Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 41

Thread: Public Static Final Thoughts on Interpreting Symbols in Socionics

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

    Default Public Static Final Thoughts on Interpreting Symbols in Socionics

    EXTENDS LABOCAT'S VIEWS

    been wanting to start another thread along these lines.

    for now this is just a placeholder until the right mood hits me.

    ok, i'll write a few things without fleshing them out yet. this thread will not be rigidly structured. that would defeat its purpose. oh and final is there for comedic/ironic effect. don't take these too seriously yet.

    ---

    - there is something special about the Si function, like its the easiest function to understand in completely stand-alone terms. it is in a sense the wellspring from which cognition flows. the most passive but also most pure and unadulterated way to treat information.

    - people have in the past tried to understand functions in terms of how they relate to the pop-psychology myth of left and right brain cognitive functioning. in my views, all of the cognition socionics deals with is "left brain" in that paradigm.

    - the mind is pitted in between of two continuous realities and faced with trying to construct a bridge between the two using discrete cognitive tools. the two realities are:
    * phenomenological reality, which is ontologically relative and subjective but epistemically absolute and objective; it is mere experience BUT its pertinence is impossible to deny; it is really known as opposed to speculative
    * noumenological reality, which is ontologically absolute and objective but epistemically relative and subjective; it is reality in the more naive sense of the word, but it can only ever be appreciated derivatively from experience

    - Pi functions are closest aligned to the former although not 100% equatable to it; Pe functions are closest aligned to the latter

    - time is phenomenological, space is noumenological; this is how Pi is Dynamic whereas Pe is Static

    ok, more on this coming soon. ask questions if you like.

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

    Default

    Code:
    public static final class ThoughtsOnInterpretingSymbolsInSocionics extends LabcoatsViews {
        // TODO: flesh it out when in right mood
        
    }
    my condolences on dabbling in java.

  3. #3
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think .NET might have support for static classes, if that's more your style labby.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

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

    Default

    dumb. you don't even know about inner classes.

  5. #5
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're not selling that without providing at least the pseudo-code for the enclosing class.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

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

    Default

    i'm not providing anything to a random nerd that's screwing up my threads. the nerding out about code was only funny the first post and only because it was aiss. now talk about my theories or take your stale drudging elsewhere.

  7. #7
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labtard View Post
    i'm not providing anything to a random nerd that's screwing up my threads. the nerding out about code was only funny the first post and only because it was aiss. now talk about my theories or take your stale drudging elsewhere.
    Nice admission of defeat. An inner class can't exist on its own and you overlooked that.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  8. #8
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...



    Code:
    package pizza;
    
    public class Rhino {
    
        ...
    
        public static class Goat {
            ...
        }
    }
    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7...c-nested-class

    Code:
    public class Filter {
       Vector criteria = new Vector();
       public addCriterion(Criterion c) {
          criteria.addElement(c);
       }
       public boolean isTrue(Record rec) {
          for(Enumeration e=criteria.elements();
          e.hasMoreElements();) {
             if(! ((Criterion)e.nextElement()).isTrue(rec))
                 return false;
          }
          return true;
       }
       public static class Criterion {
          String colName, colValue;
          public Criterion(Stirng name, String val) {
             colName = name; colValue = val;
          }
          public boolean isTrue(Record rec) {
             String data = rec.getData(colName);
             if(data.equals(colValue)) return true;
             return false;
          }
       }
    }
    http://www.javaworld.com/javaqa/1999...c2.html?page=2

    both are perfectly legal. a 2 minute google search could have shown you exactly in what way you were wrong, but i guess you're too lazy to get to that in addition to being disposed to casually asserting blatant falsehoods. now get out of my thread. you have compoundedly ruined my mood.

  9. #9
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh god Lab, stop fucking up socionics with technical terms that don't apply to it like noumenological or phenomenological or epistemical or ontological.

    Call a spade a spade!

    You're also rejecting a brain model in favour of another without a clear logic that either or indeed neither, which is more likely, apply to socionics.

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
    Oh god Lab, stop fucking up socionics
    no.

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
    with technical terms that don't apply to it like noumenological or phenomenological or epistemical or ontological.
    they do apply. in fact they apply to almost everything. no matter what topic you're investigating, you will be concerned with what you know (epistemics) and what is real (ontology). any mind is principally faced with challenges centered on these two things. since socionics deals with the mind, it must address its relation to both issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
    Call a spade a spade!
    i don't doubt that spouting idiomatic platitudes solves all the problems you come across in daily life, but that doesn't mean the approach is appropriate here.

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
    You're also rejecting a brain model in favour of another without a clear logic that either or indeed neither, which is more likely, apply to socionics.
    i'm not rejecting a brain model. read up on Marr's three layers of analysis in cognitive science:

    Marr[3] gave a famous description of three levels of analysis:
    - the computational theory, specifying the goals of the computation;
    - representation and algorithm, giving a representation of the input and output and the algorithm which transforms one into the other; and
    - the hardware implementation, how algorithm and representation may be physically realized.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science

    the brain is on the third layer. my theories are on the first layer. there is no conflict between the two because a computational description can be implemented by a broad range of pieces of hardware.

    (god, what a dumb elementary error)

  11. #11
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labtard View Post
    (god, what a dumb elementary error)
    Many leaps beyond basis of the subject and here you are Labotard.

    Please attempt to refute this irrefutable (simply because there is no observable and causative evidence) statement:

    Socionics is nothing more than a behavioural model derived by observing behaviour in groups of people and then separating behaviours up into perceived stereotypical behaviors which are called 'functions' and a 'cognitive' style model which is derived by in various rest and stress environments. Each function is then magically transformed into a single cognitive process without any root cause analysis or reason to think it is so. These behavioural manifestations are ultimately the culmination of multiple physical and cognitive phenomenon that reside in many areas of the brain.

    Opinion opinion opinion.

  12. #12
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labtard View Post
    - people have in the past tried to understand functions in terms of how they relate to the pop-psychology myth of left and right brain cognitive functioning. in my views, all of the cognition socionics deals with is "left brain" in that paradigm.
    Some examples?

  13. #13
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
    Many leaps beyond basis of the subject and here you are Labotard.
    i get that way when someone offends my conceptual sensibilities.

    Socionics is nothing more than a behavioural model derived by observing behaviour in groups of people and then separating behaviours up into perceived stereotypical behaviors which are called 'functions' and a 'cognitive' style model which is derived by in various rest and stress environments.
    i don't deal in "X is nothing more than etc". things are what we make of them. a body of work that notes observational patterns without trying to explain them is a useless account of these. i am perfectly justified in wanting something better.

    Each function is then magically transformed into a single cognitive process without any root cause analysis or reason to think it is so.
    key word in your sentence is "magically". the process is largely left unexplained. you're making my point by implying there is work to be done on this front.

    These behavioural manifestations are ultimately the culmination of multiple physical and cognitive phenomenon that reside in many areas of the brain.
    just that there are more influences than any particular influence under consideration doesn't mean there is no merit in examining said singular influence in isolation.

  14. #14
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    Some examples?
    i could google search it for you but i'd be catering to your slothful habits (which are rude, by the way). you can find the button in the top right corner of your screen.

  15. #15
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labtard View Post
    i could google search it for you but i'd be catering to your slothful habits (which are rude, by the way). you can find the button in the top right corner of your screen.
    Eh.

    Many of the issues in Socionics revolves around the fact that its creator(s) defined it as a theory of information processing and personality type.

    You suggest Socionics only addresses the former, correct me if I'm wrong.

  16. #16
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    no, wasn't suggesting anything along those lines. just talking about left/right brainedness under it's pop culture interpretation and what people have theorized about them.

  17. #17
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay.

    I like some of your points, but I don't know where you're going with this theory.

  18. #18
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labtard View Post

    both are perfectly legal. a 2 minute google search could have shown you exactly in what way you were wrong, but i guess you're too lazy to get to that in addition to being disposed to casually asserting blatant falsehoods. now get out of my thread. you have compoundedly ruined my mood.
    Uh, no labocrat. Both are not perfectly legal. Even your own examples show the static nested classes being enclosed. A static nested class can't exist on its own by definition of the word... (get this) 'nested'.

    To access a member of your class { let's say: public static void foo(int n) }, I would have to do something like this:

    EnclosingClass.ThoughtsOnInterpretingSymbolsInSoci onics.foo(5);

    ThoughtsOnInterpretingSymbolsInSocionics.foo(5); on its own wouldn't make sense except inside the enclosing class's scope.

    That makes your OP a syntax error, and only a code fragment by the charitable accommodation of the community. We give charity to people we find helpless and lacking in teeth; how embarrassing it must be for you to receive it.
    Last edited by xerx; 04-28-2013 at 04:23 AM.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  19. #19
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Uh, no labocrat. Both are not perfectly legal. Even your own examples show the static nested classes being enclosed. A static nested class can't exist on its own by definition of the word... (get this) 'nested'.
    cite the part of my writing where i say the class under consideration is not enclosed or nested or forever shut up and leave this thread.

    (you insufferable tar-baby brat)

  20. #20
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labtard View Post
    cite the part of my writing where i say the class under consideration is not enclosed or nested or forever shut up and leave this thread.
    (you insufferable tar-baby brat)
    If your code fragment was a method or something always inside a class then you'd be correct. But because what you wrote could be taken to mean two entirely different things, the responsibility falls on you to provide clarification. Keep in mind that the alternative to your interpretation is uncompilable code and that the world doesn't exist to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Nevertheless, all you had to was this:

    public class EnclosingClass {

    //your op here

    }

    Either in your OP or when I offered you the opportunity in post #5. You're the one being unnecessarily stubborn here.
    Last edited by xerx; 04-29-2013 at 01:15 PM.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  21. #21
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We must defend the Public Static Final thoughts which are Private Flexible and Non-Final to the death!

  22. #22
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    xerx consider any impertinent, half-coherent, spurious ramblings you spin from this moment on pre-emptively ignored.

  23. #23
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labtard View Post
    xerx consider any impertinent, half-coherent, spurious ramblings you spin from this moment on pre-emptively ignored.
    I love the vagueness and weasel-wordiness of your character assassinations. Also, impertinent... lol.

    Anyway, it's 100% your decision to ignore me, but I don't see what I did as being very different from what you did in this thread - i.e. calling the OP "confused" and refusing to even entertain giving him the benefit of the doubt. I was, however, far more civil (and correct).

    Also, word to the wise: my first two posts in this thread were intended to lighten the mood and were of an entirely jocular nature. You chose to react with hostility over a perceived knockdown of your carefully-crafted image of perspicacity.
    Last edited by xerx; 04-28-2013 at 08:29 PM.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  24. #24
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ignored.

  25. #25
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    *
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  26. #26
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    MY DOT WHO'S STEALING MY DOT I HATE YOU T@(%&#)@UTR)E*)#@

    OK, my question to lab to stay on topic is... isn't all that we think we know epistemological by definition? And if so, how can certain functions deal with ontological absolutes at all, unless it's merely our conviction of the absolute existence of something, which would fall under epistemology?

