The Sensing IM Elements focus on the external qualities of objects (that which is readily observed), but this does not necessarily mean that they need be objective. A cube sitting in the middle of a room can be seen as an object with 6 faces, 12 edges and 8 corners, thus we observe the external traits of objects in an almost indisputable manner. This would be in the domain of
. However, if you were to touch the cube and feel that it is warm or cold, or notice that its color resonates with a specific attitude (an overpowering red, a dull gray), you would still be noticing the external qualities while at the same time introducing the element of subjectivity. This falls more in line with
, which can be seen as taking external qualities of objects and interpreting them based on their affect on you or on an area. Sure, you can read the temperature of the cube to be a specific number, but you cannot quantify the subjective feeling of "warm" or "cold" as felt by a person who is touching the cube; some might say it to be mildly warm while others might suggest that it is scalding, in much the same way as you cannot actually produce an empirical system that designates the attitude of a specific color (a dull gray, for instance) that actually carries the specific feeling of dullness. Even though
's perceptions are subjective in origin, they are still derived from the external qualities of objects, and are simply noticing how those qualities affect an observer.
The Intuitive IM Elements, in contrast, focus on that which cannot be readily observed in an object, and thus orient themselves in the "internal" realm of objects (that which is inherent yet not always expressed). Even though these elements focus on that which cannot readily be observed through external manifestations, it does not necessarily mean that they must be subjective. If we take the
IM element, for example, we notice that it examines the static potential of objects (also called the "essence") and the inherent ability of objects (and people). Thus, we can see how perception through
can actually be objective, in the sense that the observation of potential, no matter how wild or far-fetched, is still something that can be reasonably observed by anyone in an objective fashion. An
perspective, then, might be looking at a cube, and saying "this cube could be chiseled into a chair that I can sit in", or "this cube could be sold to some idiot for an absurd amount of money as art". While not everyone would immediately come to these conclusions, they are still objective. You can chisel a cube into chair, and you can sell the cube as art for an absurd amount of money; these are two of an infinite amount of internal characteristics of the cube (all of which are objective) that are almost indisputable, and even if the readings of these internal characteristics are physically impossible, they have no subjective element to make these observations dependent on the observer. Anyone can say "this cube can be chiseled into a chair" and actually realize the potential of this cube to become a chair under the right circumstances and actions. This potential has the same meaning to everyone.
, however, produces the subjective side of internal characteristics. Feelings are produced by objects that point toward specific actions occurring, without any regard for whether everyone can experience the same feelings. Much like how
in the previous paragraph gives the user a subjective sense of external information,
gives the user a subjective sense of internal information, "feelings" of potential. This is partially why
is so heavily linked with time, because time is this abstract, flowing construct that can be felt but not described the same way depending on who you ask. In reality, I find that
deals more with feeling of importance or pointlessness, feelings of worth embedded in potential, or feelings of how realistic something seems. "We could sell this cube as art to some fool for sums of money, but it doesn't (seem/feel) like something that is feasible, considering that we would have to go through the process of finding such a person who is both foolish and rich, which would be an arduous task."
The Rational Elements, however, are much more complicated to deal with in this scenario, considering that they are organizations of perceptions. The reason why Logic is considered external and Ethics is considered internal is due to the nature of judgement. If you are judging an object with a Logical element, you are focused on the traits of an object that are directly discernible (the main points of an argument, or what something directly states) and that are established as certain by the object (an object may state that 1 + 1 = 3, in which case a Logical Element might step in and say "No, 1 unit + 1 unit = 2 units", thus revising the external qualities of the argument as they appear before you). If you are judging an object with an Ethical element, however, you are focused on the uncertainties established by an object that are not apparently discernible, adding ambiguity. There is no logical answer to a question such as "Why is killing people bad" as "bad-ness" is a quality that is inherent (or internal) of an object (in this case killing, or murder), it is subjective and internal at the same time.
Thus, we find that:
- External, Subjective (Due to the fact that reasoning directed at the certainties of objects is subjectively analyzed for understanding and for "sense-making")
- External, Objective (Due to the fact that reasoning directed at the certainties of objects are analyses devoted to making sure information presented lines up with the objective reasoning of reality. If a theory says a ball doesn't bounce, the
type would attempt to reason out how they have come to this conclusion and then would put forth their critique and own reasoning while a
type would simply state that balls already do bounce in the world around us (or test it themselves by bouncing a ball), and state that the theory is wrong because it doesn't line up with reality)
- Internal, Subjective (Due to the fact that reasoning directed at the uncertainties of objects is subjectively analyzed for an ethical reaction produced by the user and for "judging" (morally evaluating))
- Internal, Objective (Due to the fact that reasoning directed at the uncertainties of objects are analyses devoted to making sure information presented lines up with the subjective reasoning of reality. If a person states that government is bad, the
type would attempt to reason out how the other person has reached the moral conclusion that government is bad and then would put forth their own critique and own ethical reaction while a
type would simply look at how government directly affects people for better or for worse to base an ethical reaction or judgement. "Government protects people from harm, thus it is good", "Government encroaches on the freedoms of people, thus it is bad". It doesn't seem objective in that it still uses subjective terms such as good or bad but it is still deriving good or bad from a common morality that many share. "Protecting people is considered a good thing, and Government protects people; therefore the Government protecting people is a good thing".)