Different Varities of Ethics and Other Functions?

[jason_m]

@jason_m What you are talking about is certainly valid and really interesting, but it's not related to functions.

What k0rpsey probably means by epistemic is analogous to logical taxonomy versus causally observable.
See Ti aims at that abstract and unchanging realm of taxonomy, while Te aims at the concrete and changing realm of cause and effect (which becomes facts). They epistemically contradict each other's aims.
For example, if you were to call me evil, that's like taxonomy, wherein the label has a static logically derived meaning that is separable from the causal world (it is abstract). Basically, Te looks at context for meaning, while Ti looks at what has been logically derived. This is why Te is practical, but also why Ti is political and organized.

Does this make sense to you? Do you have any problems with it?

I guess it makes some sense, but I am trying to dig deeper with this theory, understanding it from "first principles." After reading a book called "Career Code", I've discovered that the organized nature and abstract nature of Ti might be two different functions that are combined into one. I suspect that many people have both, but some people don't. That's why you see descriptions of Ti that focus solely on organization and some people's notions of Ti are more abstract than structured. I personally am "Ti" but I don't value organization very much. I am trying to come to some understanding of this. In other words, socionics espouses that all logical types are either organized in some way or practical. I suspect that there is more diversity to logical types than this, and I'm trying to hit on the right notion as to how.

[strangeling]

I guess it makes some sense, but I am trying to dig deeper with this theory, understanding it from "first principles." After reading a book called "Career Code", I've discovered that the organized nature and abstract nature of Ti might be two different functions that are combined into one. I suspect that many people have both, but some people don't. That's why you see descriptions of Ti that focus solely on organization and some people's notions of Ti are more abstract than structured. I personally am "Ti" but I don't value organization very much. I am trying to come to some understanding of this. In other words, socionics espouses that all logical types are either organized in some way or practical. I suspect that there is more diversity to logical types than this, and I'm trying to hit on the right notion as to how.

I see.
Recalling some ideas of socionics, there is the producing/accepting ideas. An ILE would see the world irrationally without any particular order, but produce Ti to fit irrational circumstances, giving the conclusion that Ti is not organized; and in this case, it wouldn't be.
I suppose it's worth thinking about, since you could fit LII-Ne or ILE-Ti much better than the alternatives. I could see the differentiation of Ti into different categorizes as having more meaning to those types; but a Ti accepting type would be all-inclusive?

[jason_m]

I see.
Recalling some ideas of socionics, there is the producing/accepting ideas. An ILE would see the world irrationally without any particular order, but produce Ti to fit irrational circumstances, giving the conclusion that Ti is not organized; and in this case, it wouldn't be.
I suppose it's worth thinking about, since you could fit LII-Ne or ILE-Ti much better than the alternatives. I could see the differentiation of Ti into different categorizes as having more meaning to those types; but a Ti accepting type would be all-inclusive?

Yes, that makes sense. I know I am one of the two types. The reason I favour LII-Ne over ILE-Ti is because of my relations. In the end, when socionics is completed, I would have the answer as to which one it really is. Let's hope that I'm still around when this happens.