  27. #27
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    as per request

    09/06/2011 00:59 <labcoat> a phenomenal state has infinite properties but one is conscious of none of these
    09/06/2011 00:59 <labcoat> a representational state has finite properties but one is conscious of all
    09/06/2011 01:00 <labcoat> applying measurement leads one from phenomenon to representation
    09/06/2011 01:01 <labcoat> however, no measurement can be applied to a phenomenal state twice, because one can not enter any phenomenal state a second time
    09/06/2011 01:02 <labcoat> hence, the represenational state does not represent the phenomenon so much as a thing contained within a number of separate phenomena
    09/06/2011 01:04 <labcoat> we may posit the noumenon as the counterpart to the representational state that has infinite properties; needless to say to attain full knowledge of the noumenon is impossible
    09/06/2011 01:21 <Aiss> what is the relation to socionics
    09/06/2011 01:22 <Aiss> of those
    09/06/2011 01:39 <labcoat> Je is not about facts so much as it is about knowledge
    09/06/2011 01:39 <labcoat> facts are often inaccessible from perfect knowledge; hence why facts are the domain of subjective reason; Ji
    09/06/2011 01:41 <labcoat> however, the emphasis on facts or knowledge is also influenced by the Focal point
    09/06/2011 01:41 <labcoat> rationals place the Focal point on knowledge; irrationals place it on facthood
    09/06/2011 01:47 <labcoat> "object" is best associated with Pe
    09/06/2011 01:48 <labcoat> extroverts have Focal J functions
    09/06/2011 01:49 <labcoat> objectivity is a very messy term
    09/06/2011 01:49 <labcoat> epistemic and ontological objectivity are to a large extent mutually exclusive
    09/06/2011 01:49 <Aiss> so what was your phenomenon/noumenon talk about
    09/06/2011 01:49 <labcoat> Pi/Pe
    09/06/2011 01:49 <Aiss> yes you've been saying that for ages. can you clarify now.
    09/06/2011 01:49 <Aiss> re: epistemic/ontological
    09/06/2011 01:50 <Aiss> what are Ji/Je in relation to that
    09/06/2011 01:50 <Aiss> or are they beyond phenomenon/noumenon stuff
    09/06/2011 01:50 <labcoat> the closer you stick to what is directly observable to you, the easier it is to not rely on idiosyncratic inductive mechanisms for your knowledge
    09/06/2011 01:51 <labcoat> Je is measurement in the story above
    09/06/2011 01:51 <labcoat> the emphasis is "directly observable TO YOU"
    09/06/2011 01:52 <labcoat> function strength is a very messy concept
    9/06/2011 01:53 <labcoat> the term "function" itself is messy to begin with
    09/06/2011 01:53 <labcoat> functions are like particles in quantum physics
    09/06/2011 01:54 <labcoat> every time you start believing in them as something concretely existing, their nature begins to elude you
    09/06/2011 01:54 <labcoat> types are less problematic in this regard; they are like configurations in QM
    09/06/2011 01:56 <Aiss> what is the Pe/Ji story then
    09/06/2011 01:58 <labcoat> it sacrifices attention to the "how you know" in order to reach the "what it really is independent of my perspective on it"
    09/06/2011 01:58 <labcoat> to answer "how you know" in a non-personal way is epistemic objectivity; to answer the second question is ontological objectivity
    09/06/2011 01:59 <labcoat> the first concerns objective knowledge; the second concerns objective description
    09/06/2011 01:59 <labcoat> as Nagel puts it "the view from nowhere"
    09/06/2011 02:04 <Aiss> ontological objectivity doeth not convince me
    09/06/2011 02:05 <Aiss> I must not be a static type.
    09/06/2011 02:11 <labcoat> i don't think the issue of reality comes up where phenomena are concerned, because these are by definition peculiar to an observer
    09/06/2011 02:11 <labcoat> and in as far as we speak of publicly discussed phenomena, these are already abstractions from the "pure" phenomenal state

  28. #28
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    labcoat:

    it is absolutely impossible to enter a token phenomenal state twice; this is how Pi can never be discussed in public discourse

    the phenomenal state (Pi) has an infinite number of aspectual characteristics; contrary to the noumenal/representative state (Pe), which has a finite number

    to level Je on a Pi state is to isolate a characteristic from said Pi, in so doing giving rise to Pe

    application of Je always signifies an event in time, transitioning one Pi state into another

    N: generalization without conclusion
    F: generalization with conclusion
    NFs first generalize without conclusion and then generalize with conclusion
    kind of like putting a rabbit in the hat in full view of the audience and expecting applause when pulling it out again

    ____________

    time is an integral part of the apparatus by which we receive impressions of reality. it is part of our subjectivity and has no objective counterpart. it aligns with certain objective (spatial) dimensions when we move along such spatial dimensions with high and lasting consistency. to illustrate this imagine standing on a cart that moves through a corridor with an ascending range of numbers written on the walls. you can not see the whole corridor from within the cart, only one of the numbers at any time through a window. you wake up on the cart without knowing that it is moving. now, you can not distinguish the visible number on the wall from a clock.

    this is also illustrated by the fact that in socionics, temporal (Dynamic) ontology (P) is subjective (i)

  29. #29
    strangeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,704
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labtard View Post
    ...
    - the mind is pitted in between of two continuous realities and faced with trying to construct a bridge between the two using discrete cognitive tools. the two realities are:
    * phenomenological reality, which is ontologically relative and subjective but epistemically absolute and objective; it is mere experience BUT its pertinence is impossible to deny; it is really known as opposed to speculative
    * noumenological reality, which is ontologically absolute and objective but epistemically relative and subjective; it is reality in the more naive sense of the word, but it can only ever be appreciated derivatively from experience

    - Pi functions are closest aligned to the former although not 100% equatable to it; Pe functions are closest aligned to the latter

    - time is phenomenological, space is noumenological; this is how Pi is Dynamic whereas Pe is Static

    ok, more on this coming soon. ask questions if you like.
    I think I agree with you. What about Je and Ji though?



    To me, conceptually:

    Ji seems like it is both ontologically and epistemically absolute and objective to a large degree. It seems to take the ontologically absolute and objective of many (Pe)s and attempts to make them also epistemically absolute and objective.
    Statistics, for example, takes what things are considered to be (Pe)s and attempts to normalize it with averages and probabilities so that a representation of those things can be understood (Ji); but by succeeding, the idea of why those things are considered to be becomes solidified as absolute and objective...and science in some form. And this is where I disagree with socionics on Fi not involving rational thinking (but it probably follows from the fact that socionics is highly Ne+Ti, so I suppose that would be about right from an Fi PoLR).

    Je seems like it is both ontologically and epistemically relative and subjective to a large degree. It seems to take the ontologically relative and subjective of many (Pi)s and attempts to make them also epistemically relative and subjective.
    Each new experience that Pi provides to Je gives it a new angle from which to affect things in the service of some kind of aim or goal; but by having all this information about how things are different and can be affected differently and in different ways, reaching different results, Je becomes epistemically relative and subjective.

    But I don't know if anyone would agree with that or why they should. I think it sounds good though.

  30. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    How can Si be the easiest function to understand? Anything that comes from within and is therefore not external is always going to be that bit more subjective and vague, at least as far as I can see.

  31. #31
    InvisibleHim's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Canis Majoris
    Posts
    364
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The thread title is responsible for my high blood pressure.

  32. #32
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    this thread condemned due to nerds throwing hissy fits.

    OK, my question to lab to stay on topic is... isn't all that we think we know epistemological by definition? And if so, how can certain functions deal with ontological absolutes at all, unless it's merely our conviction of the absolute existence of something, which would fall under epistemology?
    simple answer, no. there is a reality and the mind has the capacity to abstract from mere epistemic and phenomenal imprints to a representation of the outer reality that occasions the signals that give rise to these. there will not be rampant dogmatic subjectivism in this thread.

  33. #33
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What excactly are the functions then?

    You suggest the cognitive framework of socionics is found as it were in the left hemishpere of the brain, yes? Then how does the experiential, direct nature of the conciousness of the right hemisphere (a brain hemishpere devoid of a central character or personality) fit with the cognitive framework of the left hemisphere?
    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  34. #34
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You suggest the cognitive framework of socionics is found as it were in the left hemishpere of the brain, yes
    no, just that the general "character" of the cognitive system socionics hints at matches the one described by the pop-psychology account of "left-brainedness". it is a sterile, agnostic claim about descriptive similarity, not any claim about real brain function localization.

    Then how does the experiential, direct nature of the conciousness of the right hemisphere (a brain hemishpere devoid of a central character or personality) fit with the cognitive framework of the left hemisphere?
    it's there but it's distinct from the socionical "functions". basically the "realities" described here:

    * phenomenological reality, which is ontologically relative and subjective but epistemically absolute and objective; it is mere experience BUT its pertinence is impossible to deny; it is really known as opposed to speculative
    * noumenological reality, which is ontologically absolute and objective but epistemically relative and subjective; it is reality in the more naive sense of the word, but it can only ever be appreciated derivatively from experience
    are on both ends already put through a "right brain" filter. although mostly on the phenomenological side.

  35. #35
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I view the functions in a practical sense as a continuum of thought patterns where some are given more importance and others less importance. Not because one function is literally more important then others, but important in the sense that functions are like deeply grooved tracks of thought patterns where in some tracks are deeper then others and some tracks are more shallow and less defined. These tracks are like personality habits (only use the word habits as an anology -they are not actually habits). The level of importance is simply because some grooves are more easily travelled; some functions are deeper and wider tracks then others. The personality, being a tool that drives the human organism, takes the easiest path or habitual thought patterns. At the same time it attatches to these thought patterns and calls them "me".

