@ All A long email. Don’t bother unless you are interested in how Jung’s psychology and Pietrak’s static and dynamic are related to universal classes of human experience in my proposed architectonic of universals. @ Jason I really enjoyed this article, another really cool example of how people use static and dynamic concepts. I wish I had known about this so I could have included a reference to it in the video on computational simulacra. My context approaching the article In Psychological Types, Jung cautioned classifying people of his types as being one and only one, because he said they are orientations of how people use their brain functions and people oscillate between different orientations. The example I will use is partnerships/marriages. Partners can sometimes take on long-term compensatory psychological orientations for each other, instead of both helping each other find and maintain equilibrium within themselves, and then sharing that in their partnership towards each other. This is not to say there is anything wrong with compensating and being supportive for a partner’s weakness and difficulties, just that partnerships are much more healthy when each person can be equilibrious between their psychological orientations within themselves whenever possible. Overall, Jung concluded in Psychological Types that the goal of a healthy psyche was to find an equilibrium between the functions and their orientations, because using one function and orientation too much results in lop-sided perspectives of oneself and the world. All this to say, Jung would not have been okay with the Meyers-Briggs test. But this does not discount socionics, it is just to say that when I read through the paper, I kept this in the back of my mind. Metabolism as universal across domains The reason why metabolism is exhibited in both material, organismic, and information systems, is because metabolism is derivative of universal computation, which underpins them all. In the video I shared, metabolism is an expression of the transitional property of the computational modes of static, dynamic, and multinamic, where an entity runs them forward, integrating or synthesizing entities, and runs them backwards, disintegrating or analyzing entities into parts. The domain of computation is recursion, and its modes are static, dynamic, and multinamic. Computational modes tessellate as objects (corporeal and tangible), subjects (psychereal and paratangible) and transjects (ethereal and intangible). Computational tessellations have sub-domains in different universal ways, domains which I call ratiocinators. Ratiocinators are the means in which computation computes. There are architectural (static) and processual (dynamic) ratiocinators. Architectural ratiocinators In ToK terms, architectural ratiocinators are what Gregg calls energy, matter, life, mind. Different people have different names for ratiocinators, but we are all referring to the same general classes. In my taxonomic lexicon of universals of human experience, I have slightly different terms for them; energy, matter, apparatus, psyche. As a disclaimer, I do not aim for them to be better or competing with Gregg’s classes, it is just he and I approach unification in different ways. For example, I call life apparatus to broaden the class to include not just organisms, but also machines and tools. Gregg hasn’t really need this universality of a class because he works within the scope of psychology. I also include other ratiocinators in the same trajectory – time, space, energy, form, matter, apparatus, psyche, semiotics and schema. Processual ratiocinators Conversely, there are also process ratiocinators. Like the architectural ones, these also follow a trajectory. In my model, I call them automation, transduction, concretion, abstraction, principiation, paradigmatization, panoptic, phasic and deitic. The way it works is that architectural ratiocinators instances are transformed through process ratiocinator instances, which I call calculatory ratiocination (multinamic). In the article, Pietrak is on to this somewhat, in that he discusses automation leading to sensory and motor functions which are transductive. The more complex the kind of processes than an entity is capable of, the more complex its information structures will be. This trajectory is what developmental psychology stages are trying to explain, and can easily be fitted into the socionics model by seeing stages of development as the processes of cognitive functions. Static and dynamic as modes of ratiocinators In that ratiocinators are the ways that computation computes, they exhibit fractal like patterns of being computation, in that they are recursive and have static, dynamic, and multinamic modes, and tessellate. For example, matter has substance (static), forces (dynamic), and combines into configurations (multinamic). Apparatus are instruments (static) with animative relationships (dynamic) which creates higher levels of organization (multinamic)). Similarly, transduction has input-throughput-outputs (static), relations between them (dynamic) and networks form (multinamic). In information theory, there are signs (static), syntax (dynamic), and pragmatics (multinamic). All these architectural and ratiocinators share the same ratiocinative tessellations / building blocks, which I call fabric, particle, chemical, amalgams, telluria, celestial, stellar, galactic, and cosmic. Static, dynamic, and multinamic iterate and recur at every one of these scales according to whatever ratiocinator one looks through at them. Here, we are talking about analytical psychology. E.g. with amalgamic, you (proverbial “you”) are a static amalgamation as a person, and you have dynamic relationships with people around you, which forms multinamic interpersonal structures in the telluria around you. Within yourself, you are composed of scales / building blocks of amalgamations, and this is how the article relates to the architectonic of simulation in the video. How the architectonic of simulation and socionics intersect Subjective, psychic terms, there are psyche amalgamations such as thinking, feeling, intuition and sensation, and in objective apparatic terms they are called things like prefrontal cortex, amygdala, plasticity, and sensory-motor. They all, of course, have static states, dynamic relations, and multinamic orientations, just are described differently depending on what model one uses, which is what Jung was trying to say in Psychological Types in his own way. By converting objective neurobiological functions into subjective terms, it gives clinical therapists more comprehensible language to discuss the challenges patients face in understandable ways. So the way the architectonic of simulation relates to Pietrak’s socionics is that people have static states of a psychological/neurological functions, which have dynamic relationships with other static states of functions, producing the type structures in the amalgamic (individual) and telluric (collective group) scales. Contrary to popular opinion, introversion and extroversion have nothing to do with a person being social or not. Introversion is when a person is more influenced by internal things, and extroversion is when people are more influenced by external things. So in architectonic terms, introversion is when a person attempts to shape the telluria around them by internal computations of their psychological orientation of functions and their semiotic and schematic structures that are formed from their function orientations, and extroversion is when a person is being shaped by the environmental dynamics around them, which can and does include social semiotic and schematic structures from their function orientations. Kind of a dry explanation, but this does not mean in any way to discount the color of experience in the instances of how this can play out. Strength of the article What is great about this article, is that it attempts to construct a paradigm for how to articulate this phenomena of metabolism along computational functions, and uses more accessible language specific to its scope, which is here termed things like involution and evolution. While it doesn’t have a concise description of the multinamic hypernym, it nonetheless assumes its consequent. The formulation of implicit and explicit states in degrees of freedom of interaction can be quite useful for psychological assessment of behavior. And while I am a big proponent of psychometrics (my master’s thesis was the proposal of a fractal calculus that employs static and dynamic in abstract algebraic terms), lack of a psychometric measurements here is not a curse but a boon, because not everyone is mathematically developed and modeling combinations and permutations of psychological orientations for static and dynamic via geometrical symbolism can get across the same idea using different meaning making capacities that are more digestible to a larger demographic. But you can see the trouble it runs into, when the article discusses social progress, the representation of the phenomena starts taking up a lot of space on paper – which is why I like math, because it can be used to compress. Pietrak clearly sees the problem and tries to compress with introduction of the Greek letters to represent four quadrants of the sixteen types. I wouldn’t say socionics is hard science, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful insofar as one takes it in the context of the larger context of what behaviorism shows us. Insofar as we acknowledge that no one is one type, the types are orientational, and the orientations change over time from moment to moment, day to day and year to year, socionics has a bright future for this line of inquiry, precisely because it gets to the core computational operations of psychological functions. Knowledge always starts with philosophy, and then we use science to verify claims. Otherwise we run into reifications stacked on reifications with no evidence given other than more reifications. Cory > On Oct 22, 2019, at 9:22 AM, nysa71 <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi Cory, > > Very cool stuff! I was wondering if you'd like to check out this paper on socionics <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.researchgate.net_publication_319568523-5FReview-5Fof-5Fthe-5FSocionic-5FModel-5Fof-5FInformation-5FMetabolism-5Fat-5FIndividual-5FInterpersonal-5Fand-5FSocietal-5FLevels&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6ZHJpZzLpUsHeYS_Nr7d-nxcF0a8PNP2kkmSkgtN9hA&s=OJRMHmZC84YZ1_4Ln_oaUaShgMjaFbInetUqneAtOwA&e=>. The static / dynamic dichotomy is discussed quite a bit. I was curious if what was discussed on that dichotomy resonated with your own perspective in any way. > > Have a good one, > Jason > > (PDF) Review of the Socionic Model of Information Metabolism at Individu... > PDF | Various aspects of socionics, a theory of psychological types and their relationships, were critically rev... > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.researchgate.net_publication_319568523-5FReview-5Fof-5Fthe-5FSocionic-5FModel-5Fof-5FInformation-5FMetabolism-5Fat-5FIndividual-5FInterpersonal-5Fand-5FSocietal-5FLevels&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6ZHJpZzLpUsHeYS_Nr7d-nxcF0a8PNP2kkmSkgtN9hA&s=OJRMHmZC84YZ1_4Ln_oaUaShgMjaFbInetUqneAtOwA&e=> > > > On Monday, October 21, 2019, 09:57:32 AM EDT, Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > @ Jason > > About static and dynamic, I made a video presentation about them. In the first part of the video, I define static and dynamic as universal modes of human experience. In the second part of the video, I go over expressions of them across ways people make sense of themselves, the world, and the universe. >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dqc00zV-2DNLLE&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NzhLRZeWXu4Pc6lmobYhd9XQ9BEdKbhAenNe3K5yFGE&s=eHv48KMo5QWlDDbIVKnkowZ8V_yT17Qg7HDBrLV6zPY&e=> > > Cory > > >> On Oct 20, 2019, at 10:57 PM, nysa71 <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> >> Hello ToK list, >> >> These are really fascinating responses to the Asking/Declaring dichotomy! I got it from something called Socionics --- a field that studies personality, which has been developed by psychologists in the former Soviet Union since the 1980s. I'd be more than happy to share links to a couple of papers on the topic to anyone interested. And let's just say I think there's a lot of overlap with the ToK in several key ways. >> >> The Asking/Declaring dichotomy is itself a complex dichotomy which can be thought of as being composed of other simpler dichotomies. >> >> So if you're interested, I can present (as one example) two other dichotomies, and how they (supposedly) relate to the Asking/Declaring dichotomy. I'd be curious to see if it resonates with folks here in any way, (e.g.,anything in psychology, philosophy, etc. that any of this reminds you of?): >> >> I. The Static / Dynamic dichotomy >> >> Static Types >> Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes. >> More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are. >> Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events. >> More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality. >> The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character. >> >> Dynamic Types >> Perceive events in a continuous sequence – continuous changes rather than discrete states. >> More inclined to say how stage A leads to stage B, and how stage B leads to stage C. >> Describe events in a specific and concrete manner. >> More inclined to talk of movements and interactions of reality. >> The stories of dynamics usually involve multiple main characters. >> >> II. The Aristocratic / Democratic dichotomy >> >> "Aristocrats" >> Inclined to perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, by means of groupings and categories that they see these people belonging to; these groupings may be created and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, rather than be already existing and socially defined ones. >> Their initial attitude towards another person is influenced by their attitude towards the grouping they see this person belonging to. >> Tend to attribute common qualities to members of same groupings, and define such groupings by these same qualities. >> Inclined to refer to others using expressions that mention generalized features of their groupings. >> >> "Democrats" >> Perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, primarily describing individual, personal qualities: frank, trustworthy, generous, unimaginative, lighthearted, good-looking, etc. which are generally not in connection to any grouping to which they might belong. >> Form their relationships and attitudes toward other persons based on their own individual characteristics, rather than taking into account which grouping these persons fall into or their own relationships with the members of these circles and groupings. >> Not inclined to perceive people as representatives of a certain grouping that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people who comprise it. >> When referring to others, not inclined to use expressions that mention the generalized features of the grouping or categories that these people belong to. >> >> Now....how do these two sets of dichotomies supposedly relate to the Asking/Declaring dichotomy? >> >> "Asking" types >> Static Democrats >> Dynamic Aristocrats >> >> "Declaring" types >> Dynamic Democrats >> Static Aristocrats >> >> Not sure I can see the connection here. But perhaps it can stimulate some interesting thought. There's some pretty smart people here! >> >> ~ Jason Bessey >> >> On Friday, October 18, 2019, 08:20:13 AM EDT, Frank Ambrosio <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> >> Jason, >> >> just a quick highly impressionistic thought, which oddly, I have a great deal of confidence in, for whatever that is worth: Plato = asker; Aristotle= declarer. One implication: there are long broad traditions of discourse, that replicate themselves in cultural- genetic patterns that are ultimately rooted in biological evolutionary structures, but are not strictly reducible to those structures because they have merged linguistically. >> >> much more to be developed there, but P&A are a good example of cultural genetic trait that displays itself as an incommensurable pairing with the dynamics of paradigm and ultimately worldview development. >> >> Frank >> >> >> Francis J. Ambrosio, PhD >> Associate Professor of Philosophy >> Senior Fellow, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship >> Georgetown University >> 202-687-74 >> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:57 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> Jason, >> >> As you and I discussed a bit ago, I have noticed what I would call three “profound dichotomies” in