# Thread: The Structure of Ideas

1. ## The Structure of Ideas

Two information aspects states, one in the data position and the other in the information position, are positively correlated if and only if an alternative data state induces the opposite information state.

Consider the statement "the car is red". This is an alpha Si aspect (the color red) in relation to the car. The car can only be red if it is not another color.

Now let's consider the qualitative statement "Johnny is upset because the car is red." This implies that if the car is red, Johnny is upset. An alpha Si aspect is directly correlated with a beta Fe state. Now consider the statement "Johnny is happy because the car is red." Both of these cannot be true of Johnny. How to substantiate which is true of him? Ask him what makes him happy and what makes him upset. Johnny responds that the car being blue makes him happy. That the car is red means it isn't blue, and this makes him sad. Because there is only one color of the car that can make Johnny happy, Johnny will be unhappy with any other such color. Johnny is upset that the car is red because its being blue makes him happy.

How to diagram the above situation?

2. One of these square diagrams with an X in the middle:
__
|X|
---

Except replace the 4 corners with variables:

A--B
| X |
C--D

The horizontal axis is distinguishment, the vertical axis is the relationship. So when these cross diagonally (represented by the X) you have a discrimination of the relationship (I do not like the blue car).

So say A is Johnny, B is Sally, C is Red Car, D is Blue Car. There you go

3. Concepts have levels. Higher concept levels must be built on lower concept levels.

Strangely, it seems like because all the functions generally have as their intellectual foundation every other function, no one type can say that their base function is independent of any other type. For example, alpha Ti relies on alpha Ne, which draws off delta Ne which relies on delta Fi, which is connected to gamma Fi which relies on gamma Se, which is connected to beta Se, which relies on beta Ti, which is connected to alpha Ti.

And, via the rule of verification, the mental tracks of alpha NTs, beta STs, gamma SFs, and delta NFs are anchored on those of gamma NTs, delta STs, beta NFs, and alpha SFs, and vice versa.

Take out any type's intellectual development, and the whole chain ceases. A civilization's progress grinds to a halt.

4. Information aspects of a given element cannot be considered in isolation from those of other elements. Rather, we find that the descriptive elements "hang" upon an edifice of pure logic, with the central unifying idea being objects (beta Ti).

Objects are made up of other objects. Although knowledge of objects in itself is not useful for information, knowledge of the associations between them is very useful.

Each function has two subfunctions, one for observing its element in relation to specific objects, and another for associating two aspects of the same element between two objects.

With the associative scheme as a backdrop, we can make a comprehensive model of ideas.

The base is delta Te, which associates objects in a single collection. When we compare two objects to find similarities, we note the component objects (or attributes) of either. The presence of any common attribute between the two of them is true or false. For every common attribute, the objects share a common category.

How to diagram this?

5. I think I have a diagram that illustrates the situation.

(thank you, JavE)

Consider two objects 1 and 2. Object 1 has two components; Object 2 has four. Both objects have components of types C1 and C2, and are thus similar in that both have these objects.

Code:
```        OBJECT 1                              OBJECT 2
+----------------------+             +----------------------+
|                      |             |                      |
|             ,-.      |             |   C4        ,-.      |
|            ;   :     |             |            ;   :     |
|        C1  | C2|-----+-------------+--------C1--| C2|     |
|            :   ;     |             |            :   ;     |
|             `-'      |             |          C3 `-'      |
|                      |             |                      |
+----------------------+             +----------------------+

OBJECT 1                              OBJECT 2
+----------------------+             +----------------------+
|                      |             |                      |
|       ,-.            |             |   C4  ,-.            |
|      ;   :           |             |      ;   :           |
|      | C1|---C2------+-------------+------+-C1|   C2      |
|      :   ;           |             |      :   ;           |
|       `-'            |             |       `-'C3          |
|                      |             |                      |
+----------------------+             +----------------------+

OBJECT 1                              OBJECT 2
+----------------------+             +----------------------+
|                      |             |                      |
|       ,-.   ,-.      |             |   C4  ,-.   ,-.      |
|      ;---:-;---:     |             |      ;---:-;---:     |
|     (| C1| | C2|)----+-------------+-----(| C1| | C2|)    |
|      :---;-:---;     |             |      :---;-:---;     |
|       `-'   `-'      |             |       `-'C3 `-'      |
|                      |             |                      |
+----------------------+             +----------------------+```

C1 and C2 in either object must be identified and compared independently. First the hypothesis that the two objects may have C1 and C2 in common, then the critical analysis which allows the observation of C1 and C2 together as a unit common to both objects, an object in itself. Forgoing critical analysis creates the risk of error... the preference for the same is the feeling of arrogance.

According to Gulenko, functions may be weak because they lack mental energy for extended use. If we presume that a minimum level of energy is needed for even the simplest intellectual comparisons, then the lack of that energy creates enough pressure that the individual will choose arrogance as the alternative, even in the face of social demands for the demonstration of minimal intellect.

Conservative civilizations tend to desire the reduction of intellect down to a minimal technological level reflecting minimal categorical awareness. This because non-Ti valuing types want to reduce everything to unprovable assumptions, which leads in turn to the devaluation of logic in favor of myth. (ever noticed any logical analysis in Vampire Wars? Didn't think so.) Low Ti/conservative cultures are, by virtue of their preference for assumption over critical analysis, beholden to stereotypes which makes it easy for the dishonest and avaricious to define other civilizations and even rival clans in a negative light.

#### Posting Permissions

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