Function Maturity and Immaturity

[Words]

I think that the quality/development of one's functions can be divided into three categories and/or levels: Meta, Objective assumption, and Instinct-based.

People that often use their functions in a "meta"-way means that they excel at using their given function. Every cognitive function has a "meta" version of itself. For example, Ti has a meta-Ti which refers to applying one's personal logic to one's personal logicizing. ("My thinking is generally unbiased therefore..") Si has a meta-Si which refers to an awareness of what information one knows and also what other people know, as opposed to just accessing information. ("I know that I know how to tie a shoe. I also know that he knows how to tie a shoe.") The same logic can be applied to the other functions. Ni is creating ideas pertaining to one's ideas perhaps? Anyways, the key thing to note is that's it's all about an awareness of one's own mental processes. Perhaps the functions can also intersect with each other such as meta-Ti + Si. (I think I know this therefore..)

Conversely, people that often use their functions in an instinctive manner wherein they are not aware [they don't question] of how their instincts are driving them means that they are underdeveloped at the given function. For example, an instinctive-Fe is an Fe that judges people according to a social value norm without an awareness that they are judging the person based on a social value. [We see this a lot in society.] ("Ew, that is gross" or "That is not right.") There is not even an attempt to reflect on said judgment. Again, the same can be applied to the other functions.

The awareness of concepts relating to function maturity and immaturity can help in developing one's functions but do not necessarily translate into having these maturities as our minds work on their own in reminding itself of being more self-aware, in a meta-way, of its function usage.

Additionally, people that often use their functions with an "objective assumption" also means that they are underdeveloped at that given function. "Objective assumption" is when you think that the object you're detecting with the specific underdeveloped functions is objective. For example, ideas relating to "objective morality" or "objective aesthetics" is a form of underdeveloped feeling functions. Ideas relating to "Objective methods/solutions" is a form of underdeveloped thinking functions. "There is only one way to solve this problem." Again, the same can be applied to the other functions.

 

[Jennywocky]

The examples you offered in the Meta realm -- are they always positive or can they be negative as well? Or is that the realm of what you call Objective Assumption?

For example, I've quite commonly heard those kinds of rationalities abused.

"My thinking is generally unbiased or more unbiased than others therefore... [I can say I'm probably right even if I can't prove it, and they should just trust my thinking.]"

or

"I know that I know how to tie a shoe. I also know that he knows how to tie a shoe. [So the fact he is NOT tying his shoe means he is willfully choosing not to tie his shoes, for <whatever negative reason out there>].'"

 

[Aerl]

Spoiler

I think that the quality/development of one's functions can be divided into three categories and/or levels: Meta, Objective assumption, and Instinct-based.

People that often use their functions in a "meta"-way means that they excel at using their given function. Every cognitive function has a "meta" version of itself. For example, Ti has a meta-Ti which refers to applying one's personal logic to one's personal logicizing. ("My thinking is generally unbiased therefore..") Si has a meta-Si which refers to an awareness of what information one knows and also what other people know, as opposed to just accessing information. ("I know that I know how to tie a shoe. I also know that he knows how to tie a shoe.") The same logic can be applied to the other functions. Ni is creating ideas pertaining to one's ideas perhaps? Anyways, the key thing to note is that's it's all about an awareness of one's own mental processes. Perhaps the functions can also intersect with each other such as meta-Ti + Si. (I think I know this therefore..)

Conversely, people that often use their functions in an instinctive manner wherein they are not aware [they don't question] of how their instincts are driving them means that they are underdeveloped at the given function. For example, an instinctive-Fe is an Fe that judges people according to a social value norm without an awareness that they are judging the person based on a social value. [We see this a lot in society.] ("Ew, that is gross" or "That is not right.") There is not even an attempt to reflect on said judgment. Again, the same can be applied to the other functions.

The awareness of concepts relating to function maturity and immaturity can help in developing one's functions but do not necessarily translate into having these maturities as our minds work on their own in reminding itself of being more self-aware, in a meta-way, of its function usage.

Additionally, people that often use their functions with an "objective assumption" also means that they are underdeveloped at that given function. "Objective assumption" is when you think that the object you're detecting with the specific underdeveloped functions is objective. For example, ideas relating to "objective morality" or "objective aesthetics" is a form of underdeveloped feeling functions. Ideas relating to "Objective methods/solutions" is a form of underdeveloped thinking functions. "There is only one way to solve this problem." Again, the same can be applied to the other functions.

I agree with what you have said. You can also add as examples to the meta stage.

" I feel like feeling that way is wrong."

"I must judge my judgement so it corresponds to what is moral"

Spoiler

The examples you offered in the Meta realm -- are they always positive or can they be negative as well? Or is that the realm of what you call Objective Assumption?

For example, I've quite commonly heard those kinds of rationalities abused.

"My thinking is generally unbiased or more unbiased than others therefore... [I can say I'm probably right even if I can't prove it, and they should just trust my thinking.]"

or

"I know that I know how to tie a shoe. I also know that he knows how to tie a shoe. [So the fact he is NOT tying his shoe means he is willfully choosing not to tie his shoes, for <whatever negative reason out there>].'"

I am led to think that yes, meta realm is flawed in that regard and it is a realm
of Objective Assumption, but it is a more considerate approach to ones actions.

The man who believes himself to be right. In a sense he is likely to be more
right realative to those with whome he compares himself. His assumption of
being right will be correct as long as there is nobody smarter than him.

Analogy would be, I am 2 and I am of greater value than everyone else. This is
correct as long as everyone else consists of only 1s and does not include 3s or
4s.

What I believe to be abusive about meta realm is that no matter how hard you try, you can't come up with a truely objective view point, perfect
judgement.

In a sense it's like saying SI units are objective measurement values.

 

[Latte]

This general idea is pretty cool

@Jenaynay

Meta or not in this context is just about the nature of the perspective, not about whether the perspective will yield/be correct output or not. Meta-awareness does not necessitate accurate view of awareness, just awareness of it in some form. It can be entirely delusional.

A perspective involving it is structurally different and will lead to having to resolve more "questions" than perspectives that doesn't include it. In that sense it is usually correlative with a higher degree of transcending culture, logical systems or whatever one has strong meta-awareness about.

 

[Jennywocky]

What I believe to be abusive about meta realm is that no matter how hard you try, you can't come up with a truely objective view point, perfect judgement.

In a sense it's like saying SI units are objective measurement values.

My thought on it is that unless you are omniscient and omnipresent (so that you know all the information + see everything from every possible angle), total objectivity is impossible.

As soon as you anchor yourself (i.e., put your feet down) in one physical location, you are seeing all the data from that one position in the universe and potentially imagine but not actually experience data from other positions.

I do think the categories do rather exist -- there's definitely a perspective where you are "inside" your experience and not aware there even is an outside. Once you can step outside and meta it, you can start evaluating your own perceptions.

 

[Aerl]

Spoiler

My thought on it is that unless you are omniscient and omnipresent (so that you know all the information + see everything from every possible angle), total objectivity is impossible.

As soon as you anchor yourself (i.e., put your feet down) in one physical location, you are seeing all the data from that one position in the universe and potentially imagine but not actually experience data from other positions.

I do think the categories do rather exist -- there's definitely a perspective where you are "inside" your experience and not aware there even is an outside. Once you can step outside and meta it, you can start evaluating your own perceptions.

I agree with what you said.

But I'd like some input on another idea as well, regarding this.
If I define Objective view or Total objectivity as a form of knowing everything
and judging by universal laws. Than we can actually experience that
"everything" by just being aware and not judging, just sensing, perceiving, one
of concepts of meditation.

edit: This idea is aplicable in explaining some of my other speculations which I expressed in a few other threads.

edit2: Or on the other hand ignore what I said, I'm going off-topic here. Let's keep it as a "rhetorical question".

 

[Jennywocky]

Rhetorical response:

I agree with what you said.

But I'd like some input on another idea as well, regarding this.
If I define Objective view or Total objectivity as a form of knowing everything
and judging by universal laws. Than we can actually experience that
"everything" by just being aware and not judging, just sensing, perceiving, one
of concepts of meditation.

