1. ## Aspectonics: Statics

1.)
2.) due to / due to
3.) due to / due to

is the nature of the physicality.

Due to there exists inherent boundaries of structure.
Due to there exists inherent attraction of convergence.

Due to structure & convergence there exists distances between alternate states of virtuality.

The two circles are seperated by (physical distance), even though they are attracted to each other. Because the attraction exists, there is an illusion of closeness. But the wall still exists. represents the distance it takes to close in on another reality or state of being..

It could be much better.

2. wow

3. the hell is that green thing

4. Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
the hell is that green thing
Virtual existence, what can be due to what is.

5. um... ok

6. Progression starts like this, from :

Internal Abstract Statics of Objects
External Abstract Statics of Fields

External Involved Statics of Objects

Internal Involved Statics of Fields
Internal Abstract Statics of Objects

= + = = + =

Smilingeyes did it already with the clock figures, this is a physical representation.

7. There is not a single progression for the functions.

8. Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
There is not a single progression for the functions.
What do you mean?

/ Alpha / Beta / Gamma / Delta /

Originally Posted by Ashton
Wasn't long enough. :/

Originally Posted by Jinxi
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HaY22LNN-44/TVnBHJ7lcKI/AAAAAAAAABY/YjolqhJokxc/s320/1262505173693.jpg
That's . They're all close to each other in distance, but far away in thought.

9. That progression is arbitrary. I dont know how that caught on & why that's the 1 quadra progression everyone uses. There are plenty more of them. Someone needs to write the rest. Quadras can progress in any way depending on what you value.
Tell me, what does it mean to be at the leftmost of the quadra progression? You are at the beginning of what? This is a cycle of what?

10. Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
That progression is arbitrary. I dont know how that caught on & why that's the 1 quadra progression everyone uses. There are plenty more of them. Someone needs to write the rest. Quadras can progress in any way depending on what you value.
It's not arbitrary. It's logical progression based on relatedness.

Sure they're probably many more you can come up with, but the one that exists is natural.

Anyway I'm looking for some Ego to rip it to pieces and find something useful.

11. Well no shit it's based on relatedness. They all are.
You didnt answer my question. Natural? What is natural about it? Why is that the "logical one"?
What is it progressing from, and toward?
Let me guess.. from the beginning, toward the end

12. What about the role of and ?

I notice that they're not part of the model.

13. Originally Posted by mirrorsoul
What about the role of and ?

I notice that they're not part of the model.
These are the Static aspects only. There are no Dynamic elements represented.

Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
Well no shit it's based on relatedness. They all are.
You didnt answer my question. Natural? What is natural about it? Why is that the "logical one"?
What is it progressing from, and toward?
Let me guess.. from the beginning, toward the end
What are you looking for? This is the most natural progression because it is the most explicit & static(i.e. classifiable) way the elements / quadras progress in terms of relatedness.

14. explicit and static? Classifiable? What does that even mean?

You're just making this shit up because you dont konw why you use that one. You just sort of read it somewhere, internalized it and now you use it every time.

What I want you to tell me is what does this progression represent? What does it mean to be on the leftmost side of it? How about the right side?

15. Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
explicit and static? Classifiable? What does that even mean?

You're just making this shit up because you dont konw why you use that one. You just sort of read it somewhere, internalized it and now you use it every time.
lol

I just said why.

Explicit = Observable(Well-defined). Static = Unique properties.
Classifiable = Observable unique properties.

16. Yeah but you just made that shit up. How is it that one has the observable unique properties over the others?

17. there's only one way this thread can be saved.

18. Because "attraction" exists there's an illusion of closeness to ???

Yes, I would say that's correct...but to even get to attraction, there's that period of contemplation of what value the object has to me, the subject.

19. Originally Posted by labcoat
there's only one way this thread can be saved.

Fake tits aren't nice.

20. Actually I think crazedrat is correct there are several progression towards functions...

Take Se as a starting point, you have a number of possible transitions

Se->Si
Se->Ne
Se->Ni
Se->Te
Se->Ti
Se->Fe
Se->Fi

I think certain transitions between these functions are sensible and other are not, like selection rules of the state of an atom in quantum mechanics

the transitions between the various states have a particular psychological significance, the same way a transition of states in quantum mechanics has an associated "energy" gap.

Se->Si
Se->Ne

Se->Te
Se->Fe

are allowable transitions

Se-/->Ni
Se-/->Ti
Se-/->Fi

are unallowed transitions

Se to Si, is a subjective internalization of sensation
Se to Ne, is an intuitive induction of the senses
Se to Te, is a logical observations from an experience with an object
Se to Fe, is a ethical observation from an experience with an object

any function can link to others through a series of progressions

21. ^ Ah I see. There's too much activity right now to take it in though.

Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
Yeah but you just made that shit up. How is it that one has the observable unique properties over the others?
No such thing as "over the others" They are either classifiable or they're not. If there were any other well-defined unique properties of the elements, they'd be included.

Do you classify red fingerpaint as part of the human skin organ?

Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Because "attraction" exists there's an illusion of closeness to ???

Yes, I would say that's correct...but to even get to attraction, there's that period of contemplation of what value the object has to me, the subject.
Right, you need to be involved, (Involved Statics) before you can get to the attraction (Abstract Statics) .

22. I've been looking at the OP for the past half hour in a desperate search for meaning. So far I've yet to find it.

Seriously, it feels like you're making up definitions as you go along. The more I try to read and understand what you're writing the more confused I get and the more my head hurts. Nothing is defined up front, it's like I have to parse what you're trying to say for you, and I don't think I have the ability or the will to do it. What is the 'attraction,' the 'convergence,' the 'distance,' the 'closeness' that I'm supposed to even begin to assume you're talking about?

23. This is like taking a shit, then looking at the lines of my shit and reading them like they are tea leaf lines.

24. All the potential function progressions are equally classifiable. You have made no case, at all, to show that the one you've chosen (arbitrarily, because you saw it written down somewhere) is any more classifiable than the others. All you have done is stated it is, repeatedly.

What you dont get is that duality is at the heart of socionics, and the functions. Any progression you make will necessarily have an opposite and equally valid progression.

25. Originally Posted by Jinxi
Fake tits aren't nice.

26. Originally Posted by Galen
I've been looking at the OP for the past half hour in a desperate search for meaning. So far I've yet to find it.

Seriously, it feels like you're making up definitions as you go along. The more I try to read and understand what you're writing the more confused I get and the more my head hurts. Nothing is defined up front, it's like I have to parse what you're trying to say for you, and I don't think I have the ability or the will to do it. What is the 'attraction,' the 'convergence,' the 'distance,' the 'closeness' that I'm supposed to even begin to assume you're talking about?
Those terms mean what they imply. It's just not ordered or explained in the most logical way.

Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
All the potential function progressions are equally classifiable. You have made no case, at all, to show that the one you've chosen (arbitrarily, because you saw it written down somewhere) is any more classifiable than the others. All you have done is stated it is, repeatedly.
The usual Quadra progression has the least subjectivity, at least for the moment.

and are related, true, but the difference is more subjective than progressing towards , which also happens to be a Delta pairing. "It makes sense".

Irrelevant.

What you dont get is that duality is at the heart of socionics, and the functions. Any progression you make will necessarily have an opposite and equally valid progression.
I do get it.

It's not about validity. I understand there are other orders. The usual way explains more than any other progression.

27. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Right, you need to be involved, (Involved Statics) before you can get to the attraction (Abstract Statics) .
How does that work? Please explain the process by which I need to involve Se prior to FiNe?

Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
This is your response? Dont make me laugh

You only expect a valid result...and you're terribly impatient and don't give him nearly enough support or credit for trying to understand the real workings of this process....Chill out.

28. Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
This is your response? Its pathetic..
No it's not. You're just volitionally dismissing it. You have the ability to reason - use it.

Originally Posted by Maritsa33
How does that work? Please explain the process by which I need to involve Se prior to FiNe?
It's too abstract to be of any benefit, psychology / neuroscience already explains the process.

You can't be attracted to something if you have nothing to be attracted to right? provides the form which you idealize.

29. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
No it's not. You're just volitionally dismissing it. You have the ability to reason - use it.

It's too abstract to be of any benefit, psychology / neuroscience already explains the process.

You can't be attracted to something if you have nothing to be attracted to right? provides the form which you idealize.
I can abstract a form (usually through fantasy); my own subjective form or model...would that be an Se?

30. Originally Posted by Maritsa33
I can abstract a form (usually through fantasy); my own subjective form or model...would that be an Se?
And where did you get the initial forms to imagine a new one?

31. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
No it's not. You're just volitionally dismissing it. You have the ability to reason - use it.
No, it's you whose being volitional. Promoting one quadra progression above all the other possibilities through the force of suggestion and a stunted "explanation" which you pulled out of your ass.

You tell me it's "more objective" (even though every progression has the same functions in it). Even if this were true (which it isn't), this somehow makes it better? Subjectivity & objectivity are equally balanced within socionics, so why value one over the other? Hell, all I'm arguing is that the others EXIST. And since they exist, they must be ACKNOWLEDGED.
Nevermind that we have no reason to think 1 function progression exists "more" than the others.
By the way, you're using those terms objectivity / subjectivity wrongly again. But nevermind that. Everything you've said in this thread has been fucking slop.

All a person has to do is look at your kindergarden scrawl drawing and see that you're a poseur.

32. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
And where did you get the initial forms to imagine a new one?
From reality...oh I see now...I have to have seen it to abstract it...nice.

I do love interacting with you

I wish my dual was as interested in Socionics so that he could make such interesting explanations of the processes involved in this mechanics so that through discussions I would understand it better.

33. ^

Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
No, it's you whose being volitional. Promoting one quadra progression above all the other possibilities through the force of suggestion and a stunted "explanation" which you pulled out of your ass.
Promoting? I wasn't promoting anything, you asked why it's it's the one being used, and I tried to explain.

In my model I was using :
- > / - > ...
Form - > Laws of the form - > Abilities of the form

You tell me it's "more objective" (even though every progression has the same functions in it). Even if this were true (which it isn't), this somehow makes it better? Subjectivity & objectivity are equally balanced within socionics, so why value one over the other? Hell, all I'm arguing is that the others EXIST. And since they exist, they must be ACKNOWLEDGED. By the way, you're using those terms objectivity / subjectivity wrongly again. But nevermind that. Everything you've said in this thread has been fucking slop.
How many observable properties do and have in common? How many observable unique properties do and have in common?

It's more reasonable to link up the elements with the most relatedness.

Can't Stop Won't Stop.

like they're truth.
Never implied that, you just saw it that way. Am I imposing? Do you feel imposed on?

I wonder why...

34. I dont like people spreading faulty information.
This all traces back to your dumbass notion that the extraverted functions are objective. Parts of objective reality, or something. The extraverted functions represent an affinity for the object, they are not objective. Learn the fucking difference. The subject is not discarded. Se is a psychological function.
You cannot observe the extraverted functions any more than you can observe the introverted functions.
If I show you a picture of two things crashing together, sure you could make a case for that being Se. But then I could show you a city grid, and all the cars moving throughout it, and I could make the same case for that being Ti.
I could make the same case that your perception of two things crashing into eachother is as subjective as it is objective.
Listen to me. Throw away all your original ideas, and start from scratch. Learn socionics from the ground up. Or better yet stop thinking about socionics completely. Thats the best thing you can do.

35. Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
I dont like people spreading faulty information.
This all traces back to your dumbass notion that the extraverted functions are objective. Parts of objective reality, or something. The extraverted functions represent an affinity for the object, they are not objective.
That's correct. He's just misunderstanding..this is semantics, you both are saying the other thing, but understanding the same thing.

@ESC

Just like with Se I have to have the object experience first to lend abstraction to Fi/Ti through Ne...

36. dude you are so Ti lol

37. Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
I dont like people spreading faulty information.
This all traces back to your dumbass notion that the extraverted functions are objective. Parts of objective reality, or something. The extraverted functions represent an affinity for the object, they are not objective. Learn the fucking difference.
I see, so you are still affected by our previous encounter? Have I dug myself, like a parasitic worm, inside the depths of your mind, infecting your every thought, eating away at your every nerve?

What are you going to do about that?

38. Originally Posted by Maritsa33
That's correct. He's just misunderstanding..this is semantics, you both are saying the other thing, but understanding the same thing.

@ESC

Just like with Se I have to have the object experience first to lend abstraction to Fi/Ti through Ne...
No, we're not saying the same thing. At all. And I dont think you understand what's going on most the time.
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
I see, so you are still affected by our previous encounter? Have I dug myself, like a parasitic worm, inside the depths of your mind, infecting your every thought, eating away at your every nerve?

What are you going to do about that?
It's that assumption which is leading you into these dumbass ideas of yours. I'm trying to do you a favor and fix your understanding. You should be thanking me.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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