F, Meaning and J Compounds

Home Forums Discord Discussions F, Meaning and J Compounds

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • #30029
    • Type: Unknown
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown
    This thread was imported from the CT Discord server because it was considered valuable to future discussions. If one of your messages is here and you'd like it removed, just message @ Auburn and it will be removed.

    Just that Fi(Fe too) ≠ Emotions, emotional register connection, and the like

    I think I get it I do agree that it’s not just emotions... like it’s not the right word
    It is something like “attached biotic “

    For now, based on Radial vs Gravitic article, I think of T as decentralized and F as centralized. Not sure but there seems to be a level or gradience of prioritization with F(Fe&Fi).
    With T everything is just is while in F some objects have greater or less "importance, interest, value". It's somewhat of a hierarchy. Anyway, this is just a halfbaked formulation

    Yeah or how much you accept or repress
    Ah yes that sounds good, sort of like assigning value

    I guess. Also, Its not necessarily always personal or self-identifiable. The level of priority is what it is

    Value, in itself, fundamentally does not contain emotions/feelings. Valuation is like choosing to use your left hand instead of right for whatever reason you have then feelings come rushing in to supplement and emphasize your choice and aid you to justify it.

    yeah "meaning" is another word

    Yes. Meaning is a closer word for it.

    my language skills kinda stops there lol, I do wish to better define it by itself. It's easy to use the contrast of biotic vs abiotc, or "father" vs "dad"

    Same sentiment

    R vs G I can see it as "meaning" is sourced internally vs externally from the self. What's interesting is this external "meaning" or attractor doesn't have to be something adopted by a G user, it can be self defined

    Indeed. The problem is that external and internal are vague
    I guess, External meaning (Fe): chasing/running towards the meaning whether self defined or adapted Internal Meaning (Fi): the meaning is already there but we could calibrate/perfect it more As you might observe, the former takes a procedural approach so there's a sense of pursuit while the latter is metric and comparative (how much is it identical/100%

    I can imagine a Beta trying to be the example for how humans should live. That could get confused as someone of their own set of Fi morals

    Another dilemma I have is how this definition of Fe fits into an intellectual sphere rather than a moral/social one when we have so much Fe academians

    Regarding that case, Fe acts, Fi disects the act

    There was a sentence I really like about how a Fe user is trying to live up to a standard, a standard that could very well be self-defined from observation or a procedural approach

    Makes me think that Fi can be a self-deductive process answering "who am I" but I don't think Fi users are blind to other F's and can very well relate with others. Say for simplicity we have an overpopulated world of full of R's interacting through abiotic means. It's gonna start to look like a G world if we zoom it out. Te could look for the common denominator for what is the very basis that'll allow people to be happy on their individual terms. Couldn't that be a self defined or adapted definition of the universal rule?
    I'm just switching out the attractor to be something that could be abiotic

    But then, they aren't striving towards the attractor/meaning like Fe does. On your example, the common denominator is determined by Te statically. Fe does it dynamically. It chases. There's also this specific, sharp awareness on how an action causes a domino effect on all elements on its path which what makes Fe perspective inter-subjective

    right, I'm equating the attractor as the same for both Te and Fe in which they each have their own different approach. So we're stumped here for Fe being more fit as academians while Fi is pretty much a hero's journey. Fi serves as a singular data point to Fe I don't think but don't have a good grip on it. We can allow everyone to be their own hero. You could dissect what is common or different between each Fi, where the attractor is emerging as either the "average" or common denominator. Also Fe can allow for Fi variation to the attractor standard. Just trying to build a case for Fi academians

    It's like an extra step from metrics data gathering, you could build a model from that and serve your Fi self in it. More data, more variables, more room for refinement Thinking about compound functions Fi/Te turning into IT/EF

    Can't get what you mean in the second paragraph

    i like this ..meaning is indeed a closer word for it. but there is no word that is perfect, because i think it's its own 'a priori'.. like the color red. you can't describe the color red you just gotta know what it is. this is how all the 'a priori' object forms are. its a feature of ontology.

    I remember when I first learned the word (and the concept and emotion) guilt. It took me a long time as a child to wrap my head around it. On red's case though, it is defined by it's relativity to other colors however the qualia experience is indeed a priori. I think words are grasped and understood when a sort of sensation registers when you encounter upon the object/scenario the word represents. It's like for every word you learn, a new emotion/feeling is discovered

    so many cool points above!

    I'm in the process of writing the ET compound, because it relates to this. a good example of ET is what we see from FeNi Carl Sagan and FeNi Neil deGrasse Tyson. Both scientists who, in a practical sense, do their science 'mechanically', but there is an entirely different meaning-tone to everything they do. Science to them is synonymous with "uncovering the secrets of the absolute", where the absolute has some sort of revered or sacred quality. It's a kind of submilation of divinity and meaning into cosmos, where 'value' is extended to an inanimate object, but that object is affectively transmuted.
    We see it too with NeTi Lawrence Krauss and others - who like to use poetic language about how we are stardust. How we were made in the furnaces of distant stars. We can also look at TiSe Elon Musk who, for all his seemingly stoic engineering specialty, is passionately driven by a G ethos - an 'ought', a mission/desire not to extinguish the flame of consciousness but to have it spread across the stars. To 'save the world' in a way, and to add meaning to reality through the act of innovation. Thus, engineering innovations are, to Elon, the means by which humans live out their meaning; its what it means to properly contribute to a transhumanist mission. The imprint of the attractor remains in them.

    I'll always wanted this to be discussed, Jeremy Sherman's presentation of his book Neither Ghost nor Machine. The way he describe "Ghost" and "Machine" perspective seemed very reminiscent to Fi and Te respectively. He said something about Arrowing vs Narrowing and that narrowing is how self-came to be, via constraints. It seems fitting that Arrowing be Mechanistic Te and Narrowing as Fe especially that we often associate Fe with moral effort and decorum which could be only done if we restrain ourselves. If I remember correctly, he quoted Peterson who said something along the lines, "We give up endless possibilities/manifestations to become SOMETHING"

    There also seems to be what I would call self-inflicted emotional blackmail in the way we interact in the social economy (the common domain of Fe). For example, John, a new tenant on the block was given a pie by his new neighbor as a warm welcome. He could act rudely and throw the pie or he could just accept it and do nothing in return. But since he wants to gain confidence and trust from Anne, he must return the favor. There's an underlying expectation that he do something nice for Anne. Although yes it was pressured by societal expectation it was still HIS choice to do so. "To want something and obtain it, you must negotiate something back or else it results to one-sidedness and one sidedness means a stagnant social economy where too much is in one place and the other is deficient. A detriment Fe's mind-to-mind ideation. The stagnation and disbalanced proportion would mean a Tragedy of the commons for the social economy. P.S. Narrowing applies to semantic disclaimers.
    P.S.S Anne is constrained as well.

    ^ yes. although i feel obliged to point out that every human event has a duplicate analog that happens to the other axis. if the characters John and Anne were both Te/Fi, John may still feel a compulsion to reciprocate, or guilt if he doesn't. the difference is this compulsion/guilt happens at the Fi level not Fe level. It's specifically Anne that did this, and this kindness is localized around her personhood, and so John may return the favor one day (using Te logistics). On the whole, a Te/Fi social economy is not only possible but evident in society. The British come to mind.
    But that's different than the Fe social economy seen in Japan or South Korea. There, if John is given a pie, the event that just happened is more broad. It's like "The attractor/absolute-meaning has visited you [by means of Anne] and given you a mission to fulfull. Should you choose to fulfill it by contributing to the global give-receive cycle of humanity, it's a point on your cosmic moral meter. Should you choose to deny it, it's a ding on your cosmic moral meter." It's not really about Anne, nor is the kindness necessarily to be reciprocated to Anne (though of course, that's common).
    If one keeps the energy exchange going in some other situation, like helping carry extra boxes at work, the meta economy is also restored. Granted, an Fi type can have a radiating conviction to be alturistic to everyone, but this is still not the same thing as Fe's transactional yet general approach.


    • This topic was modified 4 months ago by Discord.
    • This topic was modified 4 months ago by Discord.
    • This topic was modified 4 months ago by Discord.
    • This topic was modified 4 months ago by Discord.
    • This topic was modified 4 months ago by Discord.
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy