I can only assume I’m failing miserably at what I’m trying to say. I’m really not sure how you’re understanding it, but it really seems- based on your replies- that you’re hearing something else. When you wrote this:
Ji isn't "judgey" the way Je is. I think Je types can't comprehend it because they think of judging in extroverted terms, which is about judging objects/people in order to organize them in some way (IDk...whatever). Ji is more like perfecting/refining/creating basic concepts in an exploratory way. Fi is like making art....you add a dab here & there as you go.
…because it directly followed a post in which I said “I can’t even imagine having a judgey inner worldâ€, I made the assumption that your “Ji isn’t ‘judgey’ the way Je is†was referring to my post. This made me think you must thinking I believe Ji is ‘judgey’ in the same way that Je is- and I don’t, so I tried to clarify (Ji is abstract/fragmented/personalized- I’m adding ‘personalized’ right now to try to demonstrate the point I was
trying to make). I can see how my original wording may have been unhelpful (I stated a reluctance to come to conclusions, which may have inadvertently implied I think Fi comes to immediate conclusions- I don’t, there’s a difference between judging and coming to conclusions)- but I’m not disagreeing
at all with the statement “Ji is more like perfecting/refining/creating basic concepts in an exploratory way.†The way you describe Ji is pretty much how I think I understand it, and how I see Ti as ‘working’ in me: there’s a constant comparison to something ‘pure’ or some ideal running in the background, right?
You can't seem to get past the idea that Ji+Pe just doesn't judge the object much at all, because it's basically devalued to the point of being seen as ineffectual. Ignoring what is "right there" is an integral part of keeping that concept "pure", so that the inner world is the primary gauge.
Again, I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say, or what you mean by “judge the object†[because in a sense- it’s not possible, every single cognitive event- with judging or perceiving-
does involve ‘the object’…..so I assume you’re getting the impression I’m implying a specific ratio (involving the inner concept of the object vs. interaction with the object) that’s higher than what you think it should be, or something, I don’t even know]. And I’m really not sure what you think I mean by *right there*, but honestly, this^ whole post seems like an example of exactly what I’m talking about. Ji/Pe has a tendency to want to iron out abstract nuances as they come up (*right there*) and Pi/Je has a tendency to want to make crude common agreements about something and iron out the abstract nuances later. This rubs the respective Ji function the wrong way because it seems like the Je’er is trying to establish something (which seems clearly off, or at least unfinished) as a final product. I’m not pulling this out of my ass, it’s been discussed ad nauseum- I’m just adding the phrase *right there* to indicate what it looks like to Pi (or at least, to me)- so I must be saying it in a way that’s disagreeable to you?
Je: “Okay, so it goes ‘A, B, C, D and then E.â€
Ji: “Well before B, there’s ‘A 2.002’, which looks like ‘E 2.002’- and it seems like there should be a ‘D 2.002’ but there isn’t….(etc, abstract fragments to point out something ‘pure’ about “A, B, C, D and then Eâ€).â€
The urge to apply that^ ‘pure’ inner judgment is *right there* in comparison. That’s all I’m saying. There’s some kind of urgency to fine tune things immediately.
In the way that I’m using *right there*- Ni’ers only want a nominal amount, only what seems relevant (“A, B, C, D and then Eâ€)…..and admittedly Ni doms can miss out on hearing the nuances that are relevant if we don’t see how it fits- but the reason we have less of a threshold for that happening in the moment is because we apply that abstract ‘pure’ judgment (or “noticingâ€) to terrain that’s more vast than what’s *right there*. It seems to me like this- what I’m
trying to describe- has a lot to do with what pisses you off about INFJs because instead of applying inner judgment to what’s *right there*, it gets applied to what’s *right there*
in addition to all sorts of previous observations and constructs that have been made from those observations all at the same time. Those “creepy perspective shifts†(
?) happen because of the stockpile of mental sticky notes that aren’t *right there*. And maybe it’s so ‘creepy’ and ‘delusional’ to you because it’s so foreign to the praxis of your own inner world (in the same way that closely knitting any kind of value judgment to ‘inner world’ seems unnatural to me.....
not wrong, just foreign).
When I wrote “I can’t imagine a judgy inner worldâ€, it was in response to Kalach’s ‘oh crap, am I describing introverted perception?’ comment- I was musing aloud (and unclearly, at that) a sort of agreement that it’s hard to imagine what the praxis of someone else’s inner world would look like where Ji is either the driver or the passenger (instead of someone in the backseat). Personally, attributing the ‘inner world’ with a value like beauty (or misery, or whatever) seems contrived
to me. I will ascribe qualities to the inner world- as something the inner world creates- and as such, an inner world which creates beauty is (imo) a thing of beauty…..but a blanket statement like “inner worlds are beautiful†is immediately problematic for me because inner worlds
can be beautiful but they are not inherently so. First and foremost, inner worlds to me are not beautiful or poetic (or whatever) and having a quality tied closely to it feels unnatural to me (and so it can even feel pretentious to attribute my own inner world this way). I suspect it seems contrived to
me- whilst I simultaneously believe it
does feel (and
is) authentic to others, these flowery descriptions- because it’s not my experience to have inner judgment interact so directly/fluidly with the external world.
I could very well be wrong, but I get the impression you read that statement and interpreted it with some kind of derogatory association with ‘judgy’? Because you make a point of separating “noticing†from “judgingâ€, like you have associations with “judging†and “judgy†that you don’t want incorporated into what Fi does. Your responses indicate to me that either you think I’m trying to insinuate something I’m not trying to insinuate, or
something, I just know they don’t really ‘match’ what I’m trying to say. And there’s a whole bunch of stuff that sounds like “Well before B, there’s ‘A 2.002’, which looks like ‘E 2.002’- and it seems like there should be a ‘D 2.002’ but there isn’t…†nitpicking to me, which wouldn’t be a problem if I believed we understood “A, B, C, D and then E†to be the same thing. I tried to read it, but honestly, there are so many cues that indicate you’re responding to something I didn’t intend to say that it’s just confusing and I’m having trouble making sense of it. I’ve looked for what we might be in agreement on- in the abstract nuances I’m picking up an acknowledgment that we might not be on the same page about *right there* (there's actually a lot in there I totally agree with, so I'm having trouble even understanding how you're interpreting so much of the contrary into what I said)- but it’s still so infused with an argument against something I’m not trying to say in the first place that I’m having trouble with it.
I’m hoping, as a fellow least so variant, you won’t take my lack of diplomacy here personally.