the assumption that the divide in perception is of that which is inside the self, and outside the self, then we can easily see that the things which we consider as static and unchangeable outside ourselves are those things which we have no control over, which cannot be dissected or broken down; thus, they are irrational. Conversely, the things inside ourselves which are static are those things which we must maintain constant control over, to keep them in place and maintain their boundaries; thus, rational.

I'll be honest, as I read this, a couple of things seem to conflict with each other, but I lack the ability to dissect it and compare each part enough to figure out what parts are conflicting. So I'm forced to let this go, but with at least a note to say...

I think both of these examples seem to work with your comparison of digital and analog: digital elements existing independently of one another, signifying division and the formation of boundaries, and analog elements existing in some form of unity or comparison, signifying irreducibility.

Analog elements aren't necessarily irreducible. A sound wave is an example of an analog signal. But we have machines and measuring devices that break the sound wave down into parts. Admittedly, the parts aren't exact, and pieces of information wind up missing, such that when putting those pieces back together again we get a resemblance, but not exact, replica of the sound wave.

But in the human mind, we do this all the time, breaking things down, building them back up, and repeat. In fact, I would suggest that it's the very quick process of building up and breaking down that leads to the actual processing of information. The other aspects would serve as the bits of information being juggled during the processing of information.

[anndelise]

It is this emphasis on IM being the properties of the actual mind's focus, rather than simply methods by which reality can theoretically be broken down, that convince me both of the value of Jung's work in interpreting Socioncs functions, and of my particular definition of objects and fields. I am, of course, open to your interpretation, if you would give me your own answer to such a dilemma.

I do intend to answer this, but since we are not talking in person, I will need time to create some kind of way to present the info through a post.

Please allow me a day or so, as I just came out of a situation that had me stressing all night, and now running on lack of sleep. (plus I have a family calling for attention)

[Gilly]

So, when I say the store is 1/4 of a mile from the school, (which is relationship of distance), then I'm referencing myself in that? Even though I used a map?

No, that's observing an object: the distance in and of itself is a number, a statistic, something discreet in and of itself. Any "relationship" in between the two, that does not rather reference something objective and concrete, has to be either a comparison of traits they have, which is still simply two objective factors being held side by side and requires no further perception than a simple conscious deduction, or a subjective sense of how they relate that is based on multiple objective factors that cannot be processed simultaneously in conscious perception, either for direct usage or application, or as a purely personal/aesthetic reaction.

Or that a penny is 19.05mm (the diameter's distance from one edge to the opposite edge), I'm referencing myself in that? Even though I used a ruler to measure it? (does this mean that the ruler self-referenced in order to make the measurement? rulers can process information??)

Again, that's not really a relationship; looking at the penny and SEEING the distance between the two is a physical observation of something concrete and discreet, and measuring it is the same, only more precise, and more abstract. Rulers don't have consciousness, and therefore don't make comparisons. They are concrete illustrations of comparisons; they do not do any "comparing" except in the eyes of a conscious being, in which case the conscious being need compare nothing, but rather merely observe what is dictated by the ruler, which has nothing to do with the psychological process of interrelating anything.

When I say that note is 3 decibels louder than the previous note, I'm referencing myself in that as well? Even though I read a device that did the measuring? (does this mean that the device self-referenced in order to make the measurement?)

You're obviously missing the point. Reading the device is a direct observation of something external and concrete, and has nothing to do with the conscious process of comparing two things or directly perceiving their interrelation; it is merely a number, which is quite clearly an abstract object.

Or when I see a cat's ears perk up, and then turns it's head to stare at something, I look, and see a mouse, I can infer that the cat is attracted to the mouse. Where am I in the relationship between the cat and the mouse? Would the cat not be interested in the mouse if I wasn't there...or would it have ignored the mouse? (damn I wish I had so much power over how people and things relate to each other)

You are the perceiver; you make a deduction by way of your sense of their interrelatedness. You do not perceive a direct interrelation indicated purely in what you observe; you do, however, notice a correlation between the cat's ears and eyes, and the movement of the mouse, and, without seeing through the cat's eyes (that would be direct perception of the cat looking at the mouse), you make a deduction based on the coincidence of these actions, which you cannot prove objectively, but can be fairly certain of nonetheless, because of your mind's assimilation of multiple factors at once and comparison of them beneath the surface of your direct conscious.

If we say that the fields are self-referential, and thus have a subjective value to them...
then what about the involved aspect? that would also be a self-referential aspect...
but then, so would the abstract aspect, since it IS a person having to conceptualize something...

I would say that the involved/abstract aspect is more to do with the process of apprehending information, rather than the process of apprehending the conclusion, which is what I tried to demonstrate in my definition.

as well all the internal elements, since they are vague and ambiguous, requiring inferences, which can only be done by the person inferring...

It's my opinion that the internal/external dichotomy has more to do with the nature of the information that is apprehended, rather than the method of processing. Again I have tried to demonstrate this in my definitions.

so..um...the self-referential aspects are all the Xi (Ni, Si, Fi, Ti)....
plus all the involved aspects (Si, Se, Fi, Fe)....
plus all the conceptual aspects (Ni, Ne, Ti, Te)...
plus the internal elements ....(Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe)
that makes...uh.......oh, hey...every element is then self-referential, and all is subjective, right? :wink:

So in conclusion, yes, all of the functions are "self-referential," meaning that, in some way, the term "self-referential" can apply to all of them in some wayif you take the word at its dictionary meaning instead of interpreting it within the context I have presented in an attempt to convey something that is not easily understandable.

You say that "no comparison actually exists between the two without an observer".
Does an object actually exist without an observer?
Does an object exist without a sensorer?

Yes, some objects exist. We can talk about solipsism in a different thread, if you like

Does a concept exist without a conceiver?

No, a concept is either the comparison between two abstract qualities, or the integration of many abstract qualities into a gestalt.

Can an inference be made without an inferer? or an implier?

Certainly not.

Can something be clear and unambiguous...without anyone to perceive it?

Yes, actually perception clouds things quite a bit.

If by this you mean that the aspects are the basic mechanisms of information metabolism, while the elements are the emergent properties of the combined aspects, then I'd agree with that.

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

I'll be honest, as I read this, a couple of things seem to conflict with each other, but I lack the ability to dissect it and compare each part enough to figure out what parts are conflicting. So I'm forced to let this go, but with at least a note to say...

Ok. I'll be glad to answer any questions you have about my formulations, and I hope you can share more of your own for comparison, because really I am more interested than anything in reaching the core of this matter.





[qupte]Analog elements aren't necessarily irreducible. A sound wave is an example of an analog signal. But we have machines and measuring devices that break the sound wave down into parts. Admittedly, the parts aren't exact, and pieces of information wind up missing, such that when putting those pieces back together again we get a resemblance, but not exact, replica of the sound wave.

But in the human mind, we do this all the time, breaking things down, building them back up, and repeat. In fact, I would suggest that it's the very quick process of building up and breaking down that leads to the actual processing of information. The other aspects would serve as the bits of information being juggled during the processing of information.[/QUOTE]

Well I wouldn't suggest that a soundwave is irreducible; rather than, in our perception of it, there is an emergent quality rather than an assembled one, a holistic quality of perception rather than one of discreet parts; it is this difference in the forms of perception that I believe is the important distinction, rather than the nature of the actual things themselves. After all, we're studying the human mind and its perceptions, rather than what they are actually perceiving.

[Gilly]

Internal/External: The type of information that is apprehended - related to concrete reality or human interpretation

Abstract/Involved: The manner in which information is apprehended - by the investment and reactions of the self to reality, or detached analysis and deduction

Object/Field: The manner in which we reach a conclusion about the information - by taking it as we have observed it, or by relating it to the self

Static/Dynamic: the relation of the perceived information to time - with reference to a specific point in time, or over a period of time.

That's as simple as I can make it, as I have come to understand them.

[stanprollyright]

Internal/External: The type of information that is apprehended - related to concrete reality or human interpretation

Abstract/Involved: The manner in which information is apprehended - by the investment and reactions of the self to reality, or detached analysis and deduction

Object/Field: The manner in which we reach a conclusion about the information - by taking it as we have observed it, or by relating it to the self

That's as simple as I can make it, as I have come to understand them.

This clarifies the first two definitions very well, thanks. Internal/external could still use some clarification IMO.

So I suppose the more accurate question to ask would be, from my framework, "why are field-dynamics characterized as irrational, and object-dynamics as rational?" My answer is that, when you examine the dynamic aspects of information, the observer has two things to focus on, two areas of dynamic perception, if you will, from which he can obtain information: the outside world, and himself. His perceptions of the outside world can change instantaneously; he may shift his focus to another target and thus, the perceptions of this outside world are considered discrete, or rational. The things outside himself which are changing, which can potentially affect him, are things he must attempt to gain control over, things he must harness or reign in. His perceptions of his own constantly changing reactions and involvement are, however, contiguous, existing in one constant stream, inseparable from each other. That which is inside himself, and is inherently changing, must be allowed to change freely; thus, irrational.

To apply the same formula, with regard to the theoretical assumptions of the model and nature of the functions that I outlined earlier, to this question, I would change the question to "what makes field-statics rational, and object-statics irrational?"

Well, if we go again with the assumption that the divide in perception is of that which is inside the self, and outside the self, then we can easily see that the things which we consider as static and unchangeable outside ourselves are those things which we have no control over, which cannot be dissected or broken down; thus, they are irrational. Conversely, the things inside ourselves which are static are those things which we must maintain constant control over, to keep them in place and maintain their boundaries; thus, rational.

These don't make much sense to me, I guess I'll attempt to explain it the way it manifests in my head:

"why are field-dynamics characterized as irrational, and object-dynamics as rational?", "what makes field-statics rational, and object-statics irrational?"
Fields are inherently dynamic, one way to define a field is the way two objects affect each other (over time). The properties of objects (not the objects themselves) are inherently static, as when an object changes, its properties either stay the same or become different properties. When observing a field dynamically, you can clearly see the relationship play out, just as when observing a static object you can clearly see its properties. Thus perceiving functions (this is one case where I think the judging/perceiving terminology is more apt) simply gather information. I generally associate irrational functions with bottom-up processing. Rational functions are top-down processing, because they require other data to create systems in order to infer their conclusions. When viewing an object from a dynamic viewpoint, its individual properties are not readily apparent because they are constantly changing, the data has to be compared to other data for a conclusion to be inferred. When viewing a field from a static viewpoint, the potential affectation must be inferred. This also helps explain why they are blocked the way they are: the static properties of an object are required to infer the static field, and a dynamic view of an object affecting other things helps determine its properties.

Let me know of that makes sense or not.

[Gilly]

The thing is, objects have qualities, as we perceive them, that are stationary or static, and of their movement, or dynamic. The color of your desk, for example, could hypothetically change, but you perceive it as consistent, stationary; this is static perception. However if you were to throw your desk, its movement would be a dynamic property of it as an object.

[Gilly]

This clarifies the first two definitions very well, thanks. Internal/external could still use some clarification IMO.

Intuitive and Ethical functions both perceive information that is invented by the human mind: ethics are the rules and substance of interaction, and Intuition is the mental formulation for the comparison of abstract qualities and processes. They could be called the "invented" functions.

Sensing and Logical functions observe things that exist independent of human perception: objects in their natural state, without interpretation, as they are in "the Real" (thought obviously they are not completely accurate in this sense, as we do not apprehend the existence of concrete reality directly, but rather by means of our senses); you could call them "naturalistic" functions.

[stanprollyright]

The thing is, objects have qualities, as we perceive them, that are stationary or static, and of their movement, or dynamic. The color of your desk, for example, could hypothetically change, but you perceive it as consistent, stationary; this is static perception. However if you were to throw your desk, its movement would be a dynamic property of it as an object.

I don't think we perceive motion as a quality of an object; we perceive motion in terms of changing position in relation to the self, making it a dynamic field.

[ArchonAlarion]

"why are field-dynamics characterized as irrational, and object-dynamics as rational?", "what makes field-statics rational, and object-statics irrational?"
Fields are inherently dynamic, one way to define a field is the way two objects affect each other (over time). The properties of objects (not the objects themselves) are inherently static, as when an object changes, its properties either stay the same or become different properties. When observing a field dynamically, you can clearly see the relationship play out, just as when observing a static object you can clearly see its properties. Thus perceiving functions (this is one case where I think the judging/perceiving terminology is more apt) simply gather information. I generally associate irrational functions with bottom-up processing. Rational functions are top-down processing, because they require other data to create systems in order to infer their conclusions. When viewing an object from a dynamic viewpoint, its individual properties are not readily apparent because they are constantly changing, the data has to be compared to other data for a conclusion to be inferred. When viewing a field from a static viewpoint, the potential affectation must be inferred. This also helps explain why they are blocked the way they are: the static properties of an object are required to infer the static field, and a dynamic view of an object affecting other things helps determine its properties.

Let me know of that makes sense or not.

This does make some sense.

[Gilly]

Until you read the definitions I've posted.

The existence of objects is "static," yes, true, in terms of them being discreet entities, but they have properties both static and dynamic. That is the difference: nature and properties.

[ArchonAlarion]

Change is a comparison between a past state and a future state, thus a field between the two states.

[Gilly]

You're being a linguistic fucktard. The definitions stand as they are, describing separate things, without your linguistic hair splicing.

[ArchonAlarion]

Internal/External: The type of information that is apprehended - related to concrete reality or human interpretation

Abstract/Involved: The manner in which information is apprehended - by the investment and reactions of the self to reality, or detached analysis and deduction

Object/Field: The manner in which we reach a conclusion about the information - by taking it as we have observed it, or by relating it to the self

That's as simple as I can make it, as I have come to understand them.

How would static/dynamic fit into this?

[Gilly]

Internal/External: The type of information that is apprehended - related to concrete reality or human interpretation

Abstract/Involved: The manner in which information is apprehended - by the investment and reactions of the self to reality, or detached analysis and deduction

Object/Field: The manner in which we reach a conclusion about the information - by taking it as we have observed it, or by relating it to the self

Static/Dynamic: the relation of the perceived information to time - with reference to a specific point in time, or over a period of time.

That's as simple as I can make it, as I have come to understand them.

Amended.

[ArchonAlarion]

Hmm, so would Ti only reference a specific point in time? This doesn't seem right to me. Ti should be described as referencing an unchanging causal mechanism that exists throughout a period of time.

[Gilly]

Right, but it is referenced with each change in time as "still there" or "gone," black or white, rather than fluid.

[ArchonAlarion]

Gotcha

[stanprollyright]

I don't think we perceive motion as a quality of an object; we perceive motion in terms of changing position in relation to the self, making it a dynamic field.

To continue this tangent -
I would also argue that size is also not a property, but a self-referential field. Unless size is measured, then it is a static property (even if its size is changing, increments of measurement keep it a static property). Otherwise, we think of size based on how large or something is compared to us and the objects around it. Even when something's size is constant, we can consider it dynamic because perceived size is connected to position relative to the self, another dynamic field (since we have the capability of motion and frequently use it, I consider movement and position always dynamic).

[Gilly]

Well when size is "measured" it is systematized by external means for abstracted objective perception. That's Te.