# Thread: OK, check this one out! (On the eight functions)

1. Originally Posted by Eric B
You start out with a dominant and auxiliary function. This determines your type. The other functions are basically reflections or projections of these two.
Now that would be a great theory to see laid out more plainly.

Where's Wildcat? Number substitution could work here I think because basically you've got a square there. Eight boxes done four by two with each horizontal pair grouped.

Thanks Eric. Once again I think you've just clicked something which means I can start to understand that whole anima and such... Never did make sense as a pattern before.

2. Okay my initial enthusiasm is wearing...

Am I right in thinking the pattern for an INTP should be

Ti Ne Si Fe
Te Ni Se Fi

????

So does that mean that inside of every male INTP there's a female ENTJ trying to get out?

If so don't you just love frustrating them at every turn

3. Originally Posted by Andy
I mean the hero is more like the demon in my estimate. Your picture makes them seem as far a part as possible.
But the beauty of these symmetries is that what seems furthest apart is in a way closer than the others. For again, the double-negative on the diametric opposite far corner winds up being but a 180° rotation of the starting image, where the others are reversed images.
So they are more alike in some respect.

(I got into this kind of symmetry when my grandmother moved into a garden apartment complex consisting of two halves which were near mirror images of each other, and the halves themselves consisted of two ends (connected by a narrower section) which were mirror images of each other. She was on the inner corner of one of these four sections, so looking out any window was like looking at a mirror, and the diametric opposite quadrant was basically identical to hers, though completely rotated the other direction. I used to like just looking out at it).

I agree that all the functions interelate at some points.

This does kind of illustrate why I stopped worrying about how to pictorially represent the functions. I found that by the time you knew enough to understand the picture, it was no longer needed!

To be hinest with you Eric, I'm begining to realise just how different your understanding of the functions is to mine.
Possibly from our totally different perspectives.
I'm also starting to see just hoe incompatible the two views are. For example, you regard functions as perspectives, while I think of them as motivations/concerns. To me, a perspective is something tht gets processed through the functions, where as to you it is the functions!

Thus, if asked to define any given function, we would be most unlikely to even agree on that, let alone how they all interlate.
Motivations/concerns? I'll have to think on that. For now, it doesn't seem like it would really be incompatible. It might be another good way to put it. I would think one's motivation or especially concern could be their perspective.

I didn't say the perspective is the functions, but that the functions are perspectives. There's a bit of a difference there. We have many different kinds of perspectives on things. The functions would be the perspectives dealing with our cognitive processing (input--S/N; computation--T/F). So yes, other perspectives will be processed through these perspectives.

The thing being emphasized in the term "perspectives" (which I got from Sim), is that what the functions should not be thought strictly in terms of, are behaviors or skills sets. That's what confuses a lot of people, when they try to type others, or even themselves, by behavior/skill descriptions of functions (which are very common attempts at shorthand definitions). Anyone can engage in any one of those. We need the internal context in which he is engaging in them (could be an archetypal manifestation of a function, a left/right brain alternative, just a normal human reaction not associated with a differentiated function, etc), which sounds like it is best described as a perspective. "Motivation/concern" sounds good too.

4. Originally Posted by EricB
Our embryoes start out as both genders basically, until the testosterone or estrogen gets to them, and then develop one gender's features, and suppress the others. This apparently happens in the brain as well. So it selects our gender identity to go with the body, and the opposite one is still in there, somewhere, but suppressed.
"Apparently?"

Well, while I really like your thread, I have to comment on the convenient science here. I wouldn't typically care since we're not a science forum, but you're using "science" to specifically support your anima/animus theory without the patterns actually matching up, which makes it sound thin to me. For example:

1. All babies start out on the road to female, not both, if things progess without SRY intervention. Androgens in sufficient quantity act so to speak as the switch to deflect the train onto a new route (although technically there are various degrees of differentiation that can occur in between the "standard male and female" physically -- the amount and timing of the androgens determines the degree of differentiation toward male).

2. Only some sexual structures exist in both males and females. (For example, males never typically develop a uterus.) The wolffian and mullerian ducts are interesting in that they develop in both genders, but then the presence of androgens triggers one or the other to dwindle and disappear almost completely. Some parts of them and other structures simply differentiate into the male or female form (for example, the clitoris vs the glans of the penis). There is no "latent hidden structure" of the other gender lying within; the part in question differentiates (either completely or to some partial degree) toward male or female. This seems to be in opposition to your psychological theory.

