Originally Posted by
crazedratsshadow
Rant 1:This is a marijuana induced rambling and I'm gona teach you all something incredible. Let me take one more hit first..
Alright took it. So I saw the mathematics for socionics thread, and although its a working mathematical system to describe socionics there's nothing meaningful about the math that connects it to socionics. So I'm gona show you the real math in this thread.
One more puff... Ok took a big one.
Alright, socionics is based on duality. Everyone gets that. Duality is a division of monism, and the reunification of functions is the basis for intertype relations. That's why duals get along.
In mathematics the only true monism is infinity. So any mathematics for socionics has to be based on infinity, and breaking infinity down into complimentary parts. The first step for doing this- the only way it can be done, is with fractals which follow the fibbonacci sequence. They're the fundamental dimensional threads; 2 aspects of infinity themselves. For example is the universe infinitely large, is it infinitely small? It is both- this is a split view of infinity.
Ok, so what is my point? Let me go piss and take 1 more hit and then some klonapin, and I'll tell you.
First, that the fractal / exponential fibbonaci spirals are the basic field/object distinctions in math form. Fractal spiral is object, exponential spiral is field.
I think this is obvious and can be taken at face value. Energy, radiation, relativism, the larger universe.. all disparate and expansive, all are qualitatively fields. Likewise for mass, matter, density, focus, atoms, microscopic examination.. all oriented at the object.
The next dimensional separation is the static / dynamic property. Now you're probably thinking "ok, fractals... I get it, so you're gona compound fibonacci fractals and end up at 8 dimensions, then assign them names sequentially and that'll be the functions". No, it cannot work that way. And the reason is each dimension is unified through monism; using compound fibbonaci spirals you cannot represent the underlying monism in a unified way. Either all dimensions become relative... the object/field distinction is forgotten; or the pattern of dimensional progression becomes 2^2, where 4 is disconnected from 1 only a product of 2. That's a tiered progression, which ignores relativity. Both those patterns are flawed.
Ok, so we agree it can't be compound fractals... The mathematics has to qualitatively demonstrate the dynamic / static property.. Let me take a drink and 1 more hit and I'll tell you what the next distinction is.
Ok, + -, x & / distinguish statics from dynamics.
x & / are dynamic, + & - are static. That's what defines them mathematically. - and + have no relative increase or decrease in outcomes as a result of compound influences of the numbers they're combining. - & + represent tiered progression and x & / relativism.
This also redefines the object / field distinction. They present in these basic math signs, and it's pretty obvious when you look for it: + and x go up, - and / go down. Not really that hard to see the connection. Different properties, different context.
So the two separately 'flawed' methods of progressing the dimensions I mentioned earlier are both present here qualitatively.
Also these correspond with Ji/Je/Pi/Pe
+ = Ji static field
- = Pe static object
x = Pi dynamic field
/ = Je dynamic object
[brief interlude and took a nap]
Ok back. So yes, dynamic / static fields are distinct from fields. They're modified fields. This difference, alone, is represented by variables and the number scale.
The number scale is an existential perspective on the fractal fibbonacci sequence. For example:
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 < all relative, the numbers are somewhat meaningless. But existentially:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7< The sequence becomes a tiered progression, defined from an outside perspective (hence static fields are different from fields)
And this allows for negative numbers as well, since the fibbonaci spiral is endless.
-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.
0 is significant in this context since it's another form of monism.
[EDIT: The negative numbers may actually come a higher tier up, but at the least we can positive integers qualify. I'm undecided either way at this point, since positive and negative integers exist in the function y=mx+b (which will be discussed in a sec).]
Numbers represent an objectification of value whereas variables retain the free variance and compound relativity of fields.
A variable like X represents unknown cumulative values, which makes sense as an existential view of the exponential fibonacci spiral. Also, monism in this context is 1. X1 =X. X/X=1.
So as you can see 1 and 0 are both significant numbers.
All these functions are relations between variables or numbers. X + 2... Etc.
The variability within the number scale differentiating 1 from 2, 3, 4, etc.; all cumulative values represent disparate unique clones of structure within infinity; i.e. (X1 = X1(1(1(1)))))
Also, on a more general level, monism is represented by equality.
Look at this equation:
Y=MX + B
The simple way of graphing a function. MX being variable allows a sort of divisional multiplication .. (typically M will be a fraction).. B can be positive or negative, anywhere on the number scale; essentially changing between addition & subtraction (mx + -B).
K gona get some more weed then continue with this.