# TIM and values



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Is my example not relevant based on this, anyway? It still stands.
> 
> Instead of wishing to accumulate objects based on the sphere of cultural/societal ideals-- Money, fame, etc., the objects to accumulate instead become more about direct sensation and living physically in the individual's environment.
> 
> ...


It's not incongruent with the way I describe it here, though?



Jeremy8419 said:


> "to measure or determine the individual's level of asceticism or materialistic leanings within the framework of Se possessiveness."
> In what frame of reference, though? Just the Western world? Humanity?


Just the generic dictionary definition? I already offered you it:



> what the word "ascetic" means within the socio-cultural context that would be *Anglophone*


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> It's not incongruent with the way I describe it here, though?


Yeah, I think it's congruent with the way you're describing it here.

I'm not sure if you realize that you used a double negative, maybe a typo, so you're basically stating that it is in agreement with how you describe, with a question mark on the end.

If you think that my example(s) are _not_ in accordance with your definition, please explain how they are against it, so that I can better understand what you mean.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Yeah, I think it's congruent with the way you're describing it here.
> 
> I'm not sure if you realize that you used a double negative, maybe a typo, so you're basically stating that it is in agreement with how you describe, with a question mark on the end.
> 
> If you think that my example(s) are _not_ in accordance with your definition, please explain how they are against it, so that I can better understand what you mean.


No, I am pretty sure that's not a typo since incongruence would suggest a disagreement, so it is not in disagreement as in, it is in implied agreement. Well, I'm stupidly negativist at times, lol.

I experience your examples to be more in line with a general idea of how materialism is defined socio-culturally, but I wasn't trying to necessarily get at how materialism is defined in Western society, as much as how the word could meaningfully apply to the nature of how Se operates and what values/mentality it brings with it. For example, another example of Se is the desire to also possess people. Se doms in particular often have an idea that that person is theirs, or under their territory of influence. Night Huntress told me about a situation where she used to speak to a person on Tumblr who was in a relationship that she was interested in, and how she was trying to be suggestive to see how they'd response, I suppose, you could say. If they responded positively or negatively to it or not. That response would suggest something about the nature of the relationship the person she was interested in had with the person they were together with. I think she can explain it better than I do because I don't inherently think this way or operate this way, and that is kind of what I'm trying to get at. 

And developing _counter-values_ in response to previously held values or experiences doesn't quite fit either, since that would be in response to already existing values in place, and most people do react towards their ego block because they intrinsically seek an environment that satisfies the super-id and this is a development that occurs over time. So it's more about what someone feels the most natural at doing in response to what they perceive to be missing, if that makes sense. Like my problem has to do with a sense of physical detachment which is different from an Se dom feeling like the depth of experience and meaning isn't quite found in the surface-impression of things.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> No, I am pretty sure that's not a typo since incongruence would suggest a disagreement, so it is not in disagreement as in, it is in implied agreement. Well, I'm stupidly negativist at times, lol.
> 
> I experience your examples to be more in line with a general idea of how materialism is defined socio-culturally, but I wasn't trying to necessarily get at how materialism is defined in Western society, as much as how the word could meaningfully apply to the nature of how Se operates and what values/mentality it brings with it. For example, another example of Se is the desire to also possess people. Se doms in particular often have an idea that that person is theirs, or under their territory of influence. Night Huntress told me about a situation where she used to speak to a person on Tumblr who was in a relationship that she was interested in, and how she was trying to be suggestive to see how they'd response, I suppose, you could say. If they responded positively or negatively to it or not. That response would suggest something about the nature of the relationship the person she was interested in had with the person they were together with. I think she can explain it better than I do because I don't inherently think this way or operate this way, and that is kind of what I'm trying to get at.
> 
> And developing _counter-values_ in response to previously held values or experiences doesn't quite fit either, since that would be in response to already existing values in place, and most people do react towards their ego block because they intrinsically seek an environment that satisfies the super-id and this is a development that occurs over time. So it's more about what someone feels the most natural at doing in response to what they perceive to be missing, if that makes sense. Like my problem has to do with a sense of physical detachment which is different from an Se dom feeling like the depth of experience and meaning isn't quite found in the surface-impression of things.


Aah, okay. Now I understand. :kitteh:

Then it is as I thought.

But, an ascetic living situation does _not _necessarily imply a physical detachment. In fact, it quite often implies the opposite, though the focus often becomes the individual and their attachment to their own physical body and sensations, and experiencing them without a clouded mind. Ascetics are often very present-- Such as with mindfulness meditation. In the original post, you spoke of an 'ascetic lifestyle'. This was your initial question, which I was answering.

Whether or not Se would come upon _physical detachment_ is another question entirely. This would imply more of a mental/emotional focus, which would be more difficult to discern and provide examples for, but it's not impossible. I would assume that this is an extreme for _any _type though-- Someone who begins to ignore/detach physically would probably be beset by trauma-- Ignoring their environment, and their own place in it, in order to go within.

Physical aspects are complex, though. I am covering it fairly generally. Did you mean something more specific?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Aah, okay. Now I understand. :kitteh:
> 
> Then it is as I thought.
> 
> ...


Words such as "asceticism" and "materialism" are only used to connote specific conceptual correlations to Se here, and its particular mentality. I do not necessarily refer to it in any greater colloquial sense. I am more interested in how we cognitively pay attention to our environment and what we seek and get from it. Intuitives in general are often bad at paying attention to their environment. Detachment in the sense that there's a lack of interest usually, to observe and take in environmental information by paying attention to its actual realness. Instead, intuitives do what Jung wrote, which is "peering behind the scenes"; seeing how things connect at an unconscious level to greater schemas, patterns and symbols. 

Hence I wouldn't use words as "materialistic" or "ascetic" if I were to gauge such a dimension though I would probably call it as such in the final analysis, but would attempt to imply it in other ways e.g. awareness of space, possession and the like.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Words such as "asceticism" and "materialism" are only used to connote specific conceptual correlations to Se here, and its particular mentality. I do not necessarily refer to it in any greater colloquial sense. I am more interested in how we cognitively pay attention to our environment and what we seek and get from it. Intuitives in general are often bad at paying attention to their environment. Detachment in the sense that there's a lack of interest usually, to observe and take in environmental information by paying attention to its actual realness. Instead, intuitives do what Jung wrote, which is "peering behind the scenes"; seeing how things connect at an unconscious level to greater schemas, patterns and symbols.
> 
> Hence I wouldn't use words as "materialistic" or "ascetic" if I were to gauge such a dimension though I would probably call it as such in the final analysis, but would attempt to imply it in other ways e.g. awareness of space, possession and the like.


Does this mean that you're basically asking if an Se-base can stop cognitively preferring the environment over 'peering behind the scenes'?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Does this mean that you're basically asking if an Se-base can stop cognitively preferring the environment over 'peering behind the scenes'?


No. More in terms what values Se brings over say, Ni.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> No. More in terms what values Se brings over say, Ni.


Okay... So, you're asking if Se-base can more strongly prefer to utilize Ni, if that is possible? Or are you asking if Se can bring over more Ni than would be expected? 

I'm still not sure I'm understanding correctly what you mean, exactly.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Okay... So, you're asking if Se-base can more strongly prefer to utilize Ni, if that is possible? Or are you asking if Se can bring over more Ni than would be expected?
> 
> I'm still not sure I'm understanding correctly what you mean, exactly.


No, I know you don't lol. It's about the worldview see, the values of that particular worldview. Perhaps cosmology is a better word I'm looking for. As an analogy, compare Eastern to Western culture. Western culture is much more extroverted. Not necessarily socially, but cognitively. Overall there's a tendency to focus on the external objects around us. Our economy is driven by Te, our social interactions Fe and so on. Only in philosophy do we see more of a favor towards introversion in the form of Ti. Eastern culture is different, emphasizing introverted elements more. Many spiritual and religious practices are Ni and Si for example. 

Now of course, I'm speaking very broad and generally about cultures, but now apply that as if one culture would be a person. Every person moves and sees the world differently. There are social values caused by upbringing, but those are not the ones I'm looking for. I'm not looking for an Se dom raised strictly religious and thus values asceticism for that reason; no, rather, I am looking at what values our innate cognitive preferences would propel us to develop or pursue on our own, naturally. I believe one such value for Se is the desire for material possession and by that I don't necessarily mean Western materialism. Does that make more sense? It's like how authenticity has become such an integral value to understand Fi through, even though it's not explicit or unique to Fi.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> No, I know you don't lol. It's about the worldview see, the values of that particular worldview. Perhaps cosmology is a better word I'm looking for. As an analogy, compare Eastern to Western culture. Western culture is much more extroverted. Not necessarily socially, but cognitively. Overall there's a tendency to focus on the external objects around us. Our economy is driven by Te, our social interactions Fe and so on. Only in philosophy do we see more of a favor towards introversion in the form of Ti. Eastern culture is different, emphasizing introverted elements more. Many spiritual and religious practices are Ni and Si for example.
> 
> Now of course, I'm speaking very broad and generally about cultures, but now apply that as if one culture would be a person. Every person moves and sees the world differently. There are social values caused by upbringing, but those are not the ones I'm looking for. I'm not looking for an Se dom raised strictly religious and thus values asceticism for that reason; no, rather,* I am looking at what values our innate cognitive preferences would propel us to develop or pursue on our own, naturally.* I believe one such value for Se is the desire for material possession and by that I don't necessarily mean Western materialism. Does that make more sense? It's like how authenticity has become such an integral value to understand Fi through, even though it's not explicit or unique to Fi.


The bold is the point you're trying to make, that I didn't get until now. :kitteh:

I had also attempted to move outside of stereotype/western ideas of what 'materialism' is in my example-- Because one can be 'materialist' in nature, outside of the western definition of it, without an accumulation of objects, as well. With nothing, living a minimalist existence.

So, then you're asking about cognitive functions in a vacuum-- No social or cultural aspects of which to shape it, so what then would occur?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> The bold is the point you're trying to make, that I didn't get until now. :kitteh:
> 
> I had also attempted to move outside of stereotype/western ideas of what 'materialism' is in my example-- Because one can be 'materialist' in nature, outside of the western definition of it, without an accumulation of objects, as well. With nothing, living a minimalist existence.
> 
> So, then you're asking about cognitive functions in a vacuum-- No social or cultural aspects of which to shape it, so what then would occur?


If we consider socio-cultural aspects, then we can never identify a function in someone else because we never know what caused that certain value. Too many variables to consider. 

So yes, it would be what values would be developed in a vacuum. I also do not believe that the values of society came from nowhere; they came because people have cognitive preferences that pushed these values to become favored over others'. Efficiency and productivity with Te, for example.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> If we consider socio-cultural aspects, then we can never identify a function in someone else because we never know what caused that certain value. Too many variables to consider.
> 
> So yes, it would be what values would be developed in a vacuum. I also do not believe that the values of society came from nowhere; they came because people have cognitive preferences that pushed these values to become favored over others'. Efficiency and productivity with Te, for example.


Hmm, this makes sense. But, then we must consider biology, and upbringing. And, perhaps we should question the use of the word, 'cause'. Are these cognitive functions caused by the environment, at all?

Have you considered that cognitive functions, as we understand them in theory, are not actually nurtured and formed by our environment, but are genetic? That we could possibly be born with these preferences innately?

I understand that there is a prevalent view that functions can be born of trauma, particularly with Ni-base, and I'm not discounting that. But, somehow I think that the potential for this lies dormant, possibly in genetics. That perhaps for a certain person of a certain biological makeup, the same trauma may affect them differently, and thus incur possibly vastly different cognitive preferences than another certain person of a different biological makeup.

So, do cognitive functions form as a cause of environment, genetics, or a mixture of both? I would argue both make sense.

Interesting thought, though. If an individual is born of a world that forces them to concentrate on their environments constantly, would that awaken dormant Se?

