Originally Posted by
labcoat
My point is that the things you list here, in as far they are fundamental and not derived, are symbolically void. They represent something directly, simply by being "that which it is". The best you can do is denote them with a word. Can you understand how I arrive at the conclusion that this kind of information is not just flat like any 2-dimensional image, but flatter than flat: 1-dimensional?
That guy Slavoj Zizek said something clever that he imported from the works of Lacan: the real is that which resists symbolization. I say that Pi is that which resists symbolization. Likewise Pe would be what Lacan calls the symbolic reality: that which results from interposing non-symbolic contents in dimensional structures.
* in cases where this is possible, though, I would call the content being discussed instantiations of Pe rather than Pi.
Btw: try to find out whom the person gets along with. That's the most failsafe method. Find the person's dual, conflictor and supervisor and you'll know the type beyond a doubt. Also focus on making the person find his/her own type. Give him/her the information and let him/her think. The amount of understanding a person has about him/herself is impossible to match from an outside position.