the word dimension seems kind of misleading; because the number of dimensions a particular thing is, is dependent on how you choose to organize it.. and you could look at the same information and find a way to see it as either two dimensional, or four dimensional... etc. a better word would be .. tiered
Am I right in thinking that three dimensional functions are spontaneous because they are anxious over what might happen next? (because they lack the time dimension?)
In that case, 2D functions would, lacking the presumably 3D characteristic of "permanence", see reality through an unstable, malleable lense: the person would have no observance of said function as being in any way reliable, seeing it as completely moulded by circumstance and dependent on the same. And if the function was unidimensional? Then I would imagine it having no relation even between its aspects, much like we consider Se traits in classical physics: points on a numerical line, reaching upward or downward. This is why this theory has the potential to be somewhat frightening: it becomes impossible to know if your assessment of what a function "is" is the right one therefore.
the impressions I have of this are:
4D is a 2D impression of 3D info
3D is a 2D impression of 2D info
2D is a 2D impression of 1D info
1D is a 2D impression of 0D info
....
before i was thinking of it like this:
dominant is a 4D impression of 3D information
secondary is a 3D impression of 4D information
tertiary is a 3D impression of 2D information
weak is a 2D impression of 3D information
Now I know how is cognitive maturity related to long-term thinking...Originally Posted by jxrtes
That is saying the same thing as the dimensional transformation model.
1: 4D>3D = abstractions compressed into a system model = abstractions being relevent models of states of being, where compressed together form a coherent impression of the future = parameter / future
2: 2D>3D = immediate perceptions compressed into a system model = situation / dynamic present
3: 3D>4D = existing system model is treated as an abstraction = system model formed from past experience is treated as a singular understanding = experience / concrete past
4: 3D>2D = System model seen to dictate possibilities for immediate information = norms / static present
These information transformation notations are microscopic ways of discussing the functions, where 4D>3D is Si/Ni, 3D>4D is Ti/Fi, 3D>2D is Te/Fe, 2D>3D is Se/Ne ... there is a further specificion required for differentiating the functions which remain similar after this differentiation.
The essay is talking about how functions can possess these different dimensionally transformative qualities.
It is saying a function can take on characteristics of another function...
It is a big reworded theory of dual-type
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote