Over the past six months our understanding of the functions here has increased by leaps and bounds; in particular appears increasingly less foreign to types and easier to understand. and awareness is also increasing steadily.
As we delineate the ranges of the function's applicability, we also limit their manifestation. Ordered logic is not business logic; sensory feedback is not qualitative analysis. persistent feeling motives are not temporary subjective precepts. By accepting guidelines for distinguishing between the functions, we establish clear boundaries and domains for each.
But what about the information which seems a little of both? What of the histories of people and cultures manifesting in the context of their clashes and competitions? Is this ... or is it :Si? If we judge that a person or force will win out against another at a point in the future, (or make a similar observation with regard to the past) is this ... or ? Rules of change do not imply awareness of the content of change. Therefore, knowledge of content in the span of time, when not mediated in consideration by a rational function, should be impossible given our accepted definition of . Despite this, there are works of incredible imagination in existence which describe histories and evolution paths of people who have never even existed, who exist only as characters in the context of an imaginary reality. Can we really explain the existence of these characters and of the realities we are given for them in the scope of eight functions proceeding in a predefined, inflexible cycle?
What if a function were neither hot, nor cold, but just right, like the poridge of "Goldielock"'s smallest bear? And the poridge too, neither hard, nor soft, but just right? We might refer to the state of this poridge, and of this bed, as "ambivalent" with regard to the dicotomies, respectively, of hot and cold, hard and soft. Similarly, functions which seem to function not merely indepently of each other, but in mutual concert, could be perceived as not one or the other, but a union of the two ambivalent to either extreme. For example, with could be described as the analysis of the properties of a external field static, or of the facts which underlie it. We might also be in the unenviable position, had we the use of this dynamics, of recognizing the influence of our conclusions on our capacity to form business relationships with others, or friendships besides. That is a rather odd conclusion, if you think about it in socionics terms: what I conclude, determines who my friends are. Mutually: "my friends determine what I conclude."
At first, it seems very odd, even self-deceptive. "Why should I limit myself to such narrow thinking?", you might ask. But consider by analogy the properties of adhesion and cohesion in chemistry: like combines with like. Water mixes with water but not with oil. Now consider how, given the necessity of producing an immediate irrational content with your accepted rational data, you would deduce the influence of a constant (water's non-mixture with oil) on a conclusion?
In all likelyhood, you wouldn't. Not with Model A. Instead you would be producing an analysis of the water's qualities (consistency, density, mass, etc.) against those of the oil, or attempting to deduce the source of a "ethereal" energy which refutes the supposed neccessity of water's union with oil. You would not recognize that due to the static of water's refusal to mix with oil, there must be something respective to water and oil, a trait common to either, which is not satisfied. You instinctively look, as Aristotle would have, to the influence of "hidden" potentials and forces. You are constrained to a tiny box of conclusions and limited horizons from which there seems no escape, nor is there any reason to try: you need, you think, only to presuppose the existence of yet another potential or force of which you had not been previously aware the need for.