Aushra's descriptions on Ti (The worst among Aushra's descriptions since she has demonstrative Te)
It might be surprising that the worst elemental description by Aushra is actually her description of Ti. Although I'd say that Aushra understands Jung very well, her Ti description does have some problems. This is the English version from Wikisocion:
Comments:We call ‘logical’ those feelings that arise from the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of some objective criteria — for example, a sense of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc. These are feelings of objective evaluation, which in certain situations help to activate or passivate the person who experiences them. Incoming information is recognized by such an individual as a sense of objects’ proper or improper correlation and proportion, a sense of balance or imbalance between the objects, or a sense of understanding or lack of understanding of the advantages of one object over another. This also includes all feelings that result from knowing or not knowing objects and phenomena — curiosity, respect, fear, and a sense of the logicalness or illogicalness of things, as well as a sense of one’s own power or powerlessness before different objects.
All these feelings we shall call logical. Their sum is a person’s sense of logic, which is developed to different extents in different people. We might say that logical feelings convey information about presence or lack of knowledge, comparability and incomparability, and the presence or lack of balance between them, as well as about the space and location of object within it. These feelings are called objective because they do not take into consideration the interests and needs of the person him/herself, but only such correlations of objective qualities. This perceptual element determines a person’s ability or inability to see the objective, logical relations between objects or their components.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual is distinguished by his or her ability to logically evaluate relations of the objective static reality, or the world of objects. He also has the ability to change the interrelations between properties of different objects according to his wishes, and through this influence objects themselves as carriers of these properties. Correct evaluation of one’s relations with other objects helps the individual know which objects should be avoided, and which can be “hunted.” Such an individual is able to set his logic — or his knowledge of objectifiable reality, patterns, laws, and correlations of the objective world — in opposition to knowledge of others. He has the ability to mold and perfect not only his own knowledge of objectifiable reality, but also that of other people. This creates a feeling of power when clashing with other people’s logic or lack thereof.
1. She use the word "objective criteria". I understand that she tries to compare Ti with Fi. In this sense, Ti is "objective" but this word choice confuses with Jung's text.
2. She make some bad examples on "distance, weight, volume" etc. These examples actually are factual knowledge about objects derived from experiments. If we use her own definitions that Ti is relationship, external and static, these examples fall into Te instead.
3. Her descriptions "comparability and incomparability, and the presence or lack of balance between them", "ability to logically evaluate relations of the objective static reality", "objectifiable reality, patterns, laws, and correlations of the objective world", "logicalness and illogicalness" are about the consistency of logic, this is Ti. These descriptions are correct.
4. She claims that Ti-leading people "has the ability to change the interrelations ... through this influence objects themselves". Yes Ti-leading people has either creative Se or creative Ne, so they influence objects themselves. But she claims that they "change the interrelations" and from the perspective of Ti-leadings, they are just recognizing the logical relations. This claim is not wrong but actually obviously from a perspective of Ti-creative.
So overall, Aushra's dichotomy-based definition about Ti is correct, but in her descriptions she made some bad examples.
Why? In my opinion, this is actually how she uses Ti. She is an ILE and she has a demonstrative Te. So her Te is running in the background, not very consciously recognizable but it's just running in the background demonstratively. So she will constantly checking the empirical knowledge such as weight and volume, and she prefers Ti so she just check with them unconsciously when she's building her systems.
So I think she is describing Ti, she doesn't misunderstood the elements as some other typologists. But she's describing the Creative Ti which means a Demonstrative Te in the background. Similar problems could also be seen in some of Jung's descriptions (eg. when Jung describes Ti it relates more to the Ti with Ne-creative and Jung's descriptions of Ti-leading type is mostly related to LII instead of LSI). She makes correct definition according to Jung but when she's concretize her definitions, she is influenced by her Demonstrative Te and she doesn't distinguish Ti and Te very rigorously.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by CR400AF
