Dissolution points for the function dualities

[Brontosaurie]

Ne-Si: Laughter
Se-Ni: Beauty
Fe-Ti: Contract
Te-Fi: Wealth

Do you agree? Disagree? Disagree with the premise?

 

[Haim]

Wealth?Laughter?Beauty?!
what this have to do with mtbi?

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I'm having trouble understanding how you mean dissolution points? Please explain...

 

[Brontosaurie]

Wealth?Laughter?Beauty?!
what this have to do with mtbi?

I struggle to think of a reply other than: "Why not?"

I'm having trouble understanding how you mean dissolution points? Please explain...

Mental states in which purveyors of the respective conflicting priorities can get along.

Ne finds Si too close-minded, and Si finds Ne too reckless and childish. Absurdity negates this dimension. In humor they can unite.

Se finds Ni too lofty, and Ni finds Se too shallow. The unspeakable negates this dimension. In aesthetic appreciation they can unite.

Fe finds Ti too detached, and Ti finds Fe too attached. Explication of relation negates this dimension. In a formal agreement or common task they can unite.

Te finds Fi too yearning, and Fi finds Te too brutal. Shared egoism negates this dimension. In the prospect of acquiring resources, they can unite.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Now the word "too" is all fucked up.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I thought this is what you were getting at but wanted to be sure. Brilliant! The bridge between polarities. The eye of the storm, the nexus of congruity. (Getting silly now...) There could be other terms that bridge and I guess I've always conceptualized the way to grow is to use the bridge and incorporate that into yourself while maintaining your preference.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Why just for dualities? Why not for opposites like Fe-Fi or Fe-Te. Maybe you can do a separate thread for those.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I thought this is what you were getting at but wanted to be sure. Brilliant! The bridge between polarities. The eye of the storm, the nexus of congruity. (Getting silly now...) There could be other terms that bridge and I guess I've always conceptualized the way to grow is to use the bridge and incorporate that into yourself while maintaining your preference.

That's not any more silly than what i wrote.

So, if you're an Ni-dom: Have you tried to hone your aesthetic appreciation? If so, was it by yourself or together with some Se-dom? Or is this speculation?

Why just for dualities? Why not for opposites like Fe-Fi or Fe-Te. Maybe you can do a separate thread for those.

Cool idea. I can't think how it would fit together now. Maybe you try?

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Are Se-Ni, Ne-Si, etc really a linear continuum of opposites or could it be a circle? I don't know, just playing around. But yes I think I've honed my appreciation of beauty being a Ni dom. Over the course of my life I've found beauty in things I didn't appreciate before. Like the crude, vulgar, the sensory, sensual, the ulgy, the pain and suffering. The appreciation of the bitter-sweet seems to be a theme in my later life. Did I get there by myself? That's not the way I look at it as I see all growth as a recursive loop with others, not necessarily with Se dom's but through relationships in general.

 

[onesteptwostep]

We're talking about dom-inf here right? If so I don't think Fi-Fe or Fe-Te can exist, they're not a part of the 16 types.

As for the OP I get most of them except Se-Ni and Te-Fi. I think I understand Se-Ni in theory, but not sure how that would play out subjectively. As for Te-Fi not sure how that relates and turns into wealth.

?

 

[Analyzer]

Pretty good. What about other function pairs?

 

[DrSketchpad]

He's talking about points of mediation between fundamentally opposed functions.

Ti and Ne

or

Fe and Ni aren't fundamentally opposed, that's why they can 'pair' together.

Anyways, I like the idea. I've been thinking for a while on something similar.

What if the opposed functions weren't don't just pop up in a functional list together because a growth in one area of life leads to none in the opposite, and the individual yearns for the weaker?

What if there was something about the psyche itself that predisposed something that called for the Ni--Se couple?

 

[Cherry Cola]

please provide clear definition of dissolution points

 

[Sabreena]

I struggle to think of a reply other than: "Why not?"



Mental states in which purveyors of the respective conflicting priorities can get along.

Ne finds Si too close-minded, and Si finds Ne too reckless and childish. Absurdity negates this dimension. In humor they can unite.

Se finds Ni too lofty, and Ni finds Se too shallow. The unspeakable negates this dimension. In aesthetic appreciation they can unite.

Fe finds Ti too detached, and Ti finds Fe too attached. Explication of relation negates this dimension. In a formal agreement or common task they can unite.

Te finds Fi too yearning, and Fi finds Te too brutal. Shared egoism negates this dimension. In the prospect of acquiring resources, they can unite.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the functions was that they are simply different cognitive processing habits suited to different tasks, lacking any sort of motivation or agenda. They can't "find" each other anything. Personifying them as different entities with opinions of each other seems kind of limiting.

Like, explain to me how Se and Ni "unite" in aesthetic appreciation. This implies that there's only one way to appreciate things aesthetically-- by experiencing sensory details (in this case, visual stimulation) and finding some transcendent meaning in them. Why not Si-Ne? Si senses the environment in a context of prior experience while Ne can explore the possibilities of what it all means. Is that less valid than the Se-Ni way?

I seriously don't get it.

Edit: Also, are the "mental states" (humor, etc) supposed to be manifestations of the two functions working in tandem? Or is it reactionary, the functions achieving unity through processing input (such as when someone else tells a joke?)

Am I overthinking this?

 

[Brontosaurie]

please provide clear definition of dissolution points

As i thought more i realized that it's the extravert who brings something that satisfies the introvert counterpart, causing the introvert to retract its doubts and its arrogance as it sees how the extravert may contribute. The introvert is a judge, a person of standards, a demander in relation to its extravert counterpart. With business as usual, they have a deep distaste for each other. The introvert loathes and rejects the extravert who in turn tries to avoid the judgment of the introvert, typically pursuing a lifestyle marked by a severe neglect of the life domain and contents of whatever its particular introvert counterpart. So, introversion represents rejection while extraversion represents neglect (which is pretty interesting to me although perhaps obvious to others). However, when the extravert reaches self-actualization, its value becomes apparent and gives unexpected fulfillment to the introvert. The extravert is a doer and the introvert is a thinker. The introvert knows the rules and the extravert doesn't. Rare times, they align.

I'm sorry it wasn't much of a definition but hopefully it conveyed the essence of topic. In my opinion it suggests a strong concept of i/e that's independent from connotations beyond typology.

All or any of this may or may not apply to reality.

Fe neglects logic
Ne neglects duties
Se neglects the bigger picture
Te neglects the emotional well-being/metabolism of itself and others

So the extravert functions really only exist as negatives, yet they are responsible for all progress. Insert further mystic shit such as Shiva and transhumanism. With the rejection/neglect duality we can also correlate typology with attachment psychology. It's approaching a probably useless ToE at this point.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the functions was that they are simply different cognitive processing habits suited to different tasks, lacking any sort of motivation or agenda. They can't "find" each other anything. Personifying them as different entities with opinions of each other seems kind of limiting.

Like, explain to me how Se and Ni "unite" in aesthetic appreciation. This implies that there's only one way to appreciate things aesthetically-- by experiencing sensory details (in this case, visual stimulation) and finding some transcendent meaning in them. Why not Si-Ne? Si senses the environment in a context of prior experience while Ne can explore the possibilities of what it all means. Is that less valid than the Se-Ni way?

I seriously don't get it.

Edit: Also, are the "mental states" (humor, etc) supposed to be manifestations of the two functions working in tandem? Or is it reactionary, the functions achieving unity through processing input (such as when someone else tells a joke?)

Am I overthinking this?

I define functions as motivations. It's a premise for this entire analysis. I'm not saying it's correct, just jerking around with concepts.

@Edit: As decribed in my reply to Cherry Cola, the mental states here are more accurately described as the extravert pleasing the introvert by expressing itself in a way the introvert can accept. It's not mutual. The extravert always initiates the harmonization while the introvert holds the criterion.