3. As far as brain wiring goes, there is no "female nerve cell" compared to "male nerve cell." Nerves are just nerves. It's the organization of the nerves that is impacted by utero hormones. Which means you can take the same 2000 yards of cable to wire a building one way or another, but it doesn't mean that both wiring configurations exist within the same building; one occurs, to the exclusion of the other... or maybe a hodgepodge occurs... but not both complete sets of wiring in the same building. This is in opposition to your psychological theory. The brain does contain both androgen and estrogen receptors within it, so here maybe the quantity of those receptors might make a difference, though. That is biochemical receptors, however, and not wiring.

Sexual differentiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do agree with others that the picture needs more work. Even knowing Beebe's work and having read lots of your material before, I'm not sure what significance or distinctions you are trying to make with this diagram, and a picture shouldn't need a ton of text to support it; the reason for using pictures is to remove the need for words. It's either saying nothing new, or what is new that is being said is not being aided by the picture. It sounds like you thought things would be obvious, but it's not as obvious as you've suggested to everyone.

I know this all sounds very critical; aside from this, the theory itself seems interesting and I'm in the middle of looking for resonance points in your comments.

5. Originally Posted by Xander
Now that would be a great theory to see laid out more plainly.

Where's Wildcat? Number substitution could work here I think because basically you've got a square there. Eight boxes done four by two with each horizontal pair grouped.

Thanks Eric. Once again I think you've just clicked something which means I can start to understand that whole anima and such... Never did make sense as a pattern before.
Welcome back! Didn't think this would manage to bring you back out. (And with Evan in other threads. Now THIS is more like the classic TYPOc/MBTIc I remember!)
Yeah, as I said, this made me understand it as well. Earlier on, I used to brush off that whole anima/gender thing when I saw it, figuring it was just deep Jungian ideas that were too hard to understand anyway.
Originally Posted by Xander
Okay my initial enthusiasm is wearing...

Am I right in thinking the pattern for an INTP should be

Ti Ne Si Fe
Te Ni Se Fi

????

So does that mean that inside of every male INTP there's a female ENTJ trying to get out?

If so don't you just love frustrating them at every turn
In a way, I guess, but then the shadows are largely unconscious; so you might not recognize it as such, (unless you are looking for it in studying the concept, as I did).
And again, as Jungian analysts describing the anima will point out, our sense of the female is often skewed anyway, so in both the anima, and the OP, it is largely stuff we are projecting onto them, and not true feminine self-experience. So "female ENTJ trying to get out", while having perhaps a grain of truth, probably cannot be taken but so far. It is about a sense of "otherness" (more on this next post).

6. Originally Posted by Jennifer
"Apparently?"

Well, while I really like your thread, I have to comment on the convenient science here. I wouldn't typically care since we're not a science forum, but you're using "science" to specifically support your anima/animus theory without the patterns actually matching up, which makes it sound thin to me. For example:

1. All babies start out on the road to female, not both, if things progess without SRY intervention. Androgens in sufficient quantity act so to speak as the switch to deflect the train onto a new route (although technically there are various degrees of differentiation that can occur in between the "standard male and female" physically -- the amount and timing of the androgens determines the degree of differentiation toward male).

2. Only some sexual structures exist in both males and females. (For example, males never typically develop a uterus.) The wolffian and mullerian ducts are interesting in that they develop in both genders, but then the presence of androgens triggers one or the other to dwindle and disappear almost completely. Some parts of them and other structures simply differentiate into the male or female form (for example, the clitoris vs the glans of the penis). There is no "latent hidden structure" of the other gender lying within; the part in question differentiates (either completely or to some partial degree) toward male or female. This seems to be in opposition to your psychological theory.
OK, perhaps I didn't get the scientific details absolutely correct (As I have not studied that in any depth), but the way I understood it, was in terms of the external genitalia. (not any hidden or inner structures). From what I have read, it starts out sort of inbetween and ambiguous. Basically, hermaphroditic; and someone born that way is someone who did not have enough of one chemical or the other. What I had just learned, which I never knew was that that crease we have in the crotch was once open, basically as a proto-vulva. When the testeosterone gets to it, it closes up, and the testes and phallus grows. If the fetus is becoming female, then it stays open, and the phallus shrinks and becomes the clitoris, and a sort of "cord" going further into the body becomes the vagina.

I guess if no testosterone gets to it, and everything grows as it is, then it would be closer to a female, at least on the outside.
For organs like the uterus, it must become something else in a male. If it just grows out of nowhere for a female, then once again, the earlier fetus is more inbetween. (The same for ducts disappearing when the other gender is chosen).

The point is, to give an idea of the process of differentiation (physical and psychological), and how it ties to the gender identity inherent in the different archetype complexes that develop. The fetus; or we could just take it further back, to the "undifferentiated zygote (fertilized egg)" starts out in a position where it can become either male or female, and then one is chosen, the other is suppressed, whether by the organ of one gender growing, shrinking, appearing from nowhere or disappearing.

Since this is physical, then, no, once the process is complete, there won't be any "hidden" structures from the other gender left. Psychologically, of course, it is different (abstract rather than concrete), and you can have things simulataneously hidden in the unconscious.
3. As far as brain wiring goes, there is no "female nerve cell" compared to "male nerve cell." Nerves are just nerves. It's the organization of the nerves that is impacted by utero hormones. Which means you can take the same 2000 yards of cable to wire a building one way or another, but it doesn't mean that both wiring configurations exist within the same building; one occurs, to the exclusion of the other... or maybe a hodgepodge occurs... but not both complete sets of wiring in the same building. This is in opposition to your psychological theory. The brain does contain both androgen and estrogen receptors within it, so here maybe the quantity of those receptors might make a difference, though. That is biochemical receptors, however, and not wiring.

Sexual differentiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But what I'm talking about is primarily conscious gender identity, (not really nerve cells). I know some of it can be learned from the environment. But specific stuff like being atracted to the opposite gender is from the hormones.
And what I was learning, especially concerning the anima/animus, is that it stems of a sense of "otherness". This is developed in part from the parent of the opposite gender (or any other opposite gender person around. If there is none at all, I'm not sure how the anima/animus would be affected).

So as I just explained to Xander, it's not even really a true other gender I am saying is inside of us; it's just this sense of otherness we project onto the other gender; meaning we see them this way, but they may not experience themselves like that.

I guess I shouldn't have put it the way I did. ("So it selects our gender identity to go with the body, and the opposite one is still in there, somewhere, but suppressed") That was oversimplified. Trying to give everyone the basic idea, in the fewest words, as it was already long enough.
I'm really still trying to understand this part of it. Lenore was explaining it to me, but then had to travel somewhere, so the discussion ended for the time being. It went into all of this stuff about "libido", or "life force", and this we come to somehow project onto the opposite gender as this sense of otherness, but we need to see it in ourselves. Fascinating, but I suspect there is a lot more to understand about it.

Jung Society of Atlanta - Anima
I do agree with others that the picture needs more work. Even knowing Beebe's work and having read lots of your material before, I'm not sure what significance or distinctions you are trying to make with this diagram, and a picture shouldn't need a ton of text to support it; the reason for using pictures is to remove the need for words. It's either saying nothing new, or what is new that is being said is not being aided by the picture. It sounds like you thought things would be obvious, but it's not as obvious as you've suggested to everyone.

I know this all sounds very critical; aside from this, the theory itself seems interesting and I'm in the middle of looking for resonance points in your comments.
No problem.
I guess the picture is likely to be more obvious for those who already have some understanding Beebe's concept. Like esfpmary has been studying him, and it seemed to right away resonate with her a lot, even for an SFP who is not usually into things like this!
You do know a lot about Beebe's model, thought I remember you had questions about it, especially back when you were trying to do that series on the INTP's eight functions, and never got to the last two.
If you don't recognize the symmetry of his model (Don't know if you do; I didn't pick it up at first either), then it might not mean much.

What I'm seeing is that the key to the whole thing is that symmetry (hence, reflections and shadow images).
Dfferentiation is a process where we choose one thing, and everything not chosen basically "collects" (I like this new way of putting it) in an opposite area. So start with the two realms we deal in, ourselves, and the outside world, and one function preferred for each of those, and two different levels of lower consciousness that suppressed stuff collects in, then 2×2²=8 functions and associated complexes in a symmetrical order. (which is why the order is not about relative strengths as many people had assumed).

We all know how type is basically defined in terms of the dominant and auxiliary. In more classic MBTI discussion, this then sets the tertiary and inferior. In Beebe's extension of this, the "other four" function-attitudes also are given a place, as "shadows" of the primary four. He has also described the tertiary adnd inferior as sorts of reflections of the dominant and auxiliary. And from this, you get the whole spine/arm distinction.
So by using a combinations of reflections and shadowing, the two functions generate the full eight.

The "ton of text" was to further articulate the whole gender aspect of it, which has not really been discussed in depth here, as far as I know. Most people now little about it, (they just see it in passing in the discriptions) and as I said, I used to brush it off too. I got into it more recently, trying to understand what this "anima" really is, to see how it fits Fe for me (especially with that "expert" claiming my Fe was "Senex" aka critical parent because I reacted to her).
Next step was how the Opposing Personality was also opposite gender. This is what led me into the "mirroring" idea.

So it is a really in depth concept. Though it was only one aspect of the whole mirror/shadow illustration. So again, if someone has some idea of Beebe's model, it should explain it further without many words.

So again, I just figured I'd toss the idea out to everyone, to see what they thought. (And getting both positive and negative reviews). Just parenting with Ne some more!

7. Originally Posted by Eric B
But the beauty of these symmetries is that what seems furthest apart is in a way closer than the others. For again, the double-negative on the diametric opposite far corner winds up being but a 180° rotation of the starting image, where the others are reversed images.
So they are more alike in some respect.

(I got into this kind of symmetry when my grandmother moved into a garden apartment complex consisting of two halves which were near mirror images of each other, and the halves themselves consisted of two ends (connected by a narrower section) which were mirror images of each other. She was on the inner corner of one of these four sections, so looking out any window was like looking at a mirror, and the diametric opposite quadrant was basically identical to hers, though completely rotated the other direction. I used to like just looking out at it).
Sounds like interesting architecture. I can see where you are going with these ideas. Do you think that the symetries you see here are a reflection of symetries in the brain structure, following Thompsons ideas?

Possibly from our totally different perspectives.

Motivations/concerns? I'll have to think on that. For now, it doesn't seem like it would really be incompatible. It might be another good way to put it. I would think one's motivation or especially concern could be their perspective.
That was what I thought too, at first. But as I considered it more, it started to seem like a larger differance. I think it was something you said about Te being a lense that saw an untidy desk as inefficient. Forgetting the specific example about desks, that's not quite how I see Te - as efficiency orientated. Perhaps I'm being too fine here. I'll consider it more.

I didn't say the perspective is the functions, but that the functions are perspectives. There's a bit of a difference there. We have many different kinds of perspectives on things. The functions would be the perspectives dealing with our cognitive processing (input--S/N; computation--T/F). So yes, other perspectives will be processed through these perspectives.

The thing being emphasized in the term "perspectives" (which I got from Sim), is that what the functions should not be thought strictly in terms of, are behaviors or skills sets. That's what confuses a lot of people, when they try to type others, or even themselves, by behavior/skill descriptions of functions (which are very common attempts at shorthand definitions). Anyone can engage in any one of those. We need the internal context in which he is engaging in them (could be an archetypal manifestation of a function, a left/right brain alternative, just a normal human reaction not associated with a differentiated function, etc), which sounds like it is best described as a perspective. "Motivation/concern" sounds good too.
I'd definitely agree that trying to use functions as skill sets or behaviours is a dead end filled with the bleached bones of people who tride to understand function theory and failed.

Sure, you are right that there is a differance between saying that functions are prespectives and saying all prespectives are functions. I think that it would be easier if I describe how I see the functions, then let you decide for yourself.

Sometimes you hear people talking about 4 functions or 8. I've thought about it and I lean towards 4 - it'd just not the same four as most people. I regard the four fundamentals (if that is the right word) as extroverted judging (with subsets of thinking and feeling), introverted judging (thinking and feeling again), Extroverted percieving (sensing and intuitve) and introverted percieving (with, you guessed it, sensing and intuitive subsets).

