# Dynamic vs Static?



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Right. We are talking about a dichotomy, right? Well, one thing needs to be pointed out then:

*DICHOTOMIES SAY WHICH OF TWO THINGS WE PREFER, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.* (what that means is that, yes, we are using the lower dichotomy as well)

So, a static would prefer static things and static outlook, but would still be quite able to notice the dynamic things, but he'd need to put MORE EFFORT or TIME in it! Let's say a fictional 100% Dynamic. Contrary to popular belief, this does not mean that you are 100% Dyn, 0% St. What this means is that you completely *PREFER *to use dynamic viewpoint! The calculation being:

Basic state = 0,5 / 0,5
100 % Dyn state: 0,5 + ( 0,5 * 0,5 / { %, 100% = 1} 1 ) = 0,75 * 100% = 75%
0% St state: 0,5 * 0,5 = 0,25 * 100% = 25%

...so if it takes you 3s to notice the presence(positive dichotomy) while it takes you 1s to notice the absence(negative dichotomy)...guess which one you are! This applies to all dichotomies both in MBTI, Jung, Socionics or diarrhea!

You're welcome!


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Einstein's spacetime is dynamic. It is like water. There is no universal frame. Newton thought the world had a universal or absolute time. There is one clock ticking for the entire universe. A universal reference point. In Einstein, there are just rivers with different currents. Flux. There is no land you can stand on, and measure them all by. Spacetime/gravitational field is the most dynamic thing there is. It is shaped by objects. There is really even no difference between space and gravity. Space IS gravity and objects. Without those things, there is no space. Just like there is no ocean without water. Newton thought it was a aether. 

Also why Einstein isn't a Ti dom. Obvious to me before that.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Ixim said:


> Right. We are talking about a dichotomy, right? Well, one thing needs to be pointed out then:
> 
> *DICHOTOMIES SAY WHICH OF TWO THINGS WE PREFER, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.* (what that means is that, yes, we are using the lower dichotomy as well)
> 
> ...


That sounds exactly like Einstein's process. He thinks pictorially. Which is dynamic. These others guys are using straight math and shapes, which is static. It gives Einstein more freedom. 

And Hegel's critique of Newton. So much work put into it, but the unseen dynamics are missed and immediately picked up by guys like Goethe and Hegel. All that work for nothing.

And then you got guy like Freeman Dyson who connects the static to the dynamic. They are a bridge between guys like Newton and Einstein. He did that for Richard Feynman most famously. Nobody could figure out Feynman's theories, except Feynman. And then Dyson. And then he figured out how they were all equal to 2 other guys theories as well. And those 3 won Nobels.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That sounds exactly like Einstein's process. He thinks pictorially. Which is dynamic. These others guys are using straight math and shapes, which is static. It gives Einstein more freedom.
> 
> And Hegel's critique of Newton. So much work put into it, but the unseen dynamics are missed and immediately picked up by guys like Goethe and Hegel. All that work for nothing.
> 
> And then you got guy like Freeman Dyson who connects the static to the dynamic. They are a bridge between guys like Newton and Einstein. He did that for Richard Feynman most famously. Nobody could figure out Feynman's theories, except Feynman. And then Dyson. And then he figured out how they were all equal to 2 other guys theories as well. And those 3 won Nobels.


idk. Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.

Does my writing sound Dynamic lol?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Ixim said:


> idk. Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.
> 
> Does my writing sound Dynamic lol?


I laughed at that line in the movie. It is an absolute statement.

Both have value. Newton is a genius of the highest order. But they miss things. As all types do. Newton is a Ti dom according to Jung. Ti doms think theory and reality are the same thing. Like Hegel said, "Newton thought he was dealing in physical objects, when he was really dealing with notions." Hegel, Feynman and Einstein see math and science as placeholders that help us get through the world. That is Te. Newton seems them as fundamental reality. As there is no distinction between idea and the outside world to him. That is what Jung described as introverted thinking. That the world of idea has its own reality.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Freeman Dyson is Jung's type btw. I am not sure what type that is, but if you want to see a modern Jung, look at Dyson. Both weirdos, and an endless supply of creative ideas. And another key issue: they are synthesizers. They bring together the thinking of others. They synthesize. Like Hegel too. That is Ni. Ni is the synthesizing function. Hegel, Dyson and Jung are all Ni doms. 

The larger idea that functions complete each other is Ni. Dyson fills out Feynman for a reason. Jung said that scientific and philosophical differences, are really just psychological differences. Dyson proved that. Jung is an alchemist, if you mix the right personalities, you can unleash great power. Like Dyson and Feynman. And Dyson is just like Jung in that he focuses on the people. He is a typist. Always has been. It is the people who mix, that make the difference. But those opposites complete each other. 

"Great scientists come in two varieties, which Isaiah Berlin, quoting the seventh-century-BC poet Archilochus, called foxes and hedgehogs. Foxes know many tricks, hedgehogs only one. Foxes are interested in everything, and move easily from one problem to another. Hedgehogs are interested only in a few problems which they consider fundamental, and stick with the same problems for years or decades. Most of the great discoveries are made by hedgehogs, most of the little discoveries by foxes. Science needs both hedgehogs and foxes for its healthy growth, hedgehogs to dig deep into the nature of things, foxes to explore the complicated details of our marvelous universe. Albert Einstein was a hedgehog; Richard Feynman was a fox."

-Dyson


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

And if you want see to true Ti thinking, read The City of God by St Augustine. lol. This guy says Christianity saved Rome even though though it was sacked, simply because some of the temples were left untouched. That proves God's power. Ti is one sided logic basically. That statement is factual. Those shrines were saved. But the rest of the place was destroyed. lol. Therefore Christianity saved Rome. 

I think Jeremy may be a Ti dom for this reason. Fi and Ti look alike that way.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That sounds exactly like Einstein's process. *He thinks pictorially. Which is dynamic. *These others guys are using straight math and shapes, which is static. It gives Einstein more freedom.
> 
> And Hegel's critique of Newton. So much work put into it, but the unseen dynamics are missed and immediately picked up by guys like Goethe and Hegel. All that work for nothing.
> 
> And then you got guy like Freeman Dyson who connects the static to the dynamic. They are a bridge between guys like Newton and Einstein. He did that for Richard Feynman most famously. Nobody could figure out Feynman's theories, except Feynman. And then Dyson. And then he figured out how they were all equal to 2 other guys theories as well. And those 3 won Nobels.


Einstein is a static thinker and an ILE archetype. You confuse his models with his actual thinking process.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Einstein is a static thinker and an ILE archetype. You confuse his models with his actual thinking process.


Wouldn't his models be based on his thinking process? They are symbols of that. lol. Which is my point. You cannot see symbolism at all. There is a reason Aristotle has his worldview. Why Einstein has his. You can see it in their philosophies. You are static.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Wouldn't his models be based on this thinking process? They are symbols of that. lol. Which is my point. You cannot see symbolism at all. There is a reason Aristotle has his worldview. Why Einstein has his. You can see it in their philosophies.


Yes, of course his thinking processes produced those models, but it doesn't mean that the way the models operate represent his own thinking style. 

And you thinking I don't see symbolism is laughable. You confuse the produced structure of thought to be equal to the thought that produced it. They are not necessarily one and the same.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

I honestly have no clue which I prefer. I tried analyzing my past writings, but I couldn't figure out whether I was exhibiting a static or dynamic preference.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

emberfly said:


> I honestly have no clue which I prefer. I tried analyzing my past writings, but I couldn't figure out whether I was exhibiting a static or dynamic preference.


NOT ENOUGH Ti! You must construct additional Pylons!

:crazy::crazy::crazy:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Yes, of course his thinking processes produced those models, but it doesn't mean that the way the models operate represent his own thinking style.
> 
> And you thinking I don't see symbolism is laughable. You confuse the produced structure of thought to be equal to the thought that produced it. They are not necessarily one and the same.


I think they are the best evidence we have to go on. You basically just said, that I am confusing Einstein's cognition with Einstein's cognition. Cognition is a mental model. A mental map. So is spacetime. You can see Einstein's cognition there. What better thing do we have to go on of a person's inside world, then the world they create on the outside to model it? Come on. There is nobody that can be better examined with than Einstein. His fuckin cognition is the universe.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Ixim said:


> NOT ENOUGH Ti! You must construct additional Pylons!
> 
> :crazy::crazy::crazy:


From analyzing my past writings, I seem to focus neither on processes nor on events... per se..

I mean, most of my writing focuses on

"if he had done ____, then I would have known that ____, and I would have done ____, but since he didn't do that, ____"

or "It might have been this way if ___" or "based on _____, it seems that _____ ".


I used to keep a "daily" sort of journal/diary thing (I _never _wrote in it daily), and so that's what I'm pulling from.

My entries are mostly in present tense.. I would write them from the point of view of my present thoughts about things. And I would relate my thoughts to some sort of underlying message or "moral of the story" that the thoughts conveyed.

But ya.. the vast majority of my past writings are in present or subjunctive.


One thing I liked from this page I was looking at :laughing::

"Isn't it weird how fat chance and slim chance both mean bad chance? I guess that's life for you . . . "

lol #imsoedgy


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think they are the best evidence we have to go on.* You basically just said, that I am confusing Einstein's cognition with Einstein's cognition*. Cognition is a mental model. A mental map. So is spacetime. You can see Einstein's cognition there. What better thing do we have to go on of a person's inside world, then the world they create on the outside to model it? Come on. There is nobody that can be better examined with than Einstein. His fuckin cognition is the universe.


No, I didn't. Reread what I wrote.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> No, I didn't. Reread what I wrote.


All I am gonna say is that Einstein wasn't joking when he said he wanted to know God's thoughts. He became him. You know a cup, by being a cup.

Edit:

I have German archetypes in me. Do you? Archetypes have cultural flavors. Jung or Freud said that every German has a Faust in them. All these guys I am talking about were connected to Germany/Austria in some way. Sagan and Feynman too. This is the kind of stuff Jung would look at, and find interesting. Archetypes have never mingled before, like they have in America. And also why Freud thought America was a mistake.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

emberfly said:


> From analyzing my past writings, I seem to focus neither on processes nor on events... per se..
> 
> I mean, most of my writing focuses on
> 
> ...


Only thing I see is a clear case of dialectic cognition. Now, whether it's ILI(or something else) is up to anyone's guess.

I have narrowed my cognition down to (most likely) Causal or (less likely) Holographic. Everything else is dead in the water. Which'd say that I'm a rock solid static, no matter the writing analysis. Who does writing analysis anyhow? Am I supposed to write like I would normally and send those excerpts to Gulenko? ...would make sense you know-he IS an LII you know!


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ixim said:


> I have narrowed my cognition down to (most likely) Causal or (less likely) Holographic. Everything else is dead in the water. Which'd say that I'm a rock solid static, no matter the writing analysis. Who does writing analysis anyhow? Am I supposed to write like I would normally and send those excerpts to Gulenko? ...would make sense you know-he IS an LII you know!


Seems holographic to me. You appear to be looking at a hologram of the psyche, looking at what you see, pointing out interesting things, then spinning it to look at the next side. This is as opposed to me, who is very much linking cause-and-effects into the frame of explanations of what already exists.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

emberfly said:


> From analyzing my past writings, I seem to focus neither on processes nor on events... per se..
> 
> I mean, most of my writing focuses on
> 
> ...


Dialectical is If-Then-Else cognition.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> All I am gonna say is that Einstein wasn't joking when he said he wanted to know God's thoughts. He became him. You know a cup, by being a cup.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> I have German archetypes in me. Do you? Archetypes have cultural flavors. Jung or Freud said that every German has a Faust in them. All these guys I am talking about were connected to Germany/Austria in some way. Sagan and Feynman too. This is the kind of stuff Jung would look at, and find interesting. Archetypes have never mingled before, like they have in America. And also *why Freud thought America was a mistake.*


The mingling of archetypes couldn't be why he thought that, as Freud didn't actually beleive in archetypes, archetypes were not a part of his theory.


----------

