Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Random Musings and Ramblage 102Alpha

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Random Musings and Ramblage 1.02Alpha

    its interesting to relate concepts in socionics to the human understanding of space and time. i've always been of the opinion that the processes that govern our understanding of the world around us (i.e. its positioning and structuring in space) are the same processes as those using which we understand more abstract terms and ideas. numbers, for example, are simply positions on a dimensional line through a conceptual space. socionics has the potential of being linked to the unified process concerned here.

    a number of very basic facts come to mind:
    - understanding of the spatial world occurs through observation, and observation happens from a perspective.
    - in understanding the spatial world, we isolate objects and/or spatial positions from that world.

    - there is nothing that keeps an agent from processing a perspective without regard to the objects and/or spatial positions observed from that perspective. in other words, the perspective can be processed in a solipsistic, world-indifferent, subjective way.

    - when instead, an object or position in the world is focussed on, there is never a complete divorce from the observational perspective possible. at best, the independent focus on an object occurs through the reconciliation of many perspectives such that the influence of any single perspective from the set concerned diminishes. the increasing of the number of reconciled perspectives increases the independence from any single perspective.

    what is the relation to socionics in the above. i claim the following:

    - perspective relates to Pi
    - object or position relates to Pe
    - solipsist, world-indifferent, subjective processing relates to Accepting P, i.e. Irrational
    - reconciliatory, perspective divorcing processing relates to Creating P, i.e. Rational

    Focussing on the J functions would provide a mirror image of these two. Please don't go whining about it that I call J types the reconciling objectivists here and P types the solipsists. Where J functions are concerned, the roles are reversed.

    Accepting P makes Pi, the perspective, Focal. It locks down the focus on the perspective and leaves variable, underdetermined, what the perspective observes or depicts.
    Creating P makes Pe, the object or spatial position, Focal. It locks the focus on the object or spatial position, seeking to remove the influence of the perspective such that the perspective becomes variable, irrelevant, contingent.

  2. #2
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:58 AM.

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    a rough sketch of how i see Focal/Diffuse conceptually as it pertains to P functions.

    Accepting P (Focal Pi) is something you can do almost instantly, because it takes only a single perspective. Creating P (Focal Pe) is something you can only do after having gathered multiple perspectives. Pi is largely the material you start out with, i.e. what you receive through observation.

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    chat log with some thoughts. bottom to top.

    28/04/2011 16:57 <labcoat> in so doing a new dimensional sequence is given rise to, possibly capable of serving as part of a map in future endeavors
    28/04/2011 16:57 <labcoat> conscious thought can direct a dynamic flow through a static model; it establishes an order in which adjacent states are reviewed
    28/04/2011 16:53 <labcoat> statics = map; dynamics = experience
    28/04/2011 16:53 <labcoat> but since there is not one comprehensive map, the question is as much one of "which map am i on"
    28/04/2011 16:52 <labcoat> in a sense the question posed is "where am i within the static map of the world"
    28/04/2011 16:52 <labcoat> pertinence is established relative to a subjective state
    28/04/2011 16:49 <labcoat> and no doubt a thing he was right about; it greatly resonates with my intuitions on the topic
    28/04/2011 16:47 <labcoat> dynamics percepts are engaged reactively; this is one of the basic points smilingeyes reasoned from
    28/04/2011 16:46 <labcoat> i suspect consciously directed thought is always leveraged towards statics
    28/04/2011 16:45 <labcoat> Je marks the temporal event that signifies phenomenological change and thus change of pertinence
    28/04/2011 16:45 <labcoat> a change is registered phenomenologically; this means a different set of ontologically objective conditions pertain
    28/04/2011 16:44 <labcoat> in a sense it expresses difference with regard to Pi, but the difference is inherent in a temporal shift from one phenomenal state to another
    28/04/2011 16:43 <labcoat> Je expresses pertinence with regard to Pe
    28/04/2011 16:41 <labcoat> whereas Ji is concerned with difference
    28/04/2011 16:41 <labcoat> rather, Je is concerned with pertinence
    28/04/2011 16:40 <labcoat> P is concerned with being; J is concerned with pertinence
    28/04/2011 09:31 <labcoat> Pe = noumenology
    28/04/2011 09:31 <labcoat> Pi = phenomenology
    28/04/2011 09:28 <labcoat> J = epistemology
    28/04/2011 09:28 <labcoat> P = ontology

  5. #5
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post


    a rough sketch of how i see Focal/Diffuse conceptually as it pertains to P functions.

    Accepting P (Focal Pi) is something you can do almost instantly, because it takes only a single perspective. Creating P (Focal Pe) is something you can only do after having gathered multiple perspectives. Pi is largely the material you start out with, i.e. what you receive through observation.
    That is only Si/Ne.

    I know it's damn hard to twist your point of view around to get a look at your PoLR, since to do that you need to deny all you think you know. But if you gave it a try...

    Se is something you can do almost instantly, because it takes a single object. Ni is something you can only do after having gathered multiple objects. Ni is the implicit perspective. This is the key, implicit. All the time when you talk about perspective, what you really refer to is explicit perspective. It simply doesn't work for explaining Se/Ni.

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Look, there is a sense in which S is a focus effect much in the same way as Focal is. You could take the "Focal" in the pictures and replace it with "S" and take the "Diffuse" and replace it with "N" and end up describing another common configuration in socionics. I have spoken about this at various points before. The point is that S/N is not the only focus effect. You are restricting yourself to one of the two focal effects when there is in fact another, which you dismiss as some uncomfortable glitch. This makes you rather embarrassingly unfit to lecture me on this topic.

    Se is something you can do almost instantly, because it takes a single object.
    you're saying that a person can have knowledge of the identity of an object without in any way observing it. this makes you a believer in magic. either that or you challenge the premise that Se involves ontological objectivity, i.e. perspective independence, which means you reject the basics of socionics.

    Ni is something you can only do after having gathered multiple objects.
    Ni relates to a phenomenological perspective as much as Si does. it just uses the perspective as a "hint" to lock on to prototype Pe nodes with (i.e. Se), where Si constructs the identity of the Pe node from itself and any counterpart Si nodes. the story is always the same, again and again: you can have the Pi without the Pe, but not the other way around. as much you want wish to have "magic" gifts allowing you to do otherwise, humans just can't derive knowledge without observing first. even when they induce (i.e. apply a stereotype), they start out with a perceptive hint.

  7. #7
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you insist Dynamic -> Static... explain how does it do it?

    I don't mind not getting Fe -> Ti - I don't really "feel" Ti -> Fe either - but not seeing Ni -> Se at all is worrying. This isn't intended to be personal, but the only implication in my interpretation that I find outlandish is that involving Fe, and you seem to have the same problem with your PoLR element... and as I described in the past, you seem to be dealing with it in an easiest way of force-fitting it in a known box - in this case, projecting Si/Ne dynamic on it.

    Your argument so far is based on presumption that perspective is always explicit and object is always implicit.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •