Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
Your whole post is pretty good, but this part stood out to me as the most interesting. I've been trying to consider on a level greater than simply "people," and I think this sums it up pretty satisfactorily. I know personally that some ideas I hold very close to myself, and others that are somewhat more psychologically distant yet still important.
I first came about this in a thought experiment with said friend, to find out if Socionics required a person involved in order to exist, and she used two objects and asked me to explain how Socionics worked between the two objects. I realized that "objects" in Socionics was an interesting term, and wondered what constituted an "object." It's pretty similar with what is known when talking about IAs, I would say when dealing with "objects" in Socionics, it is anything that is a noun that doesn't require a particular person's perception in order to exist. So a person can be an object, because they will exist beyond a person's perception, and an idea, say spirituality, also does. A person can have their own individual idea of what spirituality is, but the concept of spirituality exists outside of them. Socionics doesn't apply to anything outside of human (that we know of), and therefore only people can access these qualities about objects. So when it comes to "fields," that exist between two or so "objects" (and to relate this to ), one of those objects HAS to be a person, because it's their perception of the field that makes the field exist in the first place. But the other "object" doesn't have to be another person as well, so applies to the Resonance (if I may) between a person and animal, piece of furniture, abstract concepts, and things that they can't directly interact with. A person's understanding of an idea or whatever can change over time and certain qualities will also change, making it resonate to make a more pleasant feeling.