IT and Ti Discussions

Home Forums Discord Discussions IT and Ti Discussions

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #29988
    • 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.

    here's a tangible metaphor which i hope helps -- lets say you have folders on your computer desktop, and you can make more of them, Ji will name the folder and suddenly everything in that folder is [ X ] essence. this is definitional processing. If the folder's name changes, it affects the file-path of everything inside of it. so it has a cascading effect. but then, if some items in those folders don't "fit" with their parent folder, they may be taken out of that folder and given another one.

    the process of neatly ordering your desktop files is a bit nonsensical indeed - because theoretically, Ji can do this parsing of folders however much it wants, to whatever resolution it wants. the absolute resolution would be one folder for each item -- which would be the 'truest' organization, because everything is one-of-a-kind, but that's not very practical.

    Initially, I've struggled to understand Ti -- but I will admit, after speaking extensively to a Ti dominant user, I think I finally understand the process and mindset of Ti
    I think that metaphor narrows it down quite well

    going back to IT vs Ti... the gestalt operation of Ti (or Ji in general) is simply in knowing which folder a file fits in -- which isn't mathematical or logical, it's essential. Definitional processing is a foundational form of knowing- it's ontology-recognition. So if you ask a Ti: "how do you know it belongs in that folder?" - they may not have a procedural answer that will satisfy others, but it satisfies their own inner ordering sense. Same applies to Fi's 'palate'. Of course, Ti users will try to justify themselves if possible. :sweat_smile:

    But see some of the folders /Ji Ti and Se/Ni create exist in our head for organization but not in reality which is when I get frustrated
    It’s when it’s applied top down that I find it problematic

    Oh, it sounds a little bit like the old "feelings database" concept. But it can also be without feelings. lol. Like when it's Ti. There's still some kind of "ordering sense".

    But not problematic as a category. It makes talking about things useful

    From what I've learned, Ti has this sort of framework that the user constantly builds upon -- when searching for other axioms, it is to build upon that framework or 'folder.' I didn't realize how important it is, but to a Ti user, it seems that frequently refining that framework is one of their top instinctual priorities. It's interesting to understand, and sort of an admirable way of processing and thinking

    it is my understanding that a Ti user will have an easier time immediately knowing what folder a file belongs to, but may have a hard time explaining it. Whereas IT will really only be able to know where something goes, if they can also explain it? Like, there's a subjective element to Ti, that is absent in IT, but IT isn't as fast or robust (in total)?

    ^ this is IT yea. IT (which is really Te) will have an explicit system in place, whether mathematical, logical-proof-driven, or mechanical, which orders things, rather than doing it by essential registration. So for example, imagine writing a script that organizes 1000 jpeg images based on color values, and does so by the total saturation of each pixel of that image. that would be an IT solution. (heh, lots of delta programmers do things like this in general).

    but a Ti solution would selectively categorize every image based on its total form/essence - and do so in a way that might seem arbitrary from the outside (because it's case-by-case), or at least non-systemic. This is actually a sore spot for Ti users, because this is partly a secret hidden to Ti users. Ti doesn't wish to be arbitrary-- quite the opposite. And they will argue that they're not. The verdict's out on if they're right, but at the very least Ti is non-explicit, and it does not wish to be shackled by definite 'processes', because it distrusts standardizations to do a better job than a gestalt evaluation.

    Auburn Auburn, I want to know if it’s a gut thing for you?
    Even if you try for it not to be

    yes 🙂
    its a gut thing, even tho i try to deny it D:

    The puppeteering is about suspending all that right?

    How did you learn to build an awareness of exactly how your thought process works? Was it always conscious for you to understand, or did it take some time?

    Even I feel Ti at a gut level when I try to mimic it. Because I do think we can access functions, if only briefly
    It just gets swept away by the stronger tides

    , your conception of Ti seems quite congruent with Lenore Thomson's. Would you agree?

    heh! basically, my Ti ate its own tail.. :uroborus: when you strip back the peels of reality through negation, you eventually strip back your own mental processing and call into question your own thoughts - becoming skeptical of even them - in the pursuit of anything 'really' real.

    She emphasizes the gestalt processing of Ti.

    since it would take me extra effort to use Ti etc while it's more efficient to just default to Fi

    wow. is this emotionally taxing?
    or … energetically, even?

    yeah, so this is the impression I've had of Ji - that it's just a 'gut' feeling, even if the basis for the gut feelings are ever being revised. For me, I can never be convinced something makes sense at first glance; I need to logic it out. However, I can know if something is unethical or not at first glance. Is this opposite in Ti users? Or am I just off here?

    of it

    well at least for me personally this is true. i have a hard time being convinced at first glance if something is unethical. i don't get an immediate registration. i may have a sense that it might be contextually unethical, but it's suspended in a relativity of "it depends on how we measure it" (i.e. what social rules apply).

    for me, if something doesn't make logical sense to me, that's okay, I can set it down and continue later if something feels ethically conflicting, or my feelings on a subject are conflicting, I am restless

    fascinating, ty
    • This topic was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by Discord.
    • This topic was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by Discord.
    • This topic was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by Discord.
    • Type: Unknown
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    This was a very interesting discussion and I don’t know how to place myself in it
    When I try to distinguish between Fi and Ti (which is hard for me) what the bottom line is is that Ti will divide fully into nothingness, and then stay there wait until something emerges/is created. Fi will reach a point where it no longer will divide, out of biotic respect. I use the metaphor of the atomic bomb thinking about this sometimes. Ti has the need to divide regardless of the consequences, it has to see what is at the bottom, even if it completely wipes the slate and creates a bunch of mutants. Fi respects the mystery and generative sanctity of the shrouded individual life-force. To look, by pulling back the shroud, would be to pollute this power. But idk if that makes sense to people, and I can’t place myself as one or the other.
    As far as ethics, I personally treat ethics as a construction. If it comes down to it, ethics are built off this individual life-force (so Fi I guess) and are at root the attempt to respect this force as fairly as possible. This gets complicated because the individual life force bleeds into the collective, and it is not easy to know what is most important to prioritize the respect of. That is a matter of perspective. I tend to also lean absurdist, that it doesn’t really matter, only appears to matter from a human perspective, being enmeshed in suffering. If there is an arbitrary ethical structure, the human condition renders any attempts to achieve it imperfect. Which is the point of being human, to grapple with these imperfections. Again no idea if that made sense. These things are hard to precisely articulate.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 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