Last edited by female; 07-09-2015 at 02:56 PM.
The Object (I capitalize to signify the difference between the word's meaning in Socionics and in the dictionary) would be something that doesn't require the perspective of a particular person to exist. So, a person can be an Object because no particular person is needed for them to exist, which means any actual thing you can consider an object is in the category, as well as ideas and concepts. So, the Theory of Evolution is an Object because we don't need Charles Darwin to be around for it to be understood or in existence.
That is easier to understand in comparison to a Field, which ties into being a Subject. I'm not sure if the Subject is really considered much in IA/IME descriptions, but the Subject is a person that perceives a Field, gives it existence. Without the Subject, the Field wouldn't exist, and because the Subject is always a person (or some other intelligent lifeform that exists elsewhere maybe? I guess we'd still call them a person, just not a human... Either way!), you can't have a Field unless a person is present. The way Objects connect or relate (which are not created because of the Object, but the Subject's particular sense of things) that doesn't necessarily pertain to a concept or idea (that is, an Object) would be the Field the Subject would be aware of.
Probably not the best way of trying to describe it:
An object can exist and/or be taken into consideration without referencing another object.
Though when discussing an object, it may become a subject in the process, such as when discussing the qualities of an object.
A subject can be talked about, but usually as it relates to either an action, another object, or qualities of the object. It is necessarily 'self-referential', meaning it is necessary to reference the subject itself.
With the former, there need only be one object. With the later, there needs to be two objects, or an object and an action.
Comparing/contrasting requires two objects. You cannot compare/contrast an object...to itself. (you can compare PARTS of an object to other PARTS of an object, but it still requires at least two "parts") To compare/contrast, you must also necessarily reference each of the objects.
You cannot discuss actions, without including some kind of subject that is doing the action. And usually this also requires an object or recipient of the subject's action.
We can say "He ran", but it's an incomplete thought.
"He ran around the track." , "He ran in the race." , "He ran to catch the bus."
...are more complete thoughts, and each requires the reference of at least two objects and their relationship between each other.)
You cannot discuss cause/effect without including two things. A doesn't cause A, though A can cause B. A isn't an effect of A, though B can be an effect of A.
I've found it easier to think of it in terms of nodes and links.
Nodes would contain objects, people, places, things, ideas, qualities, concepts, etc.
Links let us know how various nodes are related to each other.
Undirected links (non-arrowed lines) would suggest something akin to structural relationships.
Directed links (arrowed lines) would suggest something more akin to processes and dynamic relationships.
Another usage of 'subject' is when we are talking about 'the field and studies of socionics theory'. In this case, we are including many nodes...and discussing or studying how those nodes are related or linked to each other.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I think Mattie's definition is accurate, in this context.
"Object" means literally "thing put before" (mind or sight). Therefore, "objective" describes things that exist outside the mind of the observer.
"Subject" means literally "thing put under", though in this case it carries the connotation "person or thing that may be acted upon". It's used as an abbreviation of "the thinking subject", i.e., the subject which is capable of thought: the mind. Therefore, in this context, "subjective" means "things that exist inside the mind of the observer".
In socionics, "Object" is pretty straightforwardly the same as the philosophical definition: anything that exists outside of and independent of the mind.
"Field", in the socionics definition, is a little less straightforward, but the correlation is there. A "Field" is a mental connection or category linking two or more "Objects". We create Fields every time we link two different things in our minds. Since Fields don't exist outside our minds, they are properly considered "subjective", i.e., "things that exist inside the mind of the observer".
Ti is logical categories or connections. Since logic exists only inside the mind, it is Subjective.
Fi is relational categories or connections. But there are no literal cords or cables (matter, energy, or otherwise) that tie people together into relationships -- personal relationship and sentiments are purely constructs of the mind, and are therefore Subjective.
Si is physical connections between processes -- how changes in one object physically cause changes in another object. However, as with Fi, there is no literal cord or bond (matter, energy, or otherwise) between, say, a flamme and a hand -- it is the human mind that observes the interaction between the two, and makes the connection: flammes burn hands.
Finally, Ni is abstract connections between processes, which like Si, exist only in the mind.
Se is pretty obviously Objective -- it deals with things that can be directly observed by independent observers, things that exist outside of the human mind.
Te is also pretty straightforward -- it deals with changes and motion in physical objects, which likewise occur outside of the human mind.
Ne and Fe are a little less straightforward. In some senses, because Ne possibilities and Fe emotions cannot be directly observed and are only inferred to exist (i.e., they are "Internal"), they seem like they should be considered Subjective. However, whether or not we are capable of directly observing them, they do exist/occur outside of the human mind, and so should be considered Objective. An object's Ne potential exists whether we are able to perceive it or not, and the Internal motion and change within a person or thing does in fact occur whether anyone knows about it or not.
Fe is probably the most difficult to think about in this way, since of all the Objective IEs it's the most strongly associated with emotion and therefore the human mind. Since emotion is a thing of the mind, shouldn't it be considered "Subjective"? However, there's a subtle distinction here: emotion is "what is happening to the mind", not "what is produced by the mind".
Fe's status as an Objective IE is more clear when we consider inanimate objects. Inanimate objects also have Fe -- not "emotion" as humans and animals have, but "actions or events occurring within". Of course, since the action or event occurring within most inanimate objects is "staying the same as before", we don't tend to notice it as much, just as we tend to overlook the Te of a stationary baseball, whose trajectory and speed, etc., are "zero".
Last edited by Krig the Viking; 08-25-2010 at 04:50 PM.
flames do transfer energy though. is it more apt to say the perception of burning for si?
Object: information that's encapsulated on its own, understood whole, without further decomposition into parts.
-actions, algorithms, measurements
-emotional expression, atmosphere
-sensory involvement, objectives (literally )
Field: information that is dissected into parts and compared with parts of other information. (Discreetly and with a system in mind if rational; spontaneously if irrational, hoping to catch patterns -- like sifting for Gold in a river).
-correlations, decompositions, classifications
-likes and dislikes, attraction and repulsion
-how two events are related in time
-one's internal state vs an environmental stimuli, differences between separate forms
A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; It cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows the other. Mao Tse Tung
To define something is to explain the thing in terms of its composition from parts that exist on a more fundamental level. Since object and subject are themselves fundaments I view the excercise as largely futile where these terms are concerned.
Anyway my best effort:
Subject: if you don't understand what a subject is, you don't understand what you are yourself. In this case I can not rationally communicate with you. The only thing to be understood about the notion of subject beyond its identity with yourself is the fact that there exist other subjects in the world besides you.
Object: any entity outside of the subject with an existence independent of said subject. What's complicated is that beside being a subject, you are also an object. Among all the objects seen in reality, one object is a reflection of yourself.
Better attempt at defining subject: a subject is an epistemic engine with the capicity for agency. That is to say, a device that represents the world around it and has the ability to manouver through and manipulate said world. It has sensory input chanels, a memory and a physical body that occupies space in the world the subject observes.
Last edited by krieger; 08-25-2010 at 04:59 AM.
Krig's explanation is the clearest so far, I think.
I'd add that subject is probably less about thinking than experiencing; a subject may experience the object. From subject's point of view, everything else is an object until their experiences are considered - hence treating someone "as an object" or "objectify" means literally that you don't consider what they're experiencing (regardless of whether it's emotional, physical, mental).
This neccessitates self being a subject (else, as labcoat pointed out, something is seriously wrong). Experiences are subjective by nature, but while all perception is biased - by no means 'objective' in absolute sense - we can and do strive at objectivity in many cases. Objective, from socionics standpoint, means considering an object apart from its relation to the self, or through the self, to other objects, but rather on its own or in context of its immediate environment. This is what extraverted - dealing with bodies - elements do, as opposed to introverted - fields - which interconnect our experiences resulting in a sort of model, inner frame of reference.