# Qualities of Intuitive, and Sensation, Piaget, and Art.



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Please comment

Is the dichotomy of intuitive and sensation really synonymous with abstract and concrete, or are there other elements of intuitive and sensation, and abstract and concrete ways of looking at the world and are only one quality of the P functions.

If so

Pe seems deductive
Pi seems inductive

Also,

Concrete=Piaget's Concrete operational?
Abstract= Piaget's Formal operational?

*formal operational* stage. Adolescents and adults use symbols related to abstract concepts. Adolescents can think about multiple variables in systematic ways, can formulate hypotheses, and think about abstract relationships and concepts. 

*concrete operational* Intellectual development in this stage is demonstrated through the use of logical and systematic manipulation of symbols, which are related to concrete objects

I did some searching and people say no, the formal operation stage is not synonymous with Intuitive Abstract, but most of them end by saying they don't know much about the functions, so I haven't really had any good information of why they are different, however, if I knew why they are different, I'd learn more about both.

For example, what really is the difference between abstract and concrete?

Two words: Form, and Relation.

Lets look at art:

Henry Matisse _The Red table_









You see how the table loses its form at the end?

This makes it more abstract.










In Monet's impressionistic painting, you see less concrete form.

Basically, the more representational= The more concrete.

The more non representational- The more abstract.

The only reason there is a difference between non representational and abstract, is because abstract actually has form we can recognize, where as non representational means you just threw paint on a board with no intention of anything at all.










Although this might be naturalistic, in that it is our ideal form, as opposed to completely representational, it is still very concrete. More details would make it more concrete.

What about though, if you are blind?

What is then abstract for you?

Nothing is absolutely abstract or concrete, it differs for everyone.

The question of what is different between abstract and concrete, also relates to the Mind/ Body question.

When does something stop being physical, and start being thought?

If we say that it is all physical, and components of energy, then does that not mean that everything is concrete?

What they is the difference? 

Perhaps there are brain operation differences.

Why not call the abstract, what we have a hard time linking, and concrete, what we know.

This is why in Piaget's theory, the concrete operational stage occured before the formal operational stage.

Why not simply say, Abstract is related to, trying to figure out problems that require a multitude of steps, without focusing on the first step, but by focusing on the entire process.

Say we have to carry a bunch of plates from the dining room to the kitchen.

Concrete might see a series of easy steps, take one plate at a time, and abstract, or formal, might add in another problem, the problem of "balance" and line the plates up and down the arms to do it all at once.

So Abstract, or Formal, combines multiple problems into one solution.

Where as Concrete seperates them individually.

How then do we link the definition of abstract, in that it lacks form, to the definition of abstract, in that it combines to problems into one solution?

Perhaps, since abstract has less form, it therefore has less structure required, and therefore, less overall work.

If you think of structure as material, or energy, the abstract links together with less energy.

I mean, if you compare it to a painting, abstract has much less detail, and looks blurry.

It is the wide encompassing of many solutions into one.

A better way to look at the abstract then might be this:










It actually has a crap load of detail, but is held together loosely.

The question isn't what is easier, but more so the number of problems, or concrete elements that are being solved or considered at the same time.

So for example, abstractly trying to compare the universe, to a person, or a tree, will be linking several identities into one overall structure.

It almost seems like abstract is holistic in that respect.

Comments?


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

Monet one is fantastic. 
I dont think abstract vs concret is type related, for example kandinsky type often as ST. (there is possibility that typer fail too).
Representationnal abstract/concrete (pure representationnal or impressionnism, post impressionnism) is often associated to SiNe axis.
Surrealism and symbol oriented painting more associated with NiSe axis.

I think impressionnism was a typical delta movement (FiNeSiTe, SiTeFiNe, TeSiNeFi , NeFiTeSi). It seem mix emotionnal depth response of exterior (Fi), and sensing response (Si).


For example ive no hard time to see the last as an si dom, who orient itself into harmony of taste, color, ect. Photo of mountain is pure Si stuff. flowing, relaxing, natural structure.




edit : imo impressionnism is more on the representationnal side. 
Abstract can be see as the first one, and somewhat the last, but not really.
Why ? cause matisse seem to use more abstract form in order to signify concret stuff. The last one seem less abstract cause there is no real "form" wich can suggest concret thing (yes i know we can always invent, ive taked 2 min in order to see all stuff wich can be see into the last one ). This seems to be more an Si appeal. Not abstract, not concrete, just sensing information.

Seriously IRL idk the real definition of abstract into painting.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

I think :
the more abstract are Ne Ti
depht of feeling, somewhat dark and aprehensive, often somewhat representationnal (but not always) : Fi Si, typical is impressionism.
religious, symbol oriented + some depth of feeling Fi Ni
symbol oriented : Ni
sensing oriented, aggreable, "internal" : Si
power, heroes oriented : Se
melting different "social stuff" like andy warrhol : Fi Ne (itself was ENFP perhaps Fi subtype)

Its obviously not set in stone. an example : taking FiNeSiTe, they can be abstract too, especially with the direction have take modern art or dadaism, with some stuff like "provoke question like "is this art ?"" . In this case for example they will rely more on demonstrative (Ni) and obstinate (Ti). But you will always see Fi dominance, at least into the explanation of work if not into the work itself, or into how they aprehend they work.
And NiFeSiTe are too often attracted to depth of feeling (Fi demonstrative), not only symbolism. But they rarely express it like Fi/Si or FiNe, cuz they prefer contact with Fe.


----------



## erasinglines (Sep 1, 2010)

You know, you have really great timing. I've just been wondering to myself what really is the nature of abstract and concrete? I've come to this question when breaking down research to try to understand different approaches, but it's made me question all sorts of things. It's not just as simple as assigning a dichotomy to everything. Abstract is top-down is intuitive; concrete is bottom-up is sensing. I've been getting the feeling that these distinctions aren't as simple as we've taken for granted.

Just to make sure I get this right... deduction begins with the theory, puts the observations into place, and ends with a conclusion based on this process. Whereas induction begins with the observations, builds a pattern, and ties it into theory? So Pe would be deductive, using the greater picture to fill out the details; meanwhile Pi would be more inductive, using the details to build up to the greater picture? (I always get confused on deduction and induction and which is which.)

So... are you suggesting that Piaget's concrete and formal operational schema relates to intuitive/sensing? I might have missed how that all ties in.

As for abstract and concrete, I used to think that abstract was that which could not be expressed by words. Oh, one can try. And, given enough words, perhaps someone might get close. But even words such as 'love' is an abstraction of the actual entity itself, subjected to the personal differences in context, meaning, and understanding. On the other hand, concrete objects are more easily expressed in words. Table, tree, train. However, this distinction might not stand up across all examples, so I'm not sure how useful that might be.

When compared to induction and deduction, abstract and concrete, as far as I understand, are not necessarily intrinsic or inherent to either one. And in extending this further, I'm not sure how abstract and concrete can be limited to either sensing or intuition. But perhaps induction and deduction might work? For intuition, maybe this is deduction, using the big picture to categorize the observations where the general picture is crucial starting point (though not the ending point). For sensing, perhaps it is building observations into a bigger picture, where the observations are the crucial starting point (though again not the ending point). Though, to be sure, I've only just thought this now and I'm not sure how well that works either...


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

erasinglines said:


> You know, you have really great timing. I've just been wondering to myself what really is the nature of abstract and concrete? I've come to this question when breaking down research to try to understand different approaches, but it's made me question all sorts of things. It's not just as simple as assigning a dichotomy to everything. Abstract is top-down is intuitive; concrete is bottom-up is sensing. I've been getting the feeling that these distinctions aren't as simple as we've taken for granted.





erasinglines said:


> Just to make sure I get this right... deduction begins with the theory, puts the observations into place, and ends with a conclusion based on this process. Whereas induction begins with the observations, builds a pattern, and ties it into theory? So Pe would be deductive, using the greater picture to fill out the details; meanwhile Pi would be more inductive, using the details to build up to the greater picture? (I always get confused on deduction and induction and which is which.)
> 
> So... are you suggesting that Piaget's concrete and formal operational schema relates to intuitive/sensing? I might have missed how that all ties in.
> 
> ...




Yes I try to have great timing  

Well, I'm not sure Piaget's definition of concrete and the PerC definition of concrete match up.

As far as induction/deduction, perhaps.

Deduction & Induction

As far as abstract and concrete simply having to do with how many concrete assocations/ relations there are between two things, abstract being minimal, concrete being more.

The only question one would have to say then is, what is most concrete?

I'll use Locke for that and talk about "qualities."

Primary/secondary quality distinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my British Empiricist class we did talk about Tertiary qualities, and also Berkeley came after Locke and added to it revised it a bit.

So there you have it. Primary are more concrete, secondary are in the middle of concrete and abstract, which Most S users use, and abstract are the tertiary, which arent listed I realize lmao. I think it has something to do with thinking. Honestly, someone has my thinking all screwed up and I'm having trouble focusing. I shall surely try harder and make this more complete though!

So, how does this definition of concrete in art hold up to this one of primary qualities?

*bites arm randomly

Ok back to the project here, well um, *Primary qualities* are properties objects have that are independent of any observer, such as solidity, extension, motion, number and figure. 

*Secondary qualities* are properties that produce sensations in observers, such as colour, taste, smell, and sound. 

I stole this line from some essay: 

Defending corpuscularianism is not the primary business of Locke’s 
_Essay, _but it still
contains arguments that a body “performs its Operations” through “the Mechanical​affections” (E IV.iii.25: 556) of its microphysical parts.

“From whence I think it is easie to draw this Observation, That the ​
​
_Ideas of_
_primary Qualities _​​
of Bodies, _are Resemblances _of them, and their Patterns do
really exist in the Bodies themselves; but the _Ideas, produced _in us _by _these​_Secondary Qualities, have no resemblance _of them at all (E II.viii.15: 137).

"Whatever Locke means by ‘resemblance,’ the relation is one of the two ways that he
believes that ideas can represent external objects. The other way is by brute causal​connection."

Ok I found it: "
Locke goes on to define ‘quality’ in its application to what we may recognize as
secondary and tertiary qualities:7 “because the powers or capacitys of things which too are all
conversant about simple Ideas, are considerd in the nature of the thing & make up a part of​that complex Idea we have of them therefor I call those also qualities”"

So basically, tertiary qualities are when we put simple ideas together forming complex ideas.

These are all basically the definitions on the side of what concrete is.

However, to take it further, we can discuss which complex thoughts are the most complex, therefore I think also including the argument of concrete vs. formal logic by Piaget.

Quick run down of how simple thoughts and complex thoughts work.

You perceive red= simple thought
You perceive two reds= General idea, complex thought
You connect red to blood= more complex thought

These are just associations and relations.

So it isnt just the aspect of being more complex that makes it abstract, however, it does have to be complex to be abstract. I think we can lay that to rest at least.

So now lets circle back to the primary qualities. 

When we have complex thoughts involving primary qualities, these are more concrete.

When we have complex thoughts involving secondary qualities, these are more abstract.

When we have complex thoughts involving only secondary qualities these are more abstract.

When we have complex thoughts about the nature of nature, or the mind, that is I think the most abstract, since there is no form to be grasped (including the original art definition)

Form= bodies in a way. Ideas have less body than physical properties.

NOT IN THEORY as Berkeley points out, but just that, we are in tune with our senses, and they take some sort of priority in our experience more often than not. After all, I am using my hands and eyes right now, lol.

So I think that pretty much sums it up, except to say that some primary qualities are more abstract than others when thought about with complex thought, and some secondary qualities are harder to use, which makes them more abstract, but only slightly.

So to sum it up,

*Abstract= Formal Logic+Qualities with less form/ body*







no_id said:


> Monet one is fantastic.





no_id said:


> I dont think abstract vs concret is type related, for example kandinsky type often as ST. (there is possibility that typer fail too).
> Representationnal abstract/concrete (pure representationnal or impressionnism, post impressionnism) is often associated to SiNe axis.
> Surrealism and symbol oriented painting more associated with NiSe axis.
> 
> ...




In the art world, my definitions of abstract and representational are on point, because these actually are coming from an art appreciation class lol.​


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

lol 
Ive said that ME , idk whats the definition of abstract into art
Being french ive hard time to understand all what is posted xD but wanting to comment on a function perspective, things wich can perhaps fuel the idea on the thread !


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

no_id said:


> lol
> Ive said that ME , idk whats the definition of abstract into art
> Being french ive hard time to understand all what is posted xD but wanting to comment on a function perspective, things wich can perhaps fuel the idea on the thread !


Yea you're right.

Here's your last comment again: "I dont think abstract vs concret is type related, for example kandinsky type often as ST. (there is possibility that typer fail too).
Representational abstract/concrete (pure representational or impressionism, post impressionism) is often associated to SiNe axis.
Surrealism and symbol oriented painting more associated with NiSe axis.

I think impressionism was a typical delta movement (FiNeSiTe, SiTeFiNe, TeSiNeFi , NeFiTeSi). It seem mix emotionnal depth response of exterior (Fi), and sensing response (Si)."

Okay, Are you saying that Ni and Se have more similarities than Ne and Ni when it comes to abstract or concrete?

I also don't agree with the Si/Ne axis theory. I think we have an E/I and J/P axis that are functioning to some degree at all times, but I don't think we need Ne for Si, etc..

Thats all good though I'd like to hear more about it.

As far as representation, art uses the term in a primary quality mechanical physical way, however yes, as far as "representing the culture of the times" more abstract (less form less representation) might mean doing something innovative, like a carving of a round earth back when they believed the earth was flat.

So yea, when talking about nonrepresentational (more abstract) vs. representational (more concrete) we usually talk about physical properties, but can also talk about meaning and ideas.

Though, once we start talking about ideas as concrete, now you have just brought up Berekeley's point, in that, ALL WE ARE ARE IDEAS, NOTHING OF THIS EXISTS.

That doesn't exactly help us in the MBTI, though, it is certainly good for existential and soul growth IMHO 

Good stuff.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

Hey ! 
interressant thought I dont have many time to respond, but quickly a simple things


> I also don't agree with the Si/Ne axis theory


Its impossible to dont agree its the base itself ! 
If you have Fi , you have Te (at least you should have, even if not develloped)
same with 
FeTi
NiSe
NeSi

You cant have Fe Te , Ne Se or strange stuff like that. Ne is the natural complementary in the way they work, ive already speaked about this somewhere dont remember where and its often discuted on the forum.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

no_id said:


> Hey !
> interressant thought I dont have many time to respond, but quickly a simple things
> 
> 
> ...


Negative, I disagree with the way you see the function attitudes. These are attitudes, which can be experienced. 

Also, plenty of leading theorists put the inferior function as the absolute last to be used.

Also, function attitudes don't get developed, they either are used or not.

Its the skills associated with the functions that develop, and since we live based on pain/pleasure, if we have failure with a skill, we will likely switch to one that will give us success.

Everyone has all possible perspectives, they simply don't actually adopt their opposites, until they mature over time, or have trauma, or basically stop having as much success eventually with their now too narrow and unaccepting viewpoint.

The main problem you and others are having when it seems logical that there Pe works with Pi and Je works with Ji, is because of one thing.

E works with I.

Therefore, Pe works with Ji, and Je with Pi, not Pe and Pi and Je Ji, which is just inefficient.

Our brain can question based on those functions, but its not going to go through a quadruple process unless it has to.

Edit: You still the man though homie, lol.


----------



## unico (Feb 3, 2011)

Very interesting post! I relate strongly to having a dominant Ni function, though I prefer Impressionism painting and some of my own painting is Impressionism. However, I also was interested in surrealism heavily as a teenager. I have synesthesia and sensory integration issues, which I think is part of the reason why I feel better able to express myself through Impressionism/relate to Impressionism.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

how your synesthesia manifest ? it seem ive it too
So yes its more visual integration issue... 
Whats good is that it can lead to some creative stuff
whats bad is that ivent the courage to paint ^^


----------



## unico (Feb 3, 2011)

no_id said:


> how your synesthesia manifest ? it seem ive it too
> So yes its more visual integration issue...
> Whats good is that it can lead to some creative stuff
> whats bad is that ivent the courage to paint ^^


Mainly colors, shapes, textures, and sound overlapping.


----------

