
Originally Posted by
Ryan
ESC is claiming that Ti is always paired with Se, for some reason, and that Se describes facts as well. He is using both of these hypotheses to prove that Ti can include facts in its definition as well. I don't understand where he is going with that either.
I think the issue here is that he using his own cognition to describe those function, which is essentially flawed and biased, as all ours are. I can see how it could make sense for an ILI to make such claims but it isn't true for everyone.