Originally Posted by
chemical
I'm just curious, going from the description of point, and the response of WorkaholicsAnon, how one would compare the Fe hidden-agenda to the Fi one and same for the polr.
Regarding existing discussion, I think one way to phrase point's way of viewing Fi-polr is to say that Fi operates defensively (due to unvalued, superego, stresspoint), and from personal experience (dimensionality). If one experiences a certain kind of interaction as resembling one sending negative triggers, then you keep distance (note that I'm not a fan of saying someone must keep their distance a specific way - it could be either a move away peacefully thing or it could be creating distance through an outburst, or any other such thing I imagine; I don't think it clear to build a persona around a type more than as an illustration). You don't hold to any larger normalizing body of Fi-ethics, which says that in certain general circumstances, certain parameters apply (situational would go straight to the particular circumstance and adapt to it).
It would seem that to make an ethical appeal to the polr Fi person, you'd do better to make it through Fe in some shape. Fe is object-oriented, so you'll need to connect more directly to the object's emotional state's progression, meaning tune into the object's affectedness by events in time directly to make any kind of case to them. I think here lies the difference with Fi: all this progression is viewed as noise as compared with the static relations between the "you" mentioned here and the object.
In any ethical situation, e.g. one where two persons experience a flow of hostility from one side to the other, you can either focus on the flow itself and the object of affectedness, and interact with this time-process directly or you can hit what is ultimately not directly visible, which is the static relation between the two. Basically the ILE is less well-reasoned about the latter than the former.
I guess in one sense you can say Fi judges not the objective relatedness, but the archetypal ethical relatedness.
So I'd say both of the ethical hidden agendas are such that the person is reasonably ethically aware, but prefer to express the awareness a particular way. Fi HA doesn't want to deal with how the object is affected in objective interaction, instead being lazy about this and content knowing the archetype of the relation, which can only be subjectively known. Well, both require one to be subjective in one sense, as ethical functions do begin with a subject, but the contents they move towards describing can either be objective states (I relate, humanely, to how this person is feeling, and can affect its progression), or subjective lines of relation.
Farewell Delta
Reply With Quote
]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | 
(as per tcaudilllg)
