Reply To: The evaluation of identity: Fi vs Ti

Index Forums Cognitive Functions The evaluation of identity: Fi vs Ti Reply To: The evaluation of identity: Fi vs Ti

  • Type: FiNe
  • Development: l-l-
  • Attitude: Unseelie

I’m just gonna put my own point of view and experience here and let CT decide how to incorporate it into the rest of knowledge about Fi and Ti.

Definition, objectivity/subjectivity, formation of thoughts, feeling, motives, conviction, identity, character, empathy, morality, humanity, possible Fi and Fe dynamics.

Definition is something that for me is cultural, made up, agreed upon, and changing. Just like how language works. In my early years, I was attuned with how words differ in forms. I quickly notice that some words are nouns, verbs, or adjectives, and use that to create definitions such as “noun1 is a thing that is…” or “adjective1 is a trait of being…”. This also drove my drive to categorize every knowledge in the universe from the general down to specifics, that was one of my little dream that I never fully followed through because other things were more pressing and once I had time for it I had already became self-indulgent. This was one eager half-assed attempt at that: But there was also another attempt at blogging world symbolism that I had lost now.

Objectivity is something that I also strive for, but for me everything, including emotional experience, account to that objectivity. There is an objective reality of emotion on personal and collective level. There is an objective reality of consciousness. It is true that we perceive everything through our own personal bias, even if emotions are put out of the equation, personal experiences and understandings will be the bias. There is also consideration of self-image, reputation, how to not offend people, self-denial and so on which can muddle the search for truth (which includes emotions by the way). So I try to incorporate that subjective phenomenon into the analysis, how I personally feel and what a thing actually is. The problem is when you engage with emotions, it can often consume you and make you reactive and it’s hard to get out of that grip.

So to form a clear thought, I have to clear my environment and disengage from people to clear myself from outer influence. Any outer disturbances become very distracting and affective. I become obsessed with a line of thought, and I have to protect that line of thought from being disrupted by outer forces. That results in annoyance, anger, or irresponsiveness. But this only happens when something takes my interest.

And what often takes my interest is the question of feelings. I try to map feelings into recognizable clusters of opposing energies. How they interact with each other. What emotions are social and what are personal. What positive emotions form when certain negative emotions are satiated. That’s me in theorizing mode, and I don’t need any external input since this would take away my time where a thought might already pass and be lost after learning “adequate information”. So I tend to use any knowledge that I already have within. It’s often in the form of trying to catch “a ball of a concept” that I don’t yet have a name for, and would try to find an adequate or temporary random label for. It’s the fear of losing a line of thought if I don’t immediately follow it through. Ironically, this kind of knowledge is fragile to keep and I often lost it after it was being thought.

An equal amount of time I spend is by engaging with personal issues. And it’s just a typical woe-me dramatization, I don’t find anything special about it to describe. It’s the same thing you see in TV basically.

About motives. I do question about people’s motivations often. But not in the “what are they going to do to me” way. More often if there is a fight, or emotional conflict in my environment, or if someone passes judgment about something. I often notice people insult others with the things they themselves seem to display. I notice when a crowd is caught in the heat and get excited when they find a victim to tease. I notice how when people pass judgment, that could create a feedback loop that basically becomes a situational equivalent of self-fulfilling prophecy, where the one being judged starts to believe it, and their previous capacity of doing something with half-merit is now toned down close to zero.

And those are the convictions that are sometimes hard to be expressed to people (I just now made that connection that those are parts of my “convictions”). I think I can trace my core conviction back to when I was little and I thought “I will never forget how it feels to be a kid when I grow up”. So to not severe my understanding of children’s irrational behaviors, I thought.

Question of identity. I relate to this question “Who am I?” This question comes from the place of directly experiencing being alive and conscious. Right now, I can feel the difference of living through the physical body and through the more abstract mind. Living through your body feels more peaceful, your emotions are only what your body experience. But I naturally live inside of my head, and the world feels like something surreal. Maybe that’s why I’m (or Fi in general are) attuned to my preferences, thoughts, etc. When interacting with people, I am directing from within this mental sphere. How can I describe it? It’s like you drag your reflective mode into your interaction. So you’re not really where your body is even while talking. The internal thoughts that are triggered by external perception excite you, not the perception itself. That results in external world (Pe and Je) being neutralized when engaged in and of themselves, they’re free of affect. The l-l- development might be related to this, I don’t know.

(I’ve spent my time writing long enough, I’ll make the next points short.)

I don’t think about character that much tbh.

Empathy is something felt viscerally. I think I use more affective empathy (the kind where seeing a murder scene on TV makes you feel it), but I use cognitive empathy adequately too. I have this thing where I imagine all kinds of pain and pleasure imaginable that could happen in the world and get affected by the “what if it’s me that went through that”. It’s kind of masochistic, not that I enjoy it. Imagination like that makes the world feels unbearable. And pointless now that I think about it.

My sense of morality would weigh in that empathetic experience, but doesn’t solely depend on it. And the scope has to be universal, that means it include animals, plants, etc. It has to be perfect in all situations and considering every possible factor. Now I realize that is impossible to think about and have to be satisfied enough now with the concept of consensual agreement between humans.

Dynamics between Fe and Fi. Fi drives the societal ideal towards the better change, while Fe tries to assimilate those values into society in practical ways. Fi might also create diversity across cultures because of the off-beat nature.

Addition: That Directive thingy where you condone yourself to be shamed or punished if you do something wrong, that’s me. So it’s not exclusive to the Directive folks.

  • This reply was modified 1 month ago by grockl.
  • This reply was modified 1 month ago by grockl.
  • This reply was modified 1 month ago by grockl.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval


The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.