Discussion: Sorting the Information Elements
In the political type theory there are three dichotomies of belief components: static/dynamic, external/internal, and collective/individual. The static/dynamic and external/internal dichotomies specify two phases per information element, stable and unstable, and two states, void and full. Collective/individual refers to the element itself (individual) and a factor or relationship between aspects of the same element (collective). Socionics' functions process both.
What we aim to do is to distinguish these 16 reality elements -- one for each quadra variant of each function, and their 16 attendant factors of relationship. For example, beta Ni is choice, and can be either right or wrong. It's subjectivistic and based on feeling: what is the right choice for one person can be the wrong choice for someone else in the same situation. Choices have in common a certain ethic, by which they are judged to be good or evil/moral or immoral/ethical or unethical, all relative to a standard of the same. We say that ethic is the relationship between choices.
Here are some elements I've already worked out:
- Alpha Ti individual: propositional logic
- Alpha Ti collective: identity (Leibniz' identity of indiscernables)
- Beta Se individual: strength/weakness
- Beta Se collective: clash (victory/defeat)
- Gamma Se individual: rights
- Gamme Se collective: access
- Gamma Ni individual: event
- Gamma Ni collective: chronology
- Beta Ni individual: choice
- Beta Ni collective: ethic
- Alpha Fe individual: self
- Alpha Fe collective: accord
- Delta Si individual: function
- Delta Si collective: health/homeostasis/sustained state
- Alpha Si individual: sensation/qualia
- Alpha Si collective: pleasantness
- Delta Te individual: position
- Delta Te collective: arrangement
- Delta Fi individual: need
- Delta Fi collective: motive
- Beta Ti individual: existence
- Beta Ti collective: space
- Gamma Fi individual: value
- Gamma Fi collective: equity
Goodness knows we've talked about these forever. There have been arguments ad absurdum between me and you and everybody. Most of you have contributed to this effort in one way or another, through your endless debating and introspective effort.
Now we're almost there... let's get this ontology done, so that we can apply it to more important matters (like type descriptions).
Looking at the list, the jury is still out both quadra forms of Ne, gamma Te, and beta Fe.
If you disagree with this list, please argue your case.
Finally, if you need further explanation about the elements and how their aspects relate in each case, I will explain it.
One more point: the quadra forms of the elements are very near to each other. At times their relationships have been considered as concepts in and over themselves. (for example, conflicts (beta Se) over access (gamma Se) are equivalent to territorial claims ()). I have not listed those here.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 10-04-2010 at 06:32 AM.
Signal is a relationship between beta Fe and beta Ti, I think.
Feeling and emotion, probably. Although, can feeling really be experienced without a reason for it?
I've determined that alpha Ne individual is idea, and alpha Ne collective is imagination. Imagination is composed of ideas, and serves as a means of relating them.
I find this very interesting, because I think I am INFj/EII and I use the word "Need" quite a lot. I say to people I need you to help me, or I need this, or you don't understand what I need. But, I don't really understand why the "Collective" and "Individual" have different words. Could you please clarify.
Is it when you get with others of the same type (As in INFj/EII for me), we more focus on the word "motive"?
Just ideas, for whatever they're worth.
Originally Posted by tcaud
Gamma Te individual: Possession
Gamma Te collective: Trade/Exchange or Economy
Delta Ne individual: Ability
Delta Ne collective: Potential
Alpha Si individual: Experience or Aesthetic, maybe?
You've previously listed "Sensation, Colour/Smell/Taste/Sight, Qualia" as Se(F), but I too have wondered if they're more Si(F).
For Beta Fe, I also like Feeling (individual) and Emotion (collective), if that's what you were going for, but also think Feeling/Emotion (individual) and Communication (collective) might work.
Is that supposed to work on IM level, EM level, or both?
Well EM is just intake of instances of that have been realized by IM, so they plainly apply to both. They are the information elements (or "aspects", if you prefer), period.
Originally Posted by Aiss
Point: I take issue with Augusta's terminology. She calls Jung's functions information elements and the categories of information which they process information aspects. However, she offers no name for the actual instances of information aspects themselves. Thus I call the categories elements (as per Aristotle!) and the instances aspects.
I can understand that the functions themselves are elements of the process of information metabolism. But why call them elements of information itself? She also argues that information "has" aspects instead of being aspects, an argument that I don't think can be justified.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 10-08-2010 at 11:34 AM.
It's a difference between people who focus on the relationships between aspects of the same element, and the states of the aspects themselves.
Originally Posted by twitch
CILI, I tried to put Se as qualia as per Jung's ascription of the Se function as observing the same, but I think he was wrong. It's qualia for Si or else.
Seems like strong alpha Si is better at putting independent qualia together to form "frescos" of sensory stiumulus (like Bionicgoat's banners) than weak Si. I would say alpha Si individual is the sense itself, and alpha Si collective is the actual aesthetic experience of the senses.
As for Te...
Trades are exchanges of possession. If you possess something, you have it. If you don't possess it, you don't have it. Changes of state from having to not having and from not having to having are loss and gain, respectively.
Originally Posted by CILI
I was thinking that Te individual is count, thus it could not be possession. However, I think the two may be reconciled. I had believed that numbers themselves were Te aspects. However, maybe they are just objects to which only Te is ascribed -- they are element agnostic otherwise. If this is true, then every whole, positive number holds as many 1s as it is valued. To take away from the number then, actually means to take away from the holdings of the numerical object, thus incurring a loss upon it. Thus, number theory exists by means of intentionally avoiding the attribution of non T elements to numeric objects.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 10-08-2010 at 11:15 AM.