[Ti] Reductionism

Home Forums Ask a Demographic [Ti] Reductionism

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #19560
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Do other Ti people experience these phenomena?
    Phenomenon 1:
    I'll have a thought in the form of a proposition [P]. These propositions can take many forms, such as "I am human" or "The sky is blue".
    The proposition will trigger a question that takes the form "How do I know [P]?" Where [P] is the aforementioned proposition.
    This may trigger another proposition that may take the form of "I don't know [P]" which would again be questioned in the same manner as mentioned before.
    The pattern is essentially one of asking me to substantiate the claims I make or to "show my work".
    Phenomenon 2:
    I'll have a thought in the form of a proposition [P]. These propositions can take many forms, such as "I am human" or "The sky is blue".
    The proposition will trigger a question that takes the form "What do I mean by [P]?" Where [P] is the aforementioned proposition.
    This may trigger another proposition that may take the form of "I don't know what I mean by [P]" which would again be questioned in the same manner as mentioned before.
    The pattern is essentially one of asking me to clarify the claims I make.
    The second one seems like Ti more than the first one, but to be truthfulI don't know if either of these phenomena are examples of Ti.
    Do other Ti types experience either of these phenomena?

    #23933
    bella
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development:
    • Attitude: Unknown

    @supahprotist yes I do recognize these patterns in myself.  This sound similar to the process Auburn describes in the computational metaphor for Ji and also reminds me of one of the recent articles about Ji being an assessment of an object's mono value.

    J- Monistic Caliber
    The continual application of if (objects[0].properties != mono) { causes an object’s value to be continually assessed, in relation to the mono metric. If we represent this numerically as a decimal between 0 and 1, the J- operation comes to produce an assessment of an object’s mono value as a percentile. This can be thought of as the object’s monistic caliber, or how faithful the object is as a self-existent object. From a phenomenological perspective, this can be experienced as an object’s level of quality, its conceptual perfection, level of truth, or beauty/aesthetics. The qualia of the monistic caliber is similar to the qualia of taste when taste-testing.
     

    I think it may  also relates a bit to the article clarifying the different between Ti and IT (Fi+Te), where he explains how Te is procedural logic whereas Ti is more about coherence.

    IT vs Ti
    Unlike the aforementioned IT, the Ti process, by contrast, is wholly non-procedural. It does not hold itself accountable to cause and effect relationships, nor is it systemic (J+) in its formulation of logic. The Ti process is by itself perpendicular to formal logic. Being a J- process, it operates by gestalting towards answers in a way that is decontextualized. Ti is an idiosyncratic process that privately evaluates the internal consistency of an abiotic object via a personal metric that is not dependent on object-relations. It is not explicit (+) or objectively formatted (+) and thus not beholden to ‘rules of operation’. IT, on the other hand, is still composed in relation to an objective (object-relations-contingent) system, and deduces within that system towards its conclusions and what is correct.
    Due to J-‘s monistic caliber, correctness, for Ti, is more appropriately described as the registration of an abiotic object as having a high mono value. This registration of mono value follows directly from the computation of J- alone, absent of any system of deduction or relationships to other objects in a deductive sequence. This results in Ti’s insights being far more unavailable to the objective world, and based on an internal registration of static object coherence from the a prior of J-‘s mono function.

    #23940
    Supah Protist
    Participant
    • Type: SeTi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Directive

    @bella thanks for the response. I don’t think I’m seeing the relationship between the two phenomena I described and the passages you quoted. Regarding the first phenomenon I described, I’m seeing more alignment with e quote you provided that describes IT. The question of “How do you know that?” seems to be requesting a linguistic justification or explanation. I can’t really see how it is emerging from a gestalt or intuitive (in the colloquial sense) place.
    Additionally, with regards to the second phenomenon I mentioned, that one also appears to be linguistic in origin. It seems to be requesting another form of explanation. My attempts to respond to this second type of question aren’t based on trying to get the gist of what something means, but rather trying to form an explicit (linguistic) account of what the exact meaning of the proposition or word in question.
    I don’t think I was able to understand what the relationship you saw was. I guess it would be helpful to know what were the specific connections you made between the phenomena I described and the quotes you shared.

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