I understand labcoat as making references to metaphysics, not different schools of thought. "epistemic objectivity" is just a very specific way of saying "I believe knowledge comes from real things with studyable traits".
Similarly, "ontological subjectivity" means "I believe what exists"
ontology = "What exists, and what is it like?"
epistemology = "How can one know things?"
Since a functioning person must both be aware of reality and have a way of extracting knowledge from it, having a P and a J function in your ego follows naturally.
Irrational elements define one's ontological approach--"What exists, and what is it like?"
Rational elements define one's epistemological approach--"How can one know things?"
Introtim elements are subjective:
Pi: "Things only exist as defined by my relationship with them; their properties are defined by how it influences me".
Ji: "One can only arrive at knowledge by following personal reasoning, be it discursive (T) or intuitive (F)."
Extratim elements are objective:
Pe: "The world is filled with objects that can be reduced to traits and analyzed."
Je: "I can obtain knowledge by studying objects and building predictable patterns in my head, be they arrived at through discourse or intuition."
I have a faint sense that I'm mixing a lot of meaninglessness in here, so you'll have to forgive my inexperience with metaphysics.
I'd also add that Internal/External is the same as discursive/intuitive. N and F make connections through intuitive reason, where T and S make connections through discursive reason.
--
I can illustrate it with an ESE...
The ESE believes that reality is wholly subjective, but builds knowledge by studying objects. They're basically blind to anything that they haven't concretely experienced (ontological subjectivism through). However, the ESE builds knowledge by studying people, being an epistemological objectivist. "This signals implies this", "I can do that to effect the change I want". Ethics, being reasoned intuitively, can't really explain why it knows these things--it "just does"; while Sensation is pretty plainly obvious. You can't argue with an atom.
Also remember that your dominant function is always on. So, if you want to compare an ESE and an SEI, the SEI is living in a world of ontological subjectivity, the ESE is living in a world of epistemological objectivity.
And bam, we have Rationality/Irrationality as an input/output dichotomy, which is the most universal application of it, imo, and removes a lot of the taint that comes from the nurture aspects of it like "orderliness" (which is strictly purely orderliness-of-information-processing and not orderliness-of-character).


). However, the ESE builds knowledge by studying people, being an epistemological objectivist. "This signals implies this", "I can do that to effect the change I want". Ethics, being reasoned intuitively, can't really explain why it knows these things--it "just does"; while Sensation is pretty plainly obvious. You can't argue with an atom.
now.
Reply With Quote