Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2021 12:24:21 GMT -5
Reading the thread of ahmed and the interesting depiction by Roshan of Ni being black and white to a colorful Se world I felt like describing the "vibes" I have about various categories of functions. Pe - intoxicating Pi - clarifying(/sobering) Je - bold Ji - cautious Furthermore, Px would fit the "what" category and Jx would fit the "how" category. extraversion would fit the IN category and introversion would fit the OUT category(if we consider the adverbs as related to an object of question, not the subject where the function originates). Due to controversy, I won't disclose my vibes about TxF, as I am still anticipating an elucidation from vincent (But if Fx is indeed "people" then thank god my stack hasn't invested in such a solipsistic, redundant endeavor of playing mr. big shot whilst mother nature is clearly the passionate opponent, not some random self-proclaimed Mary Sue or Gary Stu) The SxF dichotomy would resemble implicit(N) v. explicit(S).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2021 12:31:10 GMT -5
Here are also some specific functions:
Ne - rabbit holes Ni - comprehension Si - information
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 29, 2021 16:18:18 GMT -5
Reading the thread of ahmed and the interesting depiction by Roshan of Ni being black and white to a colorful Se world I felt like describing the "vibes" I have about various categories of functions. How long have you had the notion that Ni is black and white? Did this occur to you because of my 'depiction' or does it go with something you've been considering for some time? And what depiction are you talking about? You linked to my bio. At first I thought you were talking about my short story; you wouldn't mean my photo, would you? I mean after all, my sweater's black and white... EDIT: Oh, I see. You didn't link. So you meant the story?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2021 16:34:06 GMT -5
I didn't have that notion at all, but on the Spacey thread by Anthony I saw you describing it as such and saw it as plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 29, 2021 21:42:10 GMT -5
I'd forgotten all about it @ash . Why not just link the thread? Anyway it's plausible but on a somewhat metaphorical level and only when regarding Ni and Se as two poles of the same axis working together... And also relative to the Ne/Si axis. N is expansive when S is condensing (Ne/Si) and N is condensing when S is expansive. (Ni/Se). And so if we're going to call Ni 'black and white' we must bear in mind e.g. that white is also the presence of all colors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 0:04:12 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 1:02:12 GMT -5
Reading the thread of ahmed and the interesting depiction by Roshan of Ni being black and white to a colorful Se world I felt like describing the "vibes" I have about various categories of functions. How long have you had the notion that Ni is black and white? Did this occur to you because of my 'depiction' or does it go with something you've been considering for some time? And what depiction are you talking about? You linked to my bio. At first I thought you were talking about my short story; you wouldn't mean my photo, would you? I mean after all, my sweater's black and white... EDIT: Oh, I see. You didn't link. So you meant the story? I sort of rather meant the things said outside the story, surrounding the story. I see the story more as an example. Contrarily* to vincent I'd be open to see Si(and therefore the whole Pi category) as intrinsically cold, or as I wrote sobering. It's also why I find the subjective/depth depiction of introversion fishy, unless what is meant by that, is that when cognizing an object, there is a lot of mediation between a person's own projections unto that object and its own intrinsic reality, as opposed to writing the object on a blank slate of self in extraversion, leading to less categorical and more "integrated" inclusion of such objects to the whole sphere of projections, sort of like fine-tuning them. And those projections would arise from the sheer distance between the subject and the object, because as one can only see the whole and can't rush in and look at the complexities piece by piece, they'd have to lean in towards guessing somewhat more, though this last particular observation might just be my bias. I think a fun narrative would be some person mesmerizingly indulging in looking at some beautifully ornamented scales from close up. Their color and size. Their neatly ordered structure and firmness. Their texture. Meanwhile the diver next to them would keep aggressively signaling to get away from the Leviathan. *(as contrasted to Si being easily confounded with Fe as coziness or w.e.)
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 30, 2021 1:03:24 GMT -5
Reading the thread of ahmed and the interesting depiction by Roshan of Ni being black and white to a colorful Se world I felt like describing the "vibes" I have about various categories of functions. Pe - intoxicating Pi - clarifying(/sobering) Je - bold Ji - cautious Yes! (Except not so much with Te).Furthermore, Px would fit the "what" category and Jx would fit the "how" category. In what way? extraversion would fit the IN category and introversion would fit the OUT category (if we consider the adverbs as related to an object of question, not the subject where the function originates).
Yes, if we considered them like that, they would, but what's the benefit in doing so?
Due to controversy, I won't disclose my vibes about TxF, as I am still anticipating an elucidation from vincent (But if Fx is indeed "people" then thank god my stack hasn't invested in such a solipsistic, redundant endeavor of playing mr. big shot whilst mother nature is clearly the passionate opponent, not some random self-proclaimed Mary Sue or Gary Stu) Am I correct in understanding that you mean something like if Fx is people (as opposed to things), that this implies you'd be judging life itself (via individual people), which would render you insufferably self-absorbed and arrogant? And also that this judging of people/life would inherently put you (y'all) in an oppositional stance? The Sx F dichotomy would resemble implicit(N) v. explicit(S). What do you mean by implicit and explicit, @ash ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 1:21:00 GMT -5
Reading the thread of ahmed and the interesting depiction by Roshan of Ni being black and white to a colorful Se world I felt like describing the "vibes" I have about various categories of functions. Pe - intoxicating Pi - clarifying(/sobering) Je - bold Ji - cautious Yes! (Except not so much with Te).
Ash: Do you propose another category?Furthermore, Px would fit the "what" category and Jx would fit the "how" category. In what way?
Ash: Well it seems more likely a Px discussion would be about the "whats" and a Jx discussion would be about the "hows". I mean if you look at the colloquial words used for functions, then Si(though I'd perhaps prefer to connect it to Se) is called FACTS, Ne is often called IDEAS, Ni is often called INSIGHTS and so on. These all group as nearly standalone entities, and entities that do not necessarily serve a purpose. On the other hand Ti/Te(forgot lol) is often described as METHOD and Fe is described as PERSUASION. These all group as something without intrinsic anchors, or points, but rather in how to move the "whats" properly. extraversion would fit the IN category and introversion would fit the OUT category (if we consider the adverbs as related to an object of question, not the subject where the function originates).
Yes, if we considered them like that, they would, but what's the benefit in doing so?
Ash: I think I described it as such so it'd fit intoxication vs. sobering, and bold vs. cautious.
Due to controversy, I won't disclose my vibes about TxF, as I am still anticipating an elucidation from vincent (But if Fx is indeed "people" then thank god my stack hasn't invested in such a solipsistic, redundant endeavor of playing mr. big shot whilst mother nature is clearly the passionate opponent, not some random self-proclaimed Mary Sue or Gary Stu) Am I correct in understanding that you mean something like if Fx is people (as opposed to things), that this implies you'd be judging life itself (via individual people), which would render you insufferably self-absorbed and arrogant? And also that this judging of people/life would inherently put you (y'all) in an oppositional stance?
Ash: Exactly. As opposed to solving "real" problems, it'd be solving politics of a species that thinks too much of themselves. I can't see how problems inside a species could ever compare to the intrinsic geometries and complexity of nature itself. That's why I think it's self-absorbed. The Sx F dichotomy would resemble implicit(N) v. explicit(S). What do you mean by implicit and explicit, @ash ?
Ash: I am not completely certain, but I think something like S necessitating koan and N necessitating further investigation. Whereas S(explicit) would try to uncover things to light and therefore all said is all that is there, the essence of N(implicit) would be in making implications, and therefore more is said in what is not said.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 30, 2021 2:06:37 GMT -5
I read the other post (about fishy and the aggressive diver) and I have a number of things to say, but I'm going to hold off on them and focus on the one just above (assuming it will still be the one just above by the time I post this one). Also, try not to start any new threads about ct theory for now @ash . I'm quite sure the vast majority of the thoughts you have going through your head about it for now relate to something you've already posted. And the ones that don't you can always jot down and save for later. Could you do that, please?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 2:09:53 GMT -5
I read the other post (about fishy and the aggressive diver) and I have a number of things to say, but I'm going to hold off on them and focus on the one just above (assuming it will still be the one just above by the time I post this one). Also, try not to start any new threads about ct theory for now @ash . I'm quite sure the vast majority of the thoughts you have going through your head about it for now relate to something you've already posted. And the ones that don't you can always jot down and save for later. Could you do that, please? Okay, I'll keep that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 30, 2021 2:23:10 GMT -5
This board has the peculiarity that past a certain point it refuses to quote that format. I just use it because I keep forgetting how to do the bubble quotes (but I don't know that it wouldn't stop after 'too many' bubbles either. The bubblers never got to that point). But anyway, it's very late here and my brain is going on strike so tbcd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 14:00:18 GMT -5
How long have you had the notion that Ni is black and white? Did this occur to you because of my 'depiction' or does it go with something you've been considering for some time? And what depiction are you talking about? You linked to my bio. At first I thought you were talking about my short story; you wouldn't mean my photo, would you? I mean after all, my sweater's black and white... EDIT: Oh, I see. You didn't link. So you meant the story? I sort of rather meant the things said outside the story, surrounding the story. I see the story more as an example. Contrarily* to vincent I'd be open to see Si(and therefore the whole Pi category) as intrinsically cold, or as I wrote sobering. It's also why I find the subjective/depth depiction of introversion fishy, unless what is meant by that, is that when cognizing an object, there is a lot of mediation between a person's own projections unto that object and its own intrinsic reality, as opposed to writing the object on a blank slate of self in extraversion, leading to less categorical and more "integrated" inclusion of such objects to the whole sphere of projections, sort of like fine-tuning them. And those projections would arise from the sheer distance between the subject and the object, because as one can only see the whole and can't rush in and look at the complexities piece by piece, they'd have to lean in towards guessing somewhat more, though this last particular observation might just be my bias. I think a fun narrative would be some person mesmerizingly indulging in looking at some beautifully ornamented scales from close up. Their color and size. Their neatly ordered structure and firmness. Their texture. Meanwhile the diver next to them would keep aggressively signaling to get away from the Leviathan. *(as contrasted to Si being easily confounded with Fe as coziness or w.e.) Furthermore, we can just look at extraverted functions in action. Who(or considering cph what function) is going to charge further into battle into the deepest midst of enemy forces? What function is going to dig the deepest into the rabbit hole? What function is going to find the small little nuance in an individuated case? What function is going to use that small little pet peeve of an individual person to get them on their side? These are all extraverted functions. Introverted functions are more thematic, general, abstract, encompassing. Precisely because of the distance to the object.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 30, 2021 14:31:18 GMT -5
Okay, so for me to address certain other things here, I first need to clarify this, @ash :
I think a fun narrative would be some person mesmerizingly indulging in looking at some beautifully ornamented scales from close up. Their color and size. Their neatly ordered structure and firmness. Their texture. Meanwhile the diver next to them would keep aggressively signaling to get away from the Leviathan.
So you're using 'diver' facetiously to refer to introvert leads, the person indulging in the ornamentation of the 'scales' you're thinking of as the extravert, and by scales you mean a staircase? (Doesn't seem to mean musical scales, weighing scales, or the scales of a reptile, so I'm guessing this is cognate for 'escalera', Spanish for stairs, staircase, which is also related to 'scaling a mountain'?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 14:48:11 GMT -5
Oh I meant scales as the scales of a dragon(reptile as you said) or a fish. Not in a metaphorical, abstract way.
|
|