This had to happen, formally, at one point or another

[strrrng]

(Assuming that his type is indeed ESTj-Si:) I do think that his focus on > could manifest in a way that appears to be top-down. This would be the "top" emphasis, without the "down"; when he wanted to learn, he would gather some and pull it through his to add it to his conception of the world - this is an upward flow of information, but it manifests as spending most of his time in Fields and taking short jaunts into Objects - which is the same sort of behavior that one would expect from any introverted subtype J temperament.

Why would it start with some general gathering of information from ? An Si-ESTj has an agenda in both models, with the emphasis being more pervasive in model X. Nonetheless, any top-down -- or "upward" -- approach to be expected from an Si-ESTj would begin with the parameterization and gestalt establishment of the extrinsic boundaries of the subjective context that processes could evolve through. Any information -- which would consist of loosely-perceived abstract potentialities within discrete entities -- would most likely be gleaned as a corollary of the aforementioned thing, adding to the overall mix. I would expect to be used as a filter of sorts, something to give sequential order to the detailed context.

[Brilliand]

Why would it start with some general gathering of information from ? An Si-ESTj has an agenda in both models, with the emphasis being more pervasive in model X. Nonetheless, any top-down -- or "upward" -- approach to be expected from an Si-ESTj would begin with the parameterization and gestalt establishment of the extrinsic boundaries of the subjective context that processes could evolve through. Any information -- which would consist of loosely-perceived abstract potentialities within discrete entities -- would most likely be gleaned as a corollary of the aforementioned thing, adding to the overall mix. I would expect to be used as a filter of sorts, something to give sequential order to the detailed context.

I haven't understood you well enough to know whether you understood me or not - so I'll explain where I'm coming from.

I view objects as basically static things and fields as basically dynamic things.
Je, being dynamics of objects, draws fields from objects.
Ji, being statics of fields, draws objects from fields.

Thus there is a cycle of Je-Pi-Ji-Pe-Je present in every quadra.

To reach , an ESTj-Si would use . But it wouldn't start there, because , being an active element, isn't "always on." It doesn't have a memory. (When did I decide that? Oh well, it makes sense to me.) The information parsed by must thus come from . His has a memory, so he can pull his data from there.

By "upward" I mean bottom-up... a top-down approach would be "downward." I am suggesting that an ESTj-Si, while certainly taking a bottom-up approach, would be more focused on the top.

I think I saw Smilingeyes say this very thing about some group of types somewhere... I'll go look for that.

[UDP]

Hah! Express concern over his opinion and write it off in the same post Awesome.

The blah blah blah wasn't actually related to Ezra.
But oh well.

It's to the point where trying to clarify or commenting on things is just furthering the mess. I'm pulling out. I might try again later but I don't know.


Bail out

[Brilliand]

I think I saw Smilingeyes say this very thing about some group of types somewhere... I'll go look for that.

OK, it wasn't Smilingeyes, it was Huitzilopochtli.

Huitzilopochtli's top-down, bottom-up, etc.

Unfortunately, he has ESTj as top-down and INTj as bottom-up...

EDIT: OK, he had Democratic=bottom-up and Aristocratic=top-down. For Narrators, that matches Static/Dynamic, which we've been using. His "top-oriented" vs. "bottom-oriented" is introvert vs. extravert, but that should refer to the base element, as opposed to the temperament.

[strrrng]

I view objects as basically static things and fields as basically dynamic things.
Je, being dynamics of objects, draws fields from objects.
Ji, being statics of fields, draws objects from fields.

This is basically what I was trying to get. Intuitively it makes sense that the "P" functions generate fields from fields, or objects from objects (noticing and continually expanding on perceived qualities or gradually distilling a subjective process), and that "J" functions would perform a sort of "transfer," generating one from the other. I'm just curious why and how this manifests. Like Je "drawing fields from objects" -- what exactly are you implying? I mean, it is deliberate and establishes causal sequences; does it draw fields because there is some intangible connection in the activity between the objects in the sequence? And with Ji, I would guess the drawing of objects from fields would be due to the fact that they position the objects themselves through the creation of the "links"? Correct me if I'm wrong here. Your sequence of Je Pi Ji Pe Je also makes sense, in light of all this.

[Brilliand]

This is basically what I was trying to get. Intuitively it makes sense that the "P" functions generate fields from fields, or objects from objects (noticing and continually expanding on perceived qualities or gradually distilling a subjective process), and that "J" functions would perform a sort of "transfer," generating one from the other. I'm just curious why and how this manifests. Like Je "drawing fields from objects" -- what exactly are you implying? I mean, it is deliberate and establishes causal sequences; does it draw fields because there is some intangible connection in the activity between the objects in the sequence? And with Ji, I would guess the drawing of objects from fields would be due to the fact that they position the objects themselves through the creation of the "links"? Correct me if I'm wrong here. Your sequence of Je Pi Ji Pe Je also makes sense, in light of all this.

A "sequence" is very much what "fields from objects" is. The objects, being the original material, are joined to each other in a dynamic way, forming a flow from one to the other. This a baseball flying through the air (a "path") has multiple states (each location it moves through) that are associated with each other by a change - a dynamic connection. Similarly, the objects in a working machine are associated with each other by what they do to each other; the change can be between one object and another, not just multiple states of the same object.

On the other hand, I don't consider "links" a very good word for Ji. Ji is about imposing static boundaries on an otherwise unbounded field - categories, not links. Ji brings fields to apply to specific things by limiting them until only those specific things are in the category. So whereas Je accumulates objects to form a field, Ji divides up a field to form objects.

[strrrng]

A "sequence" is very much what "fields from objects" is.

Ok. I can see how the Je functions establish a sort of baseline direction for holistic connections (Pi) to be gleaned from.

The objects, being the original material, are joined to each other in a dynamic way, forming a flow from one to the other. This a baseball flying through the air (a "path") has multiple states (each location it moves through) that are associated with each other by a change - a dynamic connection.

Right, this makes sense. And upon noticing its sequential changes in state, one would be able to understand the latent, more subjectively-defined process underpinning its movement -- which would be more distilled than the ostensibly manifest one initially observed.

Similarly, the objects in a working machine are associated with each other by what they do to each other; the change can be between one object and another, not just multiple states of the same object.

Right -- it's the holistic sense of relations that gives the objects relative value, magnitude, and ultimately function.

On the other hand, I don't consider "links" a very good word for Ji. Ji is about imposing static boundaries on an otherwise unbounded field - categories, not links. Ji brings fields to apply to specific things by limiting them until only those specific things are in the category. So whereas Je accumulates objects to form a field, Ji divides up a field to form objects.

"Categories" works. I've always seen the Ji functions as establishers of the positions of objects. The qualities of those objects mean nothing when viewed solely as a unordered array. Once placed within parameters, categories, etc., their significance is better revealed.