Results 1 to 40 of 60

Thread: My beef with the function definitions (field, external, etc)

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default My beef with the function definitions (field, external, etc)

    My problem is that there is no ontological difference between statics and dynamics. The assumption that there is such a difference yields problems in physics (Einsteinian relativity).

    Time is simply a dimension of spatial reality along which a subjective observer moves.

    Time is inherently linked to subjectivity this way. It is an illusion given rise to by one's subjective movement through space. The fact that we travel along the dimension of time makes it seem special to us. In reality, it is a spatial dimension like any other.

    Oh, right. The fact we call it a dimension also emerges from subjectivity. It is established as a dimension so one has a reference point. Other spatial dimensions are then established in relation to this temporal dimension and aren't exempt from scrutiny either, but to consider them at least a part of the world we represents doesn't yield nearly as many problems.

    Having established what time really is: the succession of states of one's subjectivity, I have solved the problem (old news, I have been using these definitions for years) of what the Dynamic functions should really be called: phenomenological. They concern the study of appearances and impressions. They are the subjective material from which our representations of the world are built up. This conclusion is also supported by the easy at which they can be used to create an interpretation of Accepting/Creating and Limiting/Empowering with.

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let me try to argue the point another way.

    Suppose you have two representations of an object:
    1. a sequential representation of a line that grows at a constant rate and then shrinks at the same rate for the same time as it grew.
    2. a static, 2 dimensional image of a mathematical diamond

    Now display the sequential representation by outputting the sequence of lines from left to right on paper.

    The result is representation 2.

    The information contained in the two is identical. Only the trivial detail of how the two are displayed differs. Is the difference between socionical functions really dependent on such a triviality?

  3. #3
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How can you be sure that time exists in states nonetheless? Isn't it equally as possible that we are limited in intelligence to perceive states from something that is more inherently stateless, or rather simply relative as Einstein might put it?

    I'm just asking because the concept of time always seemed frightening to me since there is a possibility that it does not exist in states like a video game or movie might with a frame rate, but as something separate and incomprehensible to me.

    Let me try to argue the point another way.

    Suppose you have two representations of an object:
    1. a sequential representation of a line that grows at a constant rate and then shrinks at the same rate for the same time as it grew.
    2. a static, 2 dimensional image of a mathematical diamond

    Now display the sequential representation by outputting the sequence of lines from left to right on paper.

    The result is representation 2.

    The information contained in the two is identical. Only the trivial detail of how the two are displayed differs. Is the difference between socionical functions really dependent on such a triviality?
    I'm not following this, sorry. Care to explain it with more detail?

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How can you be sure that time exists in states nonetheless?
    I think it is quite a tenable position that the "states" are also generated by subjectivity, in other words, made just because they are useful to us. Despite this, though, these separations that create states are the only thing through which we are able to know the world. Immanuel Kant believed there is something about subjectivity that is rational in a "trancendent" way, so despite that these separations are subject-relative, they need not necessarily be arbitrary.

    Isn't it equally as possible that we are limited in intelligence to perceive states from something that is more inherently stateless, or rather simply relative as Einstein might put it?
    We seem to be able to understand infinitely dense graduations of change by observing them at iterative depth. I think in as far as we are not able to register a change in our experiences as a distinct states, this is due to our failing to notice them. As soon as there is a basis for the perception of a difference there is a basis for a separation between two states.

    I'm not following this, sorry. Care to explain it with more detail?
    I'm basically saying that a movie that is displayed on a TV screen and the tape on which the movie is recorded contain the same information. The fact that in one (TV) the images are displaced in time and in the other (tape) the images are displaced in space (from left to right on the tape) is rather trivial.

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    We seem to be able to understand infinitely dense graduations of change by observing them at iterative depth.
    Problem with this is that we can not do this with our experiences, only with sequences in spatial reality. We can revisit the latter, but not the former. Hence why I adress gradual experience in the next sentence.

  6. #6
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Only the trivial detail of how the two are displayed differs.
    Doesn't this mean that, even if the information is the same, the way of receiving/understanding/processing it is different?

    You're also saying "Well, I can present Dynamic information in a static form!" because the two are very readily translated (time flows, or alternatively it's a sequence of infinitely narrow states). I can just as easily say that your static image of a diamond has been filled up or coloured in or whatever.

    Well, almost, because a static diamond is sort of ambiguous in Dynamic terms, as there's a variety of ways you could get to that diamond (it could've grown, you could've coloured it in from right to left, or top to bottom; or the opposite of any of these), and a variety of ways in which that process could continue.

    So, actually, the information isn't the same, not exactly. I think. I might've misunderstood something in your first post though.

    EDIT

    And also, you keep going on about subjectivity like it's contaminating socionics, but socionics is about how we perceive reality, so it's sort of vital to consider, isn't it?

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    We seem to be able to understand infinitely dense graduations of change by observing them at iterative depth.
    Another important thing: we keep deepening our perception of the graduation and then have to make an induction along the lines of "I could go on like this forever" for us to understand the nature of infinitely dense gradual change. But again, we can only do this to a change along a spatial dimension that we can re-visit and control our movement around.

  8. #8
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My beef with your beef, is that, while the mechanisms of human perception are subject to the laws of physics, their subjective methods of apprehending and incorporating information are not. Pretty simple.

  9. #9
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Doesn't this mean that, even if the information is the same, the way of receiving/understanding/processing it is different?
    Yes, but it seems to me to be unsatisfying that the difference in processing is based on something that is ontologically so trivial, unless the focus on time simply means a focus on the progression of states in ones subjectivity.

    You're also saying "Well, I can present Dynamic information in a static form!" because the two are very readily translated (time flows, or alternatively it's a sequence of infinitely narrow states). I can just as easily say that your static image of a diamond has been filled up or coloured in or whatever.
    I think its trivial which of the two is more real or which is "fundamental". The two are so easily translated that you have to wonder whether they should be named separately at all.

    Well, almost, because a static diamond is sort of ambiguous in Dynamic terms, as there's a variety of ways you could get to that diamond (it could've grown, you could've coloured it in from right to left, or top to bottom; or the opposite of any of these), and a variety of ways in which that process could continue.

    So, actually, the information isn't the same, not exactly. I think. I might've misunderstood something in your first post though.
    But each of these methods of arriving at the diamond has its own greater static representation of which the diamond in the final state is only a minor part.

    And also, you keep going on about subjectivity like it's contaminating socionics, but socionics is about how we perceive reality, so it's sort of vital to consider, isn't it?
    I don't think its contaminating socionics and I agree that it is vital to consider it.

  10. #10
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  11. #11
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Joy, shut the fuck up.

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You have to be a complete moron not to see that Te is the most empiricist function.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    If I had to briefly and casually describe Te I'd say it's about what's going on from a very literal and practical standpoint. It's related to events and actions.
    Practical means you can work with it. Emphasis on you. Practicality means not giving a damn about the value of an idea apart from how it gets you ahead. Its a very subject-relative notion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss
    I disagree with example of "Te", by the way. Te isn't classification of objects. Te is explicit actions of objects, which usually relates to how useful something is (for a given purpose).
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinocchio
    Exactly. Ti is the classification of objects. Classifications themselves are field information, adding "objects" doesn't change anything.
    Guess what, I never said anything about classification of objects. You are both fighting a strawman.

  13. #13
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,813
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    My beef with your beef, is that, while the mechanisms of human perception are subject to the laws of physics, their subjective methods of apprehending and incorporating information are not. Pretty simple.
    Yeah. Exactly.

    Your post was interesting though in that it was definitely how a Ti-ego INTj would see the functions. But I mean that's still not the objectively best way to describe them as. Maybe the function definitions aren't perfect, but they are as scientifically perfect as we can get IMO.

    I think a lot of people undervalue the work that the original creators put into this theory. Things like 'External dynamics of fields' to describe functions is like still the most accurate, don't see how you could make them better than that.

  14. #14
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Your post was interesting though in that it was definitely how a Ti-ego INTj would see the functions.
    Exactly, lol. It sounded very static.

    The thing about static vs. dynamic is that everyone's conscious functions are either all static or all dynamic (as opposed to external vs. internal and objects vs. fields), so theoretically it wouldn't really be possible to consciously comprehend a static perspective if you're dynamic or a dynamic perspective if you're static.

    None of this actually matters anyways though, lol.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  15. #15
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not suggesting this is all a matter of perspective, though. The position that reality is primarily temporal is just untenable. To focus on dynamic functions is to focus on something other than the stable, outer reality. It is to focus on private experience instead.

    You'll notice that the description of Static/Dynamic in the Reinin descriptions emphasizes subjective experience in the description of Dynamic.

  16. #16
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let's talk about something else. Objectivity and subjectivity.

    I've done enough research on these terms to know and be able to demonstrate that these are ambiguous terms in both colloquial speech and professional usage.

    In some contexts it means something along the lines of the study of appearances vs. the study of outer reality.

    In some other contexts, it means something more along the lines of empirically justified vs. based on ideosyncratic, unjustified judgment.

    Now, much what we understand about introversion vs. extroversion is based on these notions of subjectivity and objectivity.

    And it so happens that we find this ambiguity in our socionics definitions too.

    Te is objective because it is empirically justified.
    Se, on the other hand, is objective because it involves the study of outer reality.
    Ti is subjective because it is ideosyncratic and unjustified.
    Si is subjective because it involves the study of appearances.

    So, the introvert/extrovert property refers to something very flimsy and inconstant.

  17. #17
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Next, zoom in on Te. I link this to empiricism. What does this mean?

    It means that all judgments are reduced to practical measurements.

    A measurement is something made from a subjective position. It is subjectively best understood as a clear distinction between two phenomenal states. "I see the difference between these two; I measure a difference".

    This is how Te is a function closely related to phenomenology (the study of appearances).

  18. #18
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    My problem is that there is no ontological difference between statics and dynamics. The assumption that there is such a difference yields problems in physics (Einsteinian relativity).

    Time is simply a dimension of spatial reality along which a subjective observer moves.

    Time is inherently linked to subjectivity this way. It is an illusion given rise to by one's subjective movement through space. The fact that we travel along the dimension of time makes it seem special to us. In reality, it is a spatial dimension like any other.

    Oh, right. The fact we call it a dimension also emerges from subjectivity. It is established as a dimension so one has a reference point. Other spatial dimensions are then established in relation to this temporal dimension and aren't exempt from scrutiny either, but to consider them at least a part of the world we represents doesn't yield nearly as many problems.

    Having established what time really is: the succession of states of one's subjectivity, I have solved the problem (old news, I have been using these definitions for years) of what the Dynamic functions should really be called: phenomenological. They concern the study of appearances and impressions. They are the subjective material from which our representations of the world are built up. This conclusion is also supported by the easy at which they can be used to create an interpretation of Accepting/Creating and Limiting/Empowering with.
    (:
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  19. #19
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Time is simply a dimension of spatial reality along which a subjective observer moves.
    *sigh*. Time isn't simply anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Only the trivial detail of how the two are displayed differs. Is the difference between socionical functions really dependent on such a triviality?
    Yes. That is, like, the whole point. Especially introverted and extroverted versions of the same function, the difference is primarily one of emphasis, and ditto with Fi&Ni, Si&Ti, Se&Te, Ne&Fe. The functions that are the most different (in aspectonics and, I think, in the theory as a whole) are the complementary pairs. Although I didn't understand how 1 ended up being 2. It kind of gave me a headache thinking about it, so I didn't try.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    My beef with your beef, is that, while the mechanisms of human perception are subject to the laws of physics, their subjective methods of apprehending and incorporating information are not. Pretty simple.
    lol. Solved.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    USA
    TIM
    ENTp_sub me
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    My problem is that there is no ontological difference between statics and dynamics. The assumption that there is such a difference yields problems in physics (Einsteinian relativity).

    Time is simply a dimension of spatial reality along which a subjective observer moves.

    Time is inherently linked to subjectivity this way. It is an illusion given rise to by one's subjective movement through space. The fact that we travel along the dimension of time makes it seem special to us. In reality, it is a spatial dimension like any other.

    Oh, right. The fact we call it a dimension also emerges from subjectivity. It is established as a dimension so one has a reference point. Other spatial dimensions are then established in relation to this temporal dimension and aren't exempt from scrutiny either, but to consider them at least a part of the world we represents doesn't yield nearly as many problems.

    Having established what time really is: the succession of states of one's subjectivity, I have solved the problem (old news, I have been using these definitions for years) of what the Dynamic functions should really be called: phenomenological. They concern the study of appearances and impressions. They are the subjective material from which our representations of the world are built up. This conclusion is also supported by the easy at which they can be used to create an interpretation of Accepting/Creating and Limiting/Empowering with.
    I don't mean to be sarcastic but if you have beef make a burger lol

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •