silverchris9, on 15 January 2011 - 05:52 AM, said:
I like the idea of personal experience allowing an impersonal/non-personal and nonetheless subjective impression to arise. I mean, that's the idea of "holding the mirror up to nature" right? Art remains subjective; it isn't true or false by any objective metric, any correspondence to a set of facts. Nevertheless, the truth revealed by art is non-personal; that is, the information communicated by Hamlet is not communicable only to Shakespeare, nor is the information communicated by a Hemingway short story communicable only to Hemingway, despite the fact that these subjective impressions arose first in the minds of Shakespeare and Hemingway respectively. It is subjective truth that is about the self but not only about the self.
Hmm, very interesting analysis.
Even though the information in Shakespeare's works or Hemingway's stories are communicable to more people than just the authors, there's still the element of subjectivity that the audience creates for itself. The way the audience interprets the information provided, when paired up with their own experiences and beliefs, creates a subjectivity in the audience's mind that only the individual can completely understand given the situation. This would be a more Fi way of understanding the emotions I suppose, not necessarily how the subjectivities exist by themselves but how they work in the grand scheme of "the individual".
silverchris9, on 15 January 2011 - 05:52 AM, said:
It's kind of like how I study my own reactions to things, and my own changes over time, but when I study myself, I'm really interested in knowing something broader, something about people in general. And that, I think, is very Ni: extrapolating out from limited circumstances, going back in the chain of causality or priority or whatever to the things that are common to everyone (I have an image now of a big ball of junk that branches out in various directions, but nevertheless has a center point...? And so when you draw back towards your own center point, you get closer and closer to the center points of others?)
This imagery you described is kind of what I'm trying to get at, lol. Like, the imagery that Ni people produce has some sort of inherent meaning deeper than just the images themselves, but they aren't based in one's own personal experiences. They're just physical properties and shapes existing in the mind of the person, becoming a subjectivity with images not based in the self.
What's more, the way you interpreted the imagery seems like a sort of personal objectivity and impersonal subjectivity in one: things that exist as personal entities to the Ti/Fe mindset seem to be seen as things consistently indicative of other people. I've kinda heard sentiments like this before, where Fe valuers will explain how doing a specific action
will cause a specific emotion to arise in a very declarative "X=Y" manner: "When you give to charity, you feel good about yourself," etc.
0
imagery she experiences is something of an "impersonal subjectivity," a concept that made no sense to me initially. Then it occurred to me that it has to do with the involved/abstracted dichotomy mixing with the object/field dichotomy, and as a Beta both of her field/subjective IEs would be abstracted, 
. 
and 
. As such, I've always considered the words "personal" and "subjective" to have almost the same meaning, so the idea of something being both impersonal and subjective was a contradiction in terms to me.
interaction, particularly an 
