Uumlau answers your questions about Fi

[uumlau]

Use Ti to logically run down paths that "are not wrong". In certain instances you will run across Fi. The hardest part is that you must be able to keep yourself in the dark, to be able to hide certain things. This opens up the possibilities for Ti to explore in an Fi manner. You have to know your logic and know what causes what and be able to hide, to convince yourself. Basically take control of the logical path. You know how some people will turn the TV off when previews come on or refuse to hear how a game turns out. You must take that approach with logic. Its really hard to do for a Ti dom as I have to play heavily with Se and Ni and find things that are "not wrong". This is scary because of the paths it leads down and the possible truths that get revealed. What you need to reach this is security and comfort. Basically the security and comfort that puts Se and Ni back in place from the path it went down. A truth that Se can sense that removes all doubt that you reach going down those other paths.

Well said, Poki.

Ti's strength and weakness is that desire to not be wrong. The strength is obvious. The weakness is that, in its subjectivity, Ti might actually be wrong about something, and all the paths it says "are not wrong" actually are wrong, and you don't realize it, because all of your logical requirements have been met. Fi has this same issue. It will insist upon upholding values that "feel right," but because it is subjective and may not have reflected upon the implications of those values well, it does not realize that the values (or combination thereof) are wrong.

For both Fi and Ti, this is where intuition becomes useful, introducing other possibilities that might be right, and in the event of a severe contradiction, will cause Fi or Ti to reevaluate and establish better internal values. To access intuition, one must drop the "right/wrong" thinking, and substitute the "WTF" or "maybe" thinking of intuition.

 

[Poki]

So you establish a boundary condition on the "problem" at hand-that you must not cross an Fi path? Thus all logical solutions are valid, all Ti paths can be followed-except those which cross an Fi path? And you use Se and Ni to try and feel out where those Fi paths are? And you use security and comfort as guides to where the Fi path is? (have an Fe-ish Fi hug, cause Ijust made all that stuff up I dunno... but your SeNi is like a puzzle!)

Its hard to define what a boundary condition is though. I leverage so many things in my external world that am able to limit the boundaries I must put up. All Ti paths can be followed except those which I cannot currently handle the Fi involved. It would be like the furnace door scenario. I open these doors, but I do so at my own pace and that allows me to maintain my own balance.

Ti logic has multiple paths that are "not wrong" and I can choose anyone of these paths, they are truths, but not all encompassing. Because they are truths I can follow them without fear of leading down a Fi path I am not ready to go down. They will loop back and as long as I choose the same path I will hit this logical loop. Ti sees many logical paths and I may go down one, hit an Fi area I am not ready to go down, step back and take another path. I become aware of this path and since I havnt proceeded down it I can twist and mangle my perception creating psuedo logical paths exploring Fi in a safe manner. If Fi becomes to scary I can step back and go down another path that is true, sometimes I go to far down and it takes time to step back as I have to almost forget that path. I dont remember every path I go down. This is why being subjectively logically true is very important for me. I have lots of doors that are closed and certain doors need to be opened and explored fully before others. Its really complicated to explain.

I have never seen Fi in a child-parent manner. Just something that needs to be worked with and balanced in the overall progression of existance.

 

[Poki]

Well said, Poki.

Ti's strength and weakness is that desire to not be wrong. The strength is obvious. The weakness is that, in its subjectivity, Ti might actually be wrong about something, and all the paths it says "are not wrong" actually are wrong, and you don't realize it, because all of your logical requirements have been met. Fi has this same issue. It will insist upon upholding values that "feel right," but because it is subjective and may not have reflected upon the implications of those values well, it does not realize that the values (or combination thereof) are wrong.

For both Fi and Ti, this is where intuition becomes useful, introducing other possibilities that might be right, and in the event of a severe contradiction, will cause Fi or Ti to reevaluate and establish better internal values. To access intuition, one must drop the "right/wrong" thinking, and substitute the "WTF" or "maybe" thinking of intuition.

I fall back into Se as a safety and a reset. Lets get back to what I see, reset the path I am on. Kinda like in a racing game when you take a wrong path and the game picks you up and places you back on the right path. The right path for me is a combination of Se mixed with objectivity and would be like an arrow that just points toward the right direction.

edit: The problem I see with your statement and how it relates to Ti is that what is "not wrong" has the possibility of being right so how do I differentiate other "not wrong possibilities with subjective not wrong possibilities". "possibilities that might be right" are the same as "possibilities that are not wrong."

 

[Udog]

Thank you for this thread, uumlau.

One frustrating thing about Fi is that it's difficult to really have an open discussion about what is Fi. Fi discussions have a tendency to devolve into people talking about themselves, which can lead to stepping on toes as people say, "Fi isn't like that, let me explain what I'm like what Fi is really like."

I appreciate this thread because your attempts to deconstruct Fi through a different lens has provided me insight I hadn't previously considered. I strongly agree with many aspects of your first post. (I hope to check out your epic axiom post above when I have a bit more time.)

Fi is the preference to face it all head on. Hence the vibe of "personal integrity." Developing Fi means looking at yourself, metaphorically naked, and understanding yourself, and forgiving yourself.

That last phrase is the most important part, especially if you have something really tough to deal with, inside. The way you open the furnace door and enter without burning yourself (or imploding or something ) is to arm yourself with forgiveness. You adopt a frame of mind and say, "It's OK. Whatever I find, it's OK."

Acceptance comes before forgiveness.

Eventually, you will start deciding that certain aspects of your inner self are "not OK," but that's much more advanced work. If you decide that something isn't OK, and decide to try and "delete it," you might find out the hard way that you just deleted a core operating system file and crash. I believe the INFP tendency to be typically more emotionally unstable derives from this phenomenon: they decide to delete things while they're still too young to understand what they're doing, and they go crazy.

Great insight, and I strongly agree with it. I enjoyed your metaphor to boot.

That's the far end of the journey. Right now, your journey is more like that of a child, discovering wonders and horrors within yourself, and seeing them all anew as if for the first time. Like a child, keeping your mind open about how it all "works", not forcing any external labels or biases on your inner self (which is what Fe will try to do for you), just accepting it all as is. After a long while of cataloging, you eventually start learning what's what, and slowly begin learning how to face it.

Now here's the secret to Fi: be stubborn. Face yourself and do not back down. Don't hurt yourself, don't fight yourself, but just stand there (metaphorically, of course) and face all of that crap you don't want to see. All of the flaws in that wonderful gem that is you. What you'll start to see is that YOU are far more significant than all that random emotional crap inside of you. That YOU have the power to decide what you will and won't do. That YOU can take that which is beautiful in you and nourish it and make it grow to the point that it brightens everything and everyone around you. That YOU can stand up to all those fears and worries and hurts ... and instead of deleting them, give them so much love that they become lessons instead of wounds.

May I offer my opinion?

In order to understand something, we must first be willing accept it. I can see how it would take stubbornness for a T to submit to Fi, so I find this to be a very insightful first step. Once you gain that stubbornness, that's where acceptance comes in. Acceptance of the self, whatever you find. (Submission is also a good term others have used.) With that, the defensive mechanisms come down, and it becomes possible to understand.

From there, change becomes possible.

 

[uumlau]

Acceptance comes before forgiveness.


May I offer my opinion?

In order to understand something, we must first be willing accept it. I can see how it would take stubbornness for a T to submit to Fi, so I find this to be a very insightful first step. Once you gain that stubbornness, that's where acceptance comes in. Acceptance of the self, whatever you find. (Submission is also a good term others have used.) With that, the defensive mechanisms come down, and it becomes possible to understand.

From there, change becomes possible.

I don't disagree at all. Acceptance comes first. I personally tend to lump acceptance and forgiveness into the same attitude of openness. They are not technically the same thing, but in my mind they are so intertwined that I can easily forget that others separate them.

Note that I say: "It's OK, whatever I find," where you only say it slightly differently, "Acceptance of the self, whatever you find."

Thank you so much for your kind words, Udog. I hope we all learn a lot from this thread. I am particularly interested in what insights are new and intriguing to you. I find it fascinating to learn what things other people don't find obvious. It's an affliction of the INTJ which really hinders communication: I'll assume that others see what I see, but they don't, and thus my efforts to convey ideas will fail in such cases.

 

[Udog]

I don't disagree at all. Acceptance comes first. I personally tend to lump acceptance and forgiveness into the same attitude of openness. They are not technically the same thing, but in my mind they are so intertwined that I can easily forget that others separate them.

Note that I say: "It's OK, whatever I find," where you only say it slightly differently, "Acceptance of the self, whatever you find."

So you and I 99% agree...

Truthfully, if it's Fi people wish to analyze, they should make a note of how you and I disagree, rather than agree. See, we share pretty much the same belief, but we each chose the best language that resonates within us. We had different journeys with different sources for input, and ended up taking our own interpretations for what I believe to be a more universal concept. 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!)

The process of how we discovered and ultimately modeled these concepts... that's Fi (with use of other functions, admittedly). How we arrange the concepts differently... there's a good deal of Fi in that as well. From here, I think you and I could actually have a potentially interesting debate on why our models differ (if only slightly, in this case).

Too often, discussion on Fi focuses on the fact that you say OK and I say accept, and because to me it's ACCEPT, your saying it's okay threatens my view point that we must accept. This is why I think it's so hard to have discussions with Fi.

Thank you so much for your kind words, Udog. I hope we all learn a lot from this thread. I am particularly interested in what insights are new and intriguing to you. I find it fascinating to learn what things other people don't find obvious. It's an affliction of the INTJ which really hinders communication: I'll assume that others see what I see, but they don't, and thus my efforts to convey ideas will fail in such cases.

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.

You viewing Fi as a child, one that must learn to grow and mature, is another good one.

Other insights more involve how you expressed what you said (like above), and are harder for me to explain.

 

[uumlau]

The process of how we discovered and ultimately modeled these concepts... that's Fi (with use of other functions, admittedly). How we arrange the concepts differently... there's a good deal of Fi in that as well. From here, I think you and I could actually have a potentially interesting debate on why our models differ (if only slightly, in this case).

Too often, discussion on Fi focuses on the fact that you say OK and I say accept, and because to me it's ACCEPT, your saying it's okay threatens my view point that we must accept. This is why I think it's so hard to have discussions with Fi.

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.

Heck, you were probably IN the furnace for a long while.

You viewing Fi as a child, one that must learn to grow and mature, is another good one.

Yeah, it makes more sense if you're an adult and Fi is still undeveloped, and less sense if you've grown up with it and it's already fairly mature by the time you learn MBTI.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Too many multi-quotes, but here goes:

What if one is insisting that the world is flat?

Cannot some Fi axioms can be wrong or need fine tuning?

The technically correct answer is of course, yes.

However, that's the thing about an axiom - it is accepted as and appears to be a self-evident undeniable 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.

It took me quite a while to learn how to 'tone' it down without being inauthentic (and it still costs me a lot of effort to this day) in order to make it palatable to others.

I like this; I learned early that most people want the light, they want your positivity and happiness, but they don't want the "full package", they don't want your frustrations or darker moments - I think experiences like this are very foundational to enneagram type. And from that, how each type appears to manifest in the world.

so people who "wrongly" cross a Fi's core values are like an "obtuse idiot" is to a Ti person

That's probably a fair comparison.

I think of "Fi values" as being overarching axioms, analogous to "parallel lines don't intersect."

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 there 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.

Relating to Fi, for an INFP, Si comes into play as a tertiary function to remind us how we felt the last time "event x" occurred and this data helps prove or disprove the theorem. But, it takes great care and patience to realize that even though a new experience may be similar to "event x", it is not EXACTLY the same and thus may not realize the same emotional result.

Let's try something relatable: You have a few "bad" dentist appointments. You conclude that "Going to the Dentist is Painful". To prevent this from becoming a theorem that goes unchallenged, one must question all the assumptions that go into that conclusion: I don't have the same work done each time, my physical condition is not physiologically exact each time, freezing works more effectively in different areas of the mouth, different dentists are "better" etc.etc.

This is Ne / Te working I think ...

Edit: And too, some people will find examining theorems threatening until they gain greater life experience, confidence and analytical capability. Although many folks will hardly use this kind of language to do so ...

The Fi feelings/readings/interpretations all derive from these very particular axioms. The really funny part is that you "just know" that an axiom has been violated, but it takes a while to figure out "why."

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.

It all interlinks in a subjective way, and it takes time to parse through and interpret it and verbalize it coherently (with Te for example). All of the Fi judgments of good/bad/right/wrong are based on the Fi axioms, thus they are entirely derivative. That's part of the reason why you need to drop your prior concepts of right/wrong when reevaluating Fi axioms.

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.

Te has a very important role, here. Te is able to objectively determine that your axioms suck. It's no good at figuring out what they "should be," but it's great for telling Fi to go back to the drawing board and try again. It can help you see the implications of a set of values before deciding to adopt them. Ne, for xNFPs, can serve a similar role, if well-trained, for more quickly identifying potential downfalls than the slightly-too-objective Te.

This is where we will disagree - unlike theorems, Te is not "good" at saying that certain axioms suck. (An axiom being that underlying, unprovable principle.) In fact, instinctively I think examination of axioms with Te can sometimes be a spectacular personal failure.

All of these Fi-rules are very fundamental. They don't get very specific, e.g., "always take out the trash without being asked to do it." That might be a "rule" that is implied by one of the core axioms, but it would never be a core axiom/value itself.

Insert the theorem prior to the creation of Fi rules. Fi rules are built on Fi theorems premised on Fi axioms.

Rules can be bent, rules can be broken.

So projecting a sense of happiness and light emotions when you're not feeling it, can be done to self-soothe, to soothe others around you, to try and light at least a spark of inspiration in the room, but it often feels false and empty inside. Though it has its perks...just as the dark, gloomy faux values push people away and give you time to brood, this does the reverse: it attracts people and gets you the nurturing you need and often the 'fake it till you make it' principle comes true. In attracting people, you actually start to feel differently and you start to respond naturally in this lighthearted manner because those people lift your spirit. Same for the gloomy stuff: defending yourself isn't a bad thing as it gives you time to lick your wounds. In both cases though the duration of the use of 'faux' values to cope with life should be short. To get stuck in a vicious circle is to fase a life of emotional emptiness which ime translates into misery, which ever way you turn.

Very relatable; and a nice post Satine.

Uumlau, I know what you're getting at, and that is the natural state we're in when we're in balance, but I think you underestimate the magnetic pull some of us have to please others, especially when we're feeling less than secure.

I used to wait tables for several years. I would turn into a spastic glow worm of love. I would shine at my customers and they would shine back. Since it was short term-no emotional commitment or debt, it was okay and felt very nice. Making them happy made me happy. I emotionally mirrored their response, and it amplified my own. happy people=happy me. I actually feel others happiness much more strongly than my own. Making other people feel joy is like getting a hit of speed for me-it is energizing and fills me with happiness and pleasure-I did something of value.

That shine can be addicting, yes. It's nice to see people shine, so you shine more and they shine more, then you come to realize, all some want is your shine. Hard to be in good balance, as Satine points out so well in the posts above.

For both Fi and Ti, this is where intuition becomes useful, introducing other possibilities that might be right, and in the event of a severe contradiction, will cause Fi or Ti to reevaluate and establish better internal values. To access intuition, one must drop the "right/wrong" thinking, and substitute the "WTF" or "maybe" thinking of intuition.

Agreed.

One frustrating thing about Fi is that it's difficult to really have an open discussion about what is Fi. Fi discussions have a tendency to devolve into people talking about themselves, which can lead to stepping on toes as people say, "Fi isn't like that, let me explain what I'm like what Fi is really like."

Agreed.

 

[heart]

so people who "wrongly" cross a Fi's core values are like an "obtuse idiot" is to a Ti person

Honestly speaking for myself I often think such people are morally corrupt, that they can't help it because they are weak in that way and I feel pity for them. And I make a note to be wary of them and not let them in too deeply. They never know.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Honestly speaking for myself I often think such people are morally corrupt, that they can't help it because they are weak in that way and I feel pity for them. And I make a note to be wary of them and not let them in too deeply. They never know.

Yes, they are like morally corrupt obtuse idiots ...

Oh but still ...

---

Now I am dissecting some of my own thoughts: some things that are not axioms are accepted and treated like axioms.

For example, some people view the Bible as an axiom - the indisputable word of God.

If evidence were to surface tomorrow to concretely, undeniably refute that, it would be shattering.

---

Fi doesn't really exist in an either / or world though - there are infinite shades of grey. Only certain core axioms appear in that "black and white" format. Perhaps the key is being able to discern between axioms, theorems and rules ...

 

[uumlau]

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.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ 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.

 

[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.

 

[uumlau]

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?

Think about it.

The answer is not Fi.

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.

 

[sculpting]

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.

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?

 

[uumlau]

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.

 

[sculpting]

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?

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.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I appreciate your time to illustrate your perspective for me.

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.

So let me introduce you to my inner world, as described by MBTI.

k - excitedly sits back on couch to read -

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.

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

Think about it.

The answer is not Fi.

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.

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!

 

[Poki]

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.

 

[Udog]

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.