Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
I think it's just as possible for an Fe-er to think their group's morality is the "right" or "done" way of doing things
Oh but...it is!

...wait...the Ni is now asking me to clarify: "which group's perspective on which group's morality among groups?"

Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
In regards to Babylons post, that defines Fi in terms of whats its objective or what it tries to do though. Fi "leads", etc. It doesnt define Fi, but through what it does or aims to achieve. It defines it through "lack of Te". How does lack of Te make it a moral decision and if Te is not moral and Fi is moral where do Ti and Fe stand? It sounds like she is defining Fi from what it is not, but all Lenore seems to know is what Fi is not(Te) and what it aims to achieve.
I think some of your criticisms of lenore's ideas are from the incomplete information I gave you. Im sorry about that. Take a look at how all the functions are defined here:
Philosophical Exegesis

When you read the Te one, the Ti one, the Fe one, etc it all makes a lot more sense as a systematic tinkering with functions (rather than just "Fi is absence of Te").