Quote Originally Posted by point
to think of them as only "Reinin"
Well as you probably know, I started from a Jungian dichotomies foundation, so I really don't know how to make an argument for which is more fundamental. I simply lack any ability to falsify or justify it. You'll have to tell me more at some point (if you want here, or later by PM) what the forms of cognition are really tapping into.

I think if the 16 types were a clue as to the existence of something deeper though, given there are a few pretty commonly discernible differences in how these 16 types further differentiate (or 8 types differentiate out into various parts), it's quite possible that eventually the number of types won't be (directly) based on Jungian dichotomies anymore, and thus not follow a simple binary pattern.

My own points were simply relative to a proper direct use of the Jungian dichotomies and are pretty indisputable from there. They didn't even preclude using the forms of cognition in cases of harder to discern apparent best-fit to one of 16 types of consciousness.

If what you're saying is true, I guess I just have no a priori reason to view the 16 as anything but an experimental model (convenient to use the most popular version of Jungian type pattern-modeling) used to perform calculations to uncover something more fundamental.