That sounds true. As soon as we start parsing data, we immediately fracture up a data stream into parts.... and establish a particular "position" by which we are evaluating the data.

There's also a side issue in that even if you are fully aware of the data stream, there is no way to communicate that (short of a full-package split-second telepathic "blast") to another being except through the linear process of communication, where we are breaking up a fully mapped data image capture into serial format and shooting the data over in single file, so to speak, to another's mind, whereupon they have to somehow reassemble it into its original relational form.

Anyway... getting back to the meta stuff:

Meta or not in this context is just about the nature of the perspective, not about whether the perspective will yield/be correct output or not. Meta-awareness does not necessitate accurate view of awareness, just awareness of it in some form. It can be entirely delusional.

In general, it sounds like there's more potential for it to be accurate (since it's possible to view something from multiple angles and avoid inherent flaws in an approach), but okay.

So is there value to a meta approach in itself if it might be entirely delusional? Aside from what I said / what you said about it transcending culture or whatever else?

Typically an instinctual frame's flaws revolve around flaws in the frame itself (since there is no way to self-correct)... but if the frame is actually accurate, there's not a problem. In fact, it can even offer an advantage: it results in faster responses / more efficiency, doesn't it?

 

[Latte]

Yeah, potential. I guess that's what could be deemed value if the degree to which one doesn't have flaws in one's reality structure is the ideal. Not definitely yielding fruit in that respect, but giving a higher likelihood, or... it seems that way at least.

Indeed @ last paragraphene.

 

[Grayman]

Than we can actually experience that
"everything" by just being aware and not judging, just sensing, perceiving, one
of concepts of meditation.

The brain already traslates information with bias before you can consciously judge it. When you hear words your mind has already defined them for you and you are not just simply hearing without some kind of judgment. The mind cannot absorb too much information at once so it is then bias on what is noticed. These unconscious functions being differentiated between si and se ne and ni. You can train the functions but they still are inherently subjective.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think he was talking about "before the mind has defined them for you" -- it's literally like collecting sound waves, collecting dust filtering from the air, absorbing light from the sky... passive gathering.... but the problem is that as soon as you process any of it, you are judging it.

So either you collect the data and cannot think nor speak about it (whereupon no one would even know, nor is the information useful), or you recognize and/or categorize it in some way and are no longer objective.

 

[Grayman]

I would argue that anyone trying for any objective approach is looking in the wrong place. Objectivity has no meaning, therefore no understanding beyond anticipation. It has no feeling therefore no experiencing.

Subjective is the only method. Having multiple subjective views is good for having more options and more ways to function with the world. This allows a person function in ways that better achieve their goals. Accuracy is not achievable, the only exception to all this being physics tests that make up ideal environments.

In regards to your observation. I would say that maturity or the meta- of any function is the ability to hold subjective points of view other than your own when utilizing the function.

Si - I cannot be certain of my experiences as they may be experienced differently by someone else.
Fe - What I view to be objective morality is but my subjective morality and others have theirs.
Ne - What I see as possibilities and connections are but an entire web of my understanding. There exist connections beyond these that correlate with the experiences of others.
Ti - Just because it falls in a logical line does not mean that the data is true within the logic. Others perceive the data differently and see a different meaning of the logic.

 

[Aerl]

I would argue that anyone trying for any objective approach is looking in the wrong place. Objectivity has no meaning, therefore no understanding beyond anticipation. It has no feeling therefore no experiencing.

I agree with you completely on that.

"If I define Objective view or Total objectivity as a form of knowing
everything and judging by universal law."

This is a wrong assumption because judgment in it self is subjective.

"Than we can actually experience that "everything" by just being aware"

This is a state of just anticipating. To be aware of everything of what you can be
aware of, thus, objective view.

i.e. I decide to sit down and experience this state.... I wake up in a hospital with no
clue what happened after I sat down but I have a clue that I intended to enter the
state of objective view. Or in more simple terms, I wanted to view objects: sounds,
feelings, etc.