- Type: FiNe
- Development: l-l-
- Attitude: Unseelie
Lexical and impressionistic thinking?
I’m having a hard time to explain this one, but I think it might be describing how Ti(Fe) and Fi(Te) operate, and in addition maybe also Ni(Se) and Si(Ne). The latter I’ve only read on the forum, it’s not in the video, and I’m not focusing on them here. In Digi/Digibro’s theory, lexical thinkers have this internal need to describe things in words before they can understand them. Impressionistic thinkers don’t have that kind of need and operates on impressions. Let’s think of lexical thinking as Ti and impressionistic one as Fi and assume that’s true. If I’m correctly basing my own internal experience with the impressionistic thinking of Fi (plus Si, as I think it would be different for Ni), and keep in mind I’m only one person so there could be some individualized factors that are subjective to me alone, it would be this fast almost-imagery concept-processing that is quite fragile to keep but one knows is logically sound. If you try to translate it word-by-word correctly and meticulously, unless you have a powerful processing power that matches with the speed that they appear, the idea perishes after it puts you into this state of momentary glitching. But if you don’t, you’re going to try to describe it in loose terms that are eventually bound to have some contradictions and lead you to false logic, where the idea could also perish unless you can step back to the previous thoughts. So it’s quite ironic.
Now, I know these raw concepts themselves are neither Ti nor Fi (we’re still assuming Digi’s theory is related to them by the way). They are, in and of themselves, produced by the Pi process(es). Ti is constantly trying to order them into coherent words while omitting some irrelevant parts, while Fi is captivated and trying to (for me personally) chase all of them and build them into an almost-imagery construct, barely able to catch up and translate the totality of it into words. Sometimes words appear just as the products of reactive emotional mechanism to a concept and be left at that.
Am I capturing both the processes of Ti and Fi correctly there? Anyhow, I think Digibro’s theory is quite interesting to learn even if doesn’t have any bearing to CT.
Edit: Seems like I have something different in mind than him because I’m typing him differently than he does in his own system.
- This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by grockl.