Inter-function relations and indifference toward true strengths?

[Mushroom]

I'm unsure whether these have been already resolved and/or extensively discussed by the community—if so, then consider this post a question regarding those topics, because I haven't been able to find information on them.

This is very rudimentary and possibly irrational; it's not polished by Ti as I couldn't be fucked lately. First, I question whether all functions can be examined by themselves—that is to say, whether they change form based on influence from other functions. Socionics takes into account the influence their position may have, and the influence the individual's relation to them has on them, but I haven't been able to find information on possible inter-function relations. An example of this is Si and how it differs when more of its content is generated by Ti than by Fi, or vice versa. I may have an esoteric view on Si, but it seems to me the conceptual frameworks are built entirely differently when Ti is used as opposed to when Fi is. This division I would call the dichotomy of "connotative/denotative" Si: connotative Si is built by Fi by associating together concepts based on ethical evaluation and universal moral standards, giving rise to a kind of "it's true because it should be true" mode of epistemology (also predisposing the individual to cults of various kinds), whereas denotative Si is built by Ti by logical connectivity to certain axioms (also predisposing the individual to a risk of building a doll-house model of reality that works with perfect logic as long as you don't question the axioms).

This may be understood by many Socionists and inferred by knowledgeable people themselves, but I do not see it written and systematized clearly anywhere. Inter-function relations, once they are conceptualized, may provide additional discoveries on the particular natures of different types. Again, if this has already been questioned, consider this simply a question on where I could find additional information on the subject.

The second observation I have made has to do with how the dominant functions are defined. It is assumed that a person's strongest function is also one that the person values, or moreover values most, when this seems to go contrary to the principle of dissatisfaction: we seem to value that which we can't quite master, that which challenges us. This would imply that the strongest function is indeed one that is often treated with a certain indifference. This would also explain the phenomenon I've witnessed time and again, where those who are absolutely dominating in a given competitive field (say, Ronnie O'Sullivan in snooker) are also seemingly rather indifferent about the field: it does not engage them, it does not force them to act. If this is correct, then a great portion of tests are asking the testee to manifest a complement of their real type. For example, the test is asking whether the individual "tries to maintain a state of harmony between them and others," to which an individual with this attribute truly as the dominant responds with a mediocre score because they have no idea they are constantly doing it—it comes naturally, and they are indifferent to it, they do not "try" to do it. Similarly an individual who is asked whether they "are always paying extra attention to the logic of an argument" and truly has introverted logic as the strongest attribute, they will again score this badly because they do not pay attention to it, it reveals itself automatically.

Perhaps this only applies to some functions. I'm not sure what else there is to this, I have to think about it. But it seems to me that in all cases where someone is experiencing a sort of stagnating neurosis it's due to them ignoring the strengths they truly have because they have self-perpetually gone deeper and deeper into an obsession on correcting their flaws and becoming "what they should be;" and they may have the conviction that they are "good at nothing, everything is impossible," and when one points out the strength they truly have they go

"oh that, that's nothing, I don't even care about that"

and the cycle keeps perpetuating itself. They are not grounding themselves in what they truly excel at in order to sort of through and alongside that find challenges that intrigue them.

Anyway, I think that true strengths aren't points of pride but simple obvious facts and tests should take this into account or else people keep mistyping themselves through Super-id or whatever. Maybe this has larger implications, perhaps 7 and 8 are always stronger or tend to be stronger due to a kind of over-clocking or obsessiveness (Ti with me, I'm quite sure) which makes them uncomfortable and thus rarely used. However it is, this is simply a share on these two points of speculation, maybe a conversation can be had about these.

And if I'm completely off-road here, please direct me to some links where I can clear my possible misconceptions, thank you.

[Exodus]

I'm unsure whether these have been already resolved and/or extensively discussed by the community—if so, then consider this post a question regarding those topics, because I haven't been able to find information on them.

To my knowledge no, this hasn't been discussed in any depth here.

This is very rudimentary and possibly irrational; it's not polished by Ti as I couldn't be fucked lately. First, I question whether all functions can be examined by themselves—that is to say, whether they change form based on influence from other functions. Socionics takes into account the influence their position may have, and the influence the individual's relation to them has on them, but I haven't been able to find information on possible inter-function relations. An example of this is Si and how it differs when more of its content is generated by Ti than by Fi, or vice versa. I may have an esoteric view on Si, but it seems to me the conceptual frameworks are built entirely differently when Ti is used as opposed to when Fi is. This division I would call the dichotomy of "connotative/denotative" Si: connotative Si is built by Fi by associating together concepts based on ethical evaluation and universal moral standards, giving rise to a kind of "it's true because it should be true" mode of epistemology (also predisposing the individual to cults of various kinds), whereas denotative Si is built by Ti by logical connectivity to certain axioms (also predisposing the individual to a risk of building a doll-house model of reality that works with perfect logic as long as you don't question the axioms).

Functions are traditionally considered as being most closely related inside blocked pairs: Si and Fe, Si and Te, etc. Lately though people seem to be considering "benefit pairs" such as Si/Ti, Si/Fi, etc. In my opinion we actually need to understand ALL of the function relations, including these but also (especially) duality, contrary (Te/Ti...), and superego, etc. Research into the topic thus far has been limited. I've written about it on my site: https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com

The specific associations you point out though don't make much sense with regards to classical theory. What does Si have to do with connotation/denotation? Or cults?

This may be understood by many Socionists and inferred by knowledgeable people themselves, but I do not see it written and systematized clearly anywhere. Inter-function relations, once they are conceptualized, may provide additional discoveries on the particular natures of different types. Again, if this has already been questioned, consider this simply a question on where I could find additional information on the subject.

The second observation I have made has to do with how the dominant functions are defined. It is assumed that a person's strongest function is also one that the person values, or moreover values most, when this seems to go contrary to the principle of dissatisfaction: we seem to value that which we can't quite master, that which challenges us. This would imply that the strongest function is indeed one that is often treated with a certain indifference. This would also explain the phenomenon I've witnessed time and again, where those who are absolutely dominating in a given competitive field (say, Ronnie O'Sullivan in snooker) are also seemingly rather indifferent about the field: it does not engage them, it does not force them to act. If this is correct, then a great portion of tests are asking the testee to manifest a complement of their real type. For example, the test is asking whether the individual "tries to maintain a state of harmony between them and others," to which an individual with this attribute truly as the dominant responds with a mediocre score because they have no idea they are constantly doing it—it comes naturally, and they are indifferent to it, they do not "try" to do it. Similarly an individual who is asked whether they "are always paying extra attention to the logic of an argument" and truly has introverted logic as the strongest attribute, they will again score this badly because they do not pay attention to it, it reveals itself automatically.

To some extent this is true - we often don't realize just how much we use the leading function. But valuing simply means that you prioritize its goal in your life, and this is something you do without needing to be aware of it. People generally have some amount of self-awareness about their strengths and weaknesses, though. Thankfully socionic theory does not rely on self-report-style tests for its validity -- they aren't all that great for this reason and others.

[Sol]

whether they change form based on influence from other functions

No. But there is baseless hypothesis about signes of functions.
Also it's not possibly to relate something real only to a single function as anything will be processed by all of them, anyway. Practically it's better to think any concrete situation or object relating to some of functions more than to other ones and as better represented in the conscious of the concrete human by some of functions according to his type.

For example. You feel a personal sympathy to someone. It's Fi mostly. But on this has influence anything you think about that human. Anything you like of dislike about him in regions of all 8 functions. It's not a problem of functions, it's how peoples mind work - it mixes the info of all functions.
For example, if a human is beautiful (Si) - you'll feel higher personal sympathy (Fi) to him. It's like to have inertia and traces in our vision, but with functions - they are mixed to some degree in our mind and such may influence on each other by this mixing.

[Tallmo]

Where did your understanding of Si come from? I dont understand what you are talking about. What does Si have to do with concepts?

Si is about impressions, sensations, comfort etc

[Aramas]

I'm unsure whether these have been already resolved and/or extensively discussed by the community—if so, then consider this post a question regarding those topics, because I haven't been able to find information on them.

This is very rudimentary and possibly irrational; it's not polished by Ti as I couldn't be fucked lately. First, I question whether all functions can be examined by themselves—that is to say, whether they change form based on influence from other functions. Socionics takes into account the influence their position may have, and the influence the individual's relation to them has on them, but I haven't been able to find information on possible inter-function relations. An example of this is Si and how it differs when more of its content is generated by Ti than by Fi, or vice versa. I may have an esoteric view on Si, but it seems to me the conceptual frameworks are built entirely differently when Ti is used as opposed to when Fi is. This division I would call the dichotomy of "connotative/denotative" Si: connotative Si is built by Fi by associating together concepts based on ethical evaluation and universal moral standards, giving rise to a kind of "it's true because it should be true" mode of epistemology (also predisposing the individual to cults of various kinds), whereas denotative Si is built by Ti by logical connectivity to certain axioms (also predisposing the individual to a risk of building a doll-house model of reality that works with perfect logic as long as you don't question the axioms).

This may be understood by many Socionists and inferred by knowledgeable people themselves, but I do not see it written and systematized clearly anywhere. Inter-function relations, once they are conceptualized, may provide additional discoveries on the particular natures of different types. Again, if this has already been questioned, consider this simply a question on where I could find additional information on the subject.

The second observation I have made has to do with how the dominant functions are defined. It is assumed that a person's strongest function is also one that the person values, or moreover values most, when this seems to go contrary to the principle of dissatisfaction: we seem to value that which we can't quite master, that which challenges us. This would imply that the strongest function is indeed one that is often treated with a certain indifference. This would also explain the phenomenon I've witnessed time and again, where those who are absolutely dominating in a given competitive field (say, Ronnie O'Sullivan in snooker) are also seemingly rather indifferent about the field: it does not engage them, it does not force them to act. If this is correct, then a great portion of tests are asking the testee to manifest a complement of their real type. For example, the test is asking whether the individual "tries to maintain a state of harmony between them and others," to which an individual with this attribute truly as the dominant responds with a mediocre score because they have no idea they are constantly doing it—it comes naturally, and they are indifferent to it, they do not "try" to do it. Similarly an individual who is asked whether they "are always paying extra attention to the logic of an argument" and truly has introverted logic as the strongest attribute, they will again score this badly because they do not pay attention to it, it reveals itself automatically.

Perhaps this only applies to some functions. I'm not sure what else there is to this, I have to think about it. But it seems to me that in all cases where someone is experiencing a sort of stagnating neurosis it's due to them ignoring the strengths they truly have because they have self-perpetually gone deeper and deeper into an obsession on correcting their flaws and becoming "what they should be;" and they may have the conviction that they are "good at nothing, everything is impossible," and when one points out the strength they truly have they go

"oh that, that's nothing, I don't even care about that"

and the cycle keeps perpetuating itself. They are not grounding themselves in what they truly excel at in order to sort of through and alongside that find challenges that intrigue them.

Anyway, I think that true strengths aren't points of pride but simple obvious facts and tests should take this into account or else people keep mistyping themselves through Super-id or whatever. Maybe this has larger implications, perhaps 7 and 8 are always stronger or tend to be stronger due to a kind of over-clocking or obsessiveness (Ti with me, I'm quite sure) which makes them uncomfortable and thus rarely used. However it is, this is simply a share on these two points of speculation, maybe a conversation can be had about these.

And if I'm completely off-road here, please direct me to some links where I can clear my possible misconceptions, thank you.

*words words words words*

Yep. Definitely ILI.

You're right, though. People often overlook their own strengths for many reasons. Their parents and friends didn't value them, they don't realize how difficult it would be for them to act in weak but valued areas, etc. It's sometimes a while before an individual discovers the pleasure of being themselves. It often only happens after the pain of trying to be someone else. There's a certain perfect tension one can create with the ego-level functions, especially the dominant. When one discovers a natural strength and uses that instead of something else, it's like slipping into a jacuzzi after a long haul.

True strengths can be points of pride. It depends on how much you value yourself.

Asking about likes and dislikes is a bad way of doing typology. Sometimes, people don't like themselves.

When you act from your strengths, you follow a path of least resistance. It's amazing how many people try to use functions they're not good at just because they think it's the right thing to do. They waste energy, lose vitality, and don't even get what they wanted in the end, because what they made with those functions wasn't quality anyway. People like lively people. You can't be lively when you're trying to be something you're not.

Also, the energy of one function doesn't belong to that of another. Trying to use energy in a weaker function that belongs in a stronger ends up making the stronger function eat itself so to speak, and it becomes distorted due to an inability to discharge. Energy is always building in the area of the strongest functions. Not using that energy is often what causes internal breakdowns. The facility housing those functions (the ego) explodes.

If you can deal with the ego, not the superego, to the best of your ability, everything else will take care of itself without any of your conscious awareness required.

Your statements about a "stagnating neurosis" are absolutely and perfectly correct. Quoted again for posterity:

But it seems to me that in all cases where someone is experiencing a sort of stagnating neurosis it's due to them ignoring the strengths they truly have because they have self-perpetually gone deeper and deeper into an obsession on correcting their flaws and becoming "what they should be;" and they may have the conviction that they are "good at nothing, everything is impossible," and when one points out the strength they truly have they go
"oh that, that's nothing, I don't even care about that"
and the cycle keeps perpetuating itself.

You might like to learn about Aleister Crowley and the Law of Thelema. If you look it up, note that "love" for Crowley isn't sentimental love but mystical union.

[Mushroom]

The specific associations you point out though don't make much sense with regards to classical theory. What does Si have to do with connotation/denotation? Or cults?

Ti is according to its parts internal logical judgment, whereas Fi is internal ethical judgment. They will certainly generate internal information - Si (see below). Connotation/denotation is then the dichotomy which describes two different kinds of mental objects, in accordance with their generative function: Ti generates denotative objects, which are clearly defined points in a logical network (that is, precise objects); Fi on the other, generating connotative objects, will tend to bind things together according to a value-judgment, creating fuzzy groupings (or as they're conventionally known, blanket/umbrella concepts) which are extremely beneficial in artistic endeavors, but not so much in e.g. economical ones.*

This is my understanding. I don't think I've skipped anything; these follow quite straight-forwardly from the definitions given.

Where did your understanding of Si come from? I dont understand what you are talking about. What does Si have to do with concepts?

Si is about impressions, sensations, comfort etc

Let me clarify: Si is (a) introverted, which implies that whatever its content or operations, they are internal; and (b) a Sensing function, which by Jung's original definition makes it about that which is. From these two definitions I've understood it as the function acting as the repository of the content of the mind. This is certainly a function that would have to be included in any theory of mind, as we are always subject not only to that which is without, but also (even moreover) that which it arises in us. We experience thoughts, memories, associations arise by themselves - this is why such a thing as involuntary love, hatred, disgust or fear of a perception is possible - and for this reason I claim Si to be passive.

Si is our perception of that which is within, and for us to perceive it it must be an object coming to us. We may have a dialogue with it, respond to it, feed an input to it - this shifts into the domain of Ni, which is an active process. We are no longer subject to it as it is, but wish to change it and see what it could be - here we have begun to use our imagination.

Anyway, these are my conceptions of Si and Ni. As to how concepts relate to Si - all internal information relates to Si (by its definition), so it encompasses everything from logical, definitive, constructed information to intangible emotions, memories, impressions. This is all under the category 'that which is internally.' Once we build an abstracted model of a phenomenon - it becomes a memorized object in our mind, an aspect of Si, an aspect of our knowledge; without this capacity we could not move forward in a subject such as mathematics, as every complex abstraction would have to be re-built again and again by Ti and no advancement could be possible.

The stress on comfort ensues from this definition of Si: if you are Si-ego, you will treasure an unchanging and reliable understanding of the world - in short, you will desire closure and certainty.


*Changed from "political" for clarity -- also "benefit" in politics is obscure...

[Shazaam]

Asking about likes and dislikes is a bad way of doing typology. Sometimes, people don't like themselves.

lmao I don't know if you were here for the time I asked everybody on the forum what their strengths were and nobody answered. It was hilarious... to be fair tho I was probably being too faggy therapist social worker with an ugly brown sweater holding a clipboard-ish.

But it's true, self-confidence and valuing/loving yourself looks good on anyone. It's not narcissistic, it's kinda the opposite in fact.

[Sanguine Miasma]

Rather than saying that First us ethics judgement it really deals with relationship related ethics.

As I see it manifesting in ESI: real world ties between people. You do not want to skew it from their perspective. If we insert certain actions that deal with those it will give it's judgement.

As I see it in EII: personal qualities manifesting in their relation between them and the world. Those forcefields that ESI's experience do not transfer to EII. The aim is comfortable idealistic homeostasis.

[Number 9 large]

For your first point; you can infer, by knowing how quadras and sociotypes works, how the different information elements act within each type and quadra.

For your second point: mastering something, like a skill, theory, art, craft or whatever isnt the same as owning a cognitive function, you use your brain and the functions that ur brain is best at TO master it. You dont master thinkin itself. (You cant make ur iq substantially higher, and if u can, id like to know )

[Exodus]

Ti is according to its parts internal logical judgment, whereas Fi is internal ethical judgment. They will certainly generate internal information - Si (see below). Connotation/denotation is then the dichotomy which describes two different kinds of mental objects, in accordance with their generative function: Ti generates denotative objects, which are clearly defined points in a logical network (that is, precise objects); Fi on the other, generating connotative objects, will tend to bind things together according to a value-judgment, creating fuzzy groupings (or as they're conventionally known, blanket/umbrella concepts) which are extremely beneficial in artistic endeavors, but not so much in e.g. economical ones.*

This is my understanding. I don't think I've skipped anything; these follow quite straight-forwardly from the definitions given.

They don't though - you seem to have confused the "fuzziness" of internal elements with generality. Ti is really the one that makes generalizations which are a kind of categorization.

Let me clarify: Si is (a) introverted, which implies that whatever its content or operations, they are internal; and (b) a Sensing function, which by Jung's original definition makes it about that which is. From these two definitions I've understood it as the function acting as the repository of the content of the mind. This is certainly a function that would have to be included in any theory of mind, as we are always subject not only to that which is without, but also (even moreover) that which it arises in us. We experience thoughts, memories, associations arise by themselves - this is why such a thing as involuntary love, hatred, disgust or fear of a perception is possible - and for this reason I claim Si to be passive.

Si is our perception of that which is within, and for us to perceive it it must be an object coming to us. We may have a dialogue with it, respond to it, feed an input to it - this shifts into the domain of Ni, which is an active process. We are no longer subject to it as it is, but wish to change it and see what it could be - here we have begun to use our imagination.

Anyway, these are my conceptions of Si and Ni. As to how concepts relate to Si - all internal information relates to Si (by its definition), so it encompasses everything from logical, definitive, constructed information to intangible emotions, memories, impressions. This is all under the category 'that which is internally.' Once we build an abstracted model of a phenomenon - it becomes a memorized object in our mind, an aspect of Si, an aspect of our knowledge; without this capacity we could not move forward in a subject such as mathematics, as every complex abstraction would have to be re-built again and again by Ti and no advancement could be possible.

Sensing is about what is, yes, but you lost me at "the repository of the content of the mind" - this is something abstract which has little to do with Si, which is concrete and about what you're actually experiencing in the moment. It's not about abstraction at all.

The stress on comfort ensues from this definition of Si: if you are Si-ego, you will treasure an unchanging and reliable understanding of the world - in short, you will desire closure and certainty.


*Changed from "political" for clarity -- also "benefit" in politics is obscure...

Again, "understanding" is something abstract - what you say here applies more to Ni/Ti. Does Si seek "reliable" or comfortable sensory settings? Basically, yes.

[Mushroom]

I have to really question that. You describe Ni as having to do with abstractions - where does this follow from? Why is Si barred from this area? And how would Si have to do with what's happening "in the moment?" Isn't 'the moment' entirely an external element, an aspect of reality as it is externally? Si seems to be, quite straightforwardly, about reality as it is internally, and this may extend across many moments, memories.

My understanding of Ni is quite far from what you've described. Ni is, according to its elements, (a) internal, which is to say that it is a perceiving function related to that which is within our minds and (b) intuitive, which is to say that it has to do with the dimensionality of information, what of the past or of the future is represented in a given state; combining these two I think it's obvious we get imagination, which is an active engagement with one's mind, traversing through the dimensions of one's understanding and memories. This alone does not necessitate or even imply abstractions.

If Si has nothing to do with abstractions to you, how could the type SLI even make sense to you? What's your reason for narrowing Si into such a specific function? It seems to reduce it into a near useless concept, to be honest.

[Rebelondeck]

...... First, I question whether all functions can be examined by themselves.......

One of the fundamental problems with Socionics is that categories, which should represent variables, are labeled as functions. By definition, all variables of a proper function are independent of one another. One's strengths are also a result of such things as initiative, determination, intellect, education and past influences - all independent of type. Type is a data processing structure that creates a certain level of blindness or ineptitude due to processing restrictions but I doubt that it's responsible for the indifference to which you refer......

a.k.a. I/O

[Exodus]

I have to really question that. You describe Ni as having to do with abstractions - where does this follow from? Why is Si barred from this area? And how would Si have to do with what's happening "in the moment?" Isn't 'the moment' entirely an external element, an aspect of reality as it is externally? Si seems to be, quite straightforwardly, about reality as it is internally, and this may extend across many moments, memories.

Ni has the Abstract trait (shared by intuition and logic), as opposed to Si which is Involved (shared by sensing and ethics).

