Introverted Thinking

[JRiddy]

Ti is the "external statics of fields"? Ahhh, shit, I thought it was internal.

I can understand why fields are introverted and objects are extraverted. I can understand extraverted irrational and introverted rational functions are static, and why extraverted rational and introverted irrational functions are dynamic, but not what internal and external are about.

What are they about?

Internal and external can be compared to time and space, but only within the context of general relativity. They are decidedly not time and space in the conventional sense. It's a tricky little dichotomy, but like each of the three information dichotomies, it is an exceedingly important part of IM theory. It's easier to grasp if we understand that the focus dichotomy (body/field) is based on how we view an object or subject; i.e., we can view an object as a whole even though it could be further subdivided. Take the example of a car, which is a complex object:

• Bodies
  
  • Statics
    
    • Internal - - The car has a multitude of inner parts, and there are specific, discrete elements that make it work; each one of these elements can be manipulated in a variety of ways to make the car work in different ways. Each attribute allows the car to perform a specific task.
    • External - - The car has a gas pedal, a brake pedal, a clutch pedal, a steering wheel, 4 tires, etc.; Each one of these discrete elements speak to the cars abilities and what items allow it to interact with the operator and the world.
  • Dynamics
    
    • Internal - - The car has an ongoing process of combustion that keeps it running. Fe will keep tabs on the state and strength of this combustion, as well as how it is consuming fuel (related to Ne) or producing exhaust (related to Se).
    • External - - The car is moving in a specific direction at a certain speed. Te will track the speed, and any elements of the movement of the vehicle among other things.
• Fields
  It gets a little trickier with field elements, because an external field element can deal with relationships that are essentially "inside" an object and internals can deal with relationships that are "outside." The difference is much more subtle. The best summary I can think of is that externals tend to be about position, whereas internals are about angle and orientation.
  
  • Statics
    
    • Internal - - The car's internal structure gives rise to specific orientations, and maintaining a proper relationship with other objects is necessary for correct functioning. Many fields affect the car in specific ways, such as gravity that holds it to the ground, or the wind that creates resistance. These things are important because they effect the car's ability to work and go places (Te).
    • External - - The car sits in position relative to other things in the world. It has a specific extrinsic structure that either give rise to it's inherent attributes (Ne) or allow it to be used and mobilized in specific ways (Se). These things are important because they affect the cars ability to become and remain active (Fe).
  • Dynamics
    
    • Internal - - The car is traveling along a specific path. Though only the current location is known, over time a specific direction becomes clear. This path is the "essence" of the car's movement, and is not focused on the details of "how" the movement takes place.
    • External - - The car has specific processes that must work together in order for it to function correctly. These include the fuel intake, the oil being pumped, the camshafts running, etc. Si does not break these things down, but sees them as part of a whole process, and is sensitive to the manner in which the car runs, as this indicates how well the processes are functioning together.

I don't think that crude example perfectly captures internal vs. external, but I hope it gives a general idea.

[liveandletlive]

Internal and external can be compared to time and space, but only within the context of general relativity. They are decidedly not time and space in the conventional sense. It's a tricky little dichotomy, but like each of the three information dichotomies, it is an exceedingly important part of IM theory. It's easier to grasp if we understand that the focus dichotomy (body/field) is based on how we view an object or subject; i.e., we can view an object as a whole even though it could be further subdivided. Take the example of a car, which is a complex object:

• Bodies
  • Statics
    • Internal - - The car has a multitude of inner parts, and there are specific, discrete elements that make it work; each one of these elements can be manipulated in a variety of ways to make the car work in different ways. Each attribute allows the car to perform a specific task.
    • External - - The car has a gas pedal, a brake pedal, a clutch pedal, a steering wheel, 4 tires, etc.; Each one of these discrete elements speak to the cars abilities and what items allow it to interact with the operator and the world.
  • Dynamics
    
    • Internal - - The car has an ongoing process of combustion that keeps it running. Fe will keep tabs on the state and strength of this combustion, as well as how it is consuming fuel (related to Ne) or producing exhaust (related to Se).
    • External - - The car is moving in a specific direction at a certain speed. Te will track the speed, and any elements of the movement of the vehicle among other things.
• Fields
  It gets a little trickier with field elements, because an external field element can deal with relationships that are essentially "inside" an object and internals can deal with relationships that are "outside." The difference is much more subtle. The best summary I can think of is that externals tend to be about position, whereas internals are about angle and orientation.
  
  • Statics
    • Internal - - The car's internal structure gives rise to specific orientations, and maintaining a proper relationship with other objects is necessary for correct functioning. Many fields affect the car in specific ways, such as gravity that holds it to the ground, or the wind that creates resistance. These things are important because they effect the car's ability to work and go places (Te).
    • External - - The car sits in position relative to other things in the world. It has a specific extrinsic structure that either give rise to it's inherent attributes (Ne) or allow it to be used and mobilized in specific ways (Se). These things are important because they affect the cars ability to become and remain active (Fe).
  • Dynamics
    
    • Internal - - The car is traveling along a specific path. Though only the current location is known, over time a specific direction becomes clear. This path is the "essence" of the car's movement, and is not focused on the details of "how" the movement takes place.
    • External - - The car has specific processes that must work together in order for it to function correctly. These include the fuel intake, the oil being pumped, the camshafts running, etc. Si does not break these things down, but sees them as part of a whole process, and is sensitive to the manner in which the car runs, as this indicates how well the processes are functioning together.

I don't think that crude example perfectly captures internal vs. external, but I hope it gives a general idea.

thats an awesome post

[krieger]

To make matters worse, the + and - signs are also read out loud as "concrete" and "abstract" ... (at least under the interpretation through which I got acquainted with them, which would be that of user smilingeyes... I do not know wether he borrowed these from Russia or just began using them out of the blue).

[JRiddy]

Yeah, it's kind of a mess... words like "abstract" and "concrete" can cover a lot of things and can be seen in light of many possible meanings.

As for abstract and concrete I find it tends to work best with N/S. For instance, vs. ... can be seen as being about concrete properties of objects, while is more the abstract realm of properties of objects (potentials). With F/T though, it starts overlapping into other things.

Tools have their limitations.

Indeed. In some sense, all these things are "abstract" because they are thoughts, not physical objects. While I agree with you that N is more abstract than S in general, and that this is a good shorthand way to understand it, there is more to the distinction than that. It's difficult for me and everyone else to fully grasp, so it's fun and useful to keep working together like this toward an understanding.