Ti, Te, and Fi: How they relate
Fi is polarity, Te is work. Objects (atoms and molecules are prime examples) are always seeking niches for themselves in polar environments, and it is the Te that gets them to their places of least polar resistance. When two objects Fi-seeking work brings them together, the Te will remain in force, bonding them. These bonds/polarities keep sets of objects (fields) whole and distinct, which allows them to be structured on top of one another. (Ti)
Examples, please.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
And how do they relate anymore than, say, Fe and Se, or Ne and Ti?
The best way to think about information aspect relationships concretely, in my view, is as chemistry and subatomic particles, processes on the sub-microscopic level.
Molecular polarities are Fi aspects of molecules. The work that bonds molecules into compounds is Te: ionic bonds, covalent bonds, etc. Ultimately Te at this level is an electron that is shared between the compounds, the movement thereof producing the bond. (this using the electron-as-particle approach) This compound, if in polar equilibrium, will remain a distinct unit from others and on that basis can be considered a structured field. However, to make it adhesive with other units it must be rendered polar; this gives it Fi and therefore, capacity for Te work that allows greater structure to be built.
Particle decay underwent by the atoms compositing the compound, is an internal dynamic of the atoms and is Fe, meaning that radioactivity and hence, light itself are also of Fe nature.
I'd like to have hitta's attention now, because I'd particularly like his opinion about what I'm next going to write about; specifically, the role sign and function polarity plays in the Ti-Te-Fi relationship.
Taking our above example a step futher, let us consider the properties of a molecular compound that is chemically balanced:
- We can observe that the compound is a cohesive unit of its component molecules.
- We can observe that the compound is not bonded with other compounds, and therefore not sharing in a structure between itself and them.
- We can observe that the compound is not bonded with other compounds because it is perfectly internally balanced and therefore, is unattracted to other compounds.
Each of these properties can be associated with an information element polarity. The cohesion of the compound of a whole demonstrates +Ti in that its molecular substructures unite to form a larger structure; it demonstrates +Te in that the molecular substructures are bonded to each other; and it demonstrates +Fi in that the molecular substructures evidently have something in common with each other -- a need that they are filling between themselves. (this being, the need for greater chemical balance)
The negative polarity is also evidenced, in that the balanced compound is disconnected from the others. We can observe that it is not participant in a greater structure with other compounds; This is -Ti, because we are observing a lack of common structure. We can observe that there are no chemical bonds between this compound and others and therefore, no electron work being done between them. This is -Te. Finally, we can observe that there is no attraction nor even repulsion between them, either, meaning that their relationship lacks Fi as well and is -Fi.
The question arises: where in this is Fe? One imagines that our difficulty with a clear answer points toward a problem in the sciences... we're lacking Fe and with it, we're lacking a clear understanding of the scientific world.
But... let's see if we can find it anyhow. Fe is the internal dynamics of objects, so it would have to be something happening within the object itself. Suffice to say, that whatever as-yet unknown features of the chemical world may allow compounds to influence each other emotionally (yes, it appears emotion runs that deep...), they must have a common structure by which to convey the emotive impulse, meaning that the compound's molecular substructures do have Fe because they can change each other.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-29-2008 at 06:35 AM.
Several things to discuss tonight... first off I'd like to share an observation about the nature of Fe and its relationship to Ti and Fi.
We know that Fe needs Ti, but how? Before getting into that, let's look at its relationship to Fi. Fi is polarity, which means that all Te work is done on basis of polarity/Fi. This means all movement is done on basis of Fi, also, and accordingly, all change. The relationship between Fi and Fe is clear if we consider that both happen in the context of structure. The polarities of a compound's structural components determine the work of its internal changes; therefore Fe is Fi and Te in the context of Ti.
When we come to the problem of how Fe is relayed between objects, we come to a different question, because this charge is -not- Fe but rather work which conveys Fe; therefore the charge itself is Te. The question of understanding how Fe is conveyed through this work is explained by Fi being the motive for all work; therefore internal changes can be induced within an object by the depolarization of its constituent particles. (the -Fi/+Fe relationship.)
(Offhand, the existence of this is also an affirmation of dual-type master/slave element processing, with Te being the master and Fe being the slave which is begat by the master.)
One side note that is of admittedly no direct relevance to socionics: this relationship tells us about the nature of light and its relationship to the electron. We observe that electrons are Te, and therefore the content of work within a structured object. (Fe) We observe that all energy that travels between two structures is electromagnetic in nature, due to the connection between Fi and Te. This is the important point, that work between objects and work within objects are governed by the same principles and that ALL WORK/ENERGY IS DRIVEN BY POLARITY. All work is headed somewhere; indeed, Einstein makes this self-same point, that work follows the pathway of least resistance. (necessarily, the best available Fi for the work) This means that light -- photons -- are electrons that are moving between objects with a specific destination. The electrons are not "free" from either object, and therefore, share in the mass-energy of either; therefore they themselves, on observation, have no mass. Electrons and photons are both, in fact, Te work at its lowest known level.
Somewhere on the globe, I suspect a physicist is beginning to understand the nature of light anew....
Te work/energy transfer - yes
Ti distance - Vaguely; really not useful to think about it this way.
Fe internal energy content (thermodynamics) - Thinking...
Fi ?personal system parameters - Yeah that'll work
Ne x-ray - pretty much
Ni video/puppetshow (own body is the puppet) - no; sequence of process
Se force - yes
Si ?momentum - no; homeostasis, resonance between fields
What the fuck...Originally Posted by dee
Actually, I think there's a grain of truth to this. Wouldn't you say that Ti with Se is more like Te than Ti with Ne?
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
Go read Augusta's "Notes on the socion" article at socionics.us. You clearly know nothing about IM.
@Dee:
http://www.socionics.us/works/socion.shtml
The following page discusses the elements at length.
That looks pretty good.Te external system dynamics
Ti intersystem structure (global, between number of systems)
Fe internal dynamics of a particular system
Fi internal system structure
Ne system capabilities
Ni time
Se system physical parameters
Si intersystem interaction impacts on internal system states
Terminology-wise it may be better than mine. (except with the problem of Ni: when you say "time" it's not clear which you mean, "relative" time a la relativity, or "cosmological" time, or "situation-specific" time. I use "sequential progression" instead, because relative time is subtly different from cosmological time, and sequential progression encapsulates the means by which one apprehends time. But what of sequential regression, eh? A good question... but I've only seen ii considered by the INFp William Sidis, with his probably unprovable cosmic rewind theory, so I don't think it applies to practical application.) That's counting your two later additions, also.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote