Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Dynamic worldview - static Self. Static worldview - dynamic Self.

  1. #41
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Egbert Human View Post
    Temperament.

    IP: things are changing, and that's fine. The world/self is seen as changing. Since things outside the self change, the IP adapts, changing themselves.

    EP: nothing has changed so far, and that bothers me, I need to change things. The world is seen as mutable, but things haven't changed, so the EP changes them.

    IJ: nothing has changed so far, and that's fine, I don't want them to change. The world/self is seen as static, with potential for change; deviations are seen as blips on the radar and things will go back to how they always have been. The IJ rides out the storms and continues as they always have been.

    EJ: things are changing, and it's for the worst, so I need to bring things back on track. The world is seen as changing, usually not for the better, so the EJ exerts their Base function to change things to what they're meant to be.
    fixed the ip part there.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  2. #42
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siuntal View Post
    If you take a look at types that are called Dynamic, they are all what is called Judgers in MBTI. All of them have an extraverted judging/rational function in the ego and an introverted perceiving/irrational function. Static types are all the types that are called Perceivers in MBTI. All of them have an introverted judging/rational function in the ego in combination with an extraverted perceiving/irrational function. Due to this, what Bolt described below indeed I have observed to happen:



    And thus one can also say that in MBTI the J/P simply represents the Dynamic/Static type divide in Reinin traits.
    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

  3. #43
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

  4. #44
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siuntal View Post
    And thus one can also say that in MBTI the J/P simply represents the Dynamic/Static type divide in Reinin traits.
    I don't understand this.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  5. #45
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    fixed the ip part there.
    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.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Egbert Human View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    fka noki, zap, ath kopyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    402
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is more to be said about ESC's idea I'm sure. NECROBUMP!!

  8. #48
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Basically you are making classic Ti presumptive leaps. More evidence for Ti dominant.
    This comment is so goddamn ignorant, it makes me steam.

  9. #49
    fka noki, zap, ath kopyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    402
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    Since this thread seems to have derailed towards static/dynamic discussion anyway...

    From wikisocion:
    This could be imagined as - only in context of perceiving time - static types using inertial reference frame (they're moving through time), and dynamic types using non-inertial reference frame (they're observing time flow). That's not to say one type acts more or less dynamically in a conventional meaning, but the perception of the world as dynamic requires perception of self being static, and the reverse for static types.

    Since duals are on different sides of this dichotomy, I'd expect they complete each other in this way - one being better suited to observe (extract?) variables and the other processes. That nothing is completely unchangeable doesn't make it any less a static property (variable - "constant" is more intuitive, but I suppose some would find it objectionable).

    I can see some potential in extrapolating perception of time on perception of space - although in this case most people seem to be more or less similar - but not in a more general sense labcoat attempts, as other IEs properties play a part.
    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.

  10. #50
    Olduvai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ath View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •