Uumlau answers your questions about Fi

[William K]

This really resonates with me. But I found myself thinking in terms of total F here; the roots being Fi and the branches being Fe and the trunk being where they resonate around each other in concentrical rings.

This is probably the individualist speaking here , but I see it as 2 different trees growing next to each other. 1 for my personal values and 1 for the societal values. Because they are so close, there will be some overlap where the branches would intertwine. Fi, in this case, would be focused mainly on the personal tree + the overlap while Fe would be looking at the society tree + the overlap.

In the worst case scenario for an Fi-user, the two trees are totally separate and he'll probably end up being a hermit of sorts.

 

[gromit]

This is probably the individualist speaking here , but I see it as 2 different trees growing next to each other. 1 for my personal values and 1 for the societal values. Because they are so close, there will be some overlap where the branches would intertwine. Fi, in this case, would be focused mainly on the personal tree + the overlap while Fe would be looking at the society tree + the overlap.

Interesting... I like that.

 

[Poki]

This is probably the individualist speaking here , but I see it as 2 different trees growing next to each other. 1 for my personal values and 1 for the societal values. Because they are so close, there will be some overlap where the branches would intertwine. Fi, in this case, would be focused mainly on the personal tree + the overlap while Fe would be looking at the society tree + the overlap.

In the worst case scenario for an Fi-user, the two trees are totally separate and he'll probably end up being a hermit of sorts.

Internally I get something the equivalent to this game on really high levels. Planarity

 

[sculpting]

The forest as metaphor - each axiom (value) is a tree. The roots are the foundational aspects of each axiom, invisible to us even. How we have come to embrace each value is almost mysterious. The trunk of the tree is the axiom, and our assertions and subjective judgements that we manifest in the world are the branches and so on. Then in our forest of axioms, are we. We are the forest, we live in this forest, are the caretakers of it, and it is one that we can shape to be beautiful, full of abundance, light and shadow places; or it can be dark and we can be lost within it, unable to elevate ourselves to the top of any given tree to see the bigger context in which we live.

There's my thoughts for now. What resonates for you?

That is really beautiful.

I feel like I have a few big roots myself. Under stress or new circumstances, I can look at the roots and go-"oh crap" as I find the roots might overlap and dont make any sense. They may even contradict each other.

For any normal situation I would take a logical path that causes the least harm-ignore those tangled roots.

But in emotional situations, it doesnt matter how much I would like to take the Te logical path-Fi makes the final judgment. So I can logically understand I should respond a certain way-but still feel horrible guilt, remorse, or shame as Fi determines what is okay or not okay. Since Fi is so simplistic, I get stuck in this strange cyclical place. Fi-the child-determines if my actions were wrong or right, then Te-the adult-metes out punishment.

To change those Fi roots? It takes pain, several days, and just letting my mind "reanneal" for lack of a better word. I have to allow feelings to happen, let Fi do whatever it is it is doing and just wait. When done-I "feel" differently. I have a new solution, a new root.

But it is like doing math with handfuls of pudding from the Te perspective. There is nothing logical-just amorphous feeling goo stuff that oozes all together and then something new is defined.

the embracing of values...Did you do this in childhood? When do you recall identifying these nascent values?

 

[PeaceBaby]

1 for my personal values and 1 for the societal values. Because they are so close, there will be some overlap where the branches would intertwine. Fi, in this case, would be focused mainly on the personal tree + the overlap while Fe would be looking at the society tree + the overlap.

This is why I like the forest metaphor better I think. A variety of trees, at different rates of development, some we feed and water well, others we neglect.

In the forest, the "care of self" tree next to the "care of others" tree could either grow in a good balance together, or one could crowd the other for space. We could mistakenly focus more on the Fe tree and our own Fi tree starts to stress ...

And the trees intertwine, enmesh, interact with each other ...

Anyway, you get the point. It allows for multiple perspectives.

 

[William K]

Internally I get something the equivalent to this game on really high levels. Planarity

Yeah, the tree is a simplification. It's probably closer to some form of neural-network with cases where multiple axioms giving birth to a single rule.

 

[gromit]

Question, how do you keep track of Fi values?

 

[uumlau]

Question, how do you keep track of Fi values?

I think you both choose them and try to learn/teach them to yourself. But there are also the subconscious values where you need to learn to listen to yourself deep inside to determine what they are.

 

[Poki]

Yeah, the tree is a simplification. It's probably closer to some form of neural-network with cases where multiple axioms giving birth to a single rule.

And everyone is in a different place with different "exceptions" to the rule for different reasons some are temporary while others try to make some permanent to maintain integrity.

This is why I personally choose to use Ti values to make sense of the mess without getting tangled in it.

 

[yvonne]

uumlau

more than a feeling!

i didn't read all the posts on this thread, but my take on Fi now is that i can't treat it as a child anymore. it is too big a part of who i am for me to do that. all i can do is learn to live with it. as it is developing, i'm learning its value and its tricks. i want to cherish it, but most of all, i want to stay open intellectually (as well as emotionally to certain extent).

 

[gromit]

I think you both choose them and try to learn/teach them to yourself. But there are also the subconscious values where you need to learn to listen to yourself deep inside to determine what they are.

It might be the no breakfast talking, but for some reason I didn't understand a single word of it...

What I mean is, I have been working on Fi (or what I believe is Fi) a lot for the past few years or so. I recently tried to compile all of my personal values/beliefs, just to help myself keep it straight and it was a huge flop. There is so much stuff in there, like this really intricate network of spaghetti, or these little post-it notes all over the place connected by straws or something... I got overwhelmed and decided it didn't need to be so formalized. But maybe I want it somewhat formalized (in a flexible way)... yes I guess that's the problem, when I try to probe in there it all moves around, shifting its form and texture and location. But if I don't look at it directly, then it seems to have more of a consistent presence.

Maybe keep poking around but also just let it be, and it will come into form, like a polaroid pic-cha...

 

[uumlau]

It might be the no breakfast talking, but for some reason I didn't understand a single word of it...

What I mean is, I have been working on Fi (or what I believe is Fi) a lot for the past few years or so. I recently tried to compile all of my personal values/beliefs, just to help myself keep it straight and it was a huge flop. There is so much stuff in there, like this really intricate network of spaghetti, or these little post-it notes all over the place connected by straws or something... I got overwhelmed and decided it didn't need to be so formalized. But maybe I want it somewhat formalized (in a flexible way)... yes I guess that's the problem, when I try to probe in there it all moves around, shifting its form and texture and location. But if I don't look at it directly, then it seems to have more of a consistent presence.

Maybe keep poking around but also just let it be, and it will come into form, like a polaroid pic-cha...

You can't verbalize it easily at all. It's Fi.

I tend to be conscious of the Fi values I choose to teach myself (which is basically Ni/Te saying "This is a good idea that makes sense; see if it aligns with everything else I feel."

But there are also unconscious values that come straight out of your emotional core inside of you. These values might best be described as answers to the questions, "What is my attitude?' and "What do I really want out of life?"

These unconscious items are far more difficult to verbalize.

 

[Poki]

You can't verbalize it easily at all. It's Fi.

I tend to be conscious of the Fi values I choose to teach myself (which is basically Ni/Te saying "This is a good idea that makes sense; see if it aligns with everything else I feel."

But there are also unconscious values that come straight out of your emotional core inside of you. These values might best be described as answers to the questions, "What is my attitude?' and "What do I really want out of life?"

These unconscious items are far more difficult to verbalize.

This to me would be the core of an axiom. Even if you try to analyze the core based on situation you may end up in a similiar situation where the core is not present. If you compare the 2 you can dig deeper into what it is at the core. The other option is to wait until that same value surfaces again and find the similarities in situations. If you run over the core value then I dont know how you could understand them deeper.

Lets say you fear telling someone something and it drives a huge emotional alue inside your core to emerge. At a later point you are able to tell this person that thing without even having to overcome that fear. This is when you can step back and look at the difference between what was and what is, help to get closer to those core axioms.

I have never faced these "emotional core values" much in my life except for maybe a handful of times, more often they have been recent and I am having to use a combination of several functions to help understand. I need to figure out what drove the "emotional core value" first though before I can understand it. Some of it is reality, some is just possibility. Some is about the execution as opposed to the thought. They are driven in different ways.

 

[gromit]

You can't verbalize it easily at all. It's Fi.

I tend to be conscious of the Fi values I choose to teach myself (which is basically Ni/Te saying "This is a good idea that makes sense; see if it aligns with everything else I feel."

But there are also unconscious values that come straight out of your emotional core inside of you. These values might best be described as answers to the questions, "What is my attitude?' and "What do I really want out of life?"

These unconscious items are far more difficult to verbalize.

Ah. I the distinction you are making.

This to me would be the core of an axiom. Even if you try to analyze the core based on situation you may end up in a similiar situation where the core is not present. If you compare the 2 you can dig deeper into what it is at the core. The other option is to wait until that same value surfaces again and find the similarities in situations. If you run over the core value then I dont know how you could understand them deeper.

Lets say you fear telling someone something and it drives a huge emotional alue inside your core to emerge. At a later point you are able to tell this person that thing without even having to overcome that fear. This is when you can step back and look at the difference between what was and what is, help to get closer to those core axioms.

I have never faced these "emotional core values" much in my life except for maybe a handful of times, more often they have been recent and I am having to use a combination of several functions to help understand. I need to figure out what drove the "emotional core value" first though before I can understand it. Some of it is reality, some is just possibility. Some is about the execution as opposed to the thought. They are driven in different ways.

YEAH. I don't have much to say except that I can relate.

Or that sometimes different experiences will feel like they are triggering the same "axiom" as you call it. That's another good time to examine.

 

[Poki]

You can't verbalize it easily at all. It's Fi.

I tend to be conscious of the Fi values I choose to teach myself (which is basically Ni/Te saying "This is a good idea that makes sense; see if it aligns with everything else I feel."

But there are also unconscious values that come straight out of your emotional core inside of you. These values might best be described as answers to the questions, "What is my attitude?' and "What do I really want out of life?"

These unconscious items are far more difficult to verbalize.

So this Ni/Te is read like it is a barrier above the emotional core. That makes perfect sense when you combine it with that thread about how you handle the Fi/Te conflicts. So Ni/Te is your expansions beyond your core. They are your branches.

How do you compare logical ideas with feelings? This is what has always stumped me?

 

[sculpting]

What I mean is, I have been working on Fi (or what I believe is Fi) a lot for the past few years or so. I recently tried to compile all of my personal values/beliefs, just to help myself keep it straight and it was a huge flop. There is so much stuff in there, like this really intricate network of spaghetti, or these little post-it notes all over the place connected by straws or something... I got overwhelmed and decided it didn't need to be so formalized. But maybe I want it somewhat formalized (in a flexible way)... yes I guess that's the problem, when I try to probe in there it all moves around, shifting its form and texture and location. But if I don't look at it directly, then it seems to have more of a consistent presence.

Maybe keep poking around but also just let it be, and it will come into form, like a polaroid pic-cha...

This kinda sounds familiar-could this be part of leading with Ne? We can view our own Fi rules from very different perspectives and then identify very different possibilities? I dunno, just throwing the idea out there.

 

[uumlau]

So this Ni/Te is read like it is a barrier above the emotional core. That makes perfect sense when you combine it with that thread about how you handle the Fi/Te conflicts. So Ni/Te is your expansions beyond your core. They are your branches.

How do you compare logical ideas with feelings? This is what has always stumped me?

They're different computational spaces.

You know how in physics you can solve a problem at least two or three different ways, starting with different principles (even drastically different, like quantum vs classical), and still end up with the same conclusions? The process to get to the conclusion vastly differs, but ideally the conclusions are the same.

You also know, in physics, that if the different approaches arrive at different conclusions, then something is wrong with one of them. Maybe not vastly wrong, but you can see the "inconsistency" between feelings and logic. Yes, everyone can do this at a superficial level, but that isn't quite what I'm talking about.

According to logic, all the feelings are inconsistent. According to Fi, they're "just feelings". Fi has its own decision-making process that evaluates feelings (among other things).

Fi evaluates and draws conclusions. Those conclusions inform Ni/Te. Ni/Te does its own independent evaluation and draws conclusions. Those conclusions inform Fi.

95% of the time, it's all in sync. 5% of the time there is a conflict that requires resolution. The conflict is resolved when Fi and Ni/Te are in sync again.

Of course, this is a simplification and an idealization. What really happens, especially if it's something big from my emotional core, is that both Fi and Ni/Te fail to even draw conclusions, or Fi knows its conclusions and Ni/Te is going "No, not yet, it isn't time," or Ni/Te knows that something has to happen right now, no matter what, and Fi is saying "Waitwaitwaitwait I'm not ready, yet."

That's where "Me" comes in, and has to arbitrate, and decide.

Deciding might be analogous to an "experiment." I end up having to go with some decision, and I evaluate the results. The results help me determine which, if either, of Fi or Ni/Te is "correct." Whichever one isn't "correct," learns the new "rule." So, gradually, "Fi rules" get translated into "Ni intuition" for faster processing.

(This is an INTJ perspective where Ni is my dom, so it's my fastest most efficient process, and it pays for Ni to intuit what Fi "would decide".)

 

[Poki]

They're different computational spaces.

You know how in physics you can solve a problem at least two or three different ways, starting with different principles (even drastically different, like quantum vs classical), and still end up with the same conclusions? The process to get to the conclusion vastly differs, but ideally the conclusions are the same.

You also know, in physics, that if the different approaches arrive at different conclusions, then something is wrong with one of them. Maybe not vastly wrong, but you can see the "inconsistency" between feelings and logic. Yes, everyone can do this at a superficial level, but that isn't quite what I'm talking about.

According to logic, all the feelings are inconsistent. According to Fi, they're "just feelings". Fi has its own decision-making process that evaluates feelings (among other things).

Fi evaluates and draws conclusions. Those conclusions inform Ni/Te. Ni/Te does its own independent evaluation and draws conclusions. Those conclusions inform Fi.

95% of the time, it's all in sync. 5% of the time there is a conflict that requires resolution. The conflict is resolved when Fi and Ni/Te are in sync again.

Of course, this is a simplification and an idealization. What really happens, especially if it's something big from my emotional core, is that both Fi and Ni/Te fail to even draw conclusions, or Fi knows its conclusions and Ni/Te is going "No, not yet, it isn't time," or Ni/Te knows that something has to happen right now, no matter what, and Fi is saying "Waitwaitwaitwait I'm not ready, yet."

That's where "Me" comes in, and has to arbitrate, and decide.

Deciding might be analogous to an "experiment." I end up having to go with some decision, and I evaluate the results. The results help me determine which, if either, of Fi or Ni/Te is "correct." Whichever one isn't "correct," learns the new "rule." So, gradually, "Fi rules" get translated into "Ni intuition" for faster processing.

(This is an INTJ perspective where Ni is my dom, so it's my fastest most efficient process, and it pays for Ni to intuit what Fi "would decide".)

So your default is based on past Fi unless the current situation causes your emotional core Fi to override Te/Ni.

So when you say lately you have been using Fi are you listening to your emotional core, or your past Fi? Or a combination of both?

 

[uumlau]

You make me smile.

You should still think though. I lead with Fi, have come to trust it more and more as my life evolves, but I still think; everything requires the proper balance in order to function well.

Yes. Interestingly, it is a dynamic -- not a static -- balance. Something else has to be "out of balance" in order for anything to function. E.g., a star is both in balance dynamically, but out of balance in a static way: the energy of the star is not unlimited, and the expenditure of energy is required to maintain the dynamic balance.

In a certain irony, I sometimes need to follow that advice too: "At that point, one has to let go and trust Fi." When one does not grow with the confidence in one's dominant function, when the world appears to favor logic, one has to grow back into Fi and afford it the respect it deserves.

I think I see this a lot in xNFPs. Te can be generously rewarded (materially) for accomplishing seemingly trivial tasks. Yet one can come up with an Fi insight that took years of experience and suffering to achieve, and have nothing (material) to show for it. It's easy to just ignore Fi. It's what society teaches: Fi is inconvenient. Oh, well, the nice, warm fuzzy Fi motivational thingies? Oh, they're OK, but leave out those bad feelings, please.

It shouldn't be surprising that lots of xNFPs tend to develop a strong Te, sometimes dwarfing what should be a more significant preference for Fi, without becoming an xNTJ.

Just because you may sometimes feel bad too - that does not necessarily mean you need a whole new tree. There are subtleties and nuances to refine your rules rather than thinking a whole swap-out is in order. Explore what makes you feel bad, sit with it for a while - what isn't jiving, what isn't right. That will help you use Fi in a mature manner, a discerning manner. Not just in a "right or wrong" way. Like a compass, a divining rod of sorts.

Yes. It isn't about feeling good or bad. It just is. One can either pay attention or ignore it. I don't recommend ignoring it.

However, I think you still misunderstand the rules swap out, as I describe it. It's OK, everyone does, from what I've seen: only those very adept with Ni catch on quickly, which is how I primarily spot INxJs in real life. The net effect is probably the same as what you're thinking of, but the means is very different. All of the "rules" are up for grabs, even when adjusting for a "nuance." E.g., Newtonian gravity still works the same even after Einstein. Einstein just added a "nuance" that forces the math to be very qualitatively different, even though the actual physics and numbers are only slightly different.

A Te analysis of the "swap out" will see hardly anything has changed. To Fi ... everything has changed. The world is new, again.

Think of that little compass needle, bobbing around in the housing of the compass. You stop and look at it - it's still bobbing, will it point north or south, it appears tremulous, uncertain. But if you stand still long enough it will come to point. And too - where it stops is not right or wrong per se; it just IS.

Yes.

It tends to point at ME.

Still reflecting on the tree / forest metaphor.

In some ways, the whole metaphor could rest on a single tree. The roots are the axioms (values), invisible, that ground us and feed into the trunk of the tree, the way we begin to manifest in the outer world. The branches are the assertions we make (or theorems) and this in turn leads to smaller branches and leaves, even each branch bearing fruit ties in nicely to our metaphor. How well we nourish our roots is reflective of how strong and tall and fruitful we can become.

The forest as metaphor - each axiom (value) is a tree. The roots are the foundational aspects of each axiom, invisible to us even. How we have come to embrace each value is almost mysterious. The trunk of the tree is the axiom, and our assertions and subjective judgements that we manifest in the world are the branches and so on. Then in our forest of axioms, are we. We are the forest, we live in this forest, are the caretakers of it, and it is one that we can shape to be beautiful, full of abundance, light and shadow places; or it can be dark and we can be lost within it, unable to elevate ourselves to the top of any given tree to see the bigger context in which we live.

There's my thoughts for now. What resonates for you?

Hmm, that doesn't resonate for me. It's too ... detailed. For me, it's more like my avatar (currently ball of light/flame held in left hand - the theme should be familiar, by now).

As you said earlier, it just IS. It's just THERE, for me. It doesn't even really "do" anything, but it's the reason I do anything. It's the "why."

The closest anything analytical comes to this? Not trees or axioms, that's for sure. I can get axioms out of it. I can get rules out of it. But none of these things describe it. It's like a quantum state. Observations affect it. Try to pin it down as this or that, and it will either "comply" and become this or that, or it will stubbornly be something else, neither this nor that.

Gromit came very close in some discussions of ours on a parallel topic w/r to Tao. You can't know it, but you can be it.

That is really beautiful.

I feel like I have a few big roots myself. Under stress or new circumstances, I can look at the roots and go-"oh crap" as I find the roots might overlap and dont make any sense. They may even contradict each other.

For any normal situation I would take a logical path that causes the least harm-ignore those tangled roots.

But in emotional situations, it doesnt matter how much I would like to take the Te logical path-Fi makes the final judgment. So I can logically understand I should respond a certain way-but still feel horrible guilt, remorse, or shame as Fi determines what is okay or not okay. Since Fi is so simplistic, I get stuck in this strange cyclical place. Fi-the child-determines if my actions were wrong or right, then Te-the adult-metes out punishment.

To change those Fi roots? It takes pain, several days, and just letting my mind "reanneal" for lack of a better word. I have to allow feelings to happen, let Fi do whatever it is it is doing and just wait. When done-I "feel" differently. I have a new solution, a new root.

But it is like doing math with handfuls of pudding from the Te perspective. There is nothing logical-just amorphous feeling goo stuff that oozes all together and then something new is defined.

the embracing of values...Did you do this in childhood? When do you recall identifying these nascent values?

I think that part of what is going on here, Oro, is overthinking things. It's trying to know/understand what is going on inside you. For us, "knowing" is Te. It isn't without value, but it also isn't helpful to for understanding Fi. At best, it can translate Fi into something objective, even if the result is "illogical." The "reanneal" to which you refer is apt: if Fi is "being," then one essentially changes who/what/how one is in order to accommodate what Fi "tells" us. This is also roughly analogous to my description of swapping out entire sets of axioms.

 

[Amargith]

Still reflecting on the tree / forest metaphor.

In some ways, the whole metaphor could rest on a single tree. The roots are the axioms (values), invisible, that ground us and feed into the trunk of the tree, the way we begin to manifest in the outer world. The branches are the assertions we make (or theorems) and this in turn leads to smaller branches and leaves, even each branch bearing fruit ties in nicely to our metaphor. How well we nourish our roots is reflective of how strong and tall and fruitful we can become.

The forest as metaphor - each axiom (value) is a tree. The roots are the foundational aspects of each axiom, invisible to us even. How we have come to embrace each value is almost mysterious. The trunk of the tree is the axiom, and our assertions and subjective judgements that we manifest in the world are the branches and so on. Then in our forest of axioms, are we. We are the forest, we live in this forest, are the caretakers of it, and it is one that we can shape to be beautiful, full of abundance, light and shadow places; or it can be dark and we can be lost within it, unable to elevate ourselves to the top of any given tree to see the bigger context in which we live.

There's my thoughts for now. What resonates for you?

YES! That's exactly what it feels like. But then with a forest lake to act as a mirror of the soul in the middle, hidden from the world, deep within the forest.

That's where I live.