Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilly
True, but the key, IMO, to understanding the concept of fields, is that no comparison actually exists between the two without an observer; the correct perception of both objects is assumed, and integrated, in their comparison, whereas perceiving an object in a stand-alone fashion requires no sense of internal objectivity; it is merely taken as it is, used for what it is, whereas any comparison is automatically self-referential, and always requires something beyond perception for its own sake or immediate usage.
So, when I say the store is 1/4 of a mile from the school, (which is relationship of distance), then I'm referencing myself in that? Even though I used a map?
Quote:
Well given that it is a theory of information metabolism, taking for granted that this is how the brain parcels together information, I like to think of the definitions as attempts to characterize the processes, rather than the processes as emergent perceptions of the definitions, and that the information aspects are the actual mechanisms of perception used by the brain, rather than S, N, T, or F; in my opinion these are the emergent properties of the functions (and, as such, what Jung was initially able to observe) rather than more basic characterizations of their integral processes, which are represented by the terms I provided definitions for in the OP.
If by this you mean that the aspects are the basic mechanisms of information metabolism, while the elements are the emergent properties of the combined aspects, then I'd agree with that.
Quote:
So I suppose the more accurate question to ask would be, from my framework, "why are field-dynamics characterized as irrational, and object-dynamics as rational?" My answer is that, when you examine the dynamic aspects of information,the observer has two things to focus on, two areas of dynamic perception, if you will, from which he can obtain information: the outside world, and himself. His perceptions of the outside world can change instantaneously; he may shift his focus to another target and thus, the perceptions of this outside world are considered discrete, or rational. The things outside himself which are changing, which can potentially affect him, are things he must attempt to gain control over, things he must harness or reign in. His perceptions of his own constantly changing reactions and involvement are, however, contiguous, existing in one constant stream, inseparable from each other. That which is inside himself, and is inherently changing, must be allowed to change freely; thus, irrational.
It is this emphasis on IM being the properties of the actual mind's focus, rather than simply methods by which reality can theoretically be broken down, that convince me both of the value of Jung's work in interpreting Socioncs functions, and of my particular definition of objects and fields. I am, of course, open to your interpretation, if you would give me your own answer to such a dilemma.
To apply the same formula, with regard to the theoretical assumptions of the model and nature of the functions that I outlined earlier, to this question, I would change the question to "what makes field-statics rational, and object-statics irrational?"
Well, if we go again with the assumption that the divide in perception is of that which is inside the self, and outside the self, then we can easily see that the things which we consider as static and unchangeable outside ourselves are those things which we have no control over, which cannot be dissected or broken down; thus, they are irrational. Conversely, the things inside ourselves which are static are those things which we must maintain constant control over, to keep them in place and maintain their boundaries; thus, rational.
I'll be honest, as I read this, a couple of things seem to conflict with each other, but I lack the ability to dissect it and compare each part enough to figure out what parts are conflicting. So I'm forced to let this go, but with at least a note to say... :confused:
Quote:
I think both of these examples seem to work with your comparison of digital and analog: digital elements existing independently of one another, signifying division and the formation of boundaries, and analog elements existing in some form of unity or comparison, signifying irreducibility.
Analog elements aren't necessarily irreducible. A sound wave is an example of an analog signal. But we have machines and measuring devices that break the sound wave down into parts. Admittedly, the parts aren't exact, and pieces of information wind up missing, such that when putting those pieces back together again we get a resemblance, but not exact, replica of the sound wave.