justification systems: >> >> One the “Is v. Ought” distinction and that propositions can be divided into statements about what is or is not accurate, and what ought to be (or not). This can be extended into the second distinction… “True/Good v. False/Bad”. See here <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201203_no-2Done-2Dintentionally-2Dtries-2Djustify-2Dbad-2Dfalse-2Dthings&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=PyIt0E7_i4QmhDq2HIaGzuVoCPJGZmfqGlK1zWwaUFQ&s=_Zky70KNmBXdMGAk4HPsUYsf7nubQnJjHcRpAifN9pY&e=> for the 2 x 2 that gets at what it means. I always thought this was interesting because it carries a clear empirically testable claim: It suggests that human justification is driven by either accuracy or some investment value, but would not be driven by both inaccuracy and low value by the individual. Now, people from the outside of belief systems will say that others believe both inaccurate and bad things. The Nazis, for example. Thus, we know there are “false-bad” beliefs out there. However, to believe in something means that is to invest in it via Behavioral Investment Theory. And it is interesting to note we have a hard time believing in things that we believe to be both inaccurate and harmful. >> >> Now, to your post. The other is the difference in justification dynamics is what I have sometimes referred to as “stance” (in my own mind, not something I have published on). The “stance” refers to position in exchanging between the questioner and the answerer. Indeed, as you likely know already, it is the capacity to ask questions that gives rise to the problem of social justification. Thus the Q and A dynamic is central. Which is exactly what is suggested here. >> >> So, that there are some people honed toward asking and others honed toward declaring is a fascinating proposition. I know of no research on it or even related questions. Would be interested to hear what others think. >> >> Best, >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> >> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Alexander Bard >> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 6:13 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: "Askers" and "Declarers" >> >> >> >> Dear Jason >> >> >> >> I would say this is an excellent summary of basic rhetorics. Please notice how askers are often most comfortable with other askers and declarers most comfortable with other declarers so support is needed when the two categories clash and need to communicate directly with each other. For example in a corporate board room where both types are often needed. Or an a constructive mailing list. >> >> >> >> Evolutionarily speaking, the askers are of course developed to allign with mythos and the declarers to align with logos. You prefer the askers over a dinner table conversation in the evening but you prefer the declarers when you attend an academic speech in the morning to succeed with your development plan. Which proves how important it is to set out goals and ambitions for dicussions and social activities before they get started. Is it mythos or logos that takes us where we want to get here? >> >> >> >> Best intentions >> >> Alexander Bard >> >> >> >> Den fre 18 okt. 2019 kl 01:49 skrev nysa71 <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: >> >> Hello ToK community, >> >> I was curious if there was, by any chance, anything in psychology (or maybe even sociology or philosophy) that folks here are aware of, (e.g., theory, research, etc.), that might resemble the following dichotomy. (It seems like there could be some loose correspondence to justification here, as well). >> >> Just something I read about recently. Curious to know if this sort of dichotomy could have any usefulness. >> >> >> "Askers" >> >> tendency to dialogue >> much of what an asker says seems more question-like, even statements >> always, as the other person talks, affirm the receipt of information with yeah, mhm, etc. >> motive of communication is external >> can talk to an audience as a whole very well >> starts talking at times expecting someone to get interested and start paying attention >> has a tendency to interrupt and feels comfortable pausing half way on the speech and with "questions allowed all the time" way, returning to what was said later if necessary >> quite often asks a non-rhetorical question and answers it himself >> often just asks questions to fill in time, without serious need to actually find the information asked >> "Declarers" >> tendency to monologue >> much of what a declarer says seems more statement-like, even questions >> listens attentively and silently to others' speeches to return to a long speech >> motive of communication is internal >> finds it easier to talk to one person at a time >> before starting to talk, first ascertains that attention is grabbed >> is very patient in terms of others speeches in terms of letting finish >> prefers to finish the speech before letting others talk, likes closure and that their point was conveyed >> questions are often either rhetorical or only strictly motivated by serious need for certain information >> ~ Jason Bessey >> >> >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> >> ############################ >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> >> ############################ >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>############################ >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> > ############################ > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>############################ > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1