.
.
Last edited by xerx; 10-12-2008 at 05:38 AM.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
I don't think that's directly possible. I do think that it's possible to use one function to "emulate" another (it's quite common to emulate your role function with your base function), but the attempt will be sloppy and indirect. Probably an effective theoretical will have to physically build the images that thinks about naturally, whereas might be able to fake through an incredibly complex system of rules (but would never get it perfect). I can't even imagine Intuition emulating Sensing or Feeling emulating Thinking... but that could have to do with what type I am.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
nope, SEI would never fill their posts with functions.
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
omg gammmma.
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
I am not so sure however. Also, I don't see any proof of him being an SEI in any way. All I see is Ti base.
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
You could be INFp. Based on how you write and the whole use Si and Fe differently thing. This could also be why you think you are using strong Ne, because you are. And it sounds like you are applying Ti hidden agenda a bit there too.
ILE
I don't think supercharged could function as without a proportionate amount of real on hand. without connections would not form a theory of any sort - it would end up with an incredible amount of detail on nothing in particular, or perhaps on the last concept that came by. without will not branch out, whereas without would not focus, no matter how powerful the individual element was.
might appear as when coming down from a monumental extreme, of a sort that goes well beyond most thoughts of dominants. In that case, the detail might cover a wider territory than many thoughts - but eventually (without further input), the would work its way down to the most basic details and cease to appear as .
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
I was reading this thread to my mom, she asked me if I was sane.
D-SEI 9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
My exact issue is you want us to discuss the possibilities that you could be SEI, but you have not provided us with any evidence that you are. You want to also discuss functions. Yet you are analyzing functions but not showing it's relevance to your inquiry. Your meaning and reasoning are not clear to some here, and it seems you are only speaking to someone who might be able to fit your thoughts into something understandable.
But it seems to me you have a goal in mind and trying to obtain completion of that goal, and you don't want it to veer from that. This is why I said INFp. Ti hidden agenda with Se trying to achieve something. Alpha SFs brainstorming, as you put it, would include the topic and disscussion of cute puppies.
No they do not resemble each other. If it seems that way, you are just observing the other side of the coin, that function's dual.
Ti is used to understand the connection between objects and/or stimuli, and classify them. Fe is noting the action of an object and coming to a conclusion of some emotional state of the object or emotional state of his or her self. When you get into "theories" as to why said emotional state exsist, or if that state is the correct one you are branching into Ti.
But for Si, it needs that small Ne push to experience something. If the internal physical state the Si person feels is desirable from such an experience, then repeating that experience to feel the sensation again would be more related to Ni, and without regard to consquences. The distinction made here is Ne is the initial push to experience something new, as in new possibilities, while Si monitors the physical states of the experiences taking place and remembers them.
Fe is quite useless without Ti. While Si cannot exsist without experience some event taking place because there is always a possibility of some even taking place.
SEI are present focused people because of how their ego functions work. Theories are too abstract to come under their radar unless they are using their hidden agenda or dual seeking functions. More importantly "theoreticalness" has nothing to do with Si, realizing physical states of objects, or Fe's being able to reconginze emotional states in others. Si and Fe are simply not theoretical by nature.
ILE
A favorable answer to your questions would be a paradox. Since the fuctions operating in a manner outside of their normal fuction would mean they cease to be that initial function. Thinking it can is taking the logical implicit meaning of each term in the definitions of each function too far. Thus branching out to something entirely different than what the definition is explicitly conveying. And you seem intelligent enough to know your questions are black holes with no end. I don't see the point in asking a question when any possible answer is going to be unsatisfactory. But if the idea is to brainstorm how one may look at such a thing, then I'll have it.
For your question. How can one understand a physical sensation intuitively, or take something non-concrete and experience it as if it were concrete? It is impossible. Unless we are to assume that all things concrete exsist only because they are part of an universal idea of predetermined truth which is intuitively felt. For example, we feel pain of burning ourselves on a hot stove only because we intuitively know such a senstation will take place as a result of that process. The results of the process is set in stone as part of a universal truth and cannot be changed. Each intuition is taking place in "real time" without prior experience of the process initially. Which would mean there is no such thing as concrete objects or systems, since they all would, in absolute truth, be abstract. But how can you have an idea of predeterminded truth if predeterminded truth is a part of that idea of that predetermined truth? However our perceptions only exsist in our minds. We don't actually see or feel reality. Our brain interrupts reality for us. Sooo you might have something there if you want to venture down that road.
And then by definition you cannot take a non-concrete object and make it concrete, since non-concrete objects do not have a location in time and space and cannot interact with other objects. I cannot brainstorm on this because the premise is absurd to me. Though I have heard about people on acid being able to visualize non-concrete objects and taste them too.
But I think you are mostly discussing this with yourself. So I can basically say anything and it would just feed your internal dialogue which will allow you to further reiterate your view point on what you already know to be right based on your knowledge base. The manner you are communicating your thoughts is devoid of personableness. Not that you should care, and not to knock your communication style. But its not fun answering a question when it is clear to me you already have thought out the answers and how you going to respond to said answers. That is my personal stance on this discussion.
ILE
In a predictable environment, all information about the environment is already known. There is no potential for reformulations of information based on , , etc. So I would agree that Model A breaks down in a perfectly predictable environment. All functions would then operate on the level of Experience, with equal usefulness.
I would consider the intratim elements self-contained in that they can act without their complementary elements, but not self-contained in that they cannot do anything meaningful without their complementary elements (i.e. they cannot change their environment, only understand it). I suspect that extratim elements cannot act at all without something of their complement to work from... or, perhaps they can change their environment, but cannot know what they are doing.
In a perfectly predictable environment, all functions are useless; in an even slightly unpredictable environment, functions need their complements.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
True - but looking at the "dimensiality for functions," all functions can act at the level of experience - functions strength does not play a part in the ability to repeat what is already understood, just in the ability to understand new things. The only hint that this experience is related to functions at all is that some people will be more willing to repeat certain experiences than others.
I think there are two different kinds of predictability that we need to distinguish between. The first, nothing is changing, is what happens when the superego takes over - everythign grinds to a halt. The second, perfection, is where there is truly nothing more to be done - the closed system has absolutely no potential for further improvement. This raises the question of whether improvement is a necessary component of perfection, and under such closed perfection the next goal would be to break either the closedness or the perfection and create room for improvement, even if some knowledge must be given up.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari