It is?
Oh.
It seems that my concerted effort at drawing a distinction between "objectivity" as implied in the OP, which is purely an NT and even individual NT ideal, as defined by a majority of NT's (the 'internal affair' I mentioned), and actual true objectivity, and whether it exists, is possible and if so, my theory that no type has a monopoly or advantage with it.
Night and I were going (in absence of any objection or other input at the time) with first off defining the 'internal affair', then comparing it to other types' ideals of objectivity in order to test its validity/worth, then with a er... objective analysis of all of the above, followed by well, other stuff. Night suggested going on an inter-type approach, but we decided to start small and broaden out ('build a vehicle before test driving it'), and nobody objected.
It's like I said about a group of theologians debating the religious doctrines and their internal logic, having their discussion gate crashed all of a sudden by an atheist saying 'Ah, but your definition of transubstantiation is incorrect because you failed to account in it for the fact that I don't believe in God!'
That's what I was trying to ascertain. It's not how I define objectivity, it was just a working theory for the time being, at that point. You could imagine me beginning with with "Suppose..."
Yes, that's what BlueWing was saying, but I took issue with that because I believe that Ti can be just as swayed by interior goals and opinions.
No, I don't think it would. That's what I was beginning to say to BlueWing when he was asserting that ENTP is less objective due to having 'stronger Fe and weaker Ti'.
Night had it in his last post when he used the word 'parsing'. That's just what we were doing, but it's a gradual process - a
process. You can't jump into the middle of a process and start judging it when you haven't grasped either where it's trying to go, where it's currently at, or even the fact that it is a process. I don't mean 'you' here athenian, more like 'one can't...', just to clarify
No, not making up out of the blue! As you can see the dictionary is quite economical in explaining exactly how objectivity is manifested or seen, how it works etc - simply looking at the dictionary definition doesn't really help that much in determining how we're supposed to recognize it, or whether there are different styles of it. That's why I was trying to get a slightly longer, more detailed definition going on.
You see - well, I dunno if you cut and pasted that definition cos if you did then I'd be hesitant to trust a dictionary that can't spell phenomenon/phenomena!
But what I mean is that it just says 'observed'. It doesn't go into a discussion about the different methods of observation, and whether it's the same thing as perception; it doesn't say whether observing something intuitively is equally as valid as observing it by the senses.
EDIT - anyway, bugger this for a game of soldiers, it's 7pm here and time for dinner!!