Dynamic worldview - static Self. Static worldview - dynamic Self.

[EyeSeeCold]

Dynamic worldview implies a static Self. Static worldview implies a dynamic Self.


What are the resulting implications?

-------------

Ego or information level – “I know"
Superego or social level - “I must"
Super-id or psychological level - “I want"
Id or physical level - “I can"

http://socionics.spb.ru/model_a.html
Block EGO
("Creative block")
Block Superego
(Unit of social control ")
Block SUPERID
(Block of individual activity)
Block ID
(Block of individual control)


http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%...B%D1%8C_%D0%90
Rings
Mental Ring - 1, 2, 3, 4 ("software", "creative", "role" and "pain") - a high degree of awareness. Responsible for the social activity of man.
Vital ring - 5, 6, 7, 8 ("suggestive", "activation", "observation" and "demonstrative") - characterized by a low level of awareness. Responsible for the individual needs of man. Vital ring mirrors aspects of mental block, but in the opposite-vertnosti.


The Vital Ring is a focus on the Self and the Mental Ring is a focus on external Reality.

Dynamic Vital functions = Static Mental functions
Static Vital functions = Dynamic Mental functions


INTp/ILI
Mental Conscious - Dynamic
[Ni, Te, Si, Fe]
These aspects form the way I intently interact with the world

Vital Unconscious - Static
[Se, Fi, Ne, Ti]
These aspects form the ingrained backbone of my identity.

Thus I have a Static unconscious identity. I see my vital aspects as Static.

[Gilly]

Dynamic worldview implies a static Self. Static worldview implies a dynamic Self.


What are the resulting implications?

How are you even assuming this?

[pianosinger]

Yeah, where are you getting this from?

My Mental Ring is Static and Vital Ring is Dynamic. This makes me a Static type, according to the Reinin dichotomies. But, are you referring to this or to something else?

Do I then supposedly have a Static worldview and Dynamic "self," or Static "self" and Dynamic worldview?

[Gilly]

Yeah, if anything I would say that our worldview is based mostly on the first function; after all, it is the lense through which we see the world.

[Creepy-]

Static worldview = Self changes, not the world around someone. The same thing is always there, one just perceives it differently.

I'm not sure about the implications of a Dynamic worldview, or even if the above is correct... the more I think about the implications of Dynamic worldview yielding a Static Self, the more doubts I have towards the whole concept.

I'm not sure if having a Static or Dynamic worldview implies a Dynamic or Static Self, necessarily. Like I said, it doesn't make much sense to me that the Self would change but the worldview would remain the same. That is what I assume you mean from Static Self/Dynamic worldview, anyway...

I think you need to define these concepts for greater clarity, then shall come the critiquing/answers to your question.

[Creepy-]

Yeah, if anything I would say that our worldview is based mostly on the first function; after all, it is the lense through which we see the world.

Worldview is also influenced a lot by the demonstrative function.

[EyeSeeCold]

I guess I've induced confusion by choosing the wrong words. This is what I mean:


1.
Dynamic Mental Consciousness - How you perceive the world
Static Vital Unconsciousness - How you perceive yourself

The world is dynamic yet the self is static. The person feels as if everything is changing but their own self.

2.
Static Mental Consciousness - How you perceive the world
Dynamic Vital Unconsciousness - How you perceive yourself

The world is static yet the self is dynamic. The person feels as if everything is lifeless / motionless and only the person is alive.

[Creepy-]

Ok, so "Self" essentially refers to one's perception towards himself in relation to the world. Understood.

How is the Self perceived in terms of the Vital functions?

[kopyk]

There is more to be said about ESC's idea I'm sure. NECROBUMP!!

[kopyk]

Since this thread seems to have derailed towards static/dynamic discussion anyway...

From wikisocion:
This could be imagined as - only in context of perceiving time - static types using inertial reference frame (they're moving through time), and dynamic types using non-inertial reference frame (they're observing time flow). That's not to say one type acts more or less dynamically in a conventional meaning, but the perception of the world as dynamic requires perception of self being static, and the reverse for static types.

Since duals are on different sides of this dichotomy, I'd expect they complete each other in this way - one being better suited to observe (extract?) variables and the other processes. That nothing is completely unchangeable doesn't make it any less a static property (variable - "constant" is more intuitive, but I suppose some would find it objectionable).

I can see some potential in extrapolating perception of time on perception of space - although in this case most people seem to be more or less similar - but not in a more general sense labcoat attempts, as other IEs properties play a part.

Aiss agrees with OP, it seems. Gonna throw this link in here too, cuz I got some reason/hunch to think it relates to all of this.

[Olduvai]

Aiss agrees with OP, it seems. Gonna throw this link in here too, cuz I got some reason/hunch to think it relates to all of this.

This guy is the shit:

"Solipsism is the belief that only the mind exists - and nothing else exists externally of the mind, but these perceived "external objects" are actually nothing more than an illusionary product of the mind itself."

actually, solipsism doesnt claim that nothing exists except the mind. It claims that we *can never know* if anything exists except our own mind. And therefore casts doubt upon experience as external, claiming it is entirely possible that everything is really generated by the mind, and there is no external at all. " The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist". The strong position of "there IS NO external non-mental reality" is just as unjustified under solipsism as the position affirming external objective reality; neither position can ever be known. That is kind of the point, really.

As a quick example, this: "Since the surrealistic sub-category of solipsism states that the only thing which exists is the mind, then this implies that the mind is indivisible and absolute" is false. There is no necessary reason why the mind could not be "all that exists" and still exist fragmented in an interconnected set of mental parts or processes. I believe the conclusion you arrive at here comes from an understanding of 'mind' that is very simplistic and unrealistic. The belief that the mind is just a "singularity" or is "indivisible" is not necessary for the solipsistic argument, and therefore while you correctly identify that such claims of indivisibility and singularity are false, this does not directly address solipsism itself. Also, "since 'only' implies one" is also false. "only" can apply to things which exist with subparts. Think of a room with "only one person in it". there is only one person, yet there are many aspects and parts of this person. There are many THINGS in the room, cells and elements and organs and all that, but still only one PERSON. Likewise there could be only one mind, and yet this mind is comprised of many mental parts, each of which is mental in itself in the same way that the cells of a person are a part of that one person.

As for the a priori a posteriori distinctions, this just tends to confuse these sorts of issues. We cannot have an experience without an EXPERIENCE, clearly. This means that so called a priori knowledge is impossible, because any act of knowing or knowing-event must be an experience, which requires a) an experiencer and b) an experienced. However, solipsism could still maintain here, as both of these a and b could be generated from within a mind. The experiencer could be experiencing itself, which is entirely possible. We experience our own thoughts all the time. As for logically necessary knowledge, this is said to be a priori, but also depends upon an experiencing itself in the same way. "All bachelors are unmarried" is logically true, because it is a definition. But such knowledge required experience with the concepts of bachelor and its definition of an unmarried man. There is no knowledge which can be gained without an experience of some sort. And once you already have experienced the concept of bachelor, in the future you are experiencing the memory which contains this knowledge. The knowledge never just "exists" without being experienced in an interactive way. All knowledge is an experience, yet there is also no reason why these experiences could not be generated by your own mind, although as ive stated before, its also equally pointless to assume that they ARE all generated by your mind.

Dont get me started on the a priori, a posteriori stuff, trust me its all a load of crap. There is no such distinction. Likewise analytic/synthetic is just made up garbage. Dont let yourself get confused or worried over such things. There is no such thing as a distinction, all knowledge is arrived at by exactly the same means.

By the way I do agree with you that solipsism is useless, or absurd, but only because it is self-defeating. It doubts everything by establishing a standard of proof that can never be met: we are told we must PROVE external reality, which we can never do, because we have absolutely no way at all of obtaining even a single datum of information without relying on our local minds and internal subjective state. Solipsism isnt anything to worry about, because it sets up an impossible standard, like saying "you cant prove that God does NOT exist?! So there!". But its useless to waste time on such things.

Solipsism is not incorrect or wrong. It is entirely possible that every experience you have is internally generated. There is no logical reason why the mind cannot stimulate itself internally. We do this all the time when we think. Sure, it seems pretty rediculous and unlikely, and its nothing to lose sleep over, but nevertheless its still there as a logical possibility, just as the existence of God is. Neither can be proven nor disproven, but that is exactly why it shouldnt really bother you at all.

My point is that the process by which experiences occur is the same whether you are experiencing a priori or a posteriori knowledge. Yes, we *understand* the *concepts* of these knowledges themselves differently, I get that. However, assuming any sort of ontological significance beyond this is false. When you experience the knowledge of "Where was ****** born?" and you have to go look it up in a history book, your conscious aware brain interacts directly with data, which filtered into it via the senses. If you are experiencing the knowledge of "Are all bachelors unmarried men?", your conscious aware brain interacts directly with data, which filtered into it via sense impressions stored in your brain already. Note also that such impressions must also exist for you to understand "******", "Birth", "year", etc.

Cognitive data is the same, it is processed information run into and through the brain, and generated into an experience. Ultimately all data in the brain is the same. Whether it runs through the eyes and retina and visual cortex and higher cognition to *you*, or whether it runs from a copy of a data which in the past ran through the eyes and retina and visual cortex and higher cognition to *you*, is the same. Memories are the exact same substance as "external" experiences. They are streams of data, copied for further use. Whether data streams from a copy in the memory, or it streams through a sense organ is irrelevant. It is not EXPERIENCED until it is generated internally, holographically and consciously for *you* to experience. Experiences are constructed from data.

That was my only point, really. Yes, we can identify the difference between the source of data, whether it is authentic or whether it is a copy of a previously authentic experience, but the brain treats either case exactly the same. And besides, virutally every single experience is a synthesis of these two anyways. In fact I cannot imagine a single experience that is not.