-
-
Last edited by Dee; 02-26-2009 at 02:03 AM.
No.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
those are bad...like 99% of short, abstract phrases
.
as a socially retarded (slow) T type yes I prefer to think of feeling types as preoccupied with people. Morality involves people in most cases. Feelings are exclusive to people right.. and maybe animals which people anthropomorphize. I don't think that Fi is about understanding in the traditional sense. Understanding sort of implies things that are mental to me. "sensing" something, "getting" something, even moral evaluation is not really understanding to me. Moral evaluation can involve rules but to me I don't think of it as utilizing the mind. i think Ti is about understanding in this sense.
Last edited by Ms. Kensington; 02-03-2008 at 10:17 PM.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
dee, the way i see it, i dont think that Fi dominants try to understand people. I think Ti people try to "understand" people. We try to turn them into things in which their behavior can be explained by rules and understood. I see Fi dominants making evaluations about people's behavior or else assessing relationships.
.
.
Yes, the point is that it is of a different focus. i don't think an Fi person's focus is to "understand" things like a Ti person is focused on. Invariably the Ti person will go back to making it make sense according to a set of rules and, again to me, it seems like an Fi person will always go back to whether it feels right. It's probably not so connected with feeling with a dominant Fi, but I do know Fi people whose initial reaction is not mental. I'm not Fi, so I don't know what the Fi person is experiencing. Like, I don't totally understand what you mean by nuts and bolts. To me, nuances of something is not rules and saying, oh yeah this is why that happened, I understand it. This reminds me of a thread mikemex made about Fi being about nuance. Also, Carla referenced a thread in which she says you described Fi well, i'll walk over there right now. haha.
For everyone else, I had hoped not to have to say it ,but noone said Fi dominants don't think. Reasoning is not the same as understanding, mental processing is not the same as understanding. Intuitive grasp is not the same as understanding. Talking about it more seems moot.
EDIT: oh you expanded on the nuts and bolts. nm.
EDIT2: and yeah, you confirmed what i had perceived about Fi dominants in what you wrote about nuance. To me, it is very different from understanding, but of course Ti is not the same as Fi
My point was to modify dee's original post. It's wrong to parallel Fi and Ti the way that he (you are a he right dee? :/) did. They are probably parallel in other ways though.
.
Oh, but for rational systems with focuses of different kinds! Therein lies the difference, that you shall strive for what is true and I shall for what is important (though in their overlap we shall approach one another again).
I think that Fi views as the pinnacle of understanding the human being in isolation, the unceasing internal process of belief, action, and feeling (most of all). Then once one has furnished unto their own comprehension what they themselves are like, what those around them are like, this is when we move towards a society of individuals, the interaction of so many variegated minds. What does not strike keenly to the hearts and souls of human experience strikes not at all (though these other things may prove themselves highly useful).
So to each his or her own, for as you strive to understand the world we inhabit so too shall I attempt the same upon us who inhabit the world.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
^ what a masterpiece
To the OP: It's a good start, I think.
VERY good point. I like that. I know some snobs will try to fanwank it and further add to it, but I like that.I think that Fi views as the pinnacle of understanding the human being in isolation,
I like that word... but don't really know what it means.
lol, I was wondering the same thing. Found a small blurb about all that fanwankery on wikipedia.
"The use of fan fiction to fill gaps or continuity errors in a canon is derisively called "fanwanking," or "fanwank." (The terms "fanon" and "fanwank" can apply to officially-licensed works, as well.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Perhaps you're looking in the wrong type of dictionary
edit: ah munenori got there before me
Now that I know it actually exists, it lost all humor to me.
I just like how it sounds.
As they are "called"? What do you mean?
I hardly can regard many of my principles as abstract any more than the people to whom I apply them. They might not be susceptible to a closed set of definitions, but I'd would be hesitant to call them that.
Then again, what you posted below that made no sense to me at all, so maybe I'm missing the integral piece of what you have to say here.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend