|Ti||Y:Y||Any object (Y) is evaluated against itself (Y) without the emotional register associated.|
|Te||Y:Z||Any object (Y) is evaluated against any other object (Z) without the emotional register associated.|
|Fi||X*:Y*||The subject (X) is viewed from the emotional register and evaluated against other objects (Y) via the emotional register.|
|Fe||Y*:Z*||Any object (Y) is viewed from the emotional register and evaluated against other objects (Z) via the emotional register.|
|Ti||Ti evaluates things without the “a priori” of the emotional register. This leaves Ti without a criteria of measure outside of what is provided by the context presented. It therefore uses simple metrics such as self-contradiction, symmetry, or alignment, rather than a comparison against an organic standard. This leads to a sort of ontological approach to analysis where questions like “what is a table?” are treated from an essentialist place. The aim becomes uncovering what can rightly constitute the definition of a thing in all contexts, but removed from specifics. There is an implicit axiom in this approach that assumes an essence exists and that an answer is reachable. Even if that’s not what the Ti user believes, information will be treated as though some fundamental ontological answer is attainable.|
|Fe||Fe by itself cannot view a causality between objects without comprehending it through the social economy. Even something mechanical like “arranging the dishes” carries a heroic undertone to it and is metabolized in some anthropomorphic fashion. Every locomotive act is in some way a manifestation of the drama of life. This embeds each activity with moral “effort”. Fe can do inanimate tasks but it actually is drained by them because it’s inserting an unnecessary layer of processing which isn’t effectively utilized.|
|Te||Te compares objects to other objects in a matter-of-fact way. There is no extra loop of processing embedded in each micro-judgment to evaluate it’s comparison to the social economy. This is different than saying the Te person’s actions aren’t motivated by some ethical imperative. Indeed, one could be building a shelter for the homeless, using Te, but the actual metabolic effort at each cycle of processing is mechanical and abiotic in its treatement of information. It’s just about getting it built; that’s just that, “get it done.”|
|Fi||Fi is the aspect that handles the ethical question by comparing things singularly to the subject. The subject remains in a privileged position, framing right and wrong as a personal question of how aligned an object is to their essence or what the divine source tells them. Therefore how an object is perceived to relate to the global biotic narrative is always a decided from a place of inner resonance or dissonance. This is different than saying Fi can’t feel shame or be affected by outside energies, but the framing of an object’s relation to ethics at large is done from the singular place rather than triangulated and contextualized with a dependency on the environment.|
Now, the entirety of the Ti/Fe oscillation relies on the Fe half to inform oneself about ethical questions. So the moral standing of the individual subject is addressed from a kind of objective place (Y*:Z*), treating oneself as an “object” in the equation. Inversely, Fi handles the ethical question (of oneself) directly from the subject and absent from objects. Te/Fi decides for itself whether it’s being ethical/unethical, while Fe/Ti must decide this by contextualizing oneself against an operative moral system or philosophy which they have often built themselves from observations of social causalities over time, but which they are also beholden to in a kind of third-person sense.
This focus for Ti/Fe leads causally to the creation of tribalism, virtue ethics and dynamics of shame and martyrdom as we see in Fe-heavy cultures like Japan with traditions like seppuku. It also leads to a more pure experience of Honor, Code of Conduct, Rituals and Etiquette. The Fe/Ti oscillation distrusts the subjective component (Fi) to be sufficient to answer the question of whether someone is moral or not, and prefers for that to be transcendent of the subject. It is better answered in an objective and collective fashion.
Disclaimer: This doesn’t mean that Fe/Ti users can’t be aware of how they personally feel. This is not what Fi is. Awareness of the body’s emotional state is another thing altogether. It is in where the judgment criteria is coming from, and how decisions are metabolized, that we see Fe and Fi contrasted.
In general, the Fi/Te pair uses the objective domain (Te) as a platform to accomplish subjective desires (Fi). It remains the goal, as with Ti/Fe, for as many people to be ethical moral agents as possible. However, an Fi/Te demographic cannot go about this by leveraging the outside-in imposition of morality that Fe manifests and prefers, and thus it takes a more logistical trajectory towards its solutions. The public sphere becomes a very bureaucratic domain; a mechanistic enterprise whose function is to provide that which subject(s) desire and reward participation in some material form. A culture built entirely around Fi/Te would be a domain of egos who manage and uplift one another’s needs through an established economic system; allowing for each to flourish in their own identity and individuality.
Now, naturally all humans ponder every type of philosophical question, but the Fi user will tend to steer away from vacuous channels of deduction that are void of any animating principle. The question of ontological truths are handled by Fi, but with the “a priori” embedded within it since Fi will carry the necessary ethical axioms to address existential questions at the root level. Ti, on the other hand, draws its ethical answers from the dynamic human environment and leaves the philosophical domain as one that’s handled with sterility of reason. This is the case even if Ti’s answers cycle back around to, and support, the ethical answers that are arrived at in the end. Indeed this difference causes Ti/Fe to be more explicative with morality even if both share the same general opinions of how best to live. That which Fi/Te believes implicitly and simply lives out, is linguistically encoded by Ti/Fe due to how it parses the question out differently.
Disclaimer: I should note that Fi/Te users are capable of gracefully handling social situations too, but via a different metabolic route that is explained in this post. Their adjustment to social settings can be handled as a logistical solution via Te, even when it involves having courtesy/etc. The moral effort will still be in Fi, not Te, causing a somewhat uncanny execution.