Why Are Ti and Fe "Merry" Functions, and Te and Fi "Serious" Functions?
(in the senses in which we understand them now)
Definitions:
merriness = global scale
seriousness = local scale
logic = objects, the objective part of the world (evaluations according to formalizable, measurable criteria)
ethics = subjects, the subjective part of the world (evaluations that depend on the essence and internal characteristics of the subject)
statics = that which is immanently inherent and reflects an unchanging essence
dynamics = that which is situational, subject to influence, and reflects current resource needs
According to the logic of small groups:
statics|dynamics = logic|ethics * merriness|seriousness
Expanding the formula:
statics = merry logic + serious ethics
dynamics = merry ethics + serious logic
Substituting the definitions into the formula:
that which is immanently inherent = the globality of the objective + the locality of the subjective
that which exerts influence situationally = the globality of the subjective + the locality of the objective
Thus, what is the difference between the objective and the subjective in their unchanging essence [statics]? The subjective is always only one of the possible particular views of the objective. The subjective is located within the subject, whereas the objective is objective precisely because it is located outside the subject and becomes accessible only through the generalization of the experience of many subjects at once. What may be called maximally objective is that which remains unchanged and manifests itself identically for any subject, wherever that subject may be. Such are the laws of the Universe [knowledge of which constitutes the domain of Alpha Ti], as well as, to a considerable extent, the written laws of society, provided that they apply identically to all its subjects regardless of the situation, and that this society is sufficiently extensive that subjects rarely pass beyond its boundaries [the domain of Beta Ti]. Maximally subjective, by contrast, is that which constitutes the unchanging essence of one individual subject - that which is true only for that subject and is not susceptible to the influence of the objective external situation. This includes subjects’ personal characteristics that are innate or were acquired long ago and have become established in their character, as well as tastes and preferences associated with these characteristics [the domain of Fi].
It should be noted that the scale between the subjective and the objective is continuous here, and the following rule generally applies: the larger the scale we consider, the more the systems existing at that scale are purged of the subjective preferences of their creators and participants, owing to the inevitability of conforming to the global laws that stand above the world; conversely, if systems become too small, all their stable characteristics begin to be perceived as increasingly subjective. It is precisely for this reason that Ti, as logic in statics, is always quick to generalize and declare its laws universal - because it does not want its logical constructions to be perceived as merely the “peculiarities of one guy’s thinking” and does not want accusations of subjectivity (and thereby devaluation). Static ethics, Fi, by contrast, seeks to create communicative rituals intelligible only within a narrow circle of “one’s own” - because it does not want objectification (the translation of its relationships into the language of logic and, again, thereby their devaluation).
Now let us consider the difference between the objective and the subjective in their methods of interacting with the situation [in dynamics].
The subject is always interested in increasing the effectiveness of its methods of influence - both in order to be able to influence a larger number of other subjects (a larger number in the case of extraverts) and to have a greater probability of influencing each individual subject (a greater probability in the case of introverts). In any event, it is advantageous for the subject to use instruments of influence that have a more universal, global application. Why are both emotional intensity and the pursuit of beauty for beauty’s sake (toward decorating reality) characteristic of dynamic ethics, Fe? Because images of passion and images of beauty are the strongest instruments through which a subject can influence other subjects, and they are the strongest because they appeal to generalized preferences prevalent among the masses[* - see below].
Te, for its part, seeks to influence the situation in an objectively optimal manner. To this end, it resorts to the analysis of facts. Several possibilities arise here. Thus, when A, B, and C, in their separate locations, arrive at the same conclusions independently of one another and perform a particular task in the same way, there is a strong likelihood that their methods are objectively optimal and that the undertaking is objectively advantageous (valuable from the standpoint of Te). But when A, B, and C do something in one way rather than another because their subjective preferences are being influenced by something external, then from the standpoint of Te this is an entirely different situation. In such a case, Te sees not three facts, but only one. For example: the method adopted by A, B, and C is optimal only from the standpoint of a certain subject D, a propagandist from whom they all adopted it. Or: the method of A, B, and C is a spontaneously arisen fashion. In any event, the value of the method of A, B, and C from the standpoint of Te now decreases many times over; it is already perceived as more subjective than objective. But Te, as logic, seeks to analyze objective reality, not the dynamics of other people’s desires. It therefore requires the presence of many independent actors (sources of facts) and the absence of a single field through which everyone influences everyone else.
Conversely, Fe finds the division of society into numerous local, isolated small worlds repugnant, because in that case a distinct approach would have to be selected for the representatives of each of them, which already amounts to replacing the subjective (emotions) with the objective (analysis of facts), something unacceptable to ethics.
[*] - material recommended in connection with this:
“Alexander Markov: Beauty – Encoded Benefit”
Conclusions. Merriness is a global scale, the level of the preferences of the masses. These preferences, on the one hand, embody universal, objectively existing laws (Ti); on the other, they are an instrument for influencing the masses by bringing other subjects into one or another emotional state (Fe). Seriousness is a local scale, the level of the preferences of individuals and small communities. These preferences, on the one hand, reflect the stable characteristics of subjects - private individuals (Fi); on the other, they are objective facts, the analysis of which makes it possible to develop business schemes, methods, and algorithms (Te).