That's not what I'm looking at.
Look I'll lay it out, since it seems everyone is so confused.
Ego or information level – “I know"
Superego or social level - “I must"
Super-id or psychological level - “I want"
Id or physical level - “I can"
http://socionics.spb.ru/model_a.html
Block EGO
("Creative block")
Block Superego
(Unit of social control ")
Block SUPERID
(Block of individual activity)
Block ID
(Block of individual control)
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%...B%D1%8C_%D0%90
Rings
Mental Ring - 1, 2, 3, 4 ("software", "creative", "role" and "pain") - a high degree of awareness. Responsible for the social activity of man.
Vital ring - 5, 6, 7, 8 ("suggestive", "activation", "observation" and "demonstrative") - characterized by a low level of awareness. Responsible for the individual needs of man. Vital ring mirrors aspects of mental block, but in the opposite-vertnosti.
The Vital Ring is a focus on the Self and the Mental Ring is a focus on external Reality.
Dynamic Vital functions = Static Mental functions
Static Vital functions = Dynamic Mental functions
INTp/ILI
Mental Conscious - Dynamic
[Ni, Te, Si, Fe]
These aspects form the way I intently interact with the world
Vital Unconscious - Static
[Se, Fi, Ne, Ti]
These aspects form the ingrained backbone of my identity.
Thus I have a Static unconscious identity. I see my vital aspects as Static.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
I love how organized that is
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Not quite. At least from my frame of reference, nothing really changes. This might be being an ISp though. My perception is like I'm in the midst of a continuum so that, on reflection, I can see how whatever it was used to be different from how it is now, but the drift is so gradual as to be imperceptible.
I think as well this is what leads to IP temperament's natural patience and flexibility, because nothing ever appears to be changing at all. Especially relevant to the Caregiver romance style and just settling into what the wiki eloquently described as "sleepy drifting". Again, maybe just ISp.
No, nothing appears to change, but what is actually happening is that the change is being so well perceived, that it appears there is no discrete change in reality over time. Ip is about, as you said, gradual, imperceptible change. Dynamic sees reality as changing. Statics sees reality as not changing. Extroverts bring about change. Introverts do not bring about change.
EDIT: I also experience the same phenomenon of only really seeing change when I look at the past versus the present.
There is more to be said about ESC's idea I'm sure. NECROBUMP!!
Aiss agrees with OP, it seems. Gonna throw this link in here too, cuz I got some reason/hunch to think it relates to all of this.
This guy is the shit:
"Solipsism is the belief that only the mind exists - and nothing else exists externally of the mind, but these perceived "external objects" are actually nothing more than an illusionary product of the mind itself."
actually, solipsism doesnt claim that nothing exists except the mind. It claims that we *can never know* if anything exists except our own mind. And therefore casts doubt upon experience as external, claiming it is entirely possible that everything is really generated by the mind, and there is no external at all. " The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist". The strong position of "there IS NO external non-mental reality" is just as unjustified under solipsism as the position affirming external objective reality; neither position can ever be known. That is kind of the point, really.
As a quick example, this: "Since the surrealistic sub-category of solipsism states that the only thing which exists is the mind, then this implies that the mind is indivisible and absolute" is false. There is no necessary reason why the mind could not be "all that exists" and still exist fragmented in an interconnected set of mental parts or processes. I believe the conclusion you arrive at here comes from an understanding of 'mind' that is very simplistic and unrealistic. The belief that the mind is just a "singularity" or is "indivisible" is not necessary for the solipsistic argument, and therefore while you correctly identify that such claims of indivisibility and singularity are false, this does not directly address solipsism itself. Also, "since 'only' implies one" is also false. "only" can apply to things which exist with subparts. Think of a room with "only one person in it". there is only one person, yet there are many aspects and parts of this person. There are many THINGS in the room, cells and elements and organs and all that, but still only one PERSON. Likewise there could be only one mind, and yet this mind is comprised of many mental parts, each of which is mental in itself in the same way that the cells of a person are a part of that one person.
As for the a priori a posteriori distinctions, this just tends to confuse these sorts of issues. We cannot have an experience without an EXPERIENCE, clearly. This means that so called a priori knowledge is impossible, because any act of knowing or knowing-event must be an experience, which requires a) an experiencer and b) an experienced. However, solipsism could still maintain here, as both of these a and b could be generated from within a mind. The experiencer could be experiencing itself, which is entirely possible. We experience our own thoughts all the time. As for logically necessary knowledge, this is said to be a priori, but also depends upon an experiencing itself in the same way. "All bachelors are unmarried" is logically true, because it is a definition. But such knowledge required experience with the concepts of bachelor and its definition of an unmarried man. There is no knowledge which can be gained without an experience of some sort. And once you already have experienced the concept of bachelor, in the future you are experiencing the memory which contains this knowledge. The knowledge never just "exists" without being experienced in an interactive way. All knowledge is an experience, yet there is also no reason why these experiences could not be generated by your own mind, although as ive stated before, its also equally pointless to assume that they ARE all generated by your mind.
Dont get me started on the a priori, a posteriori stuff, trust me its all a load of crap. There is no such distinction. Likewise analytic/synthetic is just made up garbage. Dont let yourself get confused or worried over such things. There is no such thing as a distinction, all knowledge is arrived at by exactly the same means.
By the way I do agree with you that solipsism is useless, or absurd, but only because it is self-defeating. It doubts everything by establishing a standard of proof that can never be met: we are told we must PROVE external reality, which we can never do, because we have absolutely no way at all of obtaining even a single datum of information without relying on our local minds and internal subjective state. Solipsism isnt anything to worry about, because it sets up an impossible standard, like saying "you cant prove that God does NOT exist?! So there!". But its useless to waste time on such things.
Solipsism is not incorrect or wrong. It is entirely possible that every experience you have is internally generated. There is no logical reason why the mind cannot stimulate itself internally. We do this all the time when we think. Sure, it seems pretty rediculous and unlikely, and its nothing to lose sleep over, but nevertheless its still there as a logical possibility, just as the existence of God is. Neither can be proven nor disproven, but that is exactly why it shouldnt really bother you at all.My point is that the process by which experiences occur is the same whether you are experiencing a priori or a posteriori knowledge. Yes, we *understand* the *concepts* of these knowledges themselves differently, I get that. However, assuming any sort of ontological significance beyond this is false. When you experience the knowledge of "Where was ****** born?" and you have to go look it up in a history book, your conscious aware brain interacts directly with data, which filtered into it via the senses. If you are experiencing the knowledge of "Are all bachelors unmarried men?", your conscious aware brain interacts directly with data, which filtered into it via sense impressions stored in your brain already. Note also that such impressions must also exist for you to understand "******", "Birth", "year", etc.
Cognitive data is the same, it is processed information run into and through the brain, and generated into an experience. Ultimately all data in the brain is the same. Whether it runs through the eyes and retina and visual cortex and higher cognition to *you*, or whether it runs from a copy of a data which in the past ran through the eyes and retina and visual cortex and higher cognition to *you*, is the same. Memories are the exact same substance as "external" experiences. They are streams of data, copied for further use. Whether data streams from a copy in the memory, or it streams through a sense organ is irrelevant. It is not EXPERIENCED until it is generated internally, holographically and consciously for *you* to experience. Experiences are constructed from data.
That was my only point, really. Yes, we can identify the difference between the source of data, whether it is authentic or whether it is a copy of a previously authentic experience, but the brain treats either case exactly the same. And besides, virutally every single experience is a synthesis of these two anyways. In fact I cannot imagine a single experience that is not.