Then there's the development theory that @To_august posited not too long ago-- Where it is defining development of functions at an age as young as 3 and 4, and the progress/process of how functions tend to develop in the individual, and which area is at focus during particular crucial times in their life. Do you disagree that this is possible?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Hmm, this makes sense. But, then we must consider biology, and upbringing. And, perhaps we should question the use of the word, 'cause'. Are these cognitive functions caused by the environment, at all?
> 
> Have you considered that cognitive functions, as we understand them in theory, are not actually nurtured and formed by our environment, but are genetic? That we could possibly be born with these preferences innately?
> 
> ...


I've always been of the opinion that cognitive type is innate, random and not shaped by the environment. Socio-cultural factors can make someone use different function blocks and appear like some other type because of inconsistently increased proficiency in some block/deficiency in some other. But unlike in Enneagram, your type itself isn't influenced by what you've grown up with.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> I've always been of the opinion that cognitive type is innate, random and not shaped by the environment. Socio-cultural factors can make someone use different function blocks and appear like some other type because of inconsistently increased proficiency in some block/deficiency in some other. But unlike in Enneagram, your type itself isn't influenced by what you've grown up with.


This is my impression as well, but I can't _completely _ignore environmental factors-- They shape us in surprising ways. (I would say genetics are even more surprising, though. What is formed by biology is a lot more than anyone is willing to admit.)

But, from my own personal experience, I'd say that I've always seen/focused on the world the way I do today, shaped by my experience, and with possibly different focuses at times-- Which would support the developmental theory that To_august posited.

For example-- When I was small, I'd run up to strangers and hug them. I was very unconcerned with boundaries, I had no fear. As time went on, I was still unconcerned with boundaries, but social situations corralled me into a certain way of being. I also became more self-conscious, more worried about things I wasn't worried about previously. Things that one might associate with enneagram, rather than cognition, as you say.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Hmm, this makes sense. But, then we must consider biology, and upbringing. And, perhaps we should question the use of the word, 'cause'. Are these cognitive functions caused by the environment, at all?
> 
> Have you considered that cognitive functions, as we understand them in theory, are not actually nurtured and formed by our environment, but are genetic? That we could possibly be born with these preferences innately?
> 
> ...


I think the closest thing that would match would be temperament, and temperament is by and large, inborn.



Word Dispenser said:


> This is my impression as well, but I can't _completely _ignore environmental factors-- They shape us in surprising ways. (I would say genetics are even more surprising, though. What is formed by biology is a lot more than anyone is willing to admit.)
> 
> But, from my own personal experience, I'd say that I've always seen/focused on the world the way I do today, shaped by my experience, and with possibly different focuses at times-- Which would support the developmental theory that To_august posited.
> 
> For example-- When I was small, I'd run up to strangers and hug them. I was very unconcerned with boundaries, I had no fear. As time went on, I was still unconcerned with boundaries, but social situations corralled me into a certain way of being. I also became more self-conscious, more worried about things I wasn't worried about previously. Things that one might associate with enneagram, rather than cognition, as you say.


These are behaviors I'd consider related to the enneagram, not so much cognition, though.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> These are behaviors I'd consider related to the enneagram, not so much cognition, though.


That's what I said. :kitteh:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> That's what I said. :kitteh:


Where?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Where?


Here:



Word Dispenser said:


> For example-- When I was small, I'd run up to strangers and hug them. I was very unconcerned with boundaries, I had no fear. As time went on, I was still unconcerned with boundaries, but social situations corralled me into a certain way of being. I also became more self-conscious, more worried about things I wasn't worried about previously. * Things that one might associate with enneagram, rather than cognition, as you say.*


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Entropic said:


> It's not incongruent with the way I describe it here, though?
> 
> Just the generic dictionary definition? I already offered you it:


Well, you could go by HDI then. Whether it is by choice or not, HDI of .7 or less is ascetic by American standards


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, you could go by HDI then. Whether it is by choice or not, HDI of .7 or less is ascetic by American standards


Not interested in measuring happiness or life satisfaction. How is that even relevant, here?


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

I'm pretty far from being an Se dom even though I'm pretty sure I value Se...though I don't feel attracted to ascetism either. Like, I could see myself as a spiritual figure(like a "prophet" or "teacher" type), but not to the point of being an ascetic.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Not interested in measuring happiness or life satisfaction. How is that even relevant, here?


Because they are dirt-holes.


----------

