Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 18:26:51 GMT -5
Roshan I don't think it's about "believing". No matter whether I believe it or not, it's not readily apparent from some symmetry, rigor, or even understanding, that these axes work together or are even the most opposed to each other. In the sense of being two opposing poles, that kind of applies but at the same time doesn't. That's because the same domain switch(e.g. N->S) with an extraversion switch(e.g. e->i) is as distant from a particular function as is a rationality(JxP) and extraversion switch.(e.g. Ne is as distant to Ti and Fi as it is to Si) Therefore it's actually a choice of three. And there must be some more elucidation done to justify it as "Yes, there indeed exists a Ne-Si axis.".
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 28, 2021 14:52:14 GMT -5
In the sense of being two opposing poles, that kind of applies but at the same time doesn't. That's because the same domain switch(e.g. N->S) with an extraversion switch(e.g. e->i) is as distant from a particular function as is a rationality(JxP) and extraversion switch.(e.g. Ne is as distant to Ti and Fi as it is to Si) Therefore it's actually a choice of three. And there must be some more elucidation done to justify it as "Yes, there indeed exists a Ne-Si axis.".
Well, i won't have enough time tonight to do what i wanted to do with this topic, but i can at least reply to this.
No, Ne is not as distant to Ti and Fi as it is to Si.
With Ne vs Ti/Fi, we have
-a domain switch
-a Judging/Perceiving switch -a introversion/extraversion switch
With Ne vs Si, we have
-a domain switch
-a introversion/extraversion switch
But both are Perceiving functions.
Same "rationality", to use your terminology.
If you accept the J/P dichotomy, you also have to accept the axis. They imply each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2021 15:30:58 GMT -5
No, we do NOT have a domain switch Ne vs. Ti/Fi. That is not a fair comparison, because there is no preference of either, therefore it's more like 4 dichotomies, two of which are represented in different function's groups of rationality. That's like saying going towards the core of the planet is the opposite direction to going west.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 28, 2021 15:44:02 GMT -5
Wut ?
Domains = N, S, T, F so of course, there is a domain switch.
That's the basic premises of the system :
If only the orientation changes = same domain
eg Ne -> Ni
if only the domain changes= same type
Ne -> Se
if the domain and the orientation change within the same rationality = same axis
Ne -> Si
if the domain and the rationality change, outside of the same rationality = potential 6th/3rd
Ne -> Te/Fe
if the domain, the rationality and the orientation change = potential polr/aux
Ne -> Ti/FI
In any case, the concept of J/P already implies that N-S and F-T are "coupled" together and that domains are not equidistant from each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2021 15:48:58 GMT -5
Yes, but that's as you said a PREMISE. Which I do not think is necessarily justified. I think it relates to my other thread about proving "how do functions work". Besides it, from the point of view to representing it in space, if NSTF are 4 directions, then NS will be orthogonal to TF. We could invoke some non-orthogonality by adding the rationality dichotomy, making them have non-right angle between each other. But even then we do NOT have a domain switch. If you're going south, you're not going opposite to west. The only way TF are distancing from both N and S is because of the rationality switch.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 29, 2021 15:41:25 GMT -5
Yes, but that's as you said a PREMISE. Which I do not think is necessarily justified. Yes, it's a premise. An axiomatic one that, as such, doesn't have to be proven.
My point was that it's also a corrolary of JvsP.
So you can't accept one but not the other.
Also, the main claim that for each type there is only two possible polr is technicallly a negative. It can't be proven by definition. And it doesn't have to.
It can only be disproven. By exhibiting someone with a third polr, several polr, or no polr at all.
Then that claim would have to be relativised and nuanced, at the very least, and the model that led to it would have to be revised.
Yes it does. So it's probably better to continue there, and then go back to this discussion later if necessary.
tbcd there soon.
|
|