What's his type?

[Exodus]

This is all very true IMO. But this is a very LII approach to philosophy, system building (Spinoza, Kant, etc.). It's not the focus of most philosophers, though when LII's do get into philosophy they can be quite good system builders. But that still doesn't have quite the emphasis on contradictions and constant development that I think EIE and ILI philosophers do. More broadly, this is especially the focus of the Normalizing subtype.

This isn't an "approach", it's a kind of information - which I see as Ti in classical socionics.

The reason my interpretation is simpler is that I relate everything back to information metabolism (and "energy metabolism" for a reasonable definition of that term, which I think I mentioned before). This is the opposite of introducing new and semi-independent traits like subtypes.

You've been saying that your perspective on Ne precludes all others? Or that there are a number of ways to define it? Not sure what you mean.

I'm saying that I'm trying to convey to you why this perspective on Ne makes the most sense (at least, more than Gulenko's/Jung's/any others I've seen).

The notion of "objective reality" is quite a thorny one, especially if you study Consciousness, Depth Psychology, Quantum Mechanics, Symbolism, Hypnosis, Postmodernism, etc. So, if that's your orientation, it would make sense that we wouldn't easily see eye to eye.

... That perspective has a whole fascinating and insightful world behind it, your world of experiences and network of semantic associations and understandings. But there are so many other worlds too that I value. And ultimately, these worlds aren't separate, and the only way we'll know what happens when they crash into one another is understanding all of them.

One difference in my approach is that I actually don't see Socionics as one thing. I think your version of Socionics might indeed be quite simple and clear, and maybe people will be able to see that. But, each approach to Socionics isn't for everyone. I think that people, because of their innate orientations, might value different approaches to typology.

"And ultimately, these worlds aren't separate" - Exactly.

Objective reality is just the intersection of all these worlds. So socionics is indeed "one thing" in terms of its consequences to our shared reality, if it's anything at all. If we aren't talking about that reality at least indirectly then communication is going to break down. My concern is with the One and all it entails.

[Varlawend]

This isn't an "approach", it's a kind of information - which I see as Ti in classical socionics.

Well, yes, I think you can absolutely consider it a kind of information. It's both an approach AND a kind of information, and I don't see how those are mutually exclusive.

The reason my interpretation is simpler is that I relate everything back to information metabolism (and "energy metabolism" for a reasonable definition of that term, which I think I mentioned before). This is the opposite of introducing new and semi-independent traits like subtypes.

I don't disagree that your approach is simpler, but I don't think that simplicity is all that is valuable. There is also nuance, usefulness and the amount of epistemological issues confronted, and I think Gulenko is far ahead of any other Socionist in that regard. Usefulness is of course something more imbued in subjectivity, so I will say: useful to me and some of my friends at least.

I'm saying that I'm trying to convey to you why this perspective on Ne makes the most sense (at least, more than Gulenko's/Jung's/any others I've seen).

I see, well then yes, we don't quite agree on that point. I don't yet see how your given definition of Ne is self-evidently better than that of other Socionists. Perhaps time will tell.

Objective reality is just the intersection of all these worlds. So socionics is indeed "one thing" in terms of its consequences to our shared reality, if it's anything at all. If we aren't talking about that reality at least indirectly then communication is going to break down. My concern is with the One and all it entails.

Even then, I still find the notion of Objective reality a thorny issue. Why is reality an object? What if it is better conceived of as a subject? Objectivity seems to me to be an orientation to reality, to consciousness, which can occasionally be useful in an instrumental fashion, but overall, I would describe my viewpoint as more participatory in nature. Is the unity between different facets or perspectives on reality pre-given? And if they disagree, how exactly do they come together? One being "objectively" right, corresponding to some pre-given objective world, displacing another? I don't think it's that simple. I think it is more like an imaginal, virtuous dance.

It is one thing in a sense, in the sense that this word is one thing. But I think Socionics has sub-systems, where people are using these words in completely (or largely) different ways and actually using different systems which may be said to each have different consequences on our shared reality. In sum total these consequences are one, but you can also look at the separation, and the different ways this separation can go into new unprethinkable harmonies. In dialectics, synagoge and diairesis; both operations are useful and important. But maybe there will never even be agreement about that; strife seems to be an integral component to our reality, our consciousness. Well, we'll see I guess. Strife, eros, pluriverse, universe, war, love, separation, union, force, persuasion.