The extroverted judging functions create a drive to assess and respond to the pragmatic needs of the world. Te is concerned with logistical or utilitarian needs, where as Fe is concerned with social needs and wants. To me, Te is more than just perception of what is efficient - it's the desire to do something about it. If you like, the perception "the untidy desk is inefficient" gets fed into Te, which than creates the urge to rearrange it. That urge is at the heart of Te, rather than the perception itself. Indeed, I'd say the perception that inefficient is bad is seperate to Te but gets fed through it. Te wont respond to inefficiency until the TJ has decided that it is an undesirable condition for the world. Then it becomes their concern.

Introverted judging creates an urge to asses and value the subjective worth of something. Ti evaluates technical worth (be it mathematical or a piece of carpentry), where as Fi values social, emotional or moral worth. That's wht Je and Ji alienate each other - it's hard to be both pragmatic and idealistic at the same time.

Similar conditions exist for Pe (explorative, experimental and spontaneous urge) and Pi (need to understand the reasons for doing something, reviewing, considering).

8. Originally Posted by Andy
Sounds like interesting architecture. I can see where you are going with these ideas. Do you think that the symetries you see here are a reflection of symetries in the brain structure, following Thompsons ideas?
Just now began paying attentionto the fact that each possible exact map positionand zoomlevel had it's own URL. So here's both Google, and Bing (which gives an angular view in "bird's eye"):

Bing Maps

Yeah; interesting architecture. And hard to find outside NYC.
My grandmother died 21 years ago, and since then, I hardly ever go around that area (Brooklyn is so big, and I'm not all that far away). She was in the upper left quadrant, right on the corner in the inner court year, on the third floor (probably right where the tree top is, and I don't remember trees that big in that spot. Must have grown).

I always loves symmetries like this, but other than to sit there and gawk at, they had no practical purpose. So in temperament theory (and by extension, type), I finally find some symmetries like that that have good use (understanding these strange creatures called people, including myself!)
That was what I thought too, at first. But as I considered it more, it started to seem like a larger differance. I think it was something you said about Te being a lense that saw an untidy desk as inefficient. Forgetting the specific example about desks, that's not quite how I see Te - as efficiency orientated. Perhaps I'm being too fine here. I'll consider it more.

I'd definitely agree that trying to use functions as skill sets or behaviours is a dead end filled with the bleached bones of people who tride to understand function theory and failed.
That was actually SimW who coined that, and I began repeating it. The point was, that in tidying it, you weren't really "using" anything. (Which is looking at it as behavior and skill).

If you speak of "using" Te, then anyone who cleans a desk has to wonder how this fits into his type. Does it make me a TJ? Or an INTP in "oppositional" mode? Or an ENFP in "puer" (tertiary) mode?
No, the Te, as it pertains to type, depends on the context it is engaged in. Anyone of any type can clean a desk. If the mindset (another alternative term used) stems from a dominant world-view (another term) of efficiency, then it might be reflecting being an ETJ. If I engage in this worldview to oppose someone else's order (to fit a dominant internal sense of how things should be), then it might be Oppositional. If it is something I find innocent relief in doing, like a good deed to impress others, then it might be tertiary.

"Perspectives" and the other terms I am using fits much better with the eight function roles of the types than the notion of "use", which just blurs the eight and type preference into a huge glob that no one can decipher.

Sure, you are right that there is a differance between saying that functions are prespectives and saying all prespectives are functions. I think that it would be easier if I describe how I see the functions, then let you decide for yourself.

Sometimes you hear people talking about 4 functions or 8. I've thought about it and I lean towards 4 - it'd just not the same four as most people. I regard the four fundamentals (if that is the right word) as extroverted judging (with subsets of thinking and feeling), introverted judging (thinking and feeling again), Extroverted percieving (sensing and intuitve) and introverted percieving (with, you guessed it, sensing and intuitive subsets).
That's similar to jung's original terminology; except instead of "judging", it was "rational", and "perceiving" was "irrrational". He used them more the way Socionics does, to refer to the dominant function, instead of the extraverted function. Since the dominant is what generates the spines (inferior, oppositional and demonic), then Beebe spoke of rational or irrational spines. The four functions in them will all be rational, or irrational.

The extroverted judging functions create a drive to assess and respond to the pragmatic needs of the world. Te is concerned with logistical or utilitarian needs, where as Fe is concerned with social needs and wants. To me, Te is more than just perception of what is efficient - it's the desire to do something about it. If you like, the perception "the untidy desk is inefficient" gets fed into Te, which than creates the urge to rearrange it. That urge is at the heart of Te, rather than the perception itself. Indeed, I'd say the perception that inefficient is bad is seperate to Te but gets fed through it. Te wont respond to inefficiency until the TJ has decided that it is an undesirable condition for the world. Then it becomes their concern.

