SeTi TiSe Discussion

Home Forums Ask a Demographic SeTi TiSe Discussion

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13984
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Hey guys,
    @scientiam and I had a discussion.
    Here's the link: http://youtu.be/V0bkk2lZBX8
    Tune in now if you want, it's a livestream.
    Edit: Livestream has ended.

    #13995
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    Thank you for sharing this. The value of these real-time discussions is immense. Both on the vultological and psychological level.
    Initial thoughts:
    (1) You guys are typed correctly
    (2) Scientiam seems to be awakening some Fe at times
     
    Overall, this made my grasp of what TiSe and SeTi look like much more solid. Thanks again, we need more of this.

    #14021
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I agree with Faeruss, this was very informative.
    @scientiam - I got the impression that your "non 1:1" aspect is due to your native Ji. Jung described introversion very much as a resistance against the object ('out there') so that there is a type of split or disconnect, and consequently a need to translate the inner image into a formulation that can manifest 'out there'. And even then the explication is never anything more than a totem or shell of the intangible, pre-linguistic sense.
    I saw your real-time exchange as very much indicative of this, with @supahprotist lacking that mental+physical hesitation before the object, and a more direct cognitive relationship to the 'here'. Your vultologies were demonstrating this as you were discussing it, which was really fascinating to see.

    #14027
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    @faeruss, when you say that I am awakening Fe at times, what does it mean:
    Does it mean that I am slowly becoming conscious/developing Fe (like I said in the video, my method at the moment is to talk to people and let Fe flow, notice it, and take control of it, becoming more aware of it).
    Or does it mean that at moments Fe can come to be awakened when I think it is necessary to articulate something important, but quickly fades away and am not able to use Fe whenever I want (no development).
    I also agree that we need more of these discussions. I am thinking that since I want to develop/take control of my Fe and I want to also get to know some of the cool people here, I can broadcast/record conversations with them (so look out for a message from me, everyone) and share it here.

    @auburn
    ,

    translate the inner image into a formulation that can manifest ‘out there’. And even then the explication is never anything more than a totem or shell of the intangible, pre-linguistic sense.

    So in the end, would it be better to attribute the pre-linguistic "sense" of an idea/inner image to Ji, but the actual movement, contours and visual imagery of the inner image/idea to Pi/Pe?

    #14028
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Thanks, guys! I'll look at this next week when I have some time. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

    @auburn
    , you have to include the Se wagging shoulders signal! Or ... what did I call it?
    ----------------------
    Pe - pursues objects
    Ji - resists objects
     
    Pi - resists activity*
    Je - pursues activity
    *Conserves energy. Instead uses mapping to predict which investments will be worthwhile: Saves money for retirement, etc. "Work smarter, not harder." Knows when to plant, when to sew.

    #14035
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    @scientiam I think both are the case. They are intertwined, the latter leading into the first. At the first stages more emphasis on the as-per-needed basis, slowly moving into the ever-increasing blooming of consciousness.

    #14036
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    Having watched all of it now, there were many interesting topics touched.
     
    I wanted to address @supahprotist 's bringing up of the three tiered model of explanation: computational, algorithmic, behaviourial. This is fine, but I want to/invite you to flip it on its head. The progression goes similarly: computational, algorithmic, but then makes a turn and goes to thematic/abstract/conceptual. Here the "value" structure is inverted. The least enlightening level is the computational, where one is simply describing some low-level phenomena, like having a full description of the electric firings on your laptop as you play Doom ---not very interesting or deep. Next we move on to algorithmic, where the tyranny of detail stops holding sway and we start to notice patterns and analogies, now we see why the brute particles move the way they do, they move with meaning and purpose. We understand why the wiring is like that in your laptop, because the code is running this procedure of routine. Finally, we emerge into the thematic, conceptual and abstract level, where we see patterns of patterns, analogies of analogies, algorithms interacting with algorithms to create themes and orchestral pieces. This is where the deepest explanation lies. The higher explains the lower, not the lower explains the higher, if you will.

    #14037
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    @faeruss I don’t think Marr’s levels of analysis have any value structure embedded in them.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Marr_(neuroscientist)#Levels_of_analysis
    Also, according to Marr, computational is the highest level and farthest away from the physical level. Additionally, when I said that I wasn’t interested in the lower levels, that was just an appraisal of my personal interest levels, not a statement of objective importance.

    #14038
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    Lots of things have value structures in them, indeed I think all things have value structures in them, but that's a topic for a different day. I wasn't addressing his system as I don't know it, but rather your "version" of it, and your preferences ---which are a value structure, especially as they relate to your wanting to understand why you do what you do (introspect). I was suggesting you flip your preferences towards the bigger picture by providing a vision of what that looks like, as I think it would be helpful to you. I know you have your preferences and your right to them and you don't mean to impose them onto anyone else, but nonetheless.
    I hope that is clearer.

    #14039
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Ok, I think we’re on the same page. My desire for understanding is at the highest level of analysis. I was trying to say that the computational level I’m focused on is about “what does the system do (e.g.: what problems does it solve or overcome) and similarly, why does it do these things” as opposed to the lower level “how is the system physically realised (in the case of biological vision, what neural structures and neuronal activities implement the visual system)” So in terms of the levels I mentioned, I’m as “big picture” focused as I can get.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram