- Type: NeTi
- Development: ll-l
- Attitude: Adaptive
The sample of Byron Katie above has been the catalyst for some thoughts.
But we also see echoes of zen release from boundedness-by-form/word. In the full interview she elaborates more on how she still “acts” as thought she has personal preferences, but exists at a detached distance from them and even her own bodily choices. And there is a sweet release felt from this lack of attachment as it lets go of the suffering that otherwise comes from dualizing and splintering reality into positive/negative, right/wrong, respected/disrespected, cared-for/un-cared-for.
When I read this passage I was reminded of things that Jim Carrey has said in recent years (in which he shows significant amounts of Ti in his vultology) that are quite similar; he also went through a period of intense depression before having an epiphany that he didn’t need to be connected to any form or identity, finding peace in that release. The name of Byron Katie’s central/first book has the primary title of Loving What Is, which seems an excellent encapsulation of this mindset.
I can see a possible trend developing here for the Fe-Ti individuals that developed Fe first followed by developing Ti after a period of intense depression/sufferings. In these cases the reductionism and detached nature of Ti appears as an enormous psychic relief to the afflicted, as they can let go of the instantiated expectations of themselves and the world that contributed significantly to their sufferings.
It would also seem that there is a significant difference to be found between Adaptive vs. Directive Fe when speaking of life philosophies (Alpha vs. Beta probably further heightens the difference), where Adaptive Fe (Alpha) seems to be much more focused on “loving what is”, rather than on what I consider to be the more Directive Fe (Beta) approach of “loving what one can become”. The polarized Directive Fe’s I find most inspiring (David Goggins, JBP) do not embody a philosophy of “loving what is”, but they do embody a philosophy of “loving what one can become”, and that the path to that is not found by negating preferences and discrepancies, thereby finding joy in the release from self. For the Directive Fe’s listed previously, their joy is found in creating a better self through voluntary suffering, which is accomplished by breaking the self down to its most essential parts, and then setting intentional goals, and thereby embracing the preferences that will propel one to a better future. I don’t see that as directly incompatible with a philosophy of Loving What Is, but it does seem to be the other side of the Fe coin of healing/self-improvement.
Another trend that seems relevant to share here is the intense focus on the individual that polarized Je-leads share. It also seems to be quite common in general for individuals to identify the polar function as the most important/relevant to their psyche, and that this trend is not actually exclusive to those individuals that have the polar function conscious by vultological standards, though having it fully conscious in that regard does seem to heighten the identification.