Metabolism PT2: Ti Platonism & Fi Animism

[@TheMasterSlasher]

I appreciate the content. Your videos are providing a lot of coherence to my own scattered thoughts and observations. Of course you are still developing your theories and corroborating them, but I resonate with the direction you are taking typology. This synthesis of typology with neuroscience/biology and philosophy comes closer to unifying disparate frameworks and therefore clarifies all of them simultaneously.

[@CognitiveTypology]

Thank you! Yes, to your point, it's my belief that in order for typology to be relevant into the 21st century, it needs to step up its game and translate its thoughts into a language compatible with existing neuroscience and cognitive science. Any model that's not trying to do this in our day and age, is ignoring existing knowledge about the mind, and is therefore failing right out of the gate. It's a difficult transition to make, because it requires greater constraints and not all models will "make it" into this new future. So, here's to hoping CT survives scientific scrutiny in the end!

[@AmyMarie1992]

I love this! The Pocahontas song reference...I literally once tried writing my own "parody" of the lyrics to that song to be about the Fi tendency to give life to objects! I was told I have a way of giving life to objects in my writing!

[@CognitiveTypology]

I bet! :) The way Fi registers objects (like sun=warmth/hope, ground=bed) has an inherently poetic nature to it. In that sense it always feels to me like Fi looks at life 'poetically' in some way.

[@extrifor]

Thanks for the thorough explanation! I've always wondered why most definitions of Fi doesn't explain about its nature of 'breaking information'. And now from my perspective you defined that symmetry of Fi & Ti so well. I think both are actually reductive, with one emphasizing accuracy and the other authenticity based on their internal matrix of judgments. Looking forward to further development of CT, especially that Compound Effect!

[@DenisaNastase]

Fi measuring how close or far one is in relation to its own ideal self - wow! Precisely on point. For Fi this measuring seems constant, so constant and innate that it can most of the times go by unnoticed, even for the Fi user. Constantly measuring themselves against an internalised - most of the times unknown - ideal self. Like a platonic form of the self itself.

[@Kataro214]

yep!! Platonic love is actually basically related. Platonic love (energetic) = NF Eros love (chemical) = SF

[@koalakultofficial]

I basically waited years for this

[@Devi-gn2cs]

Fantastic lecture! I appreciate how you're adapting the way you adress stuff depending on how your previous inferences got percieved. I recognize it must be pretty arduous to oscillate between the extremely conceptual and and the totally concrete like you do. But things keep becoming clearer the more I soak in the theory, as opposed to the usual ever-worsening meandric feeling I tend to get when digging into some other experimental grounds. So you must be doing something right ^^ Also, it's interesing to note how CT relates the whole "amuletisation" (ugly, I know) of inanimate objects to Fi, when the phenomenon is often seen as an automatic Si flag in other jungian systems, for how this phenomenon is interpreted as giving ~meaning~ to concrete information. Edit: Just read your answer to Azraella, and in this case it does help to consider the temporal dimension when looking into metabolism.

[@cassiloca]

Fantastic video, I love how you break down these concepts. You’re a great communicator

[@RohanPosthumus]

What a great lecture series! Excellent work! Can't wait for Pe and Pi metabolism videos👏🏻

[@aryam86467]

You give the best definitions of cognitive functions, idk if you have a website but your contents should be definitely recognized and used for everything that concerns mbti.

[@CognitiveTypology]

thank you! yes, I have a website at cognitivetype.com and als vultology.com and ctwiki.co - each specializing in a different focus of the model.

[@novaimperialis]

Can't wait for perception metabolism. That would be mind blowing as well.

[@salomesandroshvili5364]

Fun thing is, I'm probably Fi dom and when I film something, I always zoom it very very much, so I don't like capturing the whole garden for example but the single flower zoomed there, one by one. All of my videos mostly have zoomed views. As you said Ji mentally isolates and zooms objects

[@delilahhunter]

Great videos, really interesting! When will you upload again? Can't wait

[@novaimperialis]

18:52 demonstrative Ti can do that as well. So I don't think it's reserved only for Ti doms only. The rest of this is a pure masterpiece. Amazing. It's rare that I see such deliverance in this manner.

[@mowiecomysle-erykjasinski2208]

In my philosophy (which I call erikanism, after my middle name, which I identify with more than my first name), the universe consists of what is physical and metaphysical (metaphysical - devoid of physical properties), and a sill that we could call particles and energies. Thus, physical particles have their metaphysical equivalent in the form of metaparticles (similarly metaenergies). The laws of physics, for example, are metaphysical in themselves, because you cannot study the laws of physics themselves, but you can only understand their operation by examining the impact of the laws of physics on the physical world. There is no "physical answer" to the question "what are the laws of physics made of". Metaparticles don't have an appearance, because they don't have physical properties, and the word "particle" is used here as a simile, a kind of equivalent, because people need to visualize it somehow. The universe is made up of particles, energy, metaparticles and metaenergy, just like humans. We are physical-metaphysical beings. Thoughts are nothing more than the proper arrangement of metaparticles in our minds, our emotions are nothing but energies with positive and negative charges. Of course, this is only a small part of my system of philosophy (which also includes ethics especially in matters of romantic and sx relationships (in my philosophy, both are the same., the cause of the existence of the universe placed outside itself and many other views etc.) Of course, such a philosophy arises from the metabolism of many functions and parameters, maybe even all of them, but how much platonic is this result in your opinion?

[@CognitiveTypology]

Yes, this does seem like it's involving your whole brain and many functions! I'd probably need to read your whole theory to get a sense of what all is happening, but at a first pass, it does seem like there's strong Ji idealization happening there, with actual affirmations of metaphysical categories. Very interesting ideas.

[@Devi-gn2cs]

Sounds pretty platonician imo

[@sierrarose6211]

Great video! Very informative and a pleasure to listen to 😁

[@christianhasvik6467]

very interesting talk

[@sunsetlollypops437]

SOOOOO GOOOOODD now i finally understand

[@98Impossible]

Hi, was wondering if there's any update about when your upcoming books will be released? thanks

[@ohmyohnothegrapesarecoming2011]

this is so interesting!

[@ericnoble5194]

Can Ji treat actions as objects, like say, "What is fighting?" Would it treat all of the subsets of information related tot hat concept as a singular object?

[@CognitiveTypology]

Excellent question! That's exactly the sort of followup question that comes naturally from this. And, yes! Ji asks "what is the 'Essence' of fighting... really?" as in, what is the unique thing that makes this verb, what it is. To Ji, verbs/actions are also static ontologies it evaluates. And this goes back to a deeper point, which is that the four functions (Ji, Je, Pi, Pe) each have separate ontological treatments of objects, and each has the ability to take any object, even one passed to them by another energetic, and 'treat' that object in the language of their own processing.

[@ericnoble5194]

Thank you for taking the time to answer my previous questions. I’ve been reading up on how humans reason and what emotions are for. My question is this: When you say CT is about how we handle mental objects, are you referring to our mental imagery, “The mind’s eye” if you will? Is this more about conscious or unconscious reasoning, or both? I’m just trying to figure out how this relates to the other aspects of human mental life.

[@azraella7836]

great video! much better explanations and balance of the functions than the last one. I have a question, when you start describing a chair from Fi user point of view, you mentioned a throne for example. wouldnt that fall into Pi symbolism since chair as throne bears cross-contextual and temporal integration of multiple instances?

[@CognitiveTypology]

Thanks! And yes a chair could also trigger Pi correlations to a throne from a different (temporal) angle. My example might not have been the clearest in this case since it can overlap with Pi. What is meant by Fi chair-throne-ness is an evocation from the chair's 'personality', without actually doing temporal stitching. So to give a different example, Fi might also register a chair as a soft cloud, if it's fluffy enough, while there's no temporal connection between chairs and clouds. Fi essence-detection works in a way that neglects temporal contexts and just connects things by essential character as-is, whether they ever had a real-world conjunction or not. In the upcoming Pi video, I'll also clarify the difference between Ji taxonomizing and Pi worldview-connecting. I hope that adds more light on this difference, since I know Ji and Pi can get confused for each other.

[@azraella7836]

@@CognitiveTypology thank you for explanation. makes sense. Pi and Ji can be easily confused but I think the main difference is Pis posession of time component indeed. Ji is static.

[@ohmyohnothegrapesarecoming2011]

17:40 it’s like that vsauce video haha

[@생존유형학]

Cool

[@ericnoble5194]

So, for FeTi, it is Fe that handles the animate world of people and the self, and Fi handles it for TeFi? Is that correct? That if Ti examines the self, it treats that information as more indicative rather than imperative as Fi does. Am I on the right track?

[@CognitiveTypology]

That on the right track, yes! :)

[@ericnoble5194]

Good to know. Would it be fair to say that Ti seeks truth/definition applicable in all cases, and that Fi starts with the felt sense of the essence, and expands the definition from that? By that I mean that the unique animate essence is seen as the beginning of the definition of something, whereas Ti takes the uniqueness of something and builds a definition that applies to all variants of the object? Am I making sense?

[@DenisaNastase]

@@ericnoble5194 "Fi starts with the felt sense of the essence, and expands the definition from that?" - As a self identified Fi-Ne user, this description seemed 100% correct of how I've seen my psyche functioning.

[@ericnoble5194]

Good to know I’m on the right track.

[@atomnous]

Here's how you can interpret Ti and Fi in your system. Although in my mind, I would call these T- and T+ respectively. I will translate all the following into the language of your system. Ti is not unbiased. It's biased towards the negatives. It sees things cynically, somewhat pessimistically, or at least more easily biased towards that side. When it sees information from Pe, it will tend to want to strip it of non-essential information; it mutilates them in order to adjust it into integrable form that matches what's already known by Pi. It's reductive. Fi, on the other hand, is additive and more optimistic. In extreme form it can be too hopeful in its interpretation or overestimate the worth of something. It's creative. Both Ti and Fi might be evaluative. You said in the past that Fi is "selective", well that's incorrect. Ti is selective in its choices, and it's picky. Fi is more interested in trying new things and incorporate it into its identity. You've also referred Fi with the latter characteristics, indeed, but both things can't be mutually inclusive. Although case could be made that this characterization is more descriptive of Pe function - either Se or Ne, where Ne is more selective than Se - since it's more directly connected to the physical world, while Ji is more intellectually descriptive. Another grave mistake - where it's hard for me to believe you haven't seen this as nonsensical, which makes me wonder what could be the motivation is, although maybe it's truly a genuine mistake - is that the whole non-traditional expressions can't be relevant in regards to cognitive functions: bisexual and no-label people are more experimental, while gay and straight people are more fixed in their sexuality. In regards to gender identification, it's clear you can't say one is more feminine than the other while at the same time lumping all gender identifications into one function (Fi), simply for the fact that identifying as masculine is masculine, while identifying as feminine is feminine, both can't be mutually exclusive. The whole "LGBTQIA+" can't be used to define Ji in that respect, there are opposite phenomena in these groups. Moreover gender identity is different with sexual orientation, and that grouping is kinda useless from the start of its history. But maybe case could be made where you can differentiate between people who self-identify as something they're not and those who prefer to go no-label or those who conform strictly to their physical representations. But it would be weird to make these the signifiers of cognitive functions, since IMO they're not equal: the former is delusional. 😊

[@atomnous]

I still think that this could be simpler. Je = F - external modulator. Ji = T - internal modulator. Pe = S - external perceiver. Pi = N - internal perceiver. E = appetite +. I = aversion -. Perception uses archetypes to detect information, modulation uses instincts to control information. External information is physical and objective, internal information is psychical/genetic and subjective. Introversion creates a sense of self-differentiation through means of aversion. Extroversion enables acquirements of new information/objects. These are libidinal mechanisms. But of course the consequence is that a lot of your higher terms would have to be converted according to these changes.

[@atomnous]

While I'm susceptible to being touched by that kind of Pocahontas-like view about the world in other people, I don't produce those kind of views myself. You know what, my philosophy was even against that "be yourself" stuff, since 1) everyone is already themselves, hence it's redundant; 2) there are things that you shouldn't be. At least that's what my natural proclivity was, but I'm trying to learn to be more authentic now to my values. Also, I hate lies more than hypocrisy. I bet $100 no Fi would ever say that. My explanation is, it has something to do with having different objectives: my objective is to find the truth, Fi's objective is romance or something like that.

[@atomnous]

While there's no reason to have 8 essential functions at the same time, there is a possibility that the 8 function attitudes you found are just the higher emergent phenomena of lower brain mechanisms. The lower structure could be perception-modulation, external-internal, and appetite-aversion. In this case, there is no reason that a person must only have certain configurations of strictly 4 function attitudes. Any of these can form any of the 8 function attitudes at a given time. (Also, the proper term is "function attitude". There are only four functions (S, N, F, T), while there are eight function attitudes (Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti). Using these interchangably is just confusing, dude.) Your assertion is that Te and Fe can accomplish the same task without having to use any other function. There are two problems with this argument: 1) Just because they can accomplish the same task, doesn't mean that they wouldn't switch to one another for whatever reason, so whether they can or cannot is irrelevant; 2) Since things can't be both identical and not identical, it wouldn't be correct to say that Te and Fe can accomplish exactly the same thing in the same way, so this assertion is not exactly correct. I'm not saying that your conclusion is true or false, but this assertion doesn't support that.

[@DenisaNastase]

​@@atomnous "Fi is more interested in trying new things and incorporate it into its identity." - As a self identified Fi user, I can say this feels incorrect. Fi feels deeply selective towards the energies/experiences it subjects itself to. Fi has an internal ideal experience it wants to live, and only tries to live that ideal one, automatically feeling to reject all other non-ideal experiences. Where that ideal experience seems like the most truthful experience possible for that individual, in that particular case. Like a platonic form of the experience itself, if that makes sense.

[@DenisaNastase]

​@@atomnous "1) everyone is already themselves, hence it's redundant;" When Fi speaks about "being yourself", it refers to being one's ideal or true self. One's "platonic form" of itself, if that makes sense. Fi feels that for every being there is one true version of themselves, and a myriad of possible false ones. Fi strives to experience that true version. This ideal is held for themselves and for everything else around, including people, situations, objects, events, etc. It seeks the ideal/platonic experience of something. Like if one would have a musical instrument.. it seeks to hear the perfect music out of that instrument, feeling un-interested in all other dissonant sounds or noises. Hence, Fi views that everyone is rarely themselves, and that more often than not most people are experiencing and representing a false or dissonant version of themselves. Like a false musical note. And Fi can feel/sense viscerally when either themselves or anyone else is representing themselves according with that true version, that perfect music of themselves, or not. Hence, both Ti and Fi seem interested in the truth, but Ti might be interested in the true idea, the true platonic form of something, while Fi might be interested in the true experience of that thing.

[@Kataro214]

Fi animism is def on point. Can be very directly seen in this video for example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/in2knX2Jormohq8 Ti def on point too, though not sure if I would call it platonic. Platonic forms which platon talked about is imo NT-Ti or Ni-Ti, but that's fine I suppose, I did get the idea! ^^

[@translationmlt2128]

Do you know what is Jenna Ortega's type ?

[@PeterIntrovert]

In the head there is no little leader (process that computing information) which tells other parts what to do. As was mentioned in the link in comments section under previous video ( kzbin.infoUgkxNs1UfqvkNj7cLZbLraUImRv-TjVcwi1f?feature=shares ) idea of informations being processed is an absurd. Then why some people think that way? It's artifact from times when people do study using computer metaphor and applying it to the brain/mind. This approach have little successes becouse algoritms created like that can imitate(!) some of observable behaviours. Francisco Varela in video on which clip was based made prediction: ~ "Robots based on computation behave in silly way but if we apply principles of embody cognition then we will see robots that are more intelligent, bahave more like real organisms". Guess what... he was right and we live in times when predicted robots start to pop up. Asimo (computational models) - kzbin.infoUgkxP68pT4PBGCE7-h74rsJ3IRkSor2CCxrs?feature=shares Big Dog (3E, dynamical systems) - kzbin.infoUgkxTEvW8B6KoTxomiQCqikkaG3nSy4oY4ca?feature=shares Statement that there is some separated from motor-system computing process for analysis of objects interactions also don't make sense. We already know that motor system is engaged in cognition and in making predictions, we have theories that explains that - for example "couterfactual simulation" hypothesis: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2GrfZafa5yHqJo&feature=shares Say it again - motor-system is engaged in simulations generation (eye movement, playing simulated variations) and this is used to gaining certainty in predictions of unfolding events. I could do point after point analysis of whole video but it already been demonstrated that CT don't represent embodied cognition theories and there is no supporting evidence for CT narration. - On contrary there have been numbers of examples showing that CT present false idea of cognition. I would add one more argument this time for false assumption about Ji. Idea of mind having catalog of objects in idealized forms is an absurd also. Daniel Casasanto and Gary Lupyan in their framework - Ad Hoc Cognition (AHC) demonstrate how mental forms are created on the go. They are contructed from new simulations bounded by contexts and that have confirmation in the brain scans. It's the same situation like in case of memories. We don't have data bases with cataloged memories, we can only reconstruct past events again from the memory traces. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHibZoN6Zb6ceNk&feature=shares I have an idea how to explain something that look similar to a model of Ji presented in this video but isn't bounded to artificial and misleading cartesian narration of subjects and objects. But the comments section isn't good for that disscusions. We don't need any Ji function to explain provided in video examples.