Compound Functions (IF & IT)

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Compound Functions (IF & IT)

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23859
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Hello, 🙂
    It has been one of my longest hesitations to present any theory or information that can account for the 4 "unavailable" functions of a type. As stated in this thread, I believe the CTA has four trunks and not 8. Thus, our type is made out of a quaternity, when it comes to the management of mental objects.
    Yet, this leaves some questions unanswered, relating to how it is that we sometimes experience mental operations that look very much like the functions we don't have. The idea of compound functions is an attempt to model what this reality is. Although it is nowhere near complete, today I want to give an initial introduction to the notion of compounds, as part of Model 2.

    Compound Functions

    Why Now?

    Before moving CT to a computational model, modeling this reality was not very possible without falling into grey areas where it becomes nigh-impossible to know what a type is, when every potentiality is open to every person. In order to introduce a definition of what the functions do, to create the pseudo-effects of their opposites, it has to be possible to precisely describe these relationships and differences using mathematical language.
    I'd like to begin by also posting very rough first drafts of the function compounds IF and IT:

    IF - Compound Function

    IT - Compound Function


    The other six will follow sometime later. Again these are very early drafts, and the idea behind these compound functions is still in development. I am quite sure these effects are real, but writing descriptions of them that satisfy all points will take some time. Feedback is welcome, so please let me know your thoughts!

    #23986
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    @fayest42 - I'm very curious as to what you think of these definitions?
    I realize the comparison between IF and IT is a bit incomplete without knowing what the new computational terms for Ti and Fi are. But, extrapolating from this article on J-, Ti and Fi are both non-procedural and non-explicit in their registrations. They're gestalt and idiosyncratic.
    And the way that you've described yourself across other threads seems to perfectly fit the idea of lacking a rigid moral structure you measure yourself against (which is actually IF). Yet you possess very structured thought when it comes to exploring questions of abiotic causality principles (IT).
    This is actually perfectly compatible with your Fi, if we realize that your Fi, insofar as it manifests as one side of the Fi/Te axis, is not heavily structuring matters of morality into an external code. Rather, Fi registers the monistic caliber of situations in real-time, statically, and gestalts their ethical purity based on a direct consultation of the mono metric-- void of systematic deduction.
    The irony here is that many times Fi users have less explicit awareness of their moral reasonings; they register like taste (palate) when they do. It's similar to how, with Ti, the elegant simplicity of an idea is felt/sensed, decontextualized outside of a justifiable pathway to it.
    And I'm curious to hear the thoughts of other members! @alana-chiusano - you mentioned a few things on Discord, but as an NiTe deeply interested in calculus I'd love to hear anything else you'd like to share - specifically about your view of IT? 🙂
    Also, @calin - is it true that you hold yourself to a very strict code? And does IF resonate with you above? Do you think other Fe users do this too, such as athletes?

    #23995
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @Auburn At some point I want to take more time to delve into the deeper ideas presented here, but just to quickly respond to how this fits for me personally - indeed, it does seem to fit very well. My interests have fallen very much into what you describe here: "when Ji’s essentiallism participates in this process, the person turns toward understanding the principles of vector-movements in an abiotic conceptual space. From this conjunction (of Je/Ji) arises a formulaic theorizing about the systemic nature of causality in a decontextualized sense."
    And my sense of morality also fits how you describe Fi morality, as opposed to IF morality. I do not have a system of morals that I follow, but I do sometimes experience a visceral sense that something is right or wrong. Now if you ask me why I think something is right or wrong, I'll probably answer with some logical reasons, but if I'm honest, it wasn't those reasons that led me to the conclusion in the first place. They are an after-the-fact justification of my beliefs. That being said, I can be convinced to change my ideas about right and wrong through a logical argument.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
A forum exploring the connection between Jungian typology and body mannerisms.

Social Media

© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelopegraduation-hatbookearth linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram