A Possible Way of IM Interpretation/Explanation

[silverchris9]

I've been working with an idea since, um, yesterday. Tell me if it's helpful or if you think it could work.

I was thinking it might be useful to think of the IMs like this: Each IM has an area of information it is "archetypally" associated with. The most obvious is Se, being archetypally associated with sense perceptions of the external world. As far as predicting how IMs will work in people, or just thinking about how they work, it might help to consider each IM as the way of perceiving that attempts to treat everything, insofar as it is possible, as the sort of information it is archetypally associated with. So, Se, being associated with sense perception, tries to treat all information as though it were sense perception, or as though it had the qualities of sense perception information: definite, certain, differences in magnitude, clear distinctions, etc. This is where we get the qualities generally associated with Se from. Se-egos tend to be decisive because they tend to treat all information as though it were as definite as the information we get from our senses. They tend to focus on the metaphorical "size" of each person around them: who's bigger, who's smaller.

Ne is another example. Ne is associated with the intrinsic properties of objects (Aristotle's "formal cause"). So Ne-egos tend to treat all information as though it were information about the properties of objects. So they tend to approach situations from the angle of "what can this do?" "what is it, as defined by all the different things it can do?" "how can I get to know this thing better by figuring out more of the things it can do?"

I have a few ideas about what sorts of "archetypal associations" one might make, but nothing solid yet. So, what do you think? Potentially useful/worthwhile?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Both functions deal with the spatial noumenon (object of thought independent of its appearance) that exists outside of oneself and apart from ones experiences. Both need to consolidate information from multiple separate subjective viewpoints to reach a focussed representation of the object. When Pe is immediately postulated from a single viewpoint, its representation is diffuse.

Ne refers to object "internally". It is the reference that is internal, not the object. Internal reference means that the context in which the object is evaluated extends beyond the properties that the object is established to posess. This, in turn, means that several properties of the object are left undefined. Internal reference means the same thing as "not-well-defined". Also, to refer to a partially defined object is equivalent to refering to the group of all objects with the defined properties.

Se refers to the object externally, meaning the context encompasses all defined properties and no other. A single object is isolated and none of its properties are left uncertain.