Stable universals vs changing

[Jonathan]

I've noticed that different interpretations of the IM elements often boil down to this difference:

1) Stable universals are static. For example, the technique of language, universals of feeling/value concepts.

2) Changing things are dynamic. For example, dialectical logic, cause-and-effect, if-then-therefore, changing emotional states: "I was too ecstatic, so events let me down, and then I was depressed, but I got so pessimistic that I was pleasantly surprised by what happened..."

vs. the other point of view:

1) stable universals are object. For example, techniques being viewed as "disconnected facts," the shared objective basis on which everything rests; universals of feeling/value concepts being in some sense "objective" and "shared" among all people.

2) Changing things are field. For example, dialectical logic, cause-and-effect, changing emotional states, etc., would be introverted because they're making connections between things....changes -> therefore connections -> therefore field -> therefore introverted IM element.

It seems to me that this difference of opinion is at the core to why what one person thinks is Xi, someone else invariable thinks is Xe.

This may also explain why so many famous people are typed in opposite quadras by various well-known socionists.

[Krig the Viking]

I fit pretty closely into the first point of view. The second point of view seems obviously incorrect, though it wouldn't surprise me if it accurate describes how some people see it.

[rat1]

object field is more fundamental.. but the whole changing vs staying the same descriptor you're using is pretty vague and really kinda sucks. I think it makes the two dichotomies look more intertwined then they actually are.

[krieger]

the second definition is pretty much already incorporated in the fact that Dynamic P is always Field... Field in Ji means something rather different from Field in Pi. i find the word "Field" to apply to Pi much better than to Ji, because J refers to distinctions rather than to entities.

the issue is that object/field is much less of a quantitative, technical marker in socionics than Static/Dynamic. object/field at best raises a subtle, qualitative connotation that is much better denoted with the words objective/subjective. but these words themselves have issues of interpretational variability, so one needs to address the combinations of object/field with static/dynamic individually:

Pi: ontological subjectivity; the perspective-dependent description of an entity; how the thing appears to you; phenomenology
Je: epistemic objectivity; heuristic-independent knowledge; distinctions that can be made on the basis of sense experience alone without the need for complex inferences and compositions
Pe: ontological objectivity; the thing-in-itself represented so as to eliminate the influence of perspective as fully as possible
Ji: epistemic subjectivity; heuristic-dependent knowledge; distinctions made on the basis of inferences and compositions based on training from prior personal experience

alternatively:
Je: epistemically unproblematic knowledge
Ji: epistemically challenging knowledge

to understand why Pi and Je go together, closely examine the empiricist definition of objectivity: objectivity consists in premising knowledge on sense experience. sense experience happens from a perspective. hence, epistemic objectivity is ontologically subjective. the challenge of human thinking is to arrive at ontologically objective descriptions despite this constrained starting point.

Static constructs are premised on Dynamic fundaments, but the point of the Statics is to, at one point, lend the basis for a "prediction" on the Dynamic plane again. so while Dynamics are the unequivocal starting point, the progression is potentially from Dynamic to Static back to Dynamic, back to Static, etc, etc.

all categories play a role in the workings of all types' cognition... another thing that needs to be incorporated is the fact that Accepting/Creating distributes the Focal/Diffuse quality over the functions. for example, in IxTp, Je is in the ego block, but Ji is Focal. this manifests in a tantalizing consideration for a final truth that is upheld as a kind of asymptotic ideal and never reached (or even addressed) in practice.

[Jonathan]

the second definition is pretty much already incorporated in the fact that Dynamic P is always Field... Field in Ji means something rather different from Field in Pi. i find the word "Field" to apply to Pi much better than to Ji, because J refers to distinctions rather than to entities.

the issue is that object/field is much less of a quantitative, technical marker in socionics than Static/Dynamic. object/field at best raises a subtle, qualitative connotation that is much better denoted with the words objective/subjective. but these words themselves have issues of interpretational variability, so one needs to address the combinations of object/field with static/dynamic individually:

Pi: ontological subjectivity; the perspective-dependent description of an entity; how the thing appears to you; phenomenology
Je: epistemic objectivity; heuristic-independent knowledge; distinctions that can be made on the basis of sense experience alone without the need for complex inferences and compositions
Pe: ontological objectivity; the thing-in-itself represented so as to eliminate the influence of perspective as fully as possible
Ji: epistemic subjectivity; heuristic-dependent knowledge; distinctions made on the basis of inferences and compositions based on training from prior personal experience

alternatively:
Je: epistemically unproblematic knowledge
Ji: epistemically challenging knowledge

to understand why Pi and Je go together, closely examine the empiricist definition of objectivity: objectivity consists in premising knowledge on sense experience. sense experience happens from a perspective. hence, epistemic objectivity is ontologically subjective. the challenge of human thinking is to arrive at ontologically objective descriptions despite this constrained starting point.

Static constructs are premised on Dynamic fundaments, but the point of the Statics is to, at one point, lend the basis for a "prediction" on the Dynamic plane again. so while Dynamics are the unequivocal starting point, the progression is potentially from Dynamic to Static back to Dynamic, back to Static, etc, etc.

all categories play a role in the workings of all types' cognition... another thing that needs to be incorporated is the fact that Accepting/Creating distributes the Focal/Diffuse quality over the functions. for example, in IxTp, Je is in the ego block, but Ji is Focal. this manifests in a tantalizing consideration for a final truth that is upheld as a kind of asymptotic ideal and never reached (or even addressed) in practice.

Interesting ideas. I have trouble though associating Je with "sense experience." It would seem to me that judgments made on the basis of sense of experience would be judgments paired with a sensing function (Delta/Alpha Je, Beta/Gamma Ji).

If I try to translate what you're saying in simple language, it sounds out like this:
Pi + Je = biased observations with simplistic judgments
Pe + Ji = relatively unbiased observations with more sophisticated judgments.
...which obviously makes Pe + Ji sound better all around.

Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting what you're saying.

But if I change Je as relying to "sense experience" to Je relying on "subjective experience" (i.e., Pi, which could be sensing or intuitive)...then it seems better to me.

As to Je being simpler than Ji, well of course since Je is more direct, it will seem perhaps more constrained from a Ji perspective...or perhaps its very strength is to simplify. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to me right that all Je is simpler than all Ji in an absolute sense.

[krieger]

If I try to translate what you're saying in simple language, it sounds out like this:
Pi + Je = biased observations with simplistic judgments
Pe + Ji = relatively unbiased observations with more sophisticated judgments.

this attribution is entirely your own work.

But if I change Je as relying to "sense experience" to Je relying on "subjective experience" (i.e., Pi, which could be sensing or intuitive)...then it seems better to me.

well, no. Te being the empiricist function is central to my thesis. empiricism is the most straightforward definition of epistemic objectivity that i've come across. though i would concede that the most unproblematic manifestation of empiricism is probably that where Te is combined with Si. i have come across cases where gamma NTs outright rejected empiricism (Austrian economics comes to mind), so the link with Si could be important. but Se is not empiricist. at all.

i see Jung's association of Se with "sensing" as one of his major errors. Se isn't something directly picked up through the senses so much as it is a highly specified and concrete mental construct.

As to Je being simpler than Ji, well of course since Je is more direct, it will seem perhaps more constrained from a Ji perspective...or perhaps its very strength is to simplify.

Ji can actually simplify things a lot, because it reduces complex reasoning chains to their conclusion. but in so doing, the statement is provided as if appended with "take my word on it". Je on the other hand can sort of simply situations in a passive sense, i.e. the complexity of everything you could derive from a unit of Je is in a sense contained with in it. So you can illustrate a complex epistemic issue to a person by providing them the piece of information that makes him/her capable of deriving what s/he needs to know.

[The Ineffable]

1) stable universals are object. For example, techniques being viewed as "disconnected facts," the shared objective basis on which everything rests; universals of feeling/value concepts being in some sense "objective" and "shared" among all people.

2) Changing things are field. For example, dialectical logic, cause-and-effect, changing emotional states, etc., would be introverted because they're making connections between things....changes -> therefore connections -> therefore field -> therefore introverted IM element.

I reached the level of distinguishing object from the Bodies of Socionics. Objects can be identified, ergo, by the nature of this concept, they have to be Static. So objects are Bodies + Static (Pe) - and from now, when I will associate this notion with the IEs, on I will use it exclusively with this meaning. Je, while Bodies as well, is things that can be only accounted for but not identified but through (other) objects. Using the simplest case, an action, a change, the predicate reveals something identifiable only by the changes that happen to the objects. You can't for instance identify walking by enumerating its properties because it has none; it can be told when it happens only by telling the changes in the properties of its affected object(s) - different position, different shape. Sure it is there and therefore Bodies (empirical, a posteriori, before our concept of it) but it can't be analyzed.

Time is used to identiy Dynamic occurances, but it is actually not Dynamic itself, time is a Static representation (Fields) of an oject, it presents a property which can take a value [1]. Humans perceive it spatially - for example "before" means back (this too ) in time but also spatially in front of someone. It is important to remember this, this and similar clarifications help in understanding the unarticulated (intuitive [2]) nature of the Dynamic information, in contrast with the analytic, explanative Static information.

 

Though like I said before, all of the following are unarticulated (they just "follow" something external to themselves) one way or another: Bodies, Dyamic, External, Irrational/Perceiving, Merry, Judicious, Logic (yes, its necessity external to its self-sufficient Rationality), Intuition, Democratic, Aristocratic (these last two for different reasons), and so on. BTW, there is no contradiction between Pe's being strongly intuitive though unlike the Dynamic IEs they identify, because in fact they are not used to identify themselves alone, but they are just used within a Static block along with Ji [3]. And yes, Ethics is less intuitive than Logic, it's conciseness is higher than of Logic - doubt on its judgment is unapplicable and no validation from outside is required, they simply establish what is the case, instead of being confirmed what is the case.

---

[1] - that is, Fields->Bodies, the revers of Bodies->Fields, which would be the case when a stimulus is represented a posteriori as a "property" of something - you perceive its value first which you afterwards (a posteriori) abstractize as a property.
[2] - the literal sens of the notion, not as in Socionics "Intuition".
[3] - precisely like taking the impression of an outsole: although the impression is just the shape you will be left with, the impression of that precise object is when you actually perform that operation on it, if you don't do it you don't have its shape. On the other hand, there is no term for the shape that exists in the object because there is none until imprinted in something. Now the concept of "shape" is the same thing, it is Static and Fields and it refers to an actual object by Pe (which itself is not shape, though) but it is not the object, it's only its representation. We use "shape" and "identity" to refer to actual object, but Pe are in fact the "shaping" and the "identification" (of course, can't talk about Bodies without actual experience) even when reproduced mentally in retrospective.

[Destroypuppy]

Can anyone explain this in a more explicit way? I really want to understand this.

[griggerplease]

... hmm...

[Beautiful sky]

I dislike being Ij temperament sometimes

[RedBeard]

As a newbie I'm taken aback by the presence of an entire philosophical apparatus surrounding and upholding socionics theory. Jung's 8 function model was tailored for the introverted orientation; the only way to substantially expound on it was to come full circle into a system that also described the object in as vivid detail as the subject. It seems like more parts are necessary to negate any confusion between the object and the subject, especially if we're to fully accept the existence of processes, fields, and how one event leads to another.