Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
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.