Proposition for agreement on function definitions

[tcaudilllg]

I think the community is kinda suffering over the confusion created by quadra forms of the elements. The socionists never bothered to actually work them out instead bunching both forms under the same function (or maybe they lacked the intellectual capability with so few people in their group?), the practical result being that newbies and oldbies are speaking different languages.

I think we need to come to a common agreement on what the quadra forms of the functions are and to write up a general newbie doc explaining them.

[thePirate]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...t=28365&page=2

[tcaudilllg]

OK, those are good but, what about the aspects themselves? Because although those make sense to me, I think they only do so because I have a very concrete understanding what aspects those functions deal with.

[EyeSeeCold]

Is it going to be a fundamental approach that easily allows for application(e.g. bodies/fields) or would it be a conclusion type description?

[tcaudilllg]

Is it going to be a fundamental approach that easily allows for application(e.g. bodies/fields) or would it be a conclusion type description?

Preferably both. Rather than try to agree on a fourth component, though, I think we could get by on just trying to explain the conclusion as belonging to the category of the element as described by Augusta. For example if we could show that both time and choice are internal dynamics of fields, then I think that would be sufficient.

The problem is showing that a quadra form's partner element is what it is because it pairs with a specific partner element to its quadraless manifest. Like internal field dynamics WITH external object dynamics, or with internal object dynamics. Which I guess would mean, internal field dynamics focused externally, vs internal field dynamics focused internally? How would we actually frame the relationship between the two functions?

[golden]

I would appreciate this.

[EyeSeeCold]

Preferably both. Rather than try to agree on a fourth component, though, I think we could get by on just trying to explain the conclusion as belonging to the category of the element as described by Augusta. For example if we could show that both time and choice are internal dynamics of fields, then I think that would be sufficient.

The problem is showing that a quadra form's partner element is what it is because it pairs with a specific partner element to its quadraless manifest. Like internal field dynamics WITH external object dynamics, or with internal object dynamics. Which I guess would mean, internal field dynamics focused externally, vs internal field dynamics focused internally? How would we actually frame the relationship between the two functions?

Well the relationships would be easy. The problem, I think, would be coming up with descriptions/concepts applicable for all types.

[Aleksei]

No.

The functions as laid out by Augusta, I find, work perfectly fine for intertype relations. Trying to come up with an independent consensus would merely obfuscate them.

[tcaudilllg]

No.

The functions as laid out by Augusta, I find, work perfectly fine for intertype relations. Trying to come up with an independent consensus would merely obfuscate them.

--

Yeah you're just trying to troll, aren't you?