@ArchonAlarion - Ah, I see. So SeTi and TiSe, that's interesting. I quite respect your deductions, actually. I've been wrong in the past and know it's important to keep an open mind. What is most important is that parallels are being drawn consistently. I think the exact details aren't as important at first as the aim to come to a unified perception.

I see a lot of untapped potential in the prospect of visual reading, but it is such an anecdotal practice that no strong consensus seems to exist among practitioners. But if people made an effort to work together to come up with a consensual perspective, and mapped out in detail their methodology - one that can also be systematically taught/communicated to others, and be consistent in itself, there would be an avenue for objectifying the theory.

So with that in mind, I'd be more than willing to try and collaborate with some of you and accommodate to your understandings. Yield, give & take, if the similarities are enough, until there is resonance. More than anything, that would be ideal.

Um, I'm curious, how is it that you come to the conclusion of SeTi? Like, what do you and Gilly look for in identifying the functions?
Or do you identify the person not by functions but as a whole appearance?