PoLR versus ignoring, relating to Jung's original type descriptions

[remiges]

I was reading through Jung's original description of the psychological types and wondered what he would think of the Socionics model... and particularly, as the title suggests, point of least resistance and ignoring.

The way he organized his writing made me wonder if the opposition was not in the other side of the coin, so to speak, as in Fe versus Ti, but rather, the attitude (E/I), ie, Fe versus Fi.

The reason I ask, is because I cannot really comprehend "pure" Fe, as he predicted for those who orient to subjective feeling (Fi), inasmuch as I immediately think of it is faking. However, this would imply, then, that I am consciously aware of Fi, if not, I have no basis in which to compare to Fe and judge it as faking, and made me wonder if this is more Fe-ignoring.

It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object.

A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation.

Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.

I understand this objectively, that such a thing could exist, and yet I cannot really imagine how one could orient to Fe without Fi because of how limited my own mind is.

So I am interested - when you read through this paper, do you have a psychological function and attitude that you cannot even perceive of without connecting to another, and does it align with your self-typed ignoring or PoLR?

BTW, thanks @Aramas and @Reyne.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm