Information Aspect Terminology

[Gilly]

How do you interpret IA terminology? For example, if a function is dynamic, do you think of it as being a function that perceives dynamic information, or that the person's perception formats information in a dynamic manner, or some combination? Etc.

Also, there are two common interpretations of "fields" as an IM-relevant term, namely as a subjective method of perception/being impacted by stimuli, or perceiving things in relation to other things. I think we all agree that it denotes a subject-object interaction, but is the subject always oneself?

These are just two examples that I see causing dissonance in people's understanding of each others views. I am interested in any views on any of the information aspect terminlogy so don't feel limited by these two examples.

Discussssssss

[anndelise]

First, in thinking about the elements, not necessarily in communicating about them, I distinguish between functions (the theoretical structure/position of the elements in relation to each other; eg base, creative, etc) from elements (the categorized type of information; eg Fi, Ne, etc).

When a person is processing dynamic info, then I would consider that tidbit to be categorized as one of the dynamic elements. We are all capable of processing dynamic info, but dynamic info isn't always relevant to what we primarily attend to. Hmmm, in your terms above... a person perceives the dynamic info, (not necessarily a "function" nor "element"). If the person attends to dynamic info a lot, they will have a richer set of pathways and available information regarding that type of information than someone who attends to static info a lot. These pathways can be interpreted as aiding in forming other/new information into a similar...'format'. So I guess you would consider that a "combo"?

Regarding objects in a field, I think it might help to consider the abstract/involvement aspects. I think that an involved ego type (SF) would have an easier time regularly interpreting information as somehow relating to them or their own personal experience, while an abstract ego type (NT) would have an easier time regularly interpreting information as somehow being separate from them or from their own personal experience. However, I think that any type can jump back and forth between relating two objects together and relating them to self, or self to them.

[Red Villain]

From my understanding, Information Aspects are categories denoting particular objective properties. Considering there needs to be a subject to perceive such properties, and properties to be perceived, it seems as if it's some combination of both.

Insofar as "Fields" go, I never really understood it so I can't offer any input.

[ashlesha]

people complain about not enough socionics but threads like this get three replies.

my view:
a function being dynamic means the person processes information in a dynamic way. maybe certain types of stimuli are more compatible or more frequently seen in conjunction with certain types of processing but the function itself refers to the mental lens and isn't limited to only certain types of information.

the subject is always oneself. (i feel like adding "duh" so maybe i don't get the question)

[krieger]

dynamic does partly mean what the term implies, but i also interpret it to mean something related to "shallow", non-conceptualized observation and to relatively flat things. if this sounds negative it's because there is a trade-off to be made between fast, on-the-fly dynamic processing and the depth and volume of the information concerned.

... its annoying, but dynamic is an other sense especially deep information... the question is what is explicitly grasped (shallow in dynamic's case) and what is implied (deep in dynamic's case)...

S is often interpreted to mean "detail" but i associate it more with specifics and concreteness. detail is instead something more related to J functions. the important thing to realize here being that one can have a non-detailed understanding of something specific (i.e. the general "feel" of a thing or person), or a detailed understanding of something general (i.e. mathematical theorems).

[strrrng]

since we're dealing with something inherently subjective, qualifying object/field along those lines is just as flawed as simplifying it to things and the connections between them, as the latter can be objectified. rather, object perception has to do with how something affects or is affected by the subject (Pe and Je, respectively), and field how subjectivity affects or is affected by this (Pi and Ji). static/dynamic describes whether the subject temporalizes or is temporalized by this spatial orientation. imo these two dichotomies provide the perceptual backdrop for the internal/external and involved/abstract dichotomies, which deal more with how the stimuli gleaned is qualitatively expressed.

[ArchonAlarion]

[indent]Explicit (E) - Something demonstrable. Regards stimulus directly, interpreting for sensorial qualities or extant facts.
Implicit (I) - Something inferred. Regards stimulus indirectly, interpreting for conceptual qualities or affective values.

The aspects are somewhat useful in describing the characteristics of the Jungian function-attitudes. On the other hand, notice how you referenced the manifestation of explicit and implicit in regards to the four jungian functions, despite the presentation of the dichotomy as sort of... "cutting across" the functions, as if they share a certain independent quality. The problem I have with this is the assertion that Sensation shares a quality with Thinking that it does not share with Feeling, creating an asymmetry in the irrational-rational functional relations, where imo there should not be. The involved-abstract dichotomy reconciles this, but only further pushes aspectonics into mere description as opposed to revealing causal qualities of which the functions are a result.

Now, it could very well be the case there is an asymmetry (ignoring the involved-abstract dichotomy, that is) and the aspects are atomic causalities of which the functions are a result, but this would replace the Jungian conceptualization of the functions (Less applicable to object-field, which is correlative with extraverted-introverted, and static-dynamic, which correlates to functions that can be paired in a functional block, i.e. ego, superego, etc.). If this were the case, then we might find "new" qualitative distinctions between types based on the explicit-implicit dichotomy because it is not correlative beyond the fact that opposite functions (S-N, T-F) are also opposite in that dichotomy. So a type with two explicit ego functions is qualitatively distinct from a type with an explicit and implicit function in the ego beyond whatever the correlative Jungian functions would suggest (and the same with types that are similar in relation of this dichotomy).