## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by PeaceBaby
However, that's the thing about an axiom - it appears to be an unprovable, self-evident truth. If an axiom is exposed to data that requires a reexamination of said axiom, it would require a gigantically massive paradigm shift.

It would be life-changing. Potentially enlightening for some, devastating for others. Hopefully, the Fi axioms one adopts throughout childhood are sound, for syllogisms are thusly branched off from that core of understanding, inner knowing.
Yes. life-changing, enlightening, devastating, sometimes all at once. I've been through a few.

Don't forget how one arrives at an axiom. Usually, one starts with axioms that aren't really axioms at all, but a set of self-consistent hypotheses that might later become theorems, that might later point to a core axiom.

I don't think all are axioms. Fi theorems are built on core axioms, each with an hypothesis and conclusion, and over time, are then "proven" (or not) by practical experience. (In fact, I don't think they are that many axioms at all. They tend to be global and few.) Theorems by their nature invite examination and this is not as threatening to an Fi user to assess the initial hypothesis.
There aren't many axioms at all, but ... I don't get to shape the theorems. I only get to shape the axioms. If I choose crappy axioms, my theorems are even worse.

Perhaps for me the axioms are more changeable because they're relatively newer?

I think it takes a while to articulate why; inside you know the answer. One need not wait for the ability to articulate to act.
I'll accept that distinction, but something else is going to happen first: I'm going to determine whether the action that Fi is urging me to do is a damn fool thing to try in the first place!

Part of what I'm working at is to have Ni/Te and Fi in harmony, such that the conclusions of either will be similar, or rather all have contributed to the analysis, and agree on at least similar courses of action. Fi becomes part of the core assumptions of Ni/Te, and Ni/Te have played a strong role in shaping Fi. This way, should I react instinctively, it is likely something which I would have chosen in the first place.

I find this interesting - I like how you are dissecting it. I would prefer the word "theorem" as described above. And - basically in the rest of the post. Axioms are HUGE; they are not the smaller branches on the tree.
I have to change the axioms, not the theorems. Changing the theorems is at too small of a scale, and creates a meaningless patchwork of nitpicky rules that are not necessarily self-consistent, but are ad hoc attempts to address specific cases. The axioms determine much of who I am, and everything else follows from those choices. By choosing proper axioms, by rotating my frame of reference so that I have an orthogonal set of a few key values, rather than a long list of things that annoy me, it's much easier to see what applies and how.

This is where we will disagree - unlike math, Te is not "good" at saying that certain axioms suck. An axiom being an underlying, unprovable principle. In fact, instinctively I think examination of axioms with Te can sometimes be a spectacular personal failure.
Te can sometimes result in spectacular personal failure, but whose fault is that? And was one really using Te, or simply employing rationalization to do exactly what one felt with Fi in the first place?

In my case, a sample sucky axiom of which Te intrinsically approves is, "objective, logical reasoning is the best way to make decisions."

(I would assert that the above is an Fi axiom for most young Te users. Fi learns to instinctively trust logic, both for good and for ill.)

However, I'm not referring to evaluating an axiom alone, but rather in tandem with other axioms. It can work out the objective consequences of axioms, especially if Ni (in my case) has had experience dealing with corresponding issues. Moreover, it can take a set of axioms, and work with them in a plug-and-play fashion, figuring out which ones "fit together". It quickly becomes obvious (to Ni, at least), which axioms are the oddballs and bear a closer look. An axiom such as "let's make everyone happy" gets thrown out right quick, because it breaks everything else. (Most INTJs have done this instinctively, if not deliberately.) Te can present several sets of axioms for Fi to decide upon which it prefers. Fi can then adopt the preferred set.

Now, on the Fi side, there is not as huge a paradigm shift as you might imagine. Fi wouldn't choose that. Rather, there is a rotation, an adjustment, a realignment, such that the "core me" that is not any single cognitive function is satisfied with the new arrangement, and Fi learns to work with the new arrangement. An analogy: thermodynamics and statistical quantum physics are the same damn thing, the latter being a completely different model, yet for most things the same quantifiable results as the former. The new model is qualitatively different, with very different axioms, but it's still essentially works like the prior set of rules, but is much more refined.

Sometimes I've had a very good rule, but my actual understanding of the rule was weak, and so the "Fi axiom" was imperfect. I replace it with a better understanding of the same rule, which can look very very different, especially if I try to articulate it, but it is intrinsically the same rule, better understood.

I don't think I could do any of this without having Fi and Te work together, each contributing its own strengths.

2. ^ we are rotating on an opposite axis; let me reflect on this a bit and respond ...

An axiom such as "let's make everyone happy" gets thrown out right quick, because it breaks everything else. (Most INTJs have done this instinctively, if not deliberately.) Te can present several sets of axioms for Fi to decide upon which it prefers. Fi can then adopt the preferred set.
So your Fi is floating, changeable, this malleable ... Te runs the show? You would throw out a set of Fi axioms if they weren't working?

If an axiom is an axiom, a truth is a truth, can it be thrown out or discarded so easily? ... a rule on the other hand, carries a different weight, a different moral distinction ...

Still going to think more. Dinner first.

3. OK, if it's not too personal uumlau, share a couple of what you consider to be axioms with me here.

Fascinating ... this is like a complex equation to you, and you have granted Fi more weight as a variable in your life decisions over time.

4. Originally Posted by PeaceBaby
OK, if it's not too personal uumlau, share a couple of what you consider to be axioms with me here.

Fascinating ... this is like a complex equation to you, and you have granted Fi more weight as a variable in your life decisions over time.
OK, the kind of things that I would regard as axioms are probably not things that you would regard as axioms. So let me introduce you to my inner world, as described by MBTI.

1. First off, there's "Me." "Me" is not a cognitive function. "Me" is the essence of my being. "Me" is the part of me that can always take a step back and look at "the rest of me" from outside the box.
2. Then there is, for the purposes of this discusion, what one might call my emotional core. This core isn't a cognitive function either. It just is. It's a subset of "Me", but "Me" isn't always sure how to handle it. In my original post analogy, this is the furnace.
3. THEN we have Fi. Fi is the set of tools I have recently designated as what I will use to evaluate/process/handle input/output for my emotional core.
4. Then there is, for simplicity's sake, Ni/Te, the INTJ part of me. This is what I used to use to handle my emotional core. This is the part of me that is telling this story, so please note that this story is rather, um, biased. This part of me doesn't understand Fi, really, but does its best to describe what seems to happen.

So, which part of me is handling the emotional core?

The answer is "Me." *I* choose how to handle the emotional core.

It's OK if you thought the answer was Fi. In many cases, I have been sloppy for the sake of clarity, and attributed things that only "Me" could do to Fi, when the truth of the matter is, "Me" chose to use Fi-judging to handle the emotional core.

For a very long time, "Me" used "Ni/Te" to handle the emotional core. Fi, to the degree that it existed, had rules/axioms/whatever that were a combination of emotional impulses and "Ni/Te" standards.

Now, I use Ni/Te/Fi to handle my emotional core. In some cases, it's very clear cut that Fi should handle the process mostly alone, but in the end, Ni/Te stick their noses in anyway. Fi tells them to butt out, and they mostly do, but they'll sit there and process in parallel, kind of in a race. They tend to win the race, but Fi bides its time, and eventually comes up with a better result, at which point Ni/Te go, "Ooohhhhh." And into the intuition-thinking loop the Fi principle goes. Similarly, Ni/Te are no slouches, and Fi is similarly informed by them.

So, what is an "Fi axiom"?

An axiom is a fundamental choice, made by "Me." It might be a good choice. It might be a bad choice. The main thing is that it's fundamental. It's an attitude (conventional definition, not Jungian!). Like my choice to be warm. Like my understanding that love/feelings are as much an act of will as they are random things I feel/emote. Another axiom was that I'll face my fears and go and learn to dance and go out to dance and I'll ask girls to dance and ... well, these days, it's shortened to "dance."

These attitudes are given to Fi. They are chosen. They are acts of will.

Note what I am not giving to Fi. I am not giving Fi anything resembling "logic", "objectivity", "reason". I am not giving Fi anything specific about politics or religion or philosophy (though some of what I give Fi could be regarded as philosophical).

I give Fi what might be best regarded as "spiritual lessons." These lessons are my axioms. Such lessons can be found in the Bible, or the Tao, in the books of other religions, in various philosophies, and so on. They can also, of course, be found in real life. The real life spiritual lessons are in many ways the best, but they are also the ones that can make you feel like your soul is being shredded apart. As valuable as others might find these lessons, I haven't the heart to even consider wishing such experiences upon anyone.

So, in those cases where Fi is working (mostly) alone, it goes something like this. Something external happens, "Me" knows about it, reacts emotionally through the emotional core, and the emotional core output is processed through Fi. (No, it's not really this effing simple, but the reality doesn't admit words.) Fi takes all of its standards, attitudes, lessons, wisdom and attempts to understand what the emotional core just said/did. Fi is how "Me" comes to know "Me"self. Fi then uses that to inform "Me", but also to inform the emotional core, and in so doing affect the state of the emotional core. You read that right. Fi tells the emotional core whether it should be happy (or sad). When I have internal harmony, Fi and core are nigh indistinguishable.

In spite of all this, Fi remains my tertiary, and really, Ni/Te/Fi make decisions in tandem. Objective decisions have very little Fi input, and likewise clearly subjective decisions have very little Ni/Te input. But most decisions are processed by all of them. All the places where you think I must be using some sort of "Fi rules", I probably am, but Ni/Te doesn't just disappear. The "nuances" I might have are not just "Fi nuances," they are "Ni/Te/Fi nuances", and "Me" decides what to do.

5. Originally Posted by Udog
For example, I say that we must "accept" and then "forgive". I separate them out as distinct processes. You focus more on the concept of "openness", making a side note that openness must consist of acceptance and forgiveness. (If I understand you correctly, I may not!)
They seem like two different steps to me too. I can accept my flaws but it is another matter to forgive myself for them. Acceptance almost implies a logical understanding of limitations-easy to rationalize and easy to do. Forgiveness of those limitations-oh, dear, that can spiral into a black, dark place.

Originally Posted by Udog
Stubbornness is a good one. I never had to be stubborn to get a feel for what I'm feeling... I have no furnace door, but rather, I learned tricks to simply stay far, far away from the furnace altogether. I had to be stubborn to STAY and face it, though.
How did you stay away form the furnace Udog?

For all: What does Fi look like as it grows? What is "undeveloped" Fi vs "mature" Fi? When are you complete?

U, you and PB mentioned axioms-but PB says pruning occurs at the theorem level as the axioms are very well defined, while you mention change at the axiom level. How long does it take each of you to modify the respective theorems/axioms when new information is provided that results in a value conflict?

6. Originally Posted by Orobas
They seem like two different steps to me too. I can accept my flaws but it is another matter to forgive myself for them. Acceptance almost implies a logical understanding of limitations-easy to rationalize and easy to do. Forgiveness of those limitations-oh, dear, that can spiral into a black, dark place.
Ahhhhh. Thank you for this, Oro.

I don't think this is "acceptance," but rather "acknowledgment." Acceptance has a built-in attitude that doesn't send you into that dark place. It's likely that's partly why I combine acceptance and forgiveness into the same overall attitude within me. "Accepting" something and then letting lack of forgiveness cripple oneself doesn't seem a wise attitude to me.

For all: What does Fi look like as it grows? What is "undeveloped" Fi vs "mature" Fi? When are you complete?
Immature Fi is controlled by your emotions.
Mature Fi "controls" your emotions (through acceptance and understanding and wisdom and a bunch of things that don't quite fit into words).

U, you and PB mentioned axioms-but PB says pruning occurs at the theorem level as the axioms are very well defined, while you mention change at the axiom level. How long does it take each of you to modify the respective theorems/axioms when new information is provided that results in a value conflict?
I don't know how long. Some of them take a while to absorb. It's an ongoing process. It's possible PB and I are doing much the same thing, but using very different metaphors, w/r to the pruning. Perhaps I just regard what I am doing as being at a very much deeper level than what she is doing, and had we words and objective things to point at, we'd be able to show how it's different perspectives and not so much different Fi-techniques.

It also might be the INTJ in me. I just swap out "rules" on the fly, all the time. It's what I do. The "rules" have no value beyond their utility. As long as the new set of rules work, and handles something new that I couldn't before, I go with the new rules.

Part of it is that I need that internal self-consistency. If I simply "prune" the rules, I end up with a complex construct that eventually has little meaning to me, and I can barely hold it in my head. (Hmm, maybe this is Si vs Ni? Where Si feels like it is pruning, and Ni feels like it is switching?) Part of how I manage the rules is that I have to drop the whole set any time I'm considering an alteration. Otherwise, the old set of rules will often "tell me" that a new rule is nonsense. By dropping the rules, I can look at a new set of rules on its own merits.

7. Originally Posted by uumlau
Immature Fi is controlled by your emotions.
Mature Fi "controls" your emotions (through acceptance and understanding and wisdom and a bunch of things that don't quite fit into words).
This could be that "questioning" problem I have-but I would like to get the Fi dom perspective on this as well... yap? yap?

Originally Posted by uumlau
I don't know how long. Some of them take a while to absorb. It's an ongoing process. It's possible PB and I are doing much the same thing, but using very different metaphors, w/r to the pruning. Perhaps I just regard what I am doing as being at a very much deeper level than what she is doing, and had we words and objective things to point at, we'd be able to show how it's different perspectives and not so much different Fi-techniques.

It also might be the INTJ in me. I just swap out "rules" on the fly, all the time. It's what I do. The "rules" have no value beyond their utility. As long as the new set of rules work, and handles something new that I couldn't before, I go with the new rules.

Part of it is that I need that internal self-consistency. If I simply "prune" the rules, I end up with a complex construct that eventually has little meaning to me, and I can barely hold it in my head. (Hmm, maybe this is Si vs Ni? Where Si feels like it is pruning, and Ni feels like it is switching?) Part of how I manage the rules is that I have to drop the whole set any time I'm considering an alteration. Otherwise, the old set of rules will often "tell me" that a new rule is nonsense. By dropping the rules, I can look at a new set of rules on its own merits.
Could this be that as an Fi dom-the rules are a self defining part of the.....ego? for lack of a better word? Whereas more of your self definition lies within Ni (?) thus you can modify the Fi rule sets, without redefining yourself? The dropping of the old and viewing of the new sounds very much like Ni perspective shifting. Even with my puny Fi, I dont do that-it is more like PB-what few rules are present are etched in stone-of the crumbly Si variety.

In my earlier situation-the work scenario-I will take the "stick my hand in the garbage disposal" route. I cant find anyway to make the two values agree-no matter what I do I will inflict pain. Thus I forge ahead, inflict the pain on the individual, understanding the whole group will fare better in the end. I use Te as the tool, ackwardly, but later will "feel" the pain I inflicted on the individual. I can block with Te in the short term, but carry angst.

Originally Posted by uumlau
OK, the kind of things that I would regard as axioms are probably not things that you would regard as axioms.
That seems true ... in this discussion, I was thinking of a mathematical or logical definition of the word ... "a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it." Just to be clear on my part.

Originally Posted by uumlau
So let me introduce you to my inner world, as described by MBTI.
k - excitedly sits back on couch to read -

Originally Posted by uumlau
1. First off, there's "Me." "Me" is not a cognitive function. "Me" is the essence of my being. "Me" is the part of me that can always take a step back and look at "the rest of me" from outside the box.
2. Then there is, for the purposes of this discusion, what one might call my emotional core. This core isn't a cognitive function either. It just is. It's a subset of "Me", but "Me" isn't always sure how to handle it. In my original post analogy, this is the furnace.
3. THEN we have Fi. Fi is the set of tools I have recently designated as what I will use to evaluate/process/handle input/output for my emotional core.
4. Then there is, for simplicity's sake, Ni/Te, the INTJ part of me. This is what I used to use to handle my emotional core. This is the part of me that is telling this story, so please note that this story is rather, um, biased. This part of me doesn't understand Fi, really, but does its best to describe what seems to happen.
@bold - your definition interests me here of Fi, because it does indeed illustrate we are talking about different things.

Originally Posted by uumlau
So, which part of me is handling the emotional core?

The answer is "Me." *I* choose how to handle the emotional core.
I wouldn't have answered Fi either though, FWIW.

For you, it sounds like there is a greater distinction between the two; you see them as disparate (Me > my emotional core) when to me there's a greater melding of me and my values, that emotional core (Me ≈ my emotional core). They don't separate as readily for me nor do I think they are supposed to. It's like glasses I don't know I am wearing ... the dominant function of each type is like this for everyone.

Naturally, as you, I am more than the sum of my parts. If Fi was running the whole show, I wouldn't be very balanced. Even though Fi wants to, really wants to run the show sometimes ... just like your Ni ...

I could run a corollary and say my Fi/Ne wants to dictate the terms of my tertiary and inferior functions just as your Ni/Te wants to dictate the goings-on of yours, including that emotional core.

Examples, with Fi overly-influencing Si and Te respectively: that movie makes you feel good, watch it again ... who cares about taxes, I don't want to think right now, do them tomorrow ... these are what I term the real-world, logic areas. Fi wants to run them too, but it doesn't necessarily have the skills to make those kinds of decisions. So in come the other functions, to add their input.

And I welcome them in; I need them in there. And, in all fairness, I think of them as tools too, as you think of your "Fi tools".

So historically, when out of balance, my Fi/Ne causes me to make choices that inhibit thinking; your Ni/Te to inhibit feeling. Neither is the greater error.

Originally Posted by uumlau
Now, I use Ni/Te/Fi to handle my emotional core. In some cases, it's very clear cut that Fi should handle the process mostly alone, but in the end, Ni/Te stick their noses in anyway. Fi tells them to butt out, and they mostly do, but they'll sit there and process in parallel, kind of in a race. They tend to win the race, but Fi bides its time, and eventually comes up with a better result, at which point Ni/Te go, "Ooohhhhh." And into the intuition-thinking loop the Fi principle goes. Similarly, Ni/Te are no slouches, and Fi is similarly informed by them.
Haha, this made me laugh, sometimes my logic tells my feelings to butt out ... wonderfully opposite.

I will have to process the rest of your post later. Til then!

9. I get the feeling that Ti and Fi dom submit more easily to who they are and allow those values to define them and in the process refine those values and in the sense refine themselves.

One of my axioms is along the lines of try, try, and try again, when that fails, wait, then try again everytime decreasing the frequency unless you see reason otherwise to jack with the frequency of attempts. The underlying axiom would be what is meant to be will be, what is forced will break. This ties to adjust to what is as its whats meant to be, experience it and grow. This ties into dont let what you want slip through your fingers because you didnt try. These are some of my axioms and if I dig deeper i could probably get to deeper truths. I live these things, they define who I am and I define who I am by what I do. Therefore I try to live as true to myself as possible by comparing myself against myself.

10. Originally Posted by Orobas
They seem like two different steps to me too. I can accept my flaws but it is another matter to forgive myself for them. Acceptance almost implies a logical understanding of limitations-easy to rationalize and easy to do. Forgiveness of those limitations-oh, dear, that can spiral into a black, dark place.
These are my thoughts on it, too. I can appreciate Uumlau's point that acceptance implies a certain forgiveness, and acknowledgment is a better word. In fact, I just added "acknowledgment" to my understanding of the process.

To me, acceptance is when someone quits fighting and removes the negative connotations. Forgiveness is when someone starts making positive momentum. One involves removing the metaphorical sword from the wound, while the other is when healing actually begins. To me, it's worth acknowledging these as two separate stages.

How did you stay away form the furnace Udog?
Uumlau actually was right - I'm in the furnace. I just happen to have 3 layers of fireproofing that had enabled me to ignore it all for a very long time.

For all: What does Fi look like as it grows? What is "undeveloped" Fi vs "mature" Fi? When are you complete?
I'll never be complete.

Undeveloped Fi is not self-aware, and is not aware that it's not self-aware. It conveniently alters its beliefs to justify its wants ("Cheating is bad...... except, now cheating is okay because I'm lonely, and I don't need to tell my partner either because that's what they get for making me feel lonely.") It believes that it's right, and that the world is wrong for not bending to its whims. ("Why are people so <<enter complaint here>>, why can't they be more like me?") It's also unaccepting and is unusually obsessed with dichotomizing everything while also being closed off to nuances that threaten it's dichotomies.

Honestly, many of these issues are people issues. I'm just trying to think of ways it reflects in Fi specific ways.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO