Divergent perspectives on a ball

[tcaudilllg]

If you will, join me for a discussion on what it means for different types to perceive the same ball.

An INTP and an INTJ come upon a ball. The ball is completely still. Although both the INTP and the INTJ recognize the ball exists, they use different functions to perceive it.

The INTP perceives that the ball is exterior to himself. He does this by witnessing it with his eyesight. He is reacts to the fact that the ball is not moving by determining that it is, indeed, not moving.

The INTP uses each of his unconscious functions in the act of perceiving the existence of the ball:
- The ball is external to himself (extroversion)
- The ball is perceived through the use of his senses (sensation)
- He reacts to the presence of the ball (feeling)
- He observes that the ball is not moving (judgement)

From the perspective of the INTP, the ball is an unconscious personality, because he uses his unconscious functions to perceive it. Indeed, it has qualities that correspond to each of his unconscious perceptions of reality: tangebility, material, state.

The INTJ observes the ball also. He notices that it is not a part of his own identity, and is therefore a part of the external world. He comes to this conclusion by witnessing the ball with his external vision. He reacts to the presence of the ball by perceiving that it is not interacting with the world around it, and is in a state of rest.

Like the INTP, the INTJ attributes his unconscious functions to the ball:
- He internally processes that the ball is external to himself. (extroversion)
- He senses that the ball is visible (sensation)
- He observes that the ball will react if it is touched (feeling)
- He notes that the ball is at rest (perception)

Like the INTP, the INTJ perceives the ball as an aspect of his unconscious personality.

Two points worth noting:
- The INTP and the INTJ observe the ball as having different irrational functions (to the INTJ, the ball has a perceptive quality because it is capable of movement; to the INTP, the ball has a character of judgement because it is not in motion)
- The INTP and the INTJ observe that they observe the same ball. They observe that their conclusions, therefore, must be symmetrical to each other, even their differening conclusions about its irrational character. They imply, therefore, that for both to observe the same reality, there must be a way to reconcile their differences in perception.

[Megan]

I don't think I have grasped the idea about ball perception. Do you want to find out what part of the perception is conscious/subconscious and where is the difference in the perception between INTJ and INTP?

I think it is a good idea that now we try to understand how c/s works in real life. I guess it would be more interesting to hear what these types will say but my second function is air so I tend to put my nose nearly in everything (as long as I think I have understood at least something).

I guess these types are similar and have lots of understanding and respect to each other. According to socionics, the first two functions are EGO - that means counscious? If I will forget about model A and just look at the first two functions INTJ and INTP . these functions are sort of representation of active mode of the type: 1. the info of the interest and 2. the tool or how I get my way through.

If we shall assume taht many people have got no idea about socionics they will not know about their first and second functions. That means they will be selective to the incoming info (selective attention)- base function and they will estimate this info regarding their second function (how can I apply my tool - what i can possibly do with this info). These processess will be partly conscious and and partly uncoscious at the same time, because the person will not register why does he attend or select this info and why he choses that particular way of dealing with info (second function).

For example, why are we attracted to some people instantly but not to the others? We do realise and feel the power of attraction and we register that we would like to do something about it but are these processes fully conscious? Can we actually answer why all this happen to us?

I will better stop here as I am not sure if it fits to the topic or I am moving away a bit.

[Angel von Himmel]

Simple said, the ID functions can be about how people do not share the same strengths of their own EGO functions, and is just simply a [usually negitive] reaction to that effect. I think that is essentially what tchaulldig has attempted to convey in this thread.

[tcaudilllg]

Interesting response.

An INFP comes alongside the INTJ and the INTP. She interprets the ball in much the same way as the INTP, but with the distinguishing characteristic not reacting to its presence. Instead, she feels compelled to think about why the ball is not relating to its environment. Correspondingly, she views the ball as an ESTJ personality.

Next an ISFJ comes along. Upon realizing that the ball is before her, she wonders how it got there. She further thinks about what it might mean for it to be there. She perceives the ball as ENTP.

Finally an ESFP is drawn to to the group. Seeing the ball, he asks himself who could have put it there. He asks himself what could have been their motivation for putting it there, and given that it is there, what could be done with it. The ball has been perceived as an INTJ concept.

Upon hearing all of these divergent perspectives on the ball, the INTJ is compelled to conclude that his perspective must not be the only valid perspective of the three. He concludes that the ball must be of a nature that is consistent with all of the five divergent perspectives at once. The INTP, searching for consistency, proposes that perhaps all of reality is consistent with these perspectives. Symbolically though, he is thinking "if a [reality] = b [ball] then {b} [set of all b] = {a} [set of all a]". There is no difference symbolically from the perception of reality, and reality itself. Therefore, if reality is capable of transformation, then changing the perception of reality changes reality itself.

The INTJ, simultaneously realizing a formal correspondence to the INTP's thought process through intuitive imagery, remembers that matter and energy can be transformed into each other. If matter is the reality before him, and energy is the act of percieving the reality, then all reality--and all possibility--must be synchronous with the system that perceives it. Accordingly, changing the system that perceives reality will change reality itself.

If, due to the agreement of the five participants, all eight functions play a role in the formation of all reality, then all imaginable scenarios must be interplays between the eight functions. Then there are eight forms each of judging matter, and eight forms each of perceptive energy.

In particular, if the ball is perceived by judges as having a perceptive quality, and by perceivers as having a judging quality, then a familiar analogy emerges (to physicists, at least): the perceiver identifies the ball as a material, static quality that is without action. (a state or judgement) It is at rest relative to the perceiver. The judge perceives the ball as having a perceptive quality of action: the ball is not at rest; simply, it is not successfully moving. But it may still be moving.

Accordingly, in each system of perception on party is at rest relative to another party that is perceived to be moving, because the act of judgement is an observation of an immobile state, and perception is by its nature an activity: therefore a object whose quality is perceptive is in a state of movement relative to the judge who perceives it. In one case the ball is the judge; in another the observer is.

Therefore, Einstein's law of relativity applies directly to the psyche for all relations between the unconscious and the unconscious. An equation may be formulated from Einstein's work that unites "above" with "below".

[Olga]

I do like when people do associations even if i can't quite understand everything what was said, kinda a general feel..

[mike_INTJ]

i don't know nothing about the functions but...

as an INTJ/INTp

i see a ball, which i assume is a real ball, and not an illusion. it is ball, it has a shadow, it isn't just a circle. i'll observe from many angles to really determine that's its really a ball, and not a painted illusion.

once i know it's a real ball, i'll wonder why some schmuck put a ball here where someone can slip on it.

after that, i'll pick up the ball as it's a saftey hazard.

[FDG]

Interesting response.

An INFP comes alongside the INTJ and the INTP. She interprets the ball in much the same way as the INTP, but with the distinguishing characteristic not reacting to its presence. Instead, she feels compelled to think about why the ball is not relating to its environment. Correspondingly, she views the ball as an ESTJ personality.

Next an ISFJ comes along. Upon realizing that the ball is before her, she wonders how it got there. She further thinks about what it might mean for it to be there. She perceives the ball as ENTP.

Finally an ESFP is drawn to to the group. Seeing the ball, he asks himself who could have put it there. He asks himself what could have been their motivation for putting it there, and given that it is there, what could be done with it. The ball has been perceived as an INTJ concept.

Upon hearing all of these divergent perspectives on the ball, the INTJ is compelled to conclude that his perspective must not be the only valid perspective of the three. He concludes that the ball must be of a nature that is consistent with all of the five divergent perspectives at once. The INTP, searching for consistency, proposes that perhaps all of reality is consistent with these perspectives. Symbolically though, he is thinking "if a [reality] = b [ball] then {b} [set of all b] = {a} [set of all a]". There is no difference symbolically from the perception of reality, and reality itself. Therefore, if reality is capable of transformation, then changing the perception of reality changes reality itself.

The INTJ, simultaneously realizing a formal correspondence to the INTP's thought process through intuitive imagery, remembers that matter and energy can be transformed into each other. If matter is the reality before him, and energy is the act of percieving the reality, then all reality--and all possibility--must be synchronous with the system that perceives it. Accordingly, changing the system that perceives reality will change reality itself.

If, due to the agreement of the five participants, all eight functions play a role in the formation of all reality, then all imaginable scenarios must be interplays between the eight functions. Then there are eight forms each of judging matter, and eight forms each of perceptive energy.

In particular, if the ball is perceived by judges as having a perceptive quality, and by perceivers as having a judging quality, then a familiar analogy emerges (to physicists, at least): the perceiver identifies the ball as a material, static quality that is without action. (a state or judgement) It is at rest relative to the perceiver. The judge perceives the ball as having a perceptive quality of action: the ball is not at rest; simply, it is not successfully moving. But it may still be moving.

Accordingly, in each system of perception on party is at rest relative to another party that is perceived to be moving, because the act of judgement is an observation of an immobile state, and perception is by its nature an activity: therefore a object whose quality is perceptive is in a state of movement relative to the judge who perceives it. In one case the ball is the judge; in another the observer is.

Therefore, Einstein's law of relativity applies directly to the psyche for all relations between the unconscious and the unconscious. An equation may be formulated from Einstein's work that unites "above" with "below".

Chirst. Why so much pain in the world? There are still the wars and the famines, why??

[tcaudilllg]

Chirst. Why so much pain in the world? There are still the wars and the famines, why??

We'll get to that. But first we've got to solidly unite physics with the psyche, and the eight functions in particular.

To draw their conclusions about the ball, it was necessary for energy to flow between the people who perceived the ball and the ball itself. Necessarily this information was transmitted through physical phenomena. It is a well understood physical principle that information can only travel at lightspeed 'c', because information is a system of energy transfers between particles. Because unconscious objects are perceived with the creative art function in all cases, there is always one party "at rest" and another "in motion" in the pair.

From the original 1905 paper,

Let us in ``stationary'' space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel. Let each system be provided with a rigid measuring-rod and a number of clocks, and let the two measuring-rods, and likewise all the clocks of the two systems, be in all respects alike.

Let's call the INTJ the first coordinate system. Let's call the INTP the second. Both personalities are, by definition, systems of energy transmission. Their functions act as measuring rods, and their memories work with the functions to produce a perception of time. (a "clock")


Because our INTP is perceiving things, let's move him.

Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks. To any time of the stationary system K there then will correspond a definite position of the axes of the moving system, and from reasons of symmetry we are entitled to assume that the motion of k may be such that the axes of the moving system are at the time t (this ``t'' always denotes a time of the stationary system) parallel to the axes of the stationary system.

This makes the INTJ our "stationary" system of the pair.

We now imagine space to be measured from the stationary system K by means of the stationary measuring-rod, and also from the moving system k by means of the measuring-rod moving with it; and that we thus obtain the co-ordinates x, y, z, and , , respectively. Further, let the time t of the stationary system be determined for all points thereof at which there are clocks by means of light signals in the manner indicated in § 1; similarly let the time of the moving system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there are clocks at rest relatively to that system by applying the method, given in § 1, of light signals between the points at which the latter clocks are located.

We know from relativity that absolute simultaneity does not exist. Indeed, there is a difference between how objects of different systems perceive each other.

To any system of values x, y, z, t, which completely defines the place and time of an event in the stationary system, there belongs a system of values , , , , determining that event relatively to the system k, and our task is now to find the system of equations connecting these quantities.

Without getting into the math, we observe that if the INTP is moving and the INTJ is stationary, then there will be a difference in perception proportional to the difference of their velocities. Consider this in the context of a conversation: the INTJ and the INTP start of thinking they are talking about the same thing. After finding signs of affirmation of their respective viewpoints, however, their confidence grows: the INTJ stays still and the INTP rushes on ahead. Every affirmative interaction between the two strengthens their confidence it their conscious functions; even if the INTP is not moving faster, the INTJ's sense of resolution prevents him from "catching up" to the INTP's evolving view. However, when both personalities are depressed and their confidence is weak, the INTJ is not sticking to his guns, nor is the INTP feeling adventurous. Therefore, their relations can be described by Newtonian mechanics in those cases because both sides are open to each other's perspectives, and the distance between their views is approaching 0. (Einstein's transformations behave like Newton's when the velocity of the moving body is near to 0) Indeed, in all cases involving Socionics well-differentiated personalities (four function pairs, half conscious and the other half unconscious) the rules for function support between two opposites can be described with classical mechanics. (between identiticals there is no actual exchange of support, because the two are compelled to compete with each other to solve the problem *first*)

From Einstein's equations it is evident that the mere fact that the one personality is preoccupied with making action and the other is determined to avoid it implies that the two will make decisions at different rates, because the greater the contrast between the opposites at any moment in terms of perspective. the greater the gulf of event perception between them: the two parties see different causes for the same events, because they perceive the events at different times.

In response to your question of why there is so much pain in the world, FDG, the same principle applies, but in reverse: people who come to understand different events at the same time will perceive divergent causes for the same problems.

[Catholic Schoolboy]

Good. Lets talk about how the INTj and the INTp feel about the ball.

I would wonder why the bright red ball is in the crisp white room and be slightly pissed that someone put a poor child in a white room such as this with only a small ball to amuse himself with.

INTjs, how do you feel about balls?

[tcaudilllg]

Good. Lets talk about how the INTj and the INTp feel about the ball.

I would wonder why the bright red ball is in the crisp white room and be slightly pissed that someone put a poor child in a white room such as this with only a small ball to amuse himself with.

INTjs, how do you feel about balls?

And I have absolute NO idea what you are saying about that, Syc.

Which illustrates my point: we are receiving positive feedback from each other, without anything to negate that feedback. So to say, the support for our functions as we have now has an inertial quality, like an object flying in deep space. Each time we exchange ideas with each other, we are mutually accelerating our confidence in the relevancy of our ideas.

However, we will eventually get to a point where our disparate ideas lead us to even reconsider the effectiveness of each other's support for each other. At this point we won't be able to positively reinforce each other until our 7th functions have weakened to the point that we no longer have confidence in them. (because of external criticism that we cannot work together to negate, because we are no longer certain we can help each other) Once we no longer have confidence in our 7th functions, we will be open to different interpretations of each other's ideas again. Then we can begin misunderstanding each other again, thinking that each other's ideas are reinforcing our own, and the cycle will repeat!

This is the point of unity between relativity and the libido ideas of analytical psychology. One can never meet the speed of light because eventually in order to further accelerate a body must sacrifice its own structural integrity--the energy that holds the body together--to supply energy for its own acceleration. This point can be identified by subtracting the energy of the self from the total energy available for the positive reinforcement.

Maximum attainable energy = total available energy - Source energy

Once a function passes its psychological maximum, it is infringing on the territory of its unconscious partner. It has "fallen from grace". In this state, it can no longer accept support from its unconscious partner. Indeed, the function will be open to attack from its "shadow": the negative incarnation of the unconscious. This incarnation is created by the function's violation of its own integrity, and will persist until it has expended its energy by weakening the conscious function until the shadow repeats the self-corruption of its partner.

By analogy, good eventually attacks itself. This attack weakens good and divides it, opening the door to evil. Evil attacks good until it can no longer attack good without attacking itself. This in turn opens the door to the redemption of good.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[tcaudilllg]

Normal, you say?

What is "normal"? Who is a "normal" person? Is not the ball "normal" to everyone in the room because it is unconscious?

If everyone in the room agrees that the ball is unconscious to each of them, then they are in agreement that an unconscious personality capable of being unconscious to each of them exists.

What is the personality of the ball?

If reality is comprised by the eight functions, then accordingly each of the eight functions is a property of every point of reality that can be perceived. Every point in space has attributes of extroversion, introversion, sensation, intution, thinking, feeling, judgement, and perception. Therefore the ball possesses all of these properties, and is of a personality of its own. However, the ball is faced with the responsibility of being unconscious to everyone who perceives it; therefore it is unable to rely on any set of four functions with which to advance an agenda of its own. The ball can only respond to the agendae of others, to the will of their functions.

The four are in agreement that such a personality as that of a ball can exist, and that the tug of war between the functional responsibilities of the ball prevents the ball from exercising any of its functions, because the one of the pair is alway attacking the other. Therefore the ball simply defers to its environment as a means of responding to the personalities that interact with it.

The act of having no agenda (even a hidden one) to push is functionally equivalent to having no confidence in one's own personality. Therefore a personality that has no hidden agenda on which to build their motivation will look to the hidden agendas of others to fill its own void. Its agenda is that of the people who allow it to survive.

Indeed, the ball, having no will of its own, acts as it does at the will of the people who can manipulate it, or otherwise interact with it. When it does not meet the qualifications of the people who interact with it to be useful, it will be discarded, or even destroyed. It has no desire, nor even any will save to that ascribed to it by others. It simply is until it is no more.

[Rick]

If reality is comprised by the eight functions, then accordingly each of the eight functions is a property of every point of reality that can be perceived. Every point in space has attributes of extroversion, introversion, sensation, intution, thinking, feeling, judgement, and perception. Therefore the ball possesses all of these properties, and is of a personality of its own.

Wait wait wait. The eight functions are different - sensing, intuition, logic, and ethics in their extraverted and introverted varieties. Actually, to be exact, functions are qualities of the psyche, while information elements are qualities of reality, so we're actually talking about information elements (so-called "facets of reality").

You could look at it like this:
- what the ball looks like
- what the ball is doing (how it is moving)
- what the ball feels it might do (hahaha)
- what the ball is in the first place
- how the ball fits in with its surroundings
- how the ball compares to other balls
- what might happen to the ball
- whether you like or dislike the ball (or whether it likes you...)

[tcaudilllg]

If reality is comprised by the eight functions, then accordingly each of the eight functions is a property of every point of reality that can be perceived. Every point in space has attributes of extroversion, introversion, sensation, intution, thinking, feeling, judgement, and perception. Therefore the ball possesses all of these properties, and is of a personality of its own.

Wait wait wait. The eight functions are different - sensing, intuition, logic, and ethics in their extraverted and introverted varieties. Actually, to be exact, functions are qualities of the psyche, while information elements are qualities of reality, so we're actually talking about information elements (so-called "facets of reality").

You could look at it like this:
- what the ball looks like
- what the ball is doing (how it is moving)
- what the ball feels it might do (hahaha)
- what the ball is in the first place
- how the ball fits in with its surroundings
- how the ball compares to other balls
- what might happen to the ball
- whether you like or dislike the ball

Information can only be processed by functions. The psyche and reality are the same, because the psyche is everything that can be consciously experienced. ...Check that, the reality is a "state" of the psyche at any given moment.

[Rick]

Information can only be processed by functions. The psyche and reality are the same, because the psyche is everything that can be consciously experienced. ...Check that, the reality is a "state" of the psyche at any given moment.

Sounds rather bizarre to say that reality has "functions." People have functions, but apart from that, they also 'emit' information independent of those psychic functions, and this information consists of 8 aspects...

Unless I missed the point and this whole thread is a subtle logical joke about balls... (I assumed it was serious, but now I'm not so sure)

[tcaudilllg]

Information can only be processed by functions. The psyche and reality are the same, because the psyche is everything that can be consciously experienced. ...Check that, the reality is a "state" of the psyche at any given moment.

Sounds rather bizarre to say that reality has "functions." People have functions, but apart from that, they also 'emit' information independent of those psychic functions, and this information consists of 8 aspects...

Unless I missed the point and this whole thread is a subtle logical joke about balls... (I assumed it was serious, but now I'm not so sure)

Bizzare is the way of psychology.

Seeing that I don't trust Rick that much (although his work to translate socionics texts is indeed helpful), I'm not going to associate with him. He seems to have a bit of distrust in my judgement, necessarily because he is perceiving what my principles as invalid and dangerous. (in other words, he's a critic of mine. The feeling is mutual)

Rick, let's make a deal: I won't interfere in any of your discussions, if you won't interfere with mine. I'll warn you you are messing with something you're not understanding, regardless of you functional preferences.

Anyway, I was conducting my conversation with non-critics, right? Yes, that other 2/3 of the population: those who either share the same providence as I, or are neither under ours nor "theirs". (the middle, independent voters, etc.) Best to evade this all out assault by my shadow, yes....

Of course I'm not naive enough anymore to believe that I'm alone in facing these incarnated sources of self-doubt we call "critics". It's just the price of existence, as we discussed above.

Back on topic, I've been thinking a lot about Sycophant's question about how INTJs feel about balls. I can't say now what I feel about a ball... my emotions are quite distant from me, and limited to a sense of reaction. (they are unconscious, after all) I would wonder first how the ball got there. But only after my initial, unconscious reaction of perceiving the ball.
Specifically, I'd ask "who left it here, and why?" I'd then apply my role function in determining how best to react to the ball in a social context; like, is it socially OK if I touch it, or will that be frowned upon by people. If I have a motive for touching the ball, however, then I will assert my second function, extroversion, to understand the providential motive of my need to touch the ball; so to say, how my interacting with the ball fits into the grand plan of my friends, too. (adolescent INTJs can't do this, BTW) Extroversion follows the external patterns of the world and reports its findings to introversion.

Has anyone had any insights about where to go from here? Bringing in relativity to the equation has produced a lot of uncertainty in me, simply because I have more information available than I know what to do with. There is a lot of information to be derived from the union of psychology with physics, but as an INTJ I need guidance to know which information to derive when. I feel almost threatened by chaos.

The point of this discussion, as I had set it from the outset, was not to discuss how the different types perceive the ball. That was only a means to an end. The point was to logically, intuitively establish that the functions of the psyche and the physics they experience are inexorably wedded by the laws of reason. By tying the unconscious to a material object, and necessarily ascribing personality to that object, one opens the door to understanding the world's psychodynamic nature. This nature implies that every point in space has the potential to be perceived as one or more aspects of psychological functioning. This idea is actually not as new as it may sound: the idea of a tensor--a set of functions that are native to every point in space--is the cornerstone of the general theory of relativity. That is what the psyche is: a tensor field.

In relativity, fields operate by exchanging energy between their points. These points each have multiple aspects (Einstein's model had 256 aspects, of which 160 were independent of each other) and a seperate energy level for each aspect. No aspect can gain energy without a corrsponding loss of energy by another aspect of the same point. In this way, a point in relativity is very much like a personality: the personality has a ceiling of energy that is divided amongst eight functions, each with their own energy level. These functions, being components of the larger function that we call the personality, can be likened to the aspects of particles in general relativity.

To describe how these functions truely interact, without a model that is simple and prone to inaccuracies (and therefore chaotic), one must apply the Lorentz transformation which when applied to the speed of light produces special relativity, and general relativity when coupled with the idea of a tensor. If the total psychic energy available to the personality must be divided amongst the functions, then no function can have total access to the full psyche potential at any given time without collapsing the consciousness of the other functions. This necessarily would diminish the personality and break Socionics, no less. One can only conclude that in the differentiated psyche that Socionics and MBTI (among others) postulate no function can ever acheive the upper limit. Therefore its potential over a period of time is unlimited, but fixed for any given moment. The Lorentz transformation specifically applies to these conditions. It doesn't matter what the 'c' term in the transformation is; only that it meets the total energy available to the psyche. (e.g., the total energy the brain can process to produce the psyche)

This is all I've yet deduced. Has anyone else had new insights?

