Are new symbols needed?

[tcaudilllg]

I doubt if Augusta had intentionally embarked to dislodge relativity, string theory or other physical theories from explaining reality. Or to introduce eight symbols that encompass something outside of direct human perception.

It seems that most of the problems on these forums about information aspects comes from the erroneous belief that they're meant to describe actual processes happening in the physical world like time/space etc. I think it's obvious that they're just eight (or sixteen) distinct filters through which someone can choose to perceive/interact with reality.

Model A Functions are a way to differentiate and prioritize that processing in different types.

Non-cognitive or statistical processes like a society are "modelled" through socionics by integral types... though yeah that's probably something controversial.

I've read that Ne/Ni describe time, Se/Si describes space etc. These are just indirect analogies like internal/external, which I don't take to describe the whole aspect, though some concrete subset of them is probably type-consistent and can be studied directly, or else people of certain types wouldn't show spooky similarities.

$0.02

Back off from that position. It is completely false. Worse, it is extreme.

What you are doing, is devaluing Te, and it is skewering your viewpoint. You're falling into the same trap Einstein did, saying "all is relative". Well Einstein, meet quantum mechanics.

You have erred in that you are irrelevantizing that the "filtration" you speak of must be accomplished somehow. It's not automatic.

How "obvious" is that?

Rick, I've seen some of your writings where you express something similar about information aspects being "aspects of reality," and insofar as you are using the the word "aspect" in the sense of "a perspective or way of viewing something," I can see how it is very relevant. However, I get the impression from many that these "aspects" are thought to be more or less components of reality, rather than a viewpoint. If that is the case, than we are making very speculative ontological assumptions about the nature of information itself, because we are implying that these things are not merely human viewpoints, but objective parts of reality. That is not an assumption that I want to make, and it does not seem in any way necessary to developing a model of cognition.

DANGEROUS DANGEROUS OH DEAR GOD ITS DANGEROUS!!!@!!!! BEE CAREFULL WHUT U THINK IT COULD BE DANGEROUSSSSSS!!!@!!!KTHX BYE

Returning to the 21st century (witchcraft is SO 16th century), it's simply a matter of observing that if your mind can't process something, then you don't know it exists. But it's not like you can just change the brain and create new IM elements. There is no secret code out there, no formula which translates cellular relationships into cognition. (well there is, but I've already glimpsed it and I can tell you that unless you accept that the aspects do exist apart from their observer you will never understand it).

Do you really understand what the IM aspects are at all? Don't you understand that you can't think of a thing which is not one of those eight abstractions, which Augusta gave at least two good outlines of? I can look at your speech -- or any speech -- and label the aspects as they are spoken. With intuition it's quite doable.

Back @jxrtes: You need to think more critically about people's arguments before you just go along with them. Especially if they are by a person of the same type as your own, because it is radicals among your own type which are most likely to lead you astray.

[tcaudilllg]

Nevermind, this is just a matter of mirror relating. Jxrtes, just drop your "aspects are unnecessary" argument and we'll leave it at that, kay?

[tcaudilllg]

eh? I do think aspects are a necessary part of the model, or else this would just be MBTT... I just meant that they weren't as concrete as people made them out to be sometimes.

I have no idea what else is going on.

Then don't dispute their necessity. The model is what Augusta says it is. We build upon what she said.

And don't forget, the IM theory is actually used by Kepinsky to explain the viewpoints held by schizophrenics. At any rate, the bottom line is that if we can't perceive of something, then it had might as well not exist. Anything else is useless, fruitless extrapoloation. And radical, of course.

Now of course the reason radicals make contentious arguments is because they don't believe real peace exists, but that doesn't even come into it. They are the losers, we are the winners.

[tcaudilllg]

...

Beautiful. Rather than asking where you got the Kepinsky data, I'll take your word on it. I'll be trying to tie your work here in with supersocion theory, too.