I see what you mean, but I think this is more related to alpha . Beta on the whole seems to work a bit more holistically, in the sense that separate systems can be merged if their premises are symmetrical; whereas alpha is more fixated on the content in these systems (abstract statics are weird kinds of boundaries).
I definitely agree about the F function thing, because most of my conclusions stem from apperception and momentary impressions; it's just the core premises of my ideas that keep things aligned.Bringing this back to the Ti PoLR talk, this whole process of system > phenomena/noumena seems wholly backwards to me. My preferred means of thinking about Socionics, or anything else I guess, is for the observed phenomena themselves to take center stage, and have any means of externally classifying or systematizing the phenomena come after the data has been (sufficiently) gathered. What does happen, though, is that as more data comes to me, my mind will create a sort of gestalted "feeling" that comes as a consolidation of all the various data points in question. I'd hypothesize that the nature of the internal IEs as being more "noumenal" than "phenomenal" would result in the F function information being interpreted as feelings (information not received through/pertaining to the physical senses.)
yeah, I figured this could yield conflicting views. see, when I think of "the rule" or whatever, it isn't something that exists out there; it's inherent to the laws of thought, the design and intent of any system; and the fluid expression of said system defines "the rule" to me. I don't think external structures should be imposed, that's a contradiction anyway.
overall, I've found this attitude prominent in beta groups, as far as social rules go. it's tacit, like the personal/moral boundaries of delta, and governed by the energy field of each person; so you either 'get' what to do or not.