...Actually there is something else I have deduced that I feel should be mentioned. If the psyche is composed of complexes, as psychologists in all fields tend to agree, and a complex is defined as a system that is capable of reorienting energy to sustain its own integrity, then the brain itself doubles as a physical complex and as a psychic complex, because it performs the dual function of organizing the body to procure resources for its own maintenance, and simultaneously produces a personality capable of reinforcing itself through communication with other personalities. Given that the eight functions are tied to the perception of space itself, one can only conclude that the function of the brain is to act as a complex of a specific ordering of those functions, and a force to order the aspects of reality in correspondence to its own functional ordering.

So to say, we are the wills of reality toward specific ends.

If this postulate can be proven, it would seem to me to have profound implications for the meaning of human existence.

[tcaudilllg]

After some further study and consideration, it is evident that a proof the above hypothesis--that four dimensional psychological function is indeed the source of all reality and is a native attribute of every point in space--is indeed possible once the functional conseqences of the constant velocity of light--and therefore information propagation--are considered.

I wish to emphasize that the following discussion does not refer at any time directly to socionics or its processes. Therefore, use of the terms "contrary" and "conflicting" is not to be seen as immediately corresponding to the socionics relations of the same names. We shall see, however, that this discussion is intimately relevant to socionics itself, because socionics, as we shall see, is a formal manifestation of it.

Returning to our consideration of the relative perceptions of observers moving and not moving, we find the following:

Relations between two opposites:

Stationary observer "S.O." (1st function)
Moving observer "M.O." (2nd function)

The stationary observer observes the state of the moving observer not as they
are, but as they were when the communication effort took place. There is a
time delay between information receipt and its transmission. The stationary
observer responds with the information provided to him by the second (after
internally processing and suitably modifying it with his own information),
which the moving observer has already moved past internally. The moving observer
does not understand that the stationary observer is still talking about what
they themselves were when they made the communication.

4|--+--+--+--+
 |  |  |  |  |
3|--S.O.--+--+
 |  |  |  |  |
2|>-M.O.>->>->
 |  |  |  |  |
1|--+--+--+--+
 |__|__|__|__|
0   1  2  3  4

So we see the root of dissonance between INTPs and INTJs, or indeed, by analysis, between perceivers and judges in general, or between any oppositional pairing.

When we consider how two moving observers perceive each other, the situation changes subtly. We find that two observers who are moving alongside one another in the same direction--or any two functions, for that matter--will not perceive that either of them are moving at all. Therefore we find that two relational perceptions yet remain to be considered: contrary and conflicting opposition.

Relations between two contrary opposites:

Increasing/positive observer "I.O." (1st function)
Perpendicular/neutral observer "P.O." (2nd function)

The information exchanged between the observers is received only after it has
already been considered by the other of the pair. This is because the information
is intercepted by the contrary observer only after the countervailing contrary
has already moved well past it. Although both are at the same level of
understanding at any given time, the information received by the observers from
each other appears incomplete and outdated in respect to the understanding
obtained since the original transmission.

4|--+--+--\/-+
 |  |  |  \/ |
3|--+--+-P.O.+
 |  |  |  \/ |
2|--+--+--\/-+
 |>-I.O.>->>->
1|--+--+--\/-+
 |__|__|__\/_|
0   1  2  3  4

Relations between two conflicting opposites:

Increaing/positive observer "I.O." (1st function)
Decreasing/negative observer "D.O." (2nd function)

The information transmitted between the observers reaches the observers
before the observers themselves meet. (because the observers must
be traveling at less than the rate of information propagation) The observers
therefore see their own ideas at times in advance of their own understanding
of them. At which time the observer's own understanding of their ideas
matures to the point of their counterpart at the time of their transmission, the
counterpart has advanced along their own line of communication to the same
of the observer. Therefore every subsequent transmission of information between
the two appears to each the other as archaic and regressive to their own
understanding.

4|--+--+--+--+
 |  |  |  |  |
3|<-<<-<<D.O.<
 |  |  |  |  |
2|--+--+--+--+
 |>-I.O.>->>->
1|--+--+--+--+
 |__|__|__|__|
0   1  2  3  4

It is observed, therefore, that although four forces are possible on a
two-dimensional plane of observation, only three are ever subjectively perceived.

In three-dimensional observational "space", one can objectively postulate the
existence of two more forces, these forces being perpendicular to both the
opposing sides and their countervailing (perpendicular) sides. This force pairing
(in opposition) travels along the third axis (Z), the axis of depth, in relation
to the other four. This postulation of this third force possibility is only an
objective one; any one of the forces still only perceives three different
directions of thought, because of the six four are perpendicular to them, and
are perceived indifferently from each other.

At this point a definite correlation can be drawn between the perceived
effects of the relativity principle and the subjective postulations of depth
psychology. On one hand, the triality of the ego, the superego, and the id is
apparent as a relatively perceived dissonance between internal motives in a
personality: even though more than three internal forces may exist, only three
are perceived. Simultaneously, we may draw a definite correlation between the
emergence of the four analytical functions C.G. Jung postulated and the relative
perceptions of the opposite and the indifferent, and corresponding archetype
of wholeness from the three. Objectively observing the triality concept, therefore,
we identify four or six functions as underlying the subjective observation of
triality: the archetype of wholeness, represented by the four sided quaternity.
To this archetype (which we identify henceforth as a direct consequence of
the invarying velocity of light ("invariance")) we may correspond the form of what
Jung called the oppositional pairs of thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition.
As thinking opposes feeling, or sensation opposes intuition, the two pairs are
indifferent to each other and even complementary. A function of one pair may
subordinate a function of the other, or even work alongside it as an equal, for
the purpose of oppressing the other two of the four. (consider by corresponding
analogy the typologies/elementologies that proceeded Jung, including Aristotle's
"wind, water, earth, fire" and "four temperaments" of men, among many, many others in philosophy, myth, and fantasy) Adding another dimension completes Jung's model: the third
dimension of depth allows the formal manifestation of another oppositional pair,
introversion and extroversion (the "attitude"), to complement any of the other
four in the interest of overwhelming their opposites. Although Jung postulates
that the introverted and extroverted functions take a lead, even dominant role
in this endevour, the role of invariance in the formation of the wholeness
archetype makes no such stipulations.

A further fourth dimension may be considered, too--that of time--but we may easily
reckon that this fourth dimension may not be considered perpendicular to any one
of the previous three. Indeed, it may only be reckoned in the process of
reinforcement and change between the three. Given that the invariance principle
of special relativity does not account for changes in velocity (reckoned as
acceleration and deceleration) between functions, we correspondingly may not
reckon the fourth dimension as explainable by the special relativistic model;
indeed, we are compelled to consider the general theory of relativistic action
in accelerating (changing) reference frames. In the consideration of the generally applicable model, we will establish the precise natures of all relational possibilities between functions, and correspondingly demonstrate the objective proof underlying our heretofore tentative agreement between the five observers that the ball--and indeed, all unconscioiusly perceived content--is indeed in possession of personality.

[Cone]

Alright, lots of information here, and it all looks quite interesting. But ugh, it's going to take forever to process everything here. So I'll start by replying with one post for every post.

In particular, if the ball is perceived by judges as having a perceptive quality, and by perceivers as having a judging quality, then a familiar analogy emerges (to physicists, at least): the perceiver identifies the ball as a material, static quality that is without action. (a state or judgement) It is at rest relative to the perceiver. The judge perceives the ball as having a perceptive quality of action: the ball is not at rest; simply, it is not successfully moving. But it may still be moving.

Accordingly, in each system of perception on party is at rest relative to another party that is perceived to be moving, because the act of judgement is an observation of an immobile state, and perception is by its nature an activity: therefore a object whose quality is perceptive is in a state of movement relative to the judge who perceives it. In one case the ball is the judge; in another the observer is.

Ok, I am going to expand upon this using a bit different terminology. I agree with everything, except I do not know if using states of motion is the best idea to define the dichotomy of judgment/perception. It seems like there are more universal concepts found in logic, such as the one I will use here, the affirmation/negation dichotomy. See if you agree.

I will also split judgment/perception into both conscious and unconscious manifestations in order to make my point.

perception (conscious) = all affirmative properties of the ball (it is x)
judgment (conscious) = all negative properties of the ball (it is not x)

What this means is that the conscious perceptive viewpoint sees the properties of the ball in the affirmative (i.e. the ball is at rest). The ball is assigned all properties of which are independent from anything that is not contained in the ball. For example, we may say not only the ball is at rest, but also the ball is red, it is rubbery, and it is a perfect spherical shape. What this implies is that the ball can only exist in the state it is currently in. Any change is impossible. Note also that this correlates with your notion of unconscious judgment being "static". However, the way I am explaining this is more complex, so the "unconscious" portion of the paradigm will be explained after the next paragraph.

Conscious judgment sees the ball rather from its negative properties (i.e. the ball is not moving). The ball has properties which are defined relative to its other possible states and also other possible balls. For example, we may say the ball is not green, it is not hard, and it is not cube-shaped. We may also say that this ball is not like another ball in a different state. What this implies is that the ball is judged from what it could possibly be, and not from what it is, like conscious perception. Note that this correlates with your notion of unconscious perception being a case of "unsuccessful movement". Basically, it could be moving, however it is not.

Now, let's say an unbiased actor arrives in the room and nudges the ball a bit, causing it to go into a state of motion. How do the two viewpoints view the ball now?

Well, this is where the unconscious functions must come into play. The ball has now become dynamic, in the way that one of its properties has been altered. Since it has changed, it comes into existence as an independent entity of one's own viewpoint. Where previously we saw the ball as an imprint on our own viewpoints, and thus part of our viewpoints, the ball is now changing independent of any change in our viewpoints.

perception (unconscious) = manifestation of a negative property to an affirmative property of the ball
judgment (unconscious) = change in an affirmative property of the ball

Since conscious perception sees the ball as it is, the currently moving ball becomes a whole separate entity from the previously resting ball. Unconscious judgment sees an alteration of the ball's inherent properties. Thus, the ball is now moving. The ball is seen as having two possible states, rest and movement.

Unconscious perception, on the other hand, sees the movement of the ball as a manifestation of a possibility. A negative property now becomes an affirmative property. The ball is seen as having two possible states along a continuous line, either movement or non-movement. Although the difference between unconscious judgment and here is that movement is seen as one property with an affirmative and a negation, instead of two independent properties, like unconscious judgment sees it as.

[UDP]

By analogy, good eventually attacks itself. This attack weakens good and divides it, opening the door to evil. Evil attacks good until it can no longer attack good without attacking itself. This in turn opens the door to the redemption of good.

first, you went through an awful lot of unneccesary stuff. You should have just said you were thinking about Einstien/relativity in the first place.

secondly, good and evil........ let not go there. How about positive and negative energies, etc?

[UDP]

So to say, we are the wills of reality toward specific ends.

If this postulate can be proven, it would seem to me to have profound implications for the meaning of human existence.

......

thus society and diversity in general..........

does that fit what you are getting at?

[wym123]

tcaudilllg, I honestly thought that the you were just making a joke but I now realize that you are serious. You should read this: Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity and its commentary: A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies

You might find them very enlightening.

[Ms. Kensington]

I don't think I have grasped the idea about ball perception.

hahahhahaa

i do agree with the part about seeing a ball as capable of movement for a xxxj ! that was kind of striking

[tcaudilllg]

tcaudilllg, I honestly thought that the you were just making a joke but I now realize that you are serious. You should read this: Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity and its commentary: A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies

You might find them very enlightening.

My God... I've never seen so many references/acknowledgements!

I was thinking that would be a gigantic paper that I might learn something from... and instead it's just a summary of the state of the art of physics!

I did sympathize with this statement, though.

T]he dialogical move towards redefining systems, of seeing the world not only as an ecological whole but as a set of competing systems -- a world held together by the tensions among various natural and human interests -- offers the possibility of redefining what science is and what it does, of restructuring deterministic schemes of scientific education in favor of ongoing dialogues about how we intervene in our environment.92

That is the mission of every INTJ of our generation: the enemy is not in other humans, but in the cosmos itself. And I think in this thread I have demonstrated, relativistically, just that.

Before you question my understanding of physics... look up "TonyC" on Google. Also, know that I've been an avid reader of this book.

I don't want to fight you, wym123, but you should understand by now that I can't give this ground without giving up in myself.

[wym123]

Um... you understand that the whole paper was a joke right? It was a satire designed to make fun of papers like yours. You didn't read the commentary.

What's going on here? Could the editors reallynot have realized that my article was written as a parody?
.
.
.
In the second paragraph I declare, without the slightest evidence or argument, that ``physical `reality' [note the scare quotes] ... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.'' Not our theoriesof physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)

Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously. For example, I suggest that the ``morphogenetic field'' -- a bizarre New Age idea due to Rupert Sheldrake -- constitutes a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity. This connection is pure invention; even Sheldrake makes no such claim. I assert that Lacan's psychoanalytic speculations have been confirmed by recent work in quantum field theory. Even nonscientist readers might well wonder what in heavens' name quantum field theory has to do with psychoanalysis; certainly my article gives no reasoned argument to support such a link.

Later in the article I propose that the axiom of equality in mathematical set theory is somehow analogous to the homonymous concept in feminist politics. In reality, all the axiom of equality states is that two sets are identical if and only if they have the same elements. Even readers without mathematical training might well be suspicious of the claim that the axiom of equality reflects set theory's ``nineteenth-century liberal origins.''

[tcaudilllg]

Um... you understand that the whole paper was a joke right? It was a satire designed to make fun of papers like yours. You didn't read the commentary.

What's going on here? Could the editors reallynot have realized that my article was written as a parody?
.
.
.
In the second paragraph I declare, without the slightest evidence or argument, that ``physical `reality' [note the scare quotes] ... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.'' Not our theoriesof physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)

Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously. For example, I suggest that the ``morphogenetic field'' -- a bizarre New Age idea due to Rupert Sheldrake -- constitutes a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity. This connection is pure invention; even Sheldrake makes no such claim. I assert that Lacan's psychoanalytic speculations have been confirmed by recent work in quantum field theory. Even nonscientist readers might well wonder what in heavens' name quantum field theory has to do with psychoanalysis; certainly my article gives no reasoned argument to support such a link.

Later in the article I propose that the axiom of equality in mathematical set theory is somehow analogous to the homonymous concept in feminist politics. In reality, all the axiom of equality states is that two sets are identical if and only if they have the same elements. Even readers without mathematical training might well be suspicious of the claim that the axiom of equality reflects set theory's ``nineteenth-century liberal origins.''

Well, seeing as if you truely transgress social conventions you will end up dead (those psychotics will be more than happy to put your transgressing days to an end), that isn't such a spurious statement.

Feminist politics would better be analogized to "system k'" though, relatively speaking.

You've got to understand that we s don't easily perceive things like "parody", especially us intuitive subtypes. We're simply too serious.

[Raver]

Is the point of this thread to discuss that when we are observing an action or an object unconsciously, we do it in a manner that is completely opposite to how we view things consciously. Our unconscious mind completely contrasts our conscious mind, therefore deep inside everything we are not still exists, but is not shown only used. Therefore, every personality available is a part of us, but one of them have won the war to claim consciousness. The others remain in solitude and try to attempt to show themselves with little success except when required.

[tcaudilllg]

Is the point of this thread to discuss that when we are observing an action or an object unconsciously, we do it in a manner that is completely opposite to how we view things consciously. Our unconscious mind completely contrasts our conscious mind, therefore deep inside everything we are not still exists, but is not shown only used. Therefore, every personality available is a part of us, but one of them have won the war to claim consciousness. The others remain in solitude and try to attempt to show themselves with little success except when required.

Right. That's what we're trying to prove here.

[wym123]

Is the point of this thread to discuss that when we are observing an action or an object unconsciously, we do it in a manner that is completely opposite to how we view things consciously. Our unconscious mind completely contrasts our conscious mind, therefore deep inside everything we are not still exists, but is not shown only used. Therefore, every personality available is a part of us, but one of them have won the war to claim consciousness. The others remain in solitude and try to attempt to show themselves with little success except when required.

Right. That's what we're trying to prove here.

Can you tell me your education background please?

[tcaudilllg]

Is the point of this thread to discuss that when we are observing an action or an object unconsciously, we do it in a manner that is completely opposite to how we view things consciously. Our unconscious mind completely contrasts our conscious mind, therefore deep inside everything we are not still exists, but is not shown only used. Therefore, every personality available is a part of us, but one of them have won the war to claim consciousness. The others remain in solitude and try to attempt to show themselves with little success except when required.

Right. That's what we're trying to prove here.

Can you tell me your education background please?

Why do you want to know? And why is it important? Do not ideas find merit in their own integrity?

Most of the people here don't have psychological backgrounds. Some are working on them. I was due to return to school earlier this year, but I had to withdraw from lack of funds. Getting ready to give her another go soon, now that my tax return is in. (couldn't get financial aid because I misplaced my tax return. :\ And I hate the competitive principle of scholarships.)

[wym123]

Is the point of this thread to discuss that when we are observing an action or an object unconsciously, we do it in a manner that is completely opposite to how we view things consciously. Our unconscious mind completely contrasts our conscious mind, therefore deep inside everything we are not still exists, but is not shown only used. Therefore, every personality available is a part of us, but one of them have won the war to claim consciousness. The others remain in solitude and try to attempt to show themselves with little success except when required.

Right. That's what we're trying to prove here.

Can you tell me your education background please?

Why do you want to know? And why is it important? Do not ideas find merit in their own integrity?

Most of the people here don't have psychological backgrounds. Some are working on them. I was due to return to school earlier this year, but I had to withdraw from lack of funds. Getting ready to give her another go soon, now that my tax return is in. (couldn't get financial aid because I misplaced my tax return. :\ And I hate the competitive principle of scholarships.)

The fact is, your ideas have no integrity and there is a reason for that (which might be in your education). The funny thing is, you don't realize it. I really don't understand why anyone would attempt something as idiotic as this.

Did you read the essays I linked? Did you understand the meaning of the essay and what it was trying to say?

[tcaudilllg]

The fact is, your ideas have no integrity and there is a reason for that (which might be in your education). The funny thing is, you don't realize it. I really don't understand why anyone would attempt something as idiotic as this.

Did you read the essays I linked? Did you understand the meaning of the essay and what it was trying to say?

Wait a moment--what do you consider "integrity"? What gives an idea "integrity" from your perspective?

You remind me of this person.

http://okcupid.com/profile?tuid=16433974495843694483

[wym123]

The fact is, your ideas have no integrity and there is a reason for that (which might be in your education). The funny thing is, you don't realize it. I really don't understand why anyone would attempt something as idiotic as this.

Did you read the essays I linked? Did you understand the meaning of the essay and what it was trying to say?

Wait a moment--what do you consider "integrity"? What gives an idea "integrity" from your perspective?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-defined
This also applies to Philosophy and many other schools of thought. The only subject where this concept doesn't apply is probably in literature, where vagueness and multiple interpretations are highly vagued, so literary critics and scholars can spend eternity arguing about what the author really meant. This is also why Math is extremely important when it comes to formulating scientific hypotheses. The precision of Math is highly valued and it is essentially, the language of science.

This isn't the only problem with your writing. A bigger problem is that you are misunderstanding what Relativity really is. I suppose, your lack of such precision is what cause you to think of such ideas in the first place.

You remind me of this person.

http://okcupid.com/profile?tuid=16433974495843694483

There is one difference. I have not flaunted my entire life and my achievements on this message board. If you do notice some similiarities, it is all in your head.

[tcaudilllg]

I understand perfectly well what relativity is. In particular, I understand that it is a fundamental aspect of the world and that everything about the world must be subject to it and perceivable in terms of it, because everything is due to it. So in every single idea, relativity may be found to play a role.

I'm only now beginning to understand the consequences of this role, however.

If the opposite is the corresponding system to the original, and the neutral is the corresponding system to the partisan, then in that case there exists correspondences for every side. There corresponds then an opposite correspondence system for the original, and neutral correspondence systems for the original and the opposite correspondence systems, and this correspondence "group" in turn has an opposite... and a neutral... etc.

And at each "level" of correspondence depth, there are (4^n - 4^(n-1)) more systems being considered. An inverse square relation between the levels is perceived. I know this has an immediate relevance to the problem... but how?

Actually... I think I understand what to do. Considering the entire "real" unconscious is impossible. Better to consider a small "model" unconscious of say, 16 people, and how energy transfers between them: under what conditions one of the 16 could die, in particular.

[FDG]

The fact is, your ideas have no integrity and there is a reason for that (which might be in your education). The funny thing is, you don't realize it. I really don't understand why anyone would attempt something as idiotic as this.

Did you read the essays I linked? Did you understand the meaning of the essay and what it was trying to say?

Wait a moment--what do you consider "integrity"? What gives an idea "integrity" from your perspective?

You remind me of this person.

http://okcupid.com/profile?tuid=16433974495843694483

I can't see anything wrong with this guy, really. If you think he brags too much, you're paranoid.

[tcaudilllg]

The fact is, your ideas have no integrity and there is a reason for that (which might be in your education). The funny thing is, you don't realize it. I really don't understand why anyone would attempt something as idiotic as this.

Did you read the essays I linked? Did you understand the meaning of the essay and what it was trying to say?

Wait a moment--what do you consider "integrity"? What gives an idea "integrity" from your perspective?

You remind me of this person.

http://okcupid.com/profile?tuid=16433974495843694483

I don't think anything bad of him. I was just saying he's emotionally indifferent, and he makes that very point. From what I can perceive, wym123 and he have that in common.

I can't see anything wrong with this guy, really. If you think he brags too much, you're paranoid.

[wym123]

I understand perfectly well what relativity is. In particular, I understand that it is a fundamental aspect of the world and that everything about the world must be subject to it and perceivable in terms of it, because everything is due to it.

Yea, we assume that it is the case for all laws of physics; they are applicable to the entire universe. What makes Special Relativity so special?

So in every single idea, relativity may be found to play a role.

Relativity does not play a role in EVERY kind of ideas, just only the ideas about the spatial and temporal seperations between two seperate events. For example, just because I saw two events happen one seconds apart does not mean that someone else saw them happen one seconds apart.

Is this related to Psychology/Socionics/MBTI/etc? Absolutely not! It has nothing to do with perception of the mind. Heck, we can replace the measuring/perception devices with computers.

If the opposite is the corresponding system to the original, and the neutral is the corresponding system to the partisan, then in that case there exists correspondences for every side. There corresponds then an opposite correspondence system for the original, and neutral correspondence systems for the original and the opposite correspondence systems, and this correspondence "group" in turn has an opposite... and a neutral... etc.

And at each "level" of correspondence depth, there are (4^n - 4^(n-1)) more systems being considered. An inverse square relation between the levels is perceived. I know this has an immediate relevance to the problem... but how?

Actually... I think I understand what to do. Considering the entire "real" unconscious is impossible. Better to consider a small "model" unconscious of say, 16 people, and how energy transfers between them: under what conditions one of the 16 could die, in particular.

Do you honestly expect people to understand what you are saying?

How do define a system? How do you define corresponding (you didn't indicate "to what" and "in what way")? What is the original? What is this "correspondence depth?" I guess you didn't understand what I meant by specifying your ideas in a well-defined manner.