Fe versus Fi in subtypes
DCNH subtypes, that is.
I thought I'd write just a little on what I think is the deal with having Fi, rather than Fe, with the introverted perceiving IE constitute the formula for harmonizing subtype. This is follow-up to my mumblings on Fe in a recent thread, because I find it rather interesting how, usually, you'd have say Ni/Si pair with Fe, but here you have Fi.
The harmonizing formula, however, is not about establishing an ethical program involving the manipulation of moods (manipulation used neutrally, not negatively as it is often perceived). This is follow-up to the idea that emotional states themselves are irrational, not rational, and for there to be ethics involved, one must have a rationalization as to what one wishes out of these states, a procedure involving them of sorts that can be ethically tuned into the significance of. Just knowing that something will calm someone down can be any basic use of ethics, in other words.
The harmonizing formula, rather, is about knowing the intrinsic needs/relatedness of the parties involved to whatever else. It is the irrational balancing of mental states, in relation to intuitive and sensory factors, in accordance with perceived ethical relatedness. Picture the fields perceived by Fi as noting all influencing factors in a situation, all the stable factors which could create "charges" in the situation (I'm referencing the terminology of an electric field as opposed to some other kind). Fe may wish to seek out various instances of objective progressions which bring to life these existing stable influences in particular objective situations. But this isn't the goal of harmonizing. Rather, it is to ensure the charges all cancel out. It exerts influences continuously on the group so as to ensure this remains the case through time. It requires advanced knowledge of subjective states so as to perceive deviations with sufficient keenness. There is no Fe (or Te I guess) program, or at least so minimalistic that it needn't be mentioned.
I might add to normalizing subtype, where R/Fi is also important, and C, where Fe/E is essential as a finishing touch. Perhaps today itself, or maybe in time.
Whatever. Why not continue.
Normalizing subtype obviously needs R/Fi over E/Fe due to the aim being a stable backbone. One could say that where R is a minor influence in harmonizing, since the real issue is perceiving and responding to deviations that occur in real time, based on well known potential charges, in normalizing the approach to R may be more involved and constructive, perhaps creating laws more constructively based on perceived needs, establishing the foundations of relatedness among parties, and so forth.
The role of E in creative subtype is markedly to spread interest, so that perhaps it feeds back into a cycle of more C-activity. It marks the implementation of a program following the restless Ne/Se phases, yet the aim of the program is excitement. This can be moderate in Fe-knowledge-requirement, to even basic, because really the meat comes from Ne/Se. Implementation of a program is secondary to C. Generating potentials of generating movements (Ne/Se) is the real aim - to create the static founding point and giving it a little push of emotional energy (E).
Of course, E in dominant subtype plays a direct role. It directly figures into the major aim, which is implementation of a program, over excessive reflection.
Notice how E in D/C plays the major/minor role, whereas R in N/H also plays the major/minor role. One can move from H to N and C to D by upgrading the minor roles to major ones, and diminishing what was normally major. Downgrade could happen quite similarly, just the reverse. With the middle two, it's a little strange C-N/N-C. Gulenko says this is going beyond convention, which honestly seems just a reference to the dimensionality idea, namely where creative functions go beyond normalizing ones, by going beyond establishing norms (in this case, to introduce interesting situational content which generates excitement on the basis of potential or movement).
A final note - from the interview, Gulenko believes subtype changes quite possibly. I think sometimes one can see precursors of this in that situationally, you could see someone exhibiting the energy of a subtype they're not normally. For instance, a harmonizer demonstrating creative energy isn't inconceivable, just that this isn't the prominent position they'd take as the path of least resistance/most natural. You can think there are rough percentages of tendencies.