this attribution is entirely your own work.If I try to translate what you're saying in simple language, it sounds out like this:
Pi + Je = biased observations with simplistic judgments
Pe + Ji = relatively unbiased observations with more sophisticated judgments.
well, no. Te being the empiricist function is central to my thesis. empiricism is the most straightforward definition of epistemic objectivity that i've come across. though i would concede that the most unproblematic manifestation of empiricism is probably that where Te is combined with Si. i have come across cases where gamma NTs outright rejected empiricism (Austrian economics comes to mind), so the link with Si could be important. but Se is not empiricist. at all.But if I change Je as relying to "sense experience" to Je relying on "subjective experience" (i.e., Pi, which could be sensing or intuitive)...then it seems better to me.
i see Jung's association of Se with "sensing" as one of his major errors. Se isn't something directly picked up through the senses so much as it is a highly specified and concrete mental construct.
Ji can actually simplify things a lot, because it reduces complex reasoning chains to their conclusion. but in so doing, the statement is provided as if appended with "take my word on it". Je on the other hand can sort of simply situations in a passive sense, i.e. the complexity of everything you could derive from a unit of Je is in a sense contained with in it. So you can illustrate a complex epistemic issue to a person by providing them the piece of information that makes him/her capable of deriving what s/he needs to know.As to Je being simpler than Ji, well of course since Je is more direct, it will seem perhaps more constrained from a Ji perspective...or perhaps its very strength is to simplify.


Reply With Quote