Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Theory: functions of lower dimension protect higher dimension.

  1. #1
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Theory: functions of lower dimension protect higher dimension.

    So here is what I got. If your Ti is of higher dimension then your Te, no matter what is valued, you basically use the lower dimension element to protect what comes from the higher dimension element. Mostly becouse the higher dimension element is more reliable. Which means, if you got 4D Fi and 3D Fe, the Fe serves to protect the interests of that 4D Fi. If Ti/Te, same applies.


  2. #2
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    1,775
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmmm, I don't know if that links up true with Suggestive -> Role though.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  3. #3
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Hmmm, I don't know if that links up true with Suggestive -> Role though.
    I think it holds true but in for example ignoring->lead then lead stand at its own to a higher degree and we do not in a extended way do ignoring element stuff. In suggestive->role the link is just weaker.

    Not that demo does not stand on its own but we retreat as much as we can to the creative. Thats about it.


  4. #4
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    1,775
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe how you define, "protect the interests of" needs to be really flushed out. Because of the ambiguity of the term, I come up with my own boundaries of what those words constitute (whether protects the interests of applies to, transmutes information from one into the other, or whether it means its used as a support stick for the stronger function, or whether protects the interests of accidentally overlaps with "valued functions"...), but those will likely not fall in line within your own intended meaning.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  5. #5
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Maybe how you define, "protect the interests of" needs to be really flushed out. Because of the ambiguity of the term, I come up with my own boundaries of what those words constitute (whether protects the interests of applies to, transmutes information from one into the other, or whether it means its used as a support stick for the stronger function, or whether protects the interests of accidentally overlaps with "valued functions"...), but those will likely not fall in line within your own intended meaning.
    Hm, well. Protect the interest means as it says. Same as when someone person is protecting the interest of an other person. Or a company protect the interest of an other company.


  6. #6
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    1,775
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    English isn't your first language I presume?
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  7. #7
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    English isn't your first language I presume?
    Go ahead and read shit
    http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...ones-interests


  8. #8
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    1,775
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I didn't mean that as an insult, it's just what you're saying isn't exactly clear. Figured it was a language barrier.

    The reason your statement is unclear, conceptually, is because Fe can't actually protect the interests of Fi(or vice versa), because they are not separate beings. The interests are the individuals. the 4D element has no interests. So the 3D element protects the interest of the individual, as does the 4D element, (as does the 1D element).

    Which is why I was asking for elaboration in your own words, as the ambiguity of your meaning makes it impossible to gleam the insight from what you intend.. What you're saying is by definition an analogy, or a metaphor. "Talking about one things in terms of another". The base level, nothing deeper than "protects the interest of" is incoherent. It has to be an analogy unless you believe all the elements have separate interests from the user, that they all are individual beings with agency.

    Unless you want us to wildly guess at what you mean. If so sure, I disagree with you. The "interests" fall in line with valued functions, not higher developed functions. The one being protected is always the valued function.

    Honestly, I don't think that's what you're saying. But that is what im inferring from this, hence clarification.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  9. #9
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    I didn't mean that as an insult, it's just what you're saying isn't exactly clear. Figured it was a language barrier.

    The reason your statement is unclear, conceptually, is because Fe can't actually protect the interests of Fi(or vice versa), because they are not separate beings. The interests are the individuals. the 4D element has no interests. So the 3D element protects the interest of the individual, as does the 4D element, (as does the 1D element).
    I think you have a point in that the elements in themselves do not hold interests but the individual does. Thus the individual rely more into that their 4D, or in some cases the 2D, will be true to their interest in a higher degree then the 3D or 1D.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post

    Which is why I was asking for elaboration in your own words, as the ambiguity of your meaning makes it impossible to gleam the insight from what you intend.. What you're saying is by definition an analogy, or a metaphor. "Talking about one things in terms of another". The base level, nothing deeper than "protects the interest of" is incoherent. It has to be an analogy unless you believe all the elements have separate interests from the user, that they all are individual beings with agency.

    Unless you want us to wildly guess at what you mean. If so sure, I disagree with you. The "interests" fall in line with valued functions, not higher developed functions. The one being protected is always the valued function.

    Honestly, I don't think that's what you're saying. But that is what im inferring from this, hence clarification.
    Basically what I said was, the 4D have higher reliability for the individual then the 3D. When things get really serious the person always rely on information by the 4D over the 3D. Or 2D over the 1D.


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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