Fe polr compared to Fi polr

[Bertrand]

Ti is words, words aren't intuitions so much as rational formulation. what the words mean and are intended to represent can be concrete or abstract perceptions. the problem is all rational functions use words, so confusion arises because people unknowingly equivocate between eachother, which is a product of projection. I can't really express how I experience Fi in relation to Ti without making Ti sound autistic. Fe bridges the gap of ethics to Ti, it knows how to "reach" Ti in some kind of way but what Fe and Ti valuing both fundamentally share is an ontological commitment to Ti as the "ground" on which reality is logically structured. Its this common understanding that by definition excludes affect as an introverted rational consideration, rather relegating it to a kind of black box. when these types proclaim people irrational its more a statement on their own irrational perception than a statement about the actual rationality of the person in question. in other words, the irrationality is their picture of the other person, whereas the rationality is missed like two ships in the night. obviously mutual understanding is possible but its hard not to privilege one in the description, I think its fair to say socionics tries to contextualize Fi within a Ti system and does a very good job of it, but there is irreducible difficulty in conveying the what its like across type. it is nothing less than the problem of intersubjectivity itself. in any case the strength of lyric is to convey to SLE certain aspects of reality in language they can understand, while maintaining its "relevance" so as not to be "excluded" by SLE as a threat; rather it is seen as a help. it manages to bring to SLE's attention ethical concern that would be incomprehensible in Fi terms, but since its in a Fe package it manages to get through because it presents itself "objectively" which is how SLE likes their ethics. they might prefer to call this "relevant to their interests" and therefore "real", but it goes back to how its formulated which is from a shared Ti worldview. Fi from the point of view of Ti is inscrutable because its like they say things that make no "logical" (Ti) sense.

Like when I said today in class "work breaks are within the scope of employment" the Ti types got kind of irritated with me, because to them by definition a "break" is defined in distinction to "employment" as being a "break from work" i.e.: not within the scope. But if you realize the question at issue is Fi ethical question as to whether or not (Te) plaintiffs can recover from businesses on a respondeat superior theory from an employee who injured them while on a break, you realize the "scope of employment" doesn't mean work/not work but "should we hold this entity responsible for creating the conditions that lead to the injury" and in that sense breaks should be considered a part of employment, inasmuch as employers include breaks in the furtherance of their business venture, which they do (because within work the concept of bathroom and food breaks are necessarily nested, because people work precisely to eat [the break in question was a 15 minute meal break], hence it unconscionable disavow accidents on a break as somehow being categorically separate from scope of employment when the whole reason the person was in that situation was that they were employed). Anyway, this is the sort of divide between Ti and Fi which is far more subtle than I think people realize. SLE would just cut it off with, employment is when you're literally fulfilling only those duties explicitly enumerated in your job description (they're not really interested in construing the language with a Fi slant--in other words its a battle over what the words represent and what we should do with them). To me this is slightly autistic because of how much it ignores, but it proceeds straightforwardly on the basis of those relatively simple and few logical premises in order to reach their conclusion. SLE needs someone like IEI who understands this and thinks in this way to convey via Fe any missing information, which from my point of view takes the form of wailing and so forth. There is a myth that Fi language is necessarily flowery. This is actually Fe, and also why IEI not EII is lyric. Fi language is more language that may or may not be flowery but is more ethically charged in the sense of say literature v science. it is a vector for introverted rationality, which is structural and comprehensive in its scope, which is what a great novel usually is with its far ranging and complex interactions between characters, but usually with some kind of "spine" or "skeleton" of Fi underlying it all, which is what its "message" tends to be. you can think of JK Rowlings archetypal themes in Harry Potter as being a form of Fi Ne, fleshed out not as a poeticism per se but as a rational work of a far ranging yet centrally integrated scope. a moral rather than scientific treatise if you will. a logical version of the same thing would be like Aristotle's "nichomachean ethics" (if you look closely he actually seems to be exhibiting a form of fi suggestive in his "look to good people to begin one's analysis"). Virtue ethics is generally awesome for this reason, because it admits the interplay between people who first embody ethics and then only later are they understood as such and codified by others, and subsequently promulgated to society in the form of articulated rules, which is precisely how the clock of the socion also understands things, but I digress..