First post. Whoooo! Yeah, let’s go! Unh!
Okay, so we all know this little thing here called the tertiary function. We all know which particular tertiary function we have. We know what it feels like, how it works, how we use it, and how we can oh-so-unknowingly grasp at the tertiary function like no other type (except our only other middle-two-function-doppelganger with a cuckolded-dominant-function) can.
And, we can be so tempted by the tertiary function and all that it promises - on the surface, at least. Indeed, it is the function we have that we feel is lacking, but aren’t so utterly powerless in compensating for.
It is evident to both Blake and I that the denotation of “tertiary” is really quite a poor misnomer. It suggests a hierarchical strength of the functions, when in reality things are rarely ever so stratified. I remember first learning about my own auxiliary and tertiary functions, immediately thinking to myself, “this theory must be flawed, for I feel that my tertiary is stronger than my auxiliary!” (But perhaps, this was because I was in a dominant-tertiary loop, ohoho).
But, after stumbling upon Blake’s site, it was heartening to discover someone else who had recognized the same phenomenon and was able to verbalize it when in my case, everything was still swirling around in an incubatory space that is the subconscious of my psyche.
So, with the set ordering of the functions shot down, how might we put a finger on what the tertiary function actually entails? How does it contrast with the auxiliary?
When attempting to grasp the tertiary function, how might we understand it? Does it work in parallel with the auxiliary function? Can it be completely disabled? Or is it continually working in the background, unbeknownst to us?
I suppose the classic analogy would be to a computer. But since I’m not very fond of computerized thinking, how about we formulate another one? To try to convey the sense of what my mind’s eye sees (so cliche, I know), I imagine a comparison between the act of eating and the act of drinking. Both serve to support bodily functions and continued homeostasis. But it would be foolish to say that eating supersedes drinking in strength, or that drinking supersedes eating in importance. These statements imply that both belong to the same spectrum, and as such can be judged by the same metric of strength, or importance.
No. Nein. Nay. Nuh-uh. No sirree. Nope. Negatory.
Wrong mode of thinking.
So, brethren and sistren, we must be able to pin down a definition for the tertiary and auxiliary functions. But not definition in the strictly Ti sense. Because that would get us nowhere. But Ti can stay around and help us here and there, adding a little clarity to the main dish, and perhaps topping it off with a flambé of logical refinement. Asymptotic limits and purely descriptive tautologies of logic, y’all. Perhaps “picture” would be a better word than “definition.” Sure, let’s go with that.
Have at it, humanoids.