Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2021 8:14:00 GMT -5
What are all the functions really? Do they modulate information (e.g. Te-ize it, Ni-ize, Fe-ize) in a sort of reverse-koan way, do they detect information of their own type, or do they do both of those things at the same time? What is the difference between Tx and Fx really? And more difficultly, what is the difference between Nx and Sx?
I really like Vincent's idea of Tx being complexity and Fx being simplicity(even though I must emphasize that when I say "X's" it's an anchoring reconstruction, I do not intend to put words into people's mouths) with the introversion/extraversion being quite beautifully portrayed by Michael Pierce. In this way a proposition is that Ti is how we project complexity on the world to understand it, Te is how we actually have to confront it in an ugly, raw form and so on. But what seems even harder is delineating the lines in-between Nx and Sx, without a pro-Nx bias. That is to say, in such a way the two seem somewhat equal in their trade-offs.
Something that would relate to the differences of Nx and Sx is the nature of language, when one sees each word as an anchor, and yet most of the meaning being independent of the language. I certainly think we can very liberally internally think highly complex thoughts without a single need for any words. At the same time, thought without language seems a bit more gooey and less firm. In this way, I'd mix it up in proposing language would actually be some Sx thing and the meaning that ties the fabric together being Nx. Perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 26, 2021 10:20:17 GMT -5
I really like Vincent's idea of Tx being complexity and Fx being simplicity(even though I must emphasize that when I say "X's" it's an anchoring reconstruction, I do not intend to put words into people's mouths)
Well, this kind of dichotomies works until they do not anymore.
And then they really don't.
This one kind of works if you compare Fe vs Ti, especially in relative value slots.
But if you compare Ti vs Fi, then you could easily argue that the opposite is true. Ti axioms being simpler than Fi nuances
I'll try to adress the rest of your post soon.
tbcd
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 26, 2021 11:50:38 GMT -5
What are all the functions really? Do they modulate information (e.g. Te-ize it, Ni-ize, Fe-ize) in a sort of reverse-koan way, do they detect information of their own type, or do they do both of those things at the same time? What is the difference between Tx and Fx really? And more difficultly, what is the difference between Nx and Sx? Are you really asking about functions, then, or about the so-called 'elements' (T, N, F, and the here sadly spurned S  ), which I prefer to call 'domains'? The so-called functions being really just orientations--intra/extraversion--of four domains, with 'vertere' meaning 'to turn' in Latin), I think it's more important to understand what the domains are first, which you seem to imply.
(And btw this has a lot to do with your post about, if I understood correctly, the nature of the 'shadow stack'. In conceptualizing by four rows rather than eight slots, there is no unconscious stack, but merely four sort of alternating see-saws of oriented domains, each one on a spectrum...so there are four to greater or lesser degree unconscious orientations, the degree depending largely on health level).I really like Vincent's idea of Tx being complexity and Fx being simplicity(even though I must emphasize that when I say "X's" it's an anchoring reconstruction, I do not intend to put words into people's mouths) with the introversion/extraversion being quite beautifully portrayed by Michael Pierce. In this way a proposition is that Ti is how we project complexity on the world to understand it, Te is how we actually have to confront it in an ugly, raw form and so on. But what seems even harder is delineating the lines in-between Nx and Sx, without a pro-Nx bias. That is to say, in such a way the two seem somewhat equal in their trade-offs. Well, then Ti is more complex than Te, is it not? Te is a way of simplifying T in an orderly fashion of cause-->effect protocols to make the world manageable. As such, Ti is often far more conplex than Te, I think. So if we accept this, this seems to lead to the question: why, then should Tx necessarily be more complex than Fx?
Also and btw, I'd argue that if we're truly confronting the extraverted realm in its ugly, raw form, we're using Se > Te. (Which seems to reflect how Pierce, though not wrong, is certainly both Te PolR and Se inferior. He sees Te as dealing with the 'ugly and raw' because using it feels 'ugly and raw' for him, because he doesn't metabolize it. And having very little development of Se, he doesn't truly understand Se, because he doesn't really experience it, so he can't differentiate well between Te and Se, and he also can't develop PolR as Power, which would help him to experience, thus understand and differentiate, better--instead he Ti's and Ti's it all, and the vicious circle continues...) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2021 16:48:58 GMT -5
I agree with Se being more appropriate for ugly/raw. What I attempted to describe was the techne essence of it of comparing theory and practice. However I still stand by Tx being complexity and Fx being simplicity. The reason that Fi and Te are on an axis, is because Fi formulates the utopia and values towards which one's own person or society strives(amongst its many roles), whereas Te builds to them. And that utopia and those values ultimately take the cancerously overly-contrived complexity of the laissez-faire doings of mankind and say "most of this garden is uncultured weed that needs to be plucked and pruned to beauty and shapefulness again". The same way are the motifs of archetypes, narratives, and symbols mere simplicities of a highly contrived reality. Ti is exhaustive, whereas Fi is "orienting". That is why Fi-Te quadras are at the same time seen as forcefully destructive, efficient and daunting. They prune everything out so they can raise their pillar, in a sort of iconoclastic way. Of course it's not just [Genghis Khan]s and fanatical tyrants, Fi itself produces value by pointing out value, but by doing so sacrifices all else that didn't fit the criteria in a merciless way. That to me seems like something leaning more towards simplicity than complexity, even if the craft must be tactful and nuanced in severing the heads of eldritch abominations, such as to not severe a head of something of actual worth. The higher complexity of Ti above Te seems more a cause of the liberty and cheapness of that complexity and the fact it's introverted. In regards to the difference of Ti and Fi, I'd actually be inclined towards principles being more Fi-ish. I know I'm sort of crossing threads right now, but that's what I meant by tertiating 6th for Newton, who I am inclined to believe is an INTJ. He took an overly contrived set of occult fringe studies and plucked and pruned them down to three simple laws of which he beautifully demonstrated the universality of. But if you'd go back into some realm lacking in that pruning, the semantics and the things of value are greatly diluted with many branches and grids that are no longer necessary. Ti, on the other hand, can actually get very dirty and unclean if it's not careful. Far more than people give it a bad rap for. In lack of universalizing concepts, it tries to stubbornly dig its way to the solution using far too many parts and steps, many of which redundant. EDIT: Roshan |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 26, 2021 17:21:47 GMT -5
Well the problem here is that you're working backward @ash
Starting with definitions of Fi-Te and Ti-Fe (who may or may not be accurate) to get to the difference between Tx and Fx.
As in an attempt to reverse engineer it.
It won't work because, really, the domains of cognition (N,S,F,T) comes first.
The functions only arise later, from them, in combination with extra- and introverted orientations.
Even if you were able to discern a dichotomy that could work, in the right light, within the right frame, it would still be unlikely to be THE relevant one.
The thing is, in this case, Fx and Tx doesn't deal with the same kind of informations to begin with.
Broadly speaking, Tx deals with things, facts, systems and objects.
Fx deals with people, values, intents and subjects.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2021 17:31:42 GMT -5
Well Tx and Fx are latent variables in the population represented in those particularities. They might represent a decapitated ghost-idea, but the way to get to that idea is through those particularities. vincent |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2021 17:36:17 GMT -5
Besides that, is there really such a great difference between things and people? In the majority of cases and "broadly speaking" Tx will tilt towards things and Fx to people, but Tx can apply itself to people, so why couldn't Fx apply itself to things?
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 26, 2021 17:47:39 GMT -5
Besides that, is there really such a great difference between things and people?
Well, actually yes. And i'll try to explain why (and to adress the rest of your posts) tomorrow.
It's getting late here already and i have a meeting tomorrow morning .
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 26, 2021 17:59:33 GMT -5
@ash , I have no issue with Ti being 'most complex' or at least 'most complexifying' of all the functions.
My issue is with Te being inherently more complex than Fx. I find Te qua Te to be relatively simple and predictable in the scheme of all the functions.
tbcd tomorrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 11:57:06 GMT -5
Well I think the argument of Te being more complex than Fe is not that difficult. The "problem" with Te being more complex than Fi is in the fact one is extraverted and the other introverted, so even if Te is the complexifying function and Fi is the simplifying function, Te will have less information to some extent, for the sheer fact it's extraverted. However, if one is to look at bureaucracy, the amount of cogs in a clock, a manufacturing process, or especially logistics, one can immediately see how complex Te can get, because those are quite Te-ish crafts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 27, 2021 12:23:38 GMT -5
Let's take the amount of cogs in a clock. Clock-making is a complex craft that involves multiple functions. But whatever is Te about it is based on specific procedural protocols that are systematic, cause-effect, and also repetitive in nature. Whatever is truly complex in the T of clock-making involves the utilization of the part of the spectrum of T that incorporates Ti (T being T, T= T); those who discovered the laws and principles that allowed clock-making to come to exist likewise used the entire spectrum of T (many were likely Ti > Te). Ultimately the making in clock-making is mechanical and what is mechanical is formulaic, repetitive, linear...not complex in a meaning sense. But since it's vincent who originally posited that "T is complexity, F is simplicity" I feel this isn't really my battle to fight until/unless he makes a convincing case for and/or against what he himself told you that you can agree with @ash . |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 27, 2021 12:40:34 GMT -5
Well I think the argument of Te being more complex than Fe is not that difficult. The "problem" with Te being more complex than Fi is in the fact one is extraverted and the other introverted, so even if Te is the complexifying function and Fi is the simplifying function, Te will have less information to some extent, for the sheer fact it's extraverted. However, if one is to look at bureaucracy, the amount of cogs in a clock, a manufacturing process, or especially logistics, one can immediately see how complex Te can get, because those are quite Te-ish crafts.
Well, in a lot of those case, the complexity doesn't really come from Te, it comes from Si. Bureaucracies for example usually suffers from a cancerous growth of Si, and Te is the only thing that contains it and prevents it from falling apart on its own weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 27, 2021 12:45:39 GMT -5
Clock-making is a complex craft that involves multiple functions. But whatever is Te about it is based on specific procedural protocols that are systematic, cause-effect, and also repetitive in nature. Whatever is truly complex in the T of clock-making involves the utilization of the part of the spectrum of T that incorporates Ti (T being T, T= T); those who discovered the laws and principles that allowed clock-making to come to exist likewise used the entire spectrum of T (many were likely Ti > Te). Ultimately the making in clock-making is mechanical and what is mechanical is formulaic, repetitive, linear...not complex in a meaning sense.
Yes, i agree with this.
Well, i don't remember in which context i said that, nor in what terms i said it.
Probably in a conversation that was going way too fast and/or way too far.
In any case, it would have been wrong.
It seems to me that Tx is about systems and systematicity, while Fx is way more non-systematic in nature.
But it doesn't mean Tx is necessarily complex, let alone more complex than Fx.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 27, 2021 12:48:49 GMT -5
ps for clarification, I should have started by saying let's take clock-making as the example, since you mentioned the number of cogs in a clock. And also saying that the fact that they are 'cogs' shows that no matter how many there are, they're still cogs that interact in a finite number of ways that are repeated. Sequential. Te is sequential thinking. And on that note, the sequence is that vincent has to explain, modify and/or refute his own argument now. EDIT: posts crossed vincent |
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 27, 2021 13:01:59 GMT -5
Well, i don't remember in which context i said that, nor in what terms i said it.
Probably in a conversation that was going way too fast and/or way too far.
In any case, it would have been wrong.
It seems to me that Tx is about systems and systematicity, while Fx is way more non-systematic in nature.
But it doesn't mean Tx is necessarily complex, let alone more complex than Fx.
Well, I'd go so far as to say that the differentiator for Ti and Te IS that Ti is about complexification and Te is about simplification of systems. Te just wants the systems to work, within alloted resources (which include time); Ti wants to know how and why a system works, what a system even is...and wants no stone unturned, the more stones, the more turning, the better. This dichotomy gets a little funky with TiSe because it's Ne PolR (which eschews the new) and Se has a forward thrust with, if not tunnel vision, a certain limitation on peripheral vision in order to just keep forging forward. And so the combination of the two can give TiSe a certain tunnel vision. But in its own mind, TiSe is still leaving no stone unturned--until/unless it finds the project to forge ahead with, and then it resembles (and can be mistyped for) Te lead. But to 'qua' things again, Ti qua Ti is, I think, complexification (for understanding, theory) and Te qua Te is its simplification (for application, praxis). But anyway I'd like to know what the context was, if @ash remembers it. |
|
), which I prefer to call 'domains'? The so-called functions being really just orientations--intra/extraversion--of four domains, with 'vertere' meaning 'to turn' in Latin), I think it's more important to understand what the domains are first, which you seem to imply.