Post by Auburn on Feb 9, 2018 17:41:03 GMT -5
I was originally gonna reply to Kahawa in this thread - but this post started expanding!
Maybe it'd be better to make it it's own topic?
I know this sentiment. Being TiNe and wanting to know what's *really true* has often lead me to reductionism also. "We are not alive, we're just a bunch of atoms in a complex order" or things like "Cities aren't real, they're just a bunch of humans working together momentarily." This is actually T depreciating N. The N function sees networks of interactions as 'real' to the same degree as S sees reality in the literal. It's a little bit blind-sighted and unsophisticated, really. It's almost an inability to conceptualize at multiple levels simultaneously because one is deeply invested in the 'One Truth'. There can only be 'One' truth, after all, right?
The One Truth
The way I reconcile that in my own framework is to say "yes, and that one truth is that the universe is scale-dependent with different dynamics/laws applying at different levels." It's a frustrating and imperfect answer, but we see this with subatomic particles/chemistry/biology/planetary-scale, etc. Each layer requires a different model/scaffold that is best suited to framing its laws. Even what we know presently about the Standard Model is almost certainly a set of emergent properties. The reason why the position of quantum particles seem random to us is because there's sophisticated order at a lower level of magnification that we just can't tap into yet. So it seems random to us when it really isn't. So even our most robust models of the universe right now only model emergent systems. In fact, all our models are models of emergent systems, with nobody knowing what's "at the very root" of all causality yet. The ideal would be that a Theory of Everything could be scale independent; describing every scaling of the universe from one elegant equation, and toss away all models that we have to switch between at different levels. But until that happens (and even if it does) it's more useful to use scale-specific architectures to understand phenomenon. We really have no choice in the matter anyway, with the alternative being remaining in dark ignorance for not wanting to accept imperfect solutions.
For me personally, I had this painful moment where I had to concede to what I call "degrees of truth." Is something true or false? Could it be "mostly true" or "mostly false"? Are those appropriate categories? I shifted my paradigm to view reality in terms of degrees of truth, which gives a greater 'net' truth value than to only keep in one's castle the tidbits that are 100% pure. Will I construct my Ti castle from only the most refined materials? Or will I construct a castle ten times as big but with purity in the 85%-99% range also?
If I ask "how much truth do I know" and weigh the small pure castle against the impure castle, the impure castle still holds more truth overall because two truths at 95% are superior to one truth at 100%. And that scales up fast. As sprint likes to say: "why pay twice as much for a 1% difference?" A real truthseeker, I reasoned, wouldn't discard these partial truths or forego a chance to broaden understanding. I have been petty to not accept anything but the best quality material; placing my need for purity above a truly more comprehensive understanding of reality in the form that it manifests to us. This effectively shattered the confines of my Ti; almost like jail-breaking it. Rationally coming to an understanding of the limits of rationality.
Hyperactive Ti is actually prone to hyper-ignorance, as the person refuses to sprawl outwards... with the epitome of this being a suspicion against all incoming data that is chaotic and arbitrary. Here's a bit of a joking display:
Mom: "Wanna go out for lunch?"
Ti: "What is lunch anyway? ...would it be breakfast if I woke up at 1pm every day?"
Mom: "Oh boy, this again. Lets just eat"
Ti: "What is eating anyways? The intake of molecules in the environment? Isn't that like breathing? Why don't we call breathing eating?"
Mom: "Uh..huh... how's your new school? learning anything? ...did you do your homework?"
Ti: "I am educated. Why does society think it's more valid to learn something when sitting in a classroom and listening to a paid human, rather than surfing the internet. The web has access to so many more experts, and topics. But if I google for hours at a time, I don't get any degree."
Ti: "Why do I even need a formal education anyways? What does a little piece of paper do? It's just a symbol. Like money."
Ti: "What is money anyways..? It's just a social construct. If tomorrow everyone decided $5 bills were worth $10, the value would change."
Ti: "Nothing about society makes sense to me. All of it is arbitrary. All of it is a lie"
With hyperactive Ti, 95%+ of thought goes into epistemology and little/any goes into real research, measurement or relativizing phenomenon along a continuum. The mental hurdles haven't been passed, Ti isn't satisfied with a personal rationality, which would be needed to allow an acceptance of even certain scientific methods. And/or even if they have been accepted, the Ti simply sees no motivation to do the work and remains internally contemplative.
The Degrees of Truth approach
Ti may think to itself: "Instead of relying on things like a flag, a territory, a population etc to defined a nation... what's the one definition of a nation I can construct that is true in any situation?" It may analyze a subject with the intent in mind of finding this single universal factor that can semantically make sense of the phenomenon before them. It sometimes never crosses Ti's mind that there may not be a decentralized "one" feature. And/or if it does cross its mind.... and there is no 'one' feature, the concept is thrown out as not having a core reality.
With a 'degrees of truth' approach - information from the P functions is actually digested and accepted - and Ti is forced to play along with the N/S functions, rather than reigning supreme. For example:
Does a flag indicate a nation: yes, somewhat (85% of nations have flags, so lets call it 85% true)
Does a nation have a fixed territory: yes, somewhat (95% of nations retain the same territory for decades at a time)
Does a nation require a big population? yes, somewhat (although some USA cities are bigger than small nations... so this is mostly true)
If something has a flag, a territory, and a wide population bigger than a given value, then it's probably a nation. Ti won't like that definition. But Ti+Pe+Pi together will generally agree. This has to do with integration of the lower functions.
A TiNe (with ∧ , ∨ , ∨ , ∨ , development) won't find this gateway. If Ti is the only conscious function, this reductionism won't be averted. But if it tries to find a 'truth' paradigm in collaboration with Pe+Pi, it will expand itself outward... away from its complete perfection, yes... but further towards more truth. That said, even in an integrated psychology, Ti won't give up on its role/attempt to continually get closer to the conceptual in-itself-ness of all things.
supahprotist
Maybe it'd be better to make it it's own topic?
I naturally resist accepting that a 'nation' is 'real', because I feel like society won't recognise it as the construct that it is. I feel like your post gives 'permission' to engage with emergent properties, and recognise them as useful and 'real' in a sense. I still like reductionism, but not as a way to debunk the emergent property ("mythologies can't be real because they don't explain metabolism"), but as a way to understand how the emergent properties arise. Knowing about 'H2O' doesn't debunk wetness or declare wetness to be unreal per se; it simply helps explain it.
The One Truth
The way I reconcile that in my own framework is to say "yes, and that one truth is that the universe is scale-dependent with different dynamics/laws applying at different levels." It's a frustrating and imperfect answer, but we see this with subatomic particles/chemistry/biology/planetary-scale, etc. Each layer requires a different model/scaffold that is best suited to framing its laws. Even what we know presently about the Standard Model is almost certainly a set of emergent properties. The reason why the position of quantum particles seem random to us is because there's sophisticated order at a lower level of magnification that we just can't tap into yet. So it seems random to us when it really isn't. So even our most robust models of the universe right now only model emergent systems. In fact, all our models are models of emergent systems, with nobody knowing what's "at the very root" of all causality yet. The ideal would be that a Theory of Everything could be scale independent; describing every scaling of the universe from one elegant equation, and toss away all models that we have to switch between at different levels. But until that happens (and even if it does) it's more useful to use scale-specific architectures to understand phenomenon. We really have no choice in the matter anyway, with the alternative being remaining in dark ignorance for not wanting to accept imperfect solutions.
For me personally, I had this painful moment where I had to concede to what I call "degrees of truth." Is something true or false? Could it be "mostly true" or "mostly false"? Are those appropriate categories? I shifted my paradigm to view reality in terms of degrees of truth, which gives a greater 'net' truth value than to only keep in one's castle the tidbits that are 100% pure. Will I construct my Ti castle from only the most refined materials? Or will I construct a castle ten times as big but with purity in the 85%-99% range also?
If I ask "how much truth do I know" and weigh the small pure castle against the impure castle, the impure castle still holds more truth overall because two truths at 95% are superior to one truth at 100%. And that scales up fast. As sprint likes to say: "why pay twice as much for a 1% difference?" A real truthseeker, I reasoned, wouldn't discard these partial truths or forego a chance to broaden understanding. I have been petty to not accept anything but the best quality material; placing my need for purity above a truly more comprehensive understanding of reality in the form that it manifests to us. This effectively shattered the confines of my Ti; almost like jail-breaking it. Rationally coming to an understanding of the limits of rationality.
Hyperactive Ti is actually prone to hyper-ignorance, as the person refuses to sprawl outwards... with the epitome of this being a suspicion against all incoming data that is chaotic and arbitrary. Here's a bit of a joking display:
Mom: "Wanna go out for lunch?"
Ti: "What is lunch anyway? ...would it be breakfast if I woke up at 1pm every day?"
Mom: "Oh boy, this again. Lets just eat"
Ti: "What is eating anyways? The intake of molecules in the environment? Isn't that like breathing? Why don't we call breathing eating?"
Mom: "Uh..huh... how's your new school? learning anything? ...did you do your homework?"
Ti: "I am educated. Why does society think it's more valid to learn something when sitting in a classroom and listening to a paid human, rather than surfing the internet. The web has access to so many more experts, and topics. But if I google for hours at a time, I don't get any degree."
Ti: "Why do I even need a formal education anyways? What does a little piece of paper do? It's just a symbol. Like money."
Ti: "What is money anyways..? It's just a social construct. If tomorrow everyone decided $5 bills were worth $10, the value would change."
Ti: "Nothing about society makes sense to me. All of it is arbitrary. All of it is a lie"
With hyperactive Ti, 95%+ of thought goes into epistemology and little/any goes into real research, measurement or relativizing phenomenon along a continuum. The mental hurdles haven't been passed, Ti isn't satisfied with a personal rationality, which would be needed to allow an acceptance of even certain scientific methods. And/or even if they have been accepted, the Ti simply sees no motivation to do the work and remains internally contemplative.
The Degrees of Truth approach
Ti may think to itself: "Instead of relying on things like a flag, a territory, a population etc to defined a nation... what's the one definition of a nation I can construct that is true in any situation?" It may analyze a subject with the intent in mind of finding this single universal factor that can semantically make sense of the phenomenon before them. It sometimes never crosses Ti's mind that there may not be a decentralized "one" feature. And/or if it does cross its mind.... and there is no 'one' feature, the concept is thrown out as not having a core reality.
With a 'degrees of truth' approach - information from the P functions is actually digested and accepted - and Ti is forced to play along with the N/S functions, rather than reigning supreme. For example:
Does a flag indicate a nation: yes, somewhat (85% of nations have flags, so lets call it 85% true)
Does a nation have a fixed territory: yes, somewhat (95% of nations retain the same territory for decades at a time)
Does a nation require a big population? yes, somewhat (although some USA cities are bigger than small nations... so this is mostly true)
If something has a flag, a territory, and a wide population bigger than a given value, then it's probably a nation. Ti won't like that definition. But Ti+Pe+Pi together will generally agree. This has to do with integration of the lower functions.
A TiNe (with ∧ , ∨ , ∨ , ∨ , development) won't find this gateway. If Ti is the only conscious function, this reductionism won't be averted. But if it tries to find a 'truth' paradigm in collaboration with Pe+Pi, it will expand itself outward... away from its complete perfection, yes... but further towards more truth. That said, even in an integrated psychology, Ti won't give up on its role/attempt to continually get closer to the conceptual in-itself-ness of all things.
supahprotist
)
