Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
hmm, no. the way Foucault denies any firm moral values to humanity fits Fi ignoring (internal static relationships), while Chomsky is inspired and reminds us of them. reason why Foucault is not a LIE (he'd value Fi), and Chomsky is not a LII (he wouldn't value Fi).
You were correct when you said the Ignoring function is devalued, which fits Fi Ignoring for Foucault. But you were not correct when you said the Role function is devalued the same way as the Ignoring. Actually, not.

In fact, the Role function is called that way because it's sometimes a strong "Social Role" of the person. Meaning, an LII has Fi as a very important part of his intellectual and social goals. Just look at Kant, the most classic LII. He wrote freakin' biblic essays on Ethics. A lot of LIIs have this obsession and also many LSIs. Your understanding of the Role function is incorrect. Chomsky is indeed, LII. A clear one, actually, from VI and also from his intellectual style. IEIs, in reality, are more devaluing of Fi than the LII. And Chomsky is not an IEI by VI, in any way shape or form. Dude is rigid, all robotic, uncoordinated, little to none magnetism and emotional expressiveness: IJ temperament, Se PoLR, 1D Fe - LII.

Ignoring function is one thing, the Role is another.