"An essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process" which "determines...the quality of subjective experience" = value system.Originally Posted by Psychological Types, page 534
Here in the bolded part he's saying that Fe users don't use Fi. Their feeling is always objectively defined, "even when it appears not to be qualified by a concrete object."Originally Posted by The Portable Jung, page 207
This is kind of vague, but seems to point to the idea that the shadow functions are either rarely used or not used at all. Again, he never explicitly says either way whether we use the shadow functions, but he seems to imply that if we do, it's awfully difficult and unusual.Originally Posted by Psychological Types, page 450
Out of context this may sound like he's saying that people only use all introverted or all extroverted functions, but that's not what it means. He's describing individual functions when he says "one cannot be...", so from this we can derive that one cannot be, for instance, an introverted Thinker unless all of his Thinking happens in an introverted fashion--ergo, Ti users do not use Te.Originally Posted by Psychological Types, page 534
Here he describes how Thinking and Feeling, when oriented in the same direction, are wholly contradictory attitudes, necessitating that their orientations be opposite each other. Fi cannot work correctly with Ti in its way because these two functions represent worldviews which are too diametrically opposed to inhabit the same individual.Originally Posted by The Portable Jung, page 209
So from this I derive that Fi+Te and Ti+Fe cannot inhabit the same person because one (Fi+Te) represents a worldview that derives ethics from a subjective internal standard uninfluenced by external objects, and logic from an objective external standard according to what can be empirically verified...and the other (Ti+Fe) does the exact opposite.
The very definitions of logic and ethics upon which their whole worldviews are built are completely inverted. Fi considers morality such a personal and inward process that any suggestion that "true" morality could be dependent upon objective context (Fe) is seen as absurd and nonsensical. Conversely, Ti is so fundamentally aware of its own idea of "natural logic" that the idea that logic might be subject to any sort of indefinite external variables is seen in a similar light--Ti users simply "know" a priori what is innately logical or not logical and no external empirical standard can change or influence that.
On a more practical basis, if we could all tap into the shadow functions so easily and routinely, I doubt that we would have so much friction between Fi and Ti types--look at these Ti vs. Fi threads. The very bases from which we derive our conceptions of logic and morality are profoundly averse to each other at the most fundamental level--we are literally speaking different languages and neither side will ever fully understand the other.