I'm not sure I really understand what you're driving at in this thread, you seem to be conflating Feeling with emotion, which is muddying things somewhat...
Inquiring into the difference. Even perhaps into the mechanics of the construction of one from the other, assuming there is such a construction.
Impression = internal affect
Expression = extent to which affect is expressed to others.
That's what you say now. But when I think "feeling" I don't think expression at all. So I wondered. (I also don't think "impression" much either, and I'm aware, I guess, of choosing introverted feeling and accepting that it's introverted, un-joined to outside influences, etc and so on.)
Those two things are not necessarily correlated. Extraverted feelers are much more likely to express flamboyance/emotional volatility, but I really don’t see how we can measure how deeply people feel relative to others. One can only offer a subjective assessment of one’s own emotional climate, and not necessarily an honest one. I do not believe that Feelers “feel†more intensely than Thinkers. There is no reason to suppose that they do.
There isn't? They make a lot more noise about it. (Just between you and me, this thread was originally started to deflate this word "intensity", it seeming to be somewhat overblown.)
How can you justify saying that thinking is more conscious than feeling?
Function order? Personal maturity?
They are both rational processes. They are both higher order functions. Both unconnected with the primitive limbic brain that handles emotion.
There's another mechanism now?
The only difference is that Feeling values emotional input, whereas Thinking tends to devalue it.
Ah. But, what? Feeling has this extra mechanism? Does Thinking have some backroom antechamber too? So even if Jungian typology starts making it look like there's some kind of isometry between Fi and Ti and between Fe and Te.... wait, what, no, jumping the gun in conclusions.... there may remain that isometry, as in the structure of the function is formally the same or similar, but the origin of the content is different. Or something.
Feeling consults emotion to steer decision making – it’s a self-reinforcing system. Fi says: What are my values? What happens when I violate one of those values? How does it make me feel? Fe says: What are the groups values? What happens if someone violates those values? What is the impact on the group? Entirely rational.
Emotion as premise, feeling as conclusion?
Or better: a range of emotions in a variety of circumstances as a set of premises, feeling as conclusion?
Or emotions gave rise to some feeling system and whatever logic that goes on is entirely inside that system, feeling as premise and then feeling as conclusion.
Or, space monkeys. i dunno.
I wonder a couple of things. First, if one goes ahead and suggests some isometry between feeling and thinking, is it true or is it an attempt to move feeling understanding into the realm of thinking to make it more recognisable to thinkers. Second, if feeling actually is rational, which one does one attend to, feeling or emotion?
And a couple of other things but I don't know what they are because this is weird and unsettling territory.