If your understanding of other traits like introversion isn't consistent with this (which is essentially classical socionics material that is agreed upon by pretty much everybody), then you should read up more and reconsider your understanding.

Introversion in socionics is conventionally understood as being about relationships or connections as opposed to extroversion which is about "things".

So, Si is about your concrete relationship with things that are present with you, aka your physical environment. Once you "extend" beyond that (through the time axis, for example), you're using intuition by definition.

Here is the Dual Nature of Man in case you haven't read it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

Nowhere have I ever seen a socionics writer link Si and memory. Only MBTI and Jung. Perhaps you can refer me to what sources your understanding is based on (since I'm assuming you didn't come up with all this yourself).

My understanding of Ni is quite far from what you've described. Ni is, according to its elements, (a) internal, which is to say that it is a perceiving function related to that which is within our minds and (b) intuitive, which is to say that it has to do with the dimensionality of information, what of the past or of the future is represented in a given state; combining these two I think it's obvious we get imagination, which is an active engagement with one's mind, traversing through the dimensions of one's understanding and memories. This alone does not necessitate or even imply abstractions.

Yes, Ni is about the imagination (as is Ne, in a different way). What do you understand by abstraction? It's very close to imagination - the things you imagine are abstract or intangible - not directly perceivable or present. This is the sense in which Ni is abstract.

If Si has nothing to do with abstractions to you, how could the type SLI even make sense to you? What's your reason for narrowing Si into such a specific function? It seems to reduce it into a near useless concept, to be honest.

Uh no, it's pretty useful for you know, keeping yourself alive, healthy, and happy. If you can't see that maybe it says more about you than Si.

[Tallmo]

Nowhere have I ever seen a socionics writer link Si and memory. Only MBTI and Jung.

As far as I've understood Jung is talking about Si and memory as an analogy. When we experience the impressions from materials around us like wood, plastic, plants, dust, liquids it is as if these impressions are not created from scratch in the moment but stem from mankind's past experiences with the environment from millions of years. In this sense Si can be said to be "archaic".

What probably happened was that MBTI totally misinterpreted this and connected Si to "comparing with the past".

[Exodus]

As far as I've understood Jung is talking about Si and memory as an analogy. When we experience the impressions from materials around us like wood, plastic, plants, dust, liquids it is as if these impressions are not created from scratch in the moment but stem from mankind's past experiences with the environment from millions of years. In this sense Si can be said to be "archaic".

What probably happened was that MBTI totally misinterpreted this and connected Si to "comparing with the past".

One problem with Jung's descriptions is that he interprets everything in terms of Ni. Somehow Augusta was able to get through to something more objective.

[Aramas]

As far as I've understood Jung is talking about Si and memory as an analogy. When we experience the impressions from materials around us like wood, plastic, plants, dust, liquids it is as if these impressions are not created from scratch in the moment but stem from mankind's past experiences with the environment from millions of years. In this sense Si can be said to be "archaic".

What probably happened was that MBTI totally misinterpreted this and connected Si to "comparing with the past".

Yeah. Si is animistic.

NiSe psychologizes the external, NeSi animates the internal. The two are inverse operations.

[Aramas]

I have to really question that. You describe Ni as having to do with abstractions - where does this follow from? Why is Si barred from this area? And how would Si have to do with what's happening "in the moment?" Isn't 'the moment' entirely an external element, an aspect of reality as it is externally? Si seems to be, quite straightforwardly, about reality as it is internally, and this may extend across many moments, memories.

My understanding of Ni is quite far from what you've described. Ni is, according to its elements, (a) internal, which is to say that it is a perceiving function related to that which is within our minds and (b) intuitive, which is to say that it has to do with the dimensionality of information, what of the past or of the future is represented in a given state; combining these two I think it's obvious we get imagination, which is an active engagement with one's mind, traversing through the dimensions of one's understanding and memories. This alone does not necessitate or even imply abstractions.

If Si has nothing to do with abstractions to you, how could the type SLI even make sense to you? What's your reason for narrowing Si into such a specific function? It seems to reduce it into a near useless concept, to be honest.

All of the information elements are abstractions. They are filters for reality. Don't listen to hotelambush. He's missed the forest for the word "forest." Blame it on the TiNe.

[Exodus]

All of the information elements are abstractions. They are filters for reality. Don't listen to hotelambush. He's missed the forest for the word "forest." Blame it on the TiNe.

Of course they're abstractions. That doesn't mean they're about abstractions. This is obvious and has nothing to do with what was being discussed.