Logic vs Principle: Contravailing experiences of Ti
Well I thought to make this statement clear in front of everyone, because it's pretty essential to our further understanding of socionics. I'm a bit in shock about it though.
The short answer is that I've discovered at least a big chunk as to why a person's other functions are weaker than the base. The long answer is that the chunk is completely a factor of politics.
I'd been thinking that there should be four forms of -Ti: organizational, principle, law, and something else. I knew that I experienced -Ti as principle, and that principle is that aspect of mechanation which is conserved between situations: 2 + 2 always equals 4, for example. Well if you take a hard look at why 2 + 2 always equals 4, then according to computer science it's a product of boolean logic. Meaning, that principle exists due to logical necessity. I myself have a habit of integrating any principle I become aware of into my own logic, so for me +Ti is logic. But here we have the problem of principle also breaking down to logic, so there is a definite +Ti in the -Ti I experience.
Here's the thing: if for me -Ti is principle, then if I use +Ti based on based on principles which I have differentiated -- without telling anyone else -- then my logic should in theory transcend the logic of those who do not accept the existence of the principle. Let's say someone somehow, for some reason, limited their own observation of principle. (the opponents of supersocion theory would be a case in point). A person who is accustomed to modifying their logic as soon as they became aware of a new principle would given the same context of information reach the exact same conclusion as myself with regard as to what modifications should be reached. There are only a limited set of principles, and all existing logic is governed by principles, therefore a person who is exposed to a new principle should immediately integrate it in their logic on top of all previous principles and in exactly the same way as everyone else, provided they are aware of all principles previous to it. If they are unaware of the previous principles, then they will not know how or even why to fit the higher-level precept in their logic.
If everyone of similar education, under the above pretense, were successfully integrating every principle they came across as it were derived, then there would be no disagreements between people on matters of either logic or principle: X test was made, therefore Y principle exists, and the proper means of response is change in logic Z. But we do have disagreements on these matters; in fact, the Right vs Left divide itself consists partially of disagreements over principle, experienced subjectively, vs logic. Therein lies a clue: the Right's positions are principled, often denying logic outright. The Left is more "cerebral" on the whole, because their subjective experience of Ti from a thinking standpoint is universally logical. Let's take it a step further, and inquire as to what either side would stand to lose from acceptance of the other. The Left stands to lose their sense of idealism, in that the existence of principle means that there is no such thing as a magic formula which solves all of your problems. The Right stands to lose their sense of innate righteousness by accepting the existence of logic: what if the logical solution to a situation is the killing of a loved one? Principle is cruel; logic is cold. Accepting either equates to the loss of one's own aspirations or one's ideals.
The postulation of +Ti's dual identity as both subjective logic and principle, once tested, yields fruit. Consider the near-universality of LII support for the right to abort: an LII on the SCOTUS would be a reliable pro-choice vote, provided that they were not determined to exhalt +Ne over -Ne. (experienced in that situation as the apparent potential for a person to develop post-conception taking priority over the potential of the mother apart from the pregnancy). We can observe that Ti leading persons -- typically -- have a non-partisan perspective on matters of logical consistency. This conclusion explains, among other things, the profound disaffection of the scientific community for notions of the divine. Even those LIIs who do practice religion are very careful to seperate their faith from their science: they refuse to let the two intermix.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