Introverted judging creates an urge to asses and value the subjective worth of something. Ti evaluates technical worth (be it mathematical or a piece of carpentry), where as Fi values social, emotional or moral worth. That's wht Je and Ji alienate each other - it's hard to be both pragmatic and idealistic at the same time.

Similar conditions exist for Pe (explorative, experimental and spontaneous urge) and Pi (need to understand the reasons for doing something, reviewing, considering).
This pretty much matches what we (I, SIm, and a few others) are trying to convey. I don't think I ever said that Te was just perception of what is efficient. I didn't take Sim's comment about "seeing" a desk that way either. You're introducing the terms "drive", "desire" and especially "getting fed into", and those to me are just other ways to speak of what we are calling perspectives or 'seeing' something through the lens of a function.

Te did not see through the lens, it was the lens. Precisely the problem, we often speak of the functions as "doing" things, as if they had their own psyches. That again stems from treating them as skills.

9. Originally Posted by Eric B
Welcome back! Didn't think this would manage to bring you back out. (And with Evan in other threads. Now THIS is more like the classic TYPOc/MBTIc I remember!)
Thanks but surely it's not THAT bad yet?

As for coaxing me out... I was actually going to avoid the whole psychology side of the forum this time around but your thread drew me in.

There's too many peddlers of the latest curare on here though for me to engage fully in that side of things.
[QUOTE=Eric B;1327319Yeah, as I said, this made me understand it as well. Earlier on, I used to brush off that whole anima/gender thing when I saw it, figuring it was just deep Jungian ideas that were too hard to understand anyway.[/quote]
I once read something, a write up of someone's persona using function analysis and this anima stuff. Can't recall the girl's name but the analysis was wonderful even if I did see it as slightly more fortune cookie than psychology at the time. I never saw any pattern to it though, I always thought they did it as the function order not being fixed perfectly and hence you could have a choice of what function acted as demon.
[QUOTE=Eric B;1327319In a way, I guess, but then the shadows are largely unconscious; so you might not recognize it as such, (unless you are looking for it in studying the concept, as I did).[/quote]
That's what I mean, is the structure as presented correct to what you're on about or have I got it twisted?

I'm trying to grasp step one. If I can be sure I've got the first stone down right then the rest should fit from it right?
Originally Posted by Eric B;1327319And again, as Jungian analysts describing the anima will point out, our sense of the female is often skewed anyway, so in both the anima, and the OP, it is largely stuff [U
we are projecting onto them[/U], and not true feminine self-experience. So "female ENTJ trying to get out", while having perhaps a grain of truth, probably cannot be taken but so far. It is about a sense of "otherness" (more on this next post).
I was joking about the female ENTJ bit.

Obviously it would be too challenging to get them in there in the first place never mind getting some peace a quiet with muffled instructions flooding in all the time.

I still have to wonder on this gender/ otherness. Is it shorthand for saying that something is alien by making a parallel at the obviously huge gaping chasm which exists between male and female psyche? [also overstated for sarcastic effect]

10. Originally Posted by Xander
I once read something, a write up of someone's persona using function analysis and this anima stuff. Can't recall the girl's name but the analysis was wonderful even if I did see it as slightly more fortune cookie than psychology at the time. I never saw any pattern to it though, I always thought they did it as the function order not being fixed perfectly and hence you could have a choice of what function acted as demon.

That's what I mean, is the structure as presented correct to what you're on about or have I got it twisted?

I'm trying to grasp step one. If I can be sure I've got the first stone down right then the rest should fit from it right?

I was joking about the female ENTJ bit.
Yes, you had the order right. It's the same four functions, with the attitudes reversed, which are the ENTJ's primary functions.

Just making sure the whole "female" thing wasn't being misunderstood.
I still have to wonder on this gender/ otherness. Is it shorthand for saying that something is alien by making a parallel at the obviously huge gaping chasm which exists between male and female psyche? [also overstated for sarcastic effect]
Again; I'm still trying to fully understand it as well. For now, it figures how the concepts of it reflect and shadow each other.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO