Reinin Dichotomies: Static/Dynamic

[Saberstorm]

@The Ineffable

You are just the man to discuss this. This is a quote from Gulenko: Can you give concrete example of these types of logic?

"For further in depth analysis of logical processes of different types we will also need another dichotomy that differentiates static logic from dynamic logic.

Static logic: logic of fixed structures, frozen logic. Logic of the evolved i.e. final state of system.

Dynamic logic: logic of becoming. This kind of logic deals with transitions that exist within the process of transformation of structures.

Static types: ILE, LII, EII, IEE, ESI, SEE, LSI, SLE
Dynamic types: SEI, ESE, LSE, SLI, ILI, EIE, IEI"

END of QUOTE:

Now, put that into a real living example! Then we will understand it.

[The Ineffable]

You are just the man to discuss this. This is a quote from Gulenko: Can you give concrete example of these types of logic?

I don't know what logics is he talking about in that quote.

But talking about Ti (Static) and Te (Dynamic):
- they both set value of truth - what is the case
- their value of truth is objective - unlike Ethics
- their value of truth is applicable - unlike Irrational IEs

The two Logics have a total different truth-telling, this is actually the only common denominator between them, otherwise they are totally different:
- Te processes only the facts - Bodies (empirical), Dynamic (occurring). It has nothing to do with "logic" in the general sense. In a nutshell, something experienced is true and absolutely not false. However the claim is strict only when it comes to the experience itself, not it's interpretation. It makes no claim about what something experienced is. In fact identification is static anyway. For example "I have seen a wolf" is more of an "I have seen something that appeared to be a wolf. Just I definitely have seen it." Its claims are not universal either - "all people die" = "all people we know about died". Its cognition is the basis for induction, induction itself is a complete Serious cycle (Te->Fi).
- Ti tells only the rules of thinking - Fields (mental), Static (descriptive). It deals with nothing empirical, although it evolves empirically (aka makes its rules out of something). It tells whether a proposition is true or false with no respect to the claims it could make about empirical reality. For example "Socrates is a human" and "all humans die" are nothing of concern for logic, but whether Socrates will die or not based on these premises is. Remember the notorious "certainty" the Ti Ego types are accused by Te valuers when they "don't know all": in fact the judge does not gather evidence, he/she just draws a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. However for a verdict Fe is required, the internally-fixed universal and meaningful experience.

Hypothetical real-life example where both Logics can be used: you hear the proposition "I put an elephant in my car".
- Ti: impossible, based on a few rules: the volume of the elephant is more than the empty space of the car, an object of a larger volume can't fit in a space of lesser volume, etc. No need to see that, you call the claim a falsehood, after you ask for all the information you need for your judgment.
- Te: you must be shown this. Perhaps it is possible, you don't make judgments about this, just you need to be shown. You tell your verdict when you have seen or not seen that happening.

[mu4]

I think you mix up a few things here, but it's pretty good. is more than just "see" it's also about measurement. Measurement is a rational thing while seeing is more a perceptive thing. A lot of showing is sensing not . can make a rational determination absent personal or direct perception.

Both logics are rooted in measurement but I wouldn't call both "objective". Measurement is more objective than feel or emotion however.

When disregards it is due to disregarding the relationship between measurement while when disregards , there is a desire for rules to be applied irregardless of scale.

[The Ineffable]

I think you mix up a few things here, but it's pretty good. is more than just "see" it's also about measurement.

Yeah, it was not meant to be taken literally, my usage of "seeing" was more as an umbrella for experiencing something as a fact. For example if you are told an imaginary story where the character is married (or was married), any subsequent instance where the character is depicted as bachelor will be a contradiction. So even this was not at all related to perception, in the scope of the story marriage was still a fact, being again processed by Te.

Measurement is a rational thing while seeing is more a perceptive thing. A lot of showing is sensing not . can make a rational determination absent personal or direct perception.

The way I understand it, Te is generally the psychic function that tells what is the case, in its own manner (factual [1]), which acted on, drives towards activities of measurement. My example has not covered this issue for the sake of simplicity, indeed one has to measure to tell the dimensions of the two objects - but then, everything we know could be subject to (re)verification. Indeed measurement pertains to Te, but only the measurement alone, not the contradiction of placing a larger object inside a smaller space. Basically determining the actual size of either of these two objects would become a separate problem in itself, and normally it is only Te that tells these dimensions pf physical objects and Ti won't deny any such information from a 3rd party unless it contradicted higher governing principles [2] - e.g. a body that large that could not sustain itself physically.

Measurement is a rational thing while seeing is more a perceptive thing. A lot of showing is sensing not . can make a rational determination absent personal or direct perception.

My view always was that - in Socionics - no function is per se related to perception. I must clarify several things which I often find confused by several fallacious misuses of the terms:
- I am sometimes using the notion "rational" as describing cognition pretaining to the Fields IEs/functions. It has nothing to do with the Rational/Irrational partition of Jung's theory. It just means mentally or internally induced - the antonym of "empirical".
- I am not of the opinion that S IEs are bound to the senses, neither are they more related to senses than other IEs. The notion of "sensing" is historical, I assume everyone is aware it has not semantic content, its literal sense is no more appropriate to what it denotes than "atom" (indivisible) is for the particle in physics.
- Rationality is an attitude of a personality that is characterized by having the four F and T IEs as accepting functions.
---

[1] - I make this distinction for more than one reason. For example an actual identification would not be a fact in its true sense, it has its internal subjective side.
[2] - could be Fi, too: anything usual depicted as never seen before (e.g. pocket-size elephant). It denies the historical results of induction that form our human culture, which cannot be proven in person. In any case, evidence is paramount and will always prevail, it will trigger revision of public knowledge (Fi) or the models we use for understanding (Ti).

[krieger]

i see statics as controlling of their fate in initiative taking, agentive ways, whereas dynamics are in a sense more reactive to external events.

this last thing does not in any way mean powerless. the reaction is often one where the triggering influence is redirected in ways that leaves the person in much better position than before. but there is less of a "willed" precursor to the action. more of a sense of necessity in the fending off of outside impulses.

...

it also merits pointing out that the initiative of statics can be plainly stupid in ways that don't make it command any kind of "control" over events. the static can cry out "i want X" all day long, but that doesn't mean the world at large will cater to the wish. it isn't a matter of effects so much as one of the initial attitude in approaching situations and environments; whether to approach it with or without an initial sense of where in the map of stochastic possibility one wants to end up.

the explanation for this is that statics work with spatial maps, which are multidimensional and confer a sense of "where" much like in "where i want to be", whereas dynamics work mainly with temporal relations, which concern mostly how one situation follows another and what attitude is most suitable in anticipation of it.

smilingeyes also saw it much like this, if i remember properly.

[1981slater]

Sometimes, static people are either too focused or too scatterbrained
Dynamic people have are in the middle.
Dynamic people usually monitor the actions of static people (to help them)
Static people usually monitor de actions of dynamic people (to correct/command them)

[xerx]

Expat and Gulenko more or less believe(d) the same thing.

[mu4]

Yeah, it was not meant to be taken literally, my usage of "seeing" was more as an umbrella for experiencing something as a fact. For example if you are told an imaginary story where the character is married (or was married), any subsequent instance where the character is depicted as bachelor will be a contradiction. So even this was not at all related to perception, in the scope of the story marriage was still a fact, being again processed by Te.

Your use of seeing is more a product of how your conscious functions are aligned. ^_^
As for the imaginary story, the facts of the bachelor's marriage is not being processed by in fact, it's can be many factors such as unreliable narrator, a imaginary world where the logic of marriage and bachelorhood isn't recognized, or simply a bachelor of whatever degree the character holds. The factors that would make this marriage a rational and extroverted would be some sort of formal and official recognization by a religious or state institution within the context of the story. This is a measurable quantity even within the story.

Your base function is a extroverted perceptive function so you have a predisposition to think in that way. Your example is actually a extroverted perceptive means of characterizing marriage along with rationality. However there is no legitimacy of the statements being made, there is no body to make the perceptions you make substantiated. The story might be inconsistent, but since there is no proof of marriage within your example, there is no marriage. It's best to take this outside of a imaginary world and into the real one as a example, but it works either way

A marriage certificate could also easily fall into extroverted ethics as not all marriage certificate are acceptable in all areas of the world and is only a product of collective human relations.

It's important to recognize the difference in cognition in extroverted perception and extroverted rationality and your communication style is a good example. For you, reading/seeing/observing is enough to establish fact or at least you view it as enough to establish a objective "enough" perceptive, however extrovert rationality requires more that that, it requires some sort of measurable construct. I want to also note that this construct can be fraudulent, coerced, or the rationalization a delusion, however it's legitimacy is established via a measurable. It's legitimacy can also change due to a change in the measurable.

I'm not going to go too much deeper into this, but in a lot of ways you are making a simple mistake of describing something you can't easily consciously verbalized based on your ego functions. It's actually quite difficult to verbalize especially when the topic is often related and require mutual use to form a complete picture.

[krieger]

I thought smilex wrote that dynamics start stuff (and opposite is true for statics/ accounting for intro/extro and so on ) - i prolly misunderstood him or am misunderstanding you now @labcoat ?

i think you just misremembered...

Expat and Gulenko more or less believe(d) the same thing.

as who/what?

[xerx]

as who/what?

As some of the post you wrote. Any of their conclusions based on it may differ though.

Expat had that boat analogy about how dynamics basically find themselves trapped in a stream and focus their energy on reacting to its shifting currents, having no control over them.

Gulenko talks about dynamic being about time, and static being about space in his Forms of Thinking. I don't remember all the details.

[wacey]

Sometimes, static people are either too focused or too scatterbrained
Dynamic people have are in the middle.
Dynamic people usually monitor the actions of static people (to help them)
Static people usually monitor de actions of dynamic people (to correct/command them)

This made me smile because I feel that in a practical setting, as in between two people, that your statement is mostly true.

[1981slater]

This made me smile because I feel that in a practical setting, as in between two people, that your statement is mostly true.

Excellent, Wacey

[The Ineffable]

It's important to recognize the difference in cognition in extroverted perception and extroverted rationality and your communication style is a good example. For you, reading/seeing/observing is enough to establish fact or at least you view it as enough to establish a objective "enough" perceptive, however extrovert rationality requires more that that, it requires some sort of measurable construct. I want to also note that this construct can be fraudulent, coerced, or the rationalization a delusion, however it's legitimacy is established via a measurable. It's legitimacy can also change due to a change in the measurable.

I fully agree with this, that Rational Extraverted Logic attitude is basically equivalent with measuring and hard support for the facts. However, I was debating what Te essentialy is, and I find cherry picking in that reasoning all over the place...

Just for the record, I know this is not necessarily your view, though things are a bit mixed-up in your explanation: Te Accepting is not the same thing with Te Producing, meaning Te/j is different in attitude from Te/p. There is no need of this universal application and necessary conclusions of the Te in Irrational types.

Te as an IE is not the same thing with Te as function or in Ego.

While I know for a fact that Te Irrationals make use of probably as much measuring as - if not even more precise than - their Rational counterparts, I don't think the whole field of measuring is an inherent part of Te. In fact I don't think the applicability of any function is dependent of a constructed system of scaling. In my view Te could have been used in the Stone Age with no problem.

[The Ineffable]

(continues the post above but explores many other areas)

Fe-Base are very not like that - as described in the supposed Ej manner of obtaining confirmation. Their pursuits (of the Fe/j types) are not based on hard facts (including measurements); when not counting in the motivational mobilisation this attitude triggers in themselves and others, their vision is factually baseless (hence why sometimes utopian). The object of Fe/j is always the bird in the bush, the aim, the intent, or the feeling about the potential state of things. Always in the future or behind the scenes, just never what just is and was seen - this is simply the Fe IA side of things. I repeat, it is not that Fe as Information Aspect "deals" with these things, it *is* this side of things. Take the word "aspect" from "Information Aspects" literally, it is not merely a label. Only thought as a function - and a type - we can think of how this side of things is handled by the psyche, both in importance and interest.

Sorry for jumping from Ej and Fe-Base to Fe/Te in general, but I think the distinction is actually helpful here. To continue, imagine the application of both Te and Fe to an encounter with a shark:
- Fe, before: "that shark will attack". Merely the action of advancing towards or encircling the human means an attack. Subjective, true, as all the Internal IEs, but this anticipation is what Fe in action is. Te is unapplicable here because no such thing occurred (Fe: "not yet"). After (*if* the attack occurred): Fe is unapplicable on the attack itself.
- Te, before: unapplicable. All one can tell is the circumstances: that the shark is there, the distance between the two, etc - but there is no such thing as an attack. After: "the attack occurred", it becomes a fact.
---

We should not conclude three things from the above, possible confusions that come to my mind: (1) that Te valuing would ignore the possibility of an attack, (2) that Fe is applied solel to anticipate future events, and (3) that Ne (Bodies + Internal) would also anticipate such event:

1. Te valuing is inherently Fi valuing. Like I stated in a post above, there is a cultural (common knowledge) relationship between the shark and the man, based in turn on facts, actual past events. "Sharks = man attackers" - Fields, Internal and also Static because it is a relationship - the rule is formal but accounted for. This does not mean that shark "is/was about to attack", there is logically no such thing as a Serious "is/was about" by the very understood notions of Te and Fe, in my view. These divergent views on prevention generate lots of misunderstanding between Merry and Serious personalities (people or factions), for example in the police overreaction matters. It is a philosophical question whether someone can be legitimate in evaluating the consequences of a given situation. Talking of police: in a supposed absence of Fe, preventive force against an agent that was not previously qualified (e.g. "a murderer") could never be justified: it is impossible to prove that someone was about to commit a crime when it was neutralized before the said event could take place.

2. Like already exemplified above at point (1), Fe can be used to interpret the past, what was behind certain events. Same with Te and future, wait and see or intentions to test and measure - come up with facts about something. However, I believe these behaviors are given in pairing with their Fields block members (Ip).

3. Ne and Se, although Bodies and therefore empirical, they are Static, so they would not deal with any course of actions. A Pe cognition in this case would be rather on the lines of whether that shark is capable of damaging its target or something. And that is not totally correct, Irrational functions are by nature not to draw any judgment, they being either Fields+Dynamic [Ip] (the general way things go, in opposition to the B+D's [Ej] what is actually going on), or Bodies+Static (the potential actual things have, in opposition to the general qualities of different categories). Therefore, to formulate a "Pe proposition", it would be of the form "since this is capable of that ...". A Static judgment - to tell what is the case in respect to properties and relations - can only be Fields, and therefore general (Fi, Ti).

Well, life is not all about dangers, sharks and violence, just examples of critical situations seem more eloquent.

[mu4]

I fully agree with this, that Rational Extraverted Logic attitude is basically equivalent with measuring and hard support for the facts. However, I was debating what Te essentialy is, and I find cherry picking in that reasoning all over the place...

Just for the record, I know this is not necessarily your view, though things are a bit mixed-up in your explanation: Te Accepting is not the same thing with Te Producing, meaning Te/j is different in attitude from Te/p. There is no need of this universal application and necessary conclusions of the Te in Irrational types.

Te as an IE is not the same thing with Te as function or in Ego.

While I know for a fact that Te Irrationals make use of probably as much measuring as - if not even more precise than - their Rational counterparts, I don't think the whole field of measuring is an inherent part of Te. In fact I don't think the applicability of any function is dependent of a constructed system of scaling. In my view Te could have been used in the Stone Age with no problem.

Functional attitudes are a bit different yes, but I was more referring to the information being conveyed which is the IE. The most basic Te measurement is like 2 apples vs 1 apple, or many apples vs few apples, this is possible with the most rudimentary of mental processes and tools. It's also important to recognize that this is large a difference of approach, a base might assess a factor thru a glance while a type might require a more through "due" diligence. However rational judgements leads to decisions which may resist future "due diligence" while irrational perceptions still can undergo the due diligence.

Another common example of say sensing vs rationality that's easy to observe is cooking recipes.

a "pinch" of salt vs salt to taste vs 1 teaspoon of salt.

This is quite a bit difference a pinch is , salt to taste is , where as 1 teaspoon of salt is .

A pinch is an objective act but not measurable strictly, it can also vary based on how big one's pinch is, nevertheless this is still quite objective action.

Salt to taste is based on the cook's individual preference and taste.

1 teaspoon of salt is a precise measurement. The pinch and salt to taste can vary based on what that individual might observe see as far as the amount needed, but 1 teaspoon remains 1 teaspoon(however it's quantity may change in relation to the amount of other ingredients).

These directions also work for different individuals, some individuals will have a natural aptitude of using one pinch of salt and getting the dish perfectly salted, I know some individuals who just do this perfectly, they can also do things like get the weight of a pound of fish perfect as well as a 4 oz filet of fish and things like this without a tool. Some others prefer to get the taste just right via tasting. Others have to follow a recipe as they can't get it right without a recipe.

[anndelise]

Others have to follow a recipe as they can't get it right without a recipe.

And some can't get it right even with a recipe.