    This is all if the functions had some basis in reality and where not just a model description, like I interpurted you stating from the OP.
    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    BC
    TIM
    Ti-LSI, 6w5, ISTJ
    Posts
    203
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just can't think about Socionics when the thread title reminds me of Java programming. Part of the reason is that I like C# more than Java..

    Edit: Now the word function reminds me of C/C++

  37. #37
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can see Si being the most "primal" information element. Bodily sensations and homeostastis come before anything, even thoughts, even emotions.
    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  38. #38
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can't get this stuff.

  39. #39
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    space is empathy time is narcissism
    space is the space of always here of eternal god's love of christ conscienceness
    time is endedness and destruction. time is the ultimate dagger. yet time is allowed to exist because it changes sad to happy as much as it changes happy to sad.

    time is brutal. the right opportunity and the correct timing are all that matters in the external business-y world of a heart broken open. time is a very competitive force. it's sociopathic and completely animalistic. it is everything everybody fears. it makes you anxious. knowing that you might have a resting period but time will make it end, time is the only thing that can make the deepest of peace end.

    the highest spiritual gurus are the ones that are channeling space to smooth over time's wounds. the highest demons are trying to use time to destroy everything else but their own existance.

  40. #40
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    i find that with any supposedly "logical" socionics function there is an enormous well of "ethical" stuff bubbling under the surface and the "logic" serves as a means of pooling tons of things together from that well and pumping it into a single channel. so "logic" is in a sense a much harder hitting form of ethics or emotion. but also one where the motivational precursor to the activity or decision can not be singularly identified.

    the reason why it is logic is because it takes a step back and strikes a balance between emotio-etical drives, contrasting them to the alternative ones such that each individual drive has a downplayed influence and isn't flown off the handle on the basis of.

    ethical functions relate to logical functions the complete opposite way; they start out with the clinical, matter-of-factly observation and then draw the conclusion in a context of extended scope. it goes from a small-picture judgement straight to the big-picture judgment, without being bothered by the lack of information in the other small picture segments of the big-picture context in question.

    my suspicion is that the direction of the inference is determined mainly (but not exclusively) by function values... "observation" in the narrative above relates more to PiJe and "judgment" more to PeJi... the typical direction is from observation to judgment in the process of learning and opposite in the process of applying knowledge to form predictions.

    are some quadras more inclined to learning and some more to applying knowledge / predicting? i'm not sure, but tentatively no.

    i'd like to write more on this, but would need to spend time thinking.
    some more on what i mean here...

    socionics, on a computational processing level is all about relating contexts to subcontexts.

    logic means that a decision is made on a context level only when certainty is established in all associated subcontexts. (NB: the number of associated subcontexts may nevertheless be too small; this is the danger of "logic"; finding out a new dimension to the problem is relevant can suddenly throw about your decision)

    ethics means that a decision is made on a context level whenever certainty is established in one associated subcontext. (NB: extra associated subcontexts can not be relevant if the decision is made based on one subcontext's influence only; hence ethics is not subject to logic's problem on this front; it is only problematic in as far as it is held to the STANDARDS of logic)

    i make a distinction between implicitly relevant subcontexts and explicitly relevant subcontexts. typical of Pi is to leave subcontext relevance implicit, whereas typical of Pe is to make subcontext relevance explicit.

    important is the concept of MONADISM: each subcontext can be used as a new vantage point from which IT is the context and the place departed from is subcontext among other things. every point of existence in reality is in effect itself an observing "mind", however, many are not conscious.

    another word for subcontext that may work here is content, but it immediately needs to be said that each piece of content is also a context. this is what monadism consists in: content = context.

    the reason why Logic and Ethics dualize is because holding both context and subcontext to the standards of logic is too restrictive. as is holding both to the standards of ethics too limiting.

    science could well be thought of as the philosophy that holds both context and subcontext to Logical standards. evolution has condemned this foolish idea and naturally selected it OUT. the mind is not scientific.
    Last edited by krieger; 07-07-2013 at 10:57 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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