Kahawa , I'm the same with my son. He is SiTe, and I find he responds better if I explain EPs of the group dynamics. "I'd like you to do x and not argue, because then I haven't spent energy arguing, and our household is more peaceful." Something like that. He usually already knows the reason I've asked something, but the abstract EP of tone in a household is very real. I've noticed that the idea of "respect" seems to be important to many Fe leads, in part, because of this.
teatime , do you mean that your son struggles with EPs, or you struggle with explaining them?
Would you say that "the idea of "respect" seems to be important to many Fe leads" could be said of Je leads, ie., Worldviews and Articulators?
Something that's always bugged me (in a Ji way) about the way society is set up is the idea of 'committees' and democracies, etc. It's the fact that these systems can't justify their existences based on their own principles.
I'm going to oversimplify some of these details, but bear with me, I think this is still valid.
The US has a leader who is given authority by the vote of the citizens. But how did the citizens get the authority to give it to one person via voting? I suppose there was a law written about it. Who wrote the law? (I'm super ignorant of the US political system btw.) The president? The president can't do that, because he has to get the authority first from the citizens. So perhaps Congress does or something... where did they get the authority to make a law like that? On and on it goes until we eventually get back to a group of people ('founding fathers') who got together and said, "We want to establish a new system." What gave them the authority to establish a new system? Who was in charge? How did they make decisions? By vote? Did they have a president? No, they were just smart, rich privileged people who took it upon themselves to sit together and agree, by consensus (?), to initiate a new system of authority. They said, "The people should get to choose their leader." But the people didn't get to choose to choose their leader, if that makes sense.
By initiating a new system, they were in essence justifying their process of initiating a new system. Which means, if a group of people want to start a new country and form of government, they're totally justified.
People might respond, "But they were oppressed by King George!" (or whoever it was), but what foundational principle is there that an oppressed people have the right to form a new government? "It's a law of nature!" No, it's not, it's a 'law' of rational beings. But if you keep reducing the foundational principles, you find at some point someone has basically said "Because that's how I want it to be."
I once was part of a new committee for something. We sat together and said, "How should we organise our committe?" But who granted us authority to form a new authority structure? Our organisation? Where did that get it? Eventually these chains of authorities reduce back to a person or persons who said, "Let's do something" and it's based on no authority at all, just a desire to do something.
I'm not saying that governments and committees are bad. I'm saying that they need to be recognised for what they are - emergent properties that ultimately have no justification, but we're going to ignore that and move on so we can get something done. I think what bugs me is when some in society view something like "The US government" as a fully justified established irreducible universal unquestionable truth, and they argue from that position, and it eventually breaks down, but they simply continue to argue.
It must be nice for dictators not to have to worry about 'justification'.
Sorry if this isn't coherent, it just kind of spewed out quickly without much reflection, but it sort of sums up the way I see these kinds of un-reduced EPs.
Is this something common to Ti types? Is it a Ji type thing? Do Je leads relate at all? My SiFe wife tracks with this well (because she's brilliant ), but she never naturally questions EPs that are presented to her - they just exist, and we just need to work with them. I on the other hand feel like we're playing 'school' in the playground, but with real costumes and weapons and consequences, and it makes societal life feel ethereal and hard to connect with and become passionate about and invested in.
I mean he may not see the need for Fe ("tone") unless it's explained to him.
Yeah, I completely understand what you're saying about about regulating through a democracy. The principle I cling to when looking at that system is this: the responsibility of sewing and reaping. I boil democracy down to that one idea. Of course, people aren't necessarily wise enough to examine how what they sewed lead to what they reap. Democracy *does* rely on principles, but collective principles of the time, not necessarily foundational ones. It is a bit fragile, isn't it? Depending on the tide.
I'm not even sure how to address the questions you brought up. They're so Ti! I'm thinking "Because it works!" Actually, you said it boils down to someone going "Because that's how I want it to be," and I believe that's pretty close to the truth. Of all possible options, that seemed to be the BEST option. Dirty, I know. Ji doesn't like this. But our need for order and accountability, I think, is legitimate and fundamental truth. I think you can boil the necessity of a system down to that and the means down to "It seemed to be the best possible solution."
A Ji thing I think it is. I question systems constantly, but I think I ask different questions. When I ask why/if we truly need something, I'm more asking "What are the true needs, and is the present solving them?" The outcome of a good monarch could be beneficial to all, but the well being of the group rests too exclusively in one person. That seems wrong and irresponsible. The outcome of a democracy means that the entire group bears the consequences of most of the group. It seems only slightly more stable. The U.S. Constitution addresses potential problems with this (Fundamental truth: "Humans are unstable as a group") by staggering elections to ensure that angry mobs can't go voting out all incumbents in a single voting season. This slows the pendulum down and buys time for reason.
I guess this illustrated my process of thinking: 1. What are the universal truths? 2. How can we best address them?
(P.S. I also have a hard time with the notion of "nations," though you can see they are "real" things not because of their nationalistic narratives but due to very real boundaries drawn by law. They can be distinguished by law, but not necessarily by inherent properties, per se. Is that what Ti hates?)