Quote Originally Posted by Saberstorm View Post
You are just the man to discuss this. This is a quote from DarkAngelFireWolf69: Can you give concrete example of these types of logic?
I don't know what logics is he talking about in that quote.

But talking about Ti (Static) and Te (Dynamic):
- they both set value of truth - what is the case
- their value of truth is objective - unlike Ethics
- their value of truth is applicable - unlike Irrational IEs

The two Logics have a total different truth-telling, this is actually the only common denominator between them, otherwise they are totally different:
- Te processes only the facts - Bodies (empirical), Dynamic (occurring). It has nothing to do with "logic" in the general sense. In a nutshell, something experienced is true and absolutely not false. However the claim is strict only when it comes to the experience itself, not it's interpretation. It makes no claim about what something experienced is. In fact identification is static anyway. For example "I have seen a wolf" is more of an "I have seen something that appeared to be a wolf. Just I definitely have seen it." Its claims are not universal either - "all people die" = "all people we know about died". Its cognition is the basis for induction, induction itself is a complete Serious cycle (Te->Fi).
- Ti tells only the rules of thinking - Fields (mental), Static (descriptive). It deals with nothing empirical, although it evolves empirically (aka makes its rules out of something). It tells whether a proposition is true or false with no respect to the claims it could make about empirical reality. For example "Socrates is a human" and "all humans die" are nothing of concern for logic, but whether Socrates will die or not based on these premises is. Remember the notorious "certainty" the Ti Ego types are accused by Te valuers when they "don't know all": in fact the judge does not gather evidence, he/she just draws a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. However for a verdict Fe is required, the internally-fixed universal and meaningful experience.

Hypothetical real-life example where both Logics can be used: you hear the proposition "I put an elephant in my car".
- Ti: impossible, based on a few rules: the volume of the elephant is more than the empty space of the car, an object of a larger volume can't fit in a space of lesser volume, etc. No need to see that, you call the claim a falsehood, after you ask for all the information you need for your judgment.
- Te: you must be shown this. Perhaps it is possible, you don't make judgments about this, just you need to be shown. You tell your verdict when you have seen or not seen that happening.