Two Vertings by A. Augustinavičiūtė
Two Vertings
A. Augustinavičiūtė
Published in: “Socionics, Mentology, and Personality Psychology,” 1996, No. 6.
When we consider how one inanimate object is “perceived” or “reflected” by another inanimate object, everything is clear. For example, in Fig. 1, it is shown how the internal processes of the sun are reflected in disturbances in the Earth’s atmosphere or subsurface layers: the sun’s internal dynamicsare transmitted by streams of certain particles
, which, upon reaching the Earth, provoke reactive responses on it, its own
If we take the same sun as a whole, that is, all telotacts (Fig. 2), the same thing happens, but in this case, all polytacts become visible.
How, in this respect, does living differ from non-living?
In general, what is the difference between the living and the non-living? Is it that the living opposes itself to the entire surrounding world, whereas the non-living is merely a part of it? But through what properties does this opposition become possible?
Let us return to Fig. 2 and, for a moment, imagine that the second sphere is not the Earth but a simple living organism. Within it, certain processes occur that are conditioned by external events. In such a being, nothing happens without external influence—whether from foreign objects or similar living organisms. (Indeed, this is the case: solitary primitive or even non-primitive organisms, or populations that are too small, are less viable and perish more quickly.) Its membrane is what transforms field influences into internal processes, converting or “verting” polytacts into telotacts.
From a socionic perspective, this is probably how the scheme of a primitive living organism might appear. In this case, non-living entities in which certain processes occur, such as the Sun, are no different from primitive living organisms. In both, something happens; both exert a certain field influence on their surroundings and are themselves subject to such influence; both “reflect.” (I wrote about the difference between living and non-living about five years ago and have not abandoned those ideas yet, though the reflection schemes were not included at that time.)
Today, I would like to delve into the difference between “reflection” by one object of another and the reflection of one person by another.
So, the second sphere in Fig. 2 represents the simplest possible organism. Whether or not it opposes itself to its surroundings, everything that happens within it is determined by what happens in the environment. If it cannot avoid any influence from its surroundings, it has no reason to differentiate between these influences as dangerous or non-dangerous, pleasant or unpleasant. For example, the Earth cannot move on its own. It moves exclusively under the influence of surrounding celestial bodies, which form a fairly rigid and limited system that changes little, at least in our understanding of time.
A primitive organism capable of moving only under the influence of its surroundings exists under different conditions, as it lives in a constantly changing environment. These external influences are always shifting—pushing it in one direction or another, either stimulating or suppressing internal processes. Additionally, it “lives” by consuming external energy sources.
When a living organism gains the ability to differentiate external influences into dangerous and safe, beneficial and harmful, pleasant and unpleasant, its ability to move is used for active adaptation to its surroundings—for adaptation where its own organism’s interests play a role (though never fully, at 100%). Understanding the mechanism by which this happens is our objective.
The only thing we know about this mechanism is that it is called the psyche. We also know one more thing: the scheme for generating human psychic energy according to the so-called Model A of IM. Everything else that lies between these two points remains terra incognita.
Where to begin? Undoubtedly, with a comparison of the two known extremes: the model of energy metabolism and the model of information metabolism. The EM model can be represented as in Fig. 2: black half-tacts inside, white ones outside. Then the interaction between two objects or organisms, A and B, would look roughly like Fig. 3.
Object A influences object B with its field, and object B influences object A in the same way. This can also be shown as in Fig. 4.
What qualitatively new element, compared to Fig. 4, do we see in the Model A of information metabolism in Fig. 5? Only that the black and white half-tacts are intermixed.
Just as in Figs. 3 and 4 we contrasted energy metabolism and the interaction of two objects, in the following figures we would need to contrast the informational interaction of two subjects, or at least the informational interaction of an object and a subject. This is what I have not yet been able to achieve.
Although I have a clear understanding of how the human psyche (of any personality type) reflects objective reality, how psychic energy is accumulated and used, and how information exchange occurs between people, I am unable to provide a simple schematic. Apparently, this is because I am missing or failing to see some key connecting elements.
It is essential to clearly understand the relationship between energy metabolism and information metabolism. While the latter is essentially a reflection of the former, both are mechanisms for reproducing energy, though of different types. Energy metabolism refers to the reproduction of the organism’s physical energy, whereas information metabolism pertains to the reproduction of psychic energy, which we divide into mental and vital energy.
Physical and psychic energy are two types or levels of energy. Psychic energy can be considered a higher level because it is based on physical energy and only arises in the presence of physical objects to reflect.
Reality, from the perspective of the reflecting psyche, consists of two parts:
• externally perceivable reality, and
• internally perceivable activity.
Externally, the psyche perceives the surrounding world and the organism itself, which is also observable from the outside. But there is also an internally perceivable reality. This is the same thing, only reversed—perceived from within the organism. It includes not only the organism itself but also the entire surrounding world as it is experienced through the organism. After all, there would be no sense of the organism itself if it were not influenced by other living and non-living objects. By the same logic, when perceiving the organism internally, a person inevitably perceives the entire surrounding world. It can even be said that this internal perception of the organism merges the person with the infinite material world. Through this internal channel, a person receives information about the entire surrounding world, including objects far more distant than those understood through external perception.
For this reason, the human psyche is split into two parts. One part reflects the external world and the organism from an outside perspective, as external objects, as a set of discrete entities separate from one another. The other part reflects the external world from within the organism, perceiving it as something continuous and indivisibly merged with the organism itself.
The organism, from the psyche’s perspective, resembles a kind of shell. One part of the psyche observes this shell from the outside, while the other observes it from within.
Model A of information metabolism (IM) consists of two rings: the mental ring, which receives information from the external environment (Ring I), and the vital ring (Ring II), which activates the organism as information flows in. The vital ring processes information received from within the organism, while the mental ring processes information from outside. Both rings generate psychic energy: the mental ring generates mental energy, and the vital ring generates vital energy. Both forms of energy are results of reflecting the external world. However, it appears that true reflection occurs in the mental ring. The vital ring is nourished by what the mental ring reflects when, at the boundary between paired elements (e.g., black and white ethics) of both rings, a process occurs that we initially referred to as “verting.”
If this is the case, Model A can be depicted similarly to how we represented the energy metabolism (EM) model in Fig. 2, where black telotacts were inside the sphere and white polytacts outside. Here, within the circle, we draw the half-tacts of the vital ring, and outside the circle, the half-tacts of the mental ring (see Fig. 6). Since two configurations are possible—either the static ring or the dynamic ring can be inside the circle—we must draw two versions of Model A: the static Model A and the dynamic Model A.
What does a static perceive in the external world?
The internal content and external form of objects, along with their internal and external relationships and connections.
What does this lead to?
To mental activity in the external ring, to thinking, and to the transmission of both received and invented information to others. The ring serves as an active external link with society. Through it, statics participate in the intellectual life of society and enrich it. We could say that this ring captures information from outside, processes it to some extent, and relays it back to other members of society. This process forms mental connections.
Does the information from the mental ring lead to the individual’s physical activity or any physical or psychological changes—in other words, is it used in practical activity? No, at least not at the stage we are currently discussing. It activates the organism only after “verting”—the transformation and transmission of received information to the vital ring. This occurs when real stimulus signals are received through the first signaling system. At this point, the intellectual meaning of the information is not considered—only the physical stimuli, which are the energy source for the vital ring, are processed.
Between the half-tacts of the external mental ring and the internal vital ring, verting occurs. This process ensures that, when information is received, not only is there mental excitation of the half-tacts in Ring I, but also vital excitation of the half-tacts in Ring II. External life activity and an abundance of impressions simultaneously activate both the mental and vital activity of individuals.
For statics, this leads to the ability to think about objects and their relationships while simultaneously experiencing emotional and physical activity—a sensory awareness of their situation in time and space. For dynamics, the process is reversed: they reflect on internal and external processes, time, and space, while their physical (vital ring) activation only occurs when they express themselves as objects or engage in their relationships with other objects.
Mental activity leads to mental-intellectual realization, while vital activity leads to vital-physical realization.
However, no activity is possible if any of the half-tacts or rings is activated only vitally or only mentally. The vitality of the vital ring must be complemented by the vitality of the mental ring. How can a static physically realize themselves through thehalf-tact without changing
? Or how can they contemplate altering the distance of
Yet, in real life, this mismatch between mentality and vitality occurs daily: the mental ring cannot avoid thinking and does so aimlessly, in a vacuum, while the vital ring cannot avoid physical activity and therefore acts “foolishly.”
In the first case, the person is called a chatterbox (talks a lot but does nothing). In the second case, they are considered poorly socialized or even antisocial.
I believe that genuinely antisocial individuals and criminals are more often found among statics whose vital ring is dynamic. Their antisocial behavior manifests in actions, emotions, and their attitude toward space and time. The antisocial tendencies of dynamics, on the other hand, manifest in the content and form of objects and relationships. This may appear as boasting about their own virtues, opportunism, ostentation, laziness, or misanthropy.
What is needed for both rings to work in harmony?
For the mental ring to become not only intellectual but also physically active, and for the vital ring to become not only action-oriented but also “rational,” programming is required. Both the mental and vital rings are programmed by other members of society.
How does this happen?
The essence lies precisely in how this programming occurs.
What is the scheme for programming the vital and mental rings?
Let us begin with the vital dynamic ring of a static. How does a static learn how to act, express emotions, or relate to time and space? The shortest path is through the words of their dual, the dynamic, who elaborates on what their first ring knows. This is information received through the second signaling system, transmitted by the dynamic’s Ring I and received by the static’s Ring I.
The question is only how this information reaches the recipient: does verting occur here or not? Logically, it should occur. The process can be described as follows: the dynamic speaks about reasonable and unreasonable actions
When the dynamic talks about an action, the static does not see the action itself but instead perceives only a sequential chain of changes to the object. In other words, the dynamic’s words show the static the same object at several stages, starting with what is currently before their eyes and ending with what should result from physical vital activity.
The static is unable to perform even the simplest movement based solely on the words of another. Instead, they imitate or experiment randomly, working toward a specific result. Their movements adapt to the goal, which is gradually differentiated step by step thanks to the dynamic’s words.
If the static has had to perform a particular task many times, they eventually execute it by rote and may achieve a high degree of skill. However, these remain mechanical movements—ones they do not think about and cannot think about.
To explain how the second ring is programmed, we rely on external informational interaction between the mental rings of duals. One mental ring transmits something to the other, and during transmission, this information undergoes verting, transforming into its opposite. A second verting occurs when the individual begins using the information from Ring I to implement their second ring.
The way a static perceives and uses the information received from their dynamic dual, as well as both vertings, is shown in Fig. 7.
In Fig. 8, we see the mutual programming of the vital rings of duals.
The solid arrows here, as in Fig. 7, indicate the direction of information transmitted from one mental ring to another. This represents the first verting, where, for example, white intuition turns into black intuition, and so on. The dotted lines represent the second verting, where black intuition turns back into white, and so on.
How should we approach the programming of the mental ring? Specifically, programming it to transition from words to action? How does the static’s mental ring become engaged in physical activity, and how is it prompted to manifest and implement its internal content, external form, and relationships in a real, physical context?
The shortest path is through the dual’s unsuccessful physical efforts, identification with their physical activity, and the desire to help. The static observes their dual partner’s physical struggles as they attempt to realize their internal content, external form, and internal and external relationships with people. Almost involuntarily, the static begins to help. The partner’s activity draws them into the process. By improving the self-realization of the other, the static also realizes themselves.
When a dynamic, on a purely physical level, emphasizes their abilities, external form, or internal and external relationships with others—that is, when they try to manifest the half-tacts of their Ring II—the observing static begins to feel the physical content of their own identical half-tacts. They also become aware of their static physical significance, thus overcoming excessive modesty.
The mental ring, in its physical expression, is always more modest than the vital ring, which exhibits modesty only when it needs to express its own opinion. Just as the vital ring lacks its own opinion, the mental ring lacks its own physical self. Both develop these aspects through identification with their duals.
How does a static receive from their dual the information that programs the half-tacts of their mental ring for physical self-realization? By observing the physical self-realization of others. They watch, and the information comes to them naturally. Through the first signaling system, the information is “sent” by the dynamic’s Ring II and received by the static’s Ring I. See Fig. 9.
When comparing Figures 8 and 9, their complete identicalness is evident, except for the direction of information flow. However, how can we explain the implication from this diagram that the static learns about the state of their partner’s black intuition only through their white intuition? The diagram is drawn the way it is simply because it was necessary to achieve the same two vertings. Now, it must be proven that this is the only correct version. For example, is it true that I judge my partner’s black intuition by their use of time? (My type is ENTp, ILE). Undoubtedly, yes. It is precisely how they use their time that provides me with information not about their time itself or about more or less rational ways to use it, but rather about their (and simultaneously my) potential energy. And if they listen to my advice on how to use their potential energy, they merely hear advice on how to use their time.
So, everything seems to converge into a more or less logical system, and the same two vertings as in Fig. 1 of this article are obtained everywhere.
Now, it would be worthwhile to attempt one more thing—to unite, at least for one tact, what is depicted in Figures 8 and 9 (see Fig. 10).
Here, there are two closed circuits of interaction between the duals’ intuition.
The first circuit:
The static receives twice-verted information about the dynamic’s potential energy (arrows 1 and 2), while simultaneously receiving information about how the dynamic perceives themselves. In return, the static transmits information about the dynamic’s actual potential energy, which the dynamic interprets as information about a more correct way to use their time. Consequently, the dynamic adjusts their use of potential energy.
The second circuit can be explained in a similar way.
Conclusions
What new insights did this work provide, and what questions did it answer?
• Reflection of objects and subjects:
The reflection of an object by another object at the energy level does not differ in its structure from the reflection of a subject by another subject at the informational level. The same two vertings occur in both cases.
• Second signaling system and mental rings:
The hypothesis that only the first mental ring uses and thinks in terms of the second signaling system is theoretically provable. If a person uses any vocabulary related to the half-tacts of the second ring, it is mechanical and memorized—an attempt by the first ring to make itself understood by others. Duals complement each other because, while discussing the same subject, they address completely different aspects of it.
• Interhemispheric asymmetry:
This area is more complex than the rings of information metabolism due to the presence of multiple layers of control, such as those governing the body. For instance, in a cyclothymic individual, only the left hemisphere considers
• Interaction of mental and vital rings:
The same stimulus signals generate mental activity in the first ring and vital activity in the second. This provides a theoretical basis for why over-saturation of the psyche with “ready-made” information via the second signaling system leaves it “hungry” for the first signaling system and reduces a person’s vital activity. The result is under-fulfillment of both the organism and the psyche. The vital and mental rings are so interconnected that a decrease in the activity of the vital ring also lowers the activity of the mental ring.
• Independence of the first mental ring:
The proof that, for every personality type, only the four half-tacts of the first mental ring are, to a greater or lesser extent, informationally independent (in terms of reception and transmission) brings us closer to C.G. Jung’s ideas. The only difference is that we see these half-tacts as consisting of two telotacts and two polytacts—a 2:2 ratio—whereas Jung perceived this proportion as 1:3.
______________________________________________
Glossary:
The terms Telotacts, Polytacts, Half-tacts, and Verting are specialized concepts often found in theoretical systems such as socionics, information metabolism, or related interdisciplinary studies. Here’s what they mean in their respective contexts:
Telotacts (Body Phases):
• Etymology: Derived from Greek “τέλος” (telos, meaning “goal” or “end”) and Latin “tactus” (meaning “touch” or “contact”).
• Meaning: Goal-oriented or object-specific actions or signals. These represent discrete, focused processes or interactions aimed at achieving specific results or influencing specific objects.
• Example: Interacting with a specific object, like pressing a button or intentionally moving toward a target.
Polytacts (Field Phases):
• Etymology: Derived from Greek “πολύς” (polys, meaning “many” or “broad”) and Latin “tactus.”
• Meaning: Field-like, broad, or diffuse processes or signals. These describe interactions that are less targeted and more generalized, focusing on the environment or system as a whole.
• Example: Sensing the overall atmosphere of a room or perceiving a general trend in data.
Half-tacts (Half-phases):
• Etymology: “Полу-” (half) + “такты” (tacts or cycles).
• Meaning: A partial or incomplete cycle of a process, representing either the input or output phase of an interaction. A full tact consists of two half-tacts: one for receiving information and the other for transmitting it.
• Example: A signal being received by the organism is one half-tact, while the reaction or response to that signal is the other.
Verting:
• Etymology: Derived from Latin vertere (to turn, transform, or invert).
• Meaning: Transformation or inversion of information or energy. It refers to the process of converting one type of information or signal into another, often across different rings or systems (e.g., mental to vital, or vice versa).
• Example: When external sensory information is transformed into internal emotional responses or actions.
In Context:
These terms are often used together to describe complex systems of interaction in socionics, information metabolism, or other interdisciplinary theories:
1. Telotacts focus on discrete, goal-directed actions.
2. Polytacts deal with continuous, broad influences.
3. Half-tacts represent the granular input-output mechanisms of these processes.
4. Verting describes the transformation and interaction between different levels of information or energy.
Source:
https://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/aug-2vert.html
Translated using ChatGPT and DeepL.
Reply With Quote
-Ne
Originally Posted by maresnest
