socionics for non-math majors

[snp7901]

[Exodus]

The only page I could find is the original in Russian:

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl.../n_bipolar.htm

[reyn_til_runa]

snp7901 -


1.Set Theory and Logic

2. Abstract Algebra Online

3. group theory

4. "The Equation That Couldn't Be Solved" by Mario Livio, which includes a section on group theory under the broader context of symmetry. It's okay for an overview, but not the best for detail.

I've only read 1 and 4 so far.

btw, what were/are you on exactly?

just mj

[snp7901]

[reyn_til_runa]

...but just from what i've been given here i still don't see reason for machintruc's claim. we may be able to synthesize models coherent with much of the universe but that doesn't mean they'll ever be perfectly so, much less that our existence depends on it.

generally i prefer a dialectic approach to these things actually. rather than the quietism that's becoming popular. but only if you can do it honestly. otherwise we risk rationalizing some of our most unrealistic assumptions. and without an explaination for why he manipulated those objects as he did, it seems to me like that's all machintruc is doing.

Well put.

So, would you lean towards Hegel's idea of all reality being rational (as opposed to simply being injected with "rational" synthetic thought)?

Along those lines, Engels' Dialectics of Nature might be relatable to socionics.

It would directly oppose machintruc's view that god must be the first mover of logic/dialectics, and by extension, the first mover of the universe.

I say, if nature is real, then is it rational, and must be the mover and substance of human thought.

What strikes me as, perhaps, most relevant to socionics is Engels discussion on quantitative-qualitative changes to an object.

It is important to consider that there will be various plateaus in the dialectical laws.

To make a crude example:

the litter box smells (qualititative)
there are 7 clumps of poo mixed with litter in my cat's litter box (quantitative)
i remove the seven clumps (quantitiative)
now the litter box is clean and does not smell. (qualitative)

Engels says that only addition or subtraction of either motion or matter can change a quantitative object into a qualitative one, OR cause the natural breaking point in a process to be reached (e.g. at a set temperature, water boils and therefore, is said to have different form or "quality" than before).

Another example would be of an earthworm (i believe this is one that Engel's actually used). If you were to identify the two endpoints as mouth and anus and then were to cut the earthworm up into pieces and rearranged them, it might be true that quantitatively, we'd still have the same amount of earthworm. but qualitatively, if we placed the anus where the mouth was supposed to go or somewhere in between, we'd have a qualitatively different earthworm.

So, all this to say, we cannot expect our reasoning to be exactly proportionate to the dialectics which are observable in nature. The reason for this is the qualitative changes we sometimes impose but often experience independent of will. With this comes the fear that objects may become subjects and we may be making a matrix out of mud. For Hegel, the Idea = the thesis and nature = the antithesis. We will be forced to make some qualitative judgments about an object or about the interrelatedness of objects unless, as I stated earlier, you were to get down to the level of atoms. I jokingly labeled them as "the antithesis of dirty atoms" just to qualify something that is finally (?) irreducible for our purposes.

I almost forgot to say that I have no idea where to find group theory + socionics.