# Is Function Order Completely Arbitrary!?



## ToplessOrange (Jun 3, 2013)

So, I have spent months trying to figure out the underlying mechanism for the function orders and I haven't been able to find much help for why this system is supposed to work in understanding motivations and such.

However, doesn't the fact that there are multiple function order models essentially attest to the fact that they don't actually have anything to support them? Because if there was an undeniable logic, a system of unavoidable dichotomies that say Ji must go with Pe, then anyone saying that Ji can go with an auxiliary Pi would be thrown out as a complete moron because that makes absolutely no logical sense. So, if it's not logic, and you can't test functions empirically for reasons that are commonly brought up throughout this forum that I don't feel like going into, is it just the fact that this is the order that came first, the one that people came upon when they first typed "MBTI" into google and decided that this must be how it is when the original creator made it arbitrarily?

Because it's strange to think that if I have Ji leading and Pi following, I must be suddenly unhealthy. And I don't know why Se goes with Ni or why Ne goes with Si, because I have 3 definitions for Ne at this point (one being that it's an explosion of ideas, another that it is seeing the possibilities of things objectively, as in how they can objectively be changed into something else rather than subjectively considered something else, and one being that it is seeing the outside world for ideas), all of which don't really eliminate the idea that I can support my Ne with tons of Se.

I'm really hanging on a rope at the edge, here. It's really starting to look like an entirely faith-based system, which I'm sure will offend someone somewhere, but that's the quickest way to get across how I perceive this system as of now, and I'd love for someone to change my mind because I don't want to miss out on something if it could help my life. Otherwise, I suppose I'll move on and develop my own impenetrable system of understanding people efficiently and deeply.

Feel free to send me some links. I've already done a search, in case you're wondering. I've done all 12 comparisons between everything in the P groups and the J groups with and without focus on this site:

* *




si OR "introverted sensing" se OR "extraverted sensing" siteersonalitycafe.com
si OR "introverted sensing" ne OR "extraverted intuition" siteersonalitycafe.com
si OR "introverted sensing" ni OR "introverted intuition" siteersonalitycafe.com
se OR "extraverted sensing" ne OR "extraverted intuition" siteersonalitycafe.com
se OR "extraverted sensing" ni OR "introverted intuition" siteersonalitycafe.com
ne OR "extraverted intuition" ni OR "introverted intuition" siteersonalitycafe.com
ti OR "introverted thinking" te OR "extraverted thinking" siteersonalitycafe.com
ti OR "introverted thinking" fe OR "extraverted feeling" siteersonalitycafe.com
ti OR "introverted thinking" fi OR "introverted feeling" siteersonalitycafe.com
te OR "extraverted thinking" fe OR "extraverted feeling" siteersonalitycafe.com
te OR "extraverted thinking" fi OR "introverted feeling" siteersonalitycafe.com
fi OR "introverted feeling" fe OR "extraverted feeling" siteersonalitycafe.com
si OR "introverted sensing" se OR "extraverted sensing"
si OR "introverted sensing" ne OR "extraverted intuition"
si OR "introverted sensing" ni OR "introverted intuition"
se OR "extraverted sensing" ne OR "extraverted intuition"
se OR "extraverted sensing" ni OR "introverted intuition"
ne OR "extraverted intuition" ni OR "introverted intuition"
ti OR "introverted thinking" te OR "extraverted thinking"
ti OR "introverted thinking" fe OR "extraverted feeling"
ti OR "introverted thinking" fi OR "introverted feeling"
te OR "extraverted thinking" fe OR "extraverted feeling"
te OR "extraverted thinking" fi OR "introverted feeling"
fi OR "introverted feeling" fe OR "extraverted feeling"
function order siteersonalitycafe.com
pi pe siteersonalitycafe.com




I am still very much confused. I might be sent some books or something, but I can't think of what would be in a book that would be so convincing that isn't ever pitched, like "Oh, there is empirical evidence that can't easily be dismissed" or "Oh, there is an underlying logic that is undeniable and those other systems are crazy people thoughts," because I sometimes get book recommendations and I'm just told "you should read these." Why!? Which questions does it answer? I don't know _why_ I should read this!

If nobody replies, like I said, I'll just move on and assume this is something that can't really be explained and I have to "just know" through "vibes" or "hunches" or "years of experience of working with people and seeing how their functions work," things I don't think I'll be spending my resources on.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

What I got is. Jung first found these 8 functions and placed them as the main function of each individual as in a way the person is unique in this way. He also stated that each person also that each of these main types have an preference in the other realm. Judging (thinking/feeling) also use perceiving (intuition/sensing) which give the person a orientation. 

Then MBTI come in the picture stating that if you prio subjective thinking you will also value Fe or if you prio subjective sensing you will also value Ne. So there is the 4 functions of the types. Socionics I think did not raise from this logic based system but from Jungs first 2 functions and then experiments/own experiences to try to understand how ALL functions function in a person. 

Jungs general description of the psychological types


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Also, its psychology, you never find scientificy proof there. How can you when science is all about surface what everyone can see for himself when this is the science of how people do not see the same things.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> So, I have spent months trying to figure out the underlying mechanism for the function orders and I haven't been able to find much help for why this system is supposed to work in understanding motivations and such.
> 
> However, doesn't the fact that there are multiple function order models essentially attest to the fact that they don't actually have anything to support them? Because if there was an undeniable logic, a system of unavoidable dichotomies that say Ji must go with Pe, then anyone saying that Ji can go with an auxiliary Pi would be thrown out as a complete moron because that makes absolutely no logical sense. So, if it's not logic, and you can't test functions empirically for reasons that are commonly brought up throughout this forum that I don't feel like going into, is it just the fact that this is the order that came first, the one that people came upon when they first typed "MBTI" into google and decided that this must be how it is when the original creator made it arbitrarily?
> 
> ...


This is how I feel about the prospect of reading Jung. It feels like a faith-based decision to weed through a lot of material, only some of which will be helpful. Yes, he originated the eight-function model, but that doesn't mean his ancecdotal evidence is necessarily better than someone else's anecdotal evidence who actually focuses more on the function stacks. :/

I might read Lenore Thomson's book. But I'd rather converse with people directly, to achieve more depth than breadth of anecdotal evidence, if that makes sense. (Maybe I'm trying too hard to reinvent the wheel, but it FEELS more relationally productive!) I understand why that wouldn't necessarily appeal to everyone, though.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

TheOminousMuffin said:


> So, if it's not logic, and you can't test functions empirically for reasons that are commonly brought up throughout this forum that I don't feel like going into, is it just the fact that this is the order that came first, the one that people came upon when they first typed "MBTI" into google and decided that this must be how it is when the original creator made it arbitrarily?


I suspect as much - I can't see any obvious reason why the majority on here cling to the XYXY model, or what reason there might be to suppose that it's a correct model for human personality. I recall reading an MBTI book where the lack of support for functions was raised, and then simply cast aside and the truth of type dynamics just assumed from there on - there does seem to be a general unwillingness to question the fairly questionable assumptions made within this theory.

In addition to the lack of good reason to believe the XYXY function model is correct, it's not even the "officially sanctioned" view - which is that the tertiary could potentially orient in either direction (here's an example of where that position is reflected, and this attempt to test whether functions had empirical validity assumes the model to be XYYY) - so XYXY doesn't even have that going for it.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

I kind of went through the same thing when I first got to know about MBTI and the function stack.

It seemed very arbitrary for me in the beginning too, until I started to see the patterns in it, and things started to make sense.

And I figure now that a lot of people (I mean it) don't really understand the functions and the relationships between them, It's actually funny..

After all, you need to really think about the functions by yourself and come up with your own understanding of it.



Let me try. To go into the some basic stuff (and to put it simple),

Pe expands.
Pi focuses.

Ji revises.
Je confirms.(I like to use the word internalize/externalize here but that may be too abstract)

If you try to perceive every aspect (Pe), you end up revising (Ji).
If you focus on one aspect only (Pi), you can easily confirm the decision (Je).

or the opposite,

If you want to revise (Ji), you need to start seeing different aspect (Pe).
If you want to confirm the decision (Je), you need to filter out other aspects and focus on one (Pi).

*IMO MBTI is, first of all, based on a dichotomy between P/J.*
E/I dichotomy is really a way to explain P/J dichotomy.

If you perceive "more," you judge "less." (Pe, Ji) - every P type
If you judge "more," you perceive "less." (Je, Pi) - every J type

(Doesn't mean Je/Pi user would necessarily weigh more and Judging. I'd say, INTJ for instance, is who likes to weigh more on "perceiving less." I know it sounds weird. You see how scientists would focus on studying a specific area for a long time)

(I can see how Pi/Ji or Pe/Je could happen without being unhealthy - but this is a different story)


Also very important: between these dichotomies, you HAVE TO be able to see the spectrum - they are never black and white. It's all relative.



And some details:

The notion that Ne and Si work together (and vice versa), forget it. It's BS. I think it's just misleading.

Ne can be supported with Se? Of course, why not. You can think of N as a "developed version" of S.
In fact N has to start from some S at least.
Also N/S are relative anyway.

Functions are in a way all connected. However, the "function stack" is more specific. It shows HOW the functions can be connected in a typical "brain process."

For example, in Ne+Ti process (as dom-aux), Ne and Ti are not just "supporting" each other, they work "in conjunction," almost as one.

It would be wrong to say that you have Ne-dom and Se-aux, even if you have strong Ne and strong Se. This is because, Ne and Se - even if they work together and have a very close relationship - do not have that SPECIFIC kind of relationship the function stack speaks about dom-aux functions. This goes the same with Tertiary and Inferior. It is not a race of what is stronger and what is not - they show very specific kinds of relationships.

And IMO the function stack ONLY speaks of your "default mode" which is, in you case, Ne+Ti.

You may switch your "mode" to something else, such as Ne+Fi - and be quite comfortable with it - however this deviates from speaking of a DEFAULT brain process mode of typical ENTP (which is Ne+Ti), therefore it's not relevant in terms of "function stack."


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

goamare said:


> Ne can be supported with Se? Of course, why not. You can think of N as a "developed version" of S.


I was with you up until that point. They are two entirely different things.

You cannot be hyper-focused on reality  while looking ''beyond'' reality [N] at the same time. That is simply not possible.

Also, it makes Sensors sound like undeveloped or immature iNtuitives, and they aren't. They are Sensors. Look at a Sensor and an Intuitive side by side- they have fundamentally different world views.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Jung said that intuition suppressed sensation and thinking suppressed feeling(and vice versa for both). He said we have a dominant function, and can sometimes develop(differentiate) an auxiliary function. He said there was an inferior function opposing the dominant. All that was left was filling in the tertiary.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

owlboy said:


> I was with you up until that point. They are two entirely different things.
> 
> You cannot be hyper-focused on reality  while looking ''beyond'' reality [N] at the same time. That is simply not possible.
> 
> Also, it makes Sensors sound like undeveloped or immature iNtuitives, and they aren't. They are Sensors. Look at a Sensor and an Intuitive side by side- they have fundamentally different world views.





I know, I wanted to put things simple (as I mentioned in the beginning) for the sake of understanding, and didn't wanna add little explanations on every point. I wrote too much already.

I stated "you can think of" instead of IT IS. Also put quotation marks where I didn't mean something literally.



Btw, now here you seem to claim that S and N are totally different. I tend to see them as RELATIVE. Something that feels N-ish for somebody, can feel S-ish for someone else.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> Jung said that intuition suppressed sensation and thinking suppressed feeling(and vice versa for both). He said we have a dominant function, and can sometimes develop(differentiate) an auxiliary function. He said there was an inferior function opposing the dominant. *All that was left was filling in the tertiary.*


He covered that too. He also referred to the tertiary as an auxiliary (first spoiler in link).

[HR][/HR]

I think that a big problem is that people tend to think of the "functions" as eight objects in a vacuum. Here is a conceptualization that seems more congruent with what Jung and other analysts (such as Marie-Louise Von Franz) have talked about.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> He covered that too. He also referred to the tertiary as an auxiliary (first spoiler in link).
> 
> [HR][/HR]
> 
> I think that a big problem is that people tend to think of the "functions" as eight objects in a vacuum. Here is a conceptualization that seems more congruent with what Jung and other analysts (such as Marie-Louise Von Franz) have talked about.


Hmm, interesting quote. I often make snap judgments about people, and have to moderate myself when other people call them green monkeys.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

goamare said:


> I know, I wanted to put things simple (as I mentioned in the beginning) for the sake of understanding, and didn't wanna add little explanations on every point. I wrote too much already.
> 
> I stated "you can think of" instead of IT IS. Also put quotation marks where I didn't mean something literally.


Ok, but I still don't think that's accurate. Sensing is not a ''lesser form'' of intuition. It's the precise opposite of intuition. Describing it as something akin to undeveloped intuition sounds like Sensor bias and I don't think it gives an accurate picture of what Sensing actually is.



> Btw, now here you seem to claim that S and N are totally different. I tend to see them as RELATIVE. Something that feels N-ish for somebody, can feel S-ish for someone else.


I don't understand what you mean. To me that's like saying ''something that feels like a cloud for somebody might feel like a rock to someone else.''


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

owlboy said:


> Ok, but I still don't think that's accurate. Sensing is not a ''lesser form'' of intuition. It's the precise opposite of intuition. Describing it as something akin to undeveloped intuition sounds like Sensor bias and I don't think it gives an accurate picture of what Sensing actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean. To me that's like saying ''something that feels like a cloud for somebody might feel like a rock to someone else.''


Let's drop the sensing bias. Didn't really mean that, my bad.


Cloud and rock are not such a good example IMO.
Think of twigs, branches, boughs and the trunk. Then the whole tree, forest, etc.
A branch is a "bigger picture" from a twig's point of view, but it is a "detail" if seen from the trunk.


Watching a basketball game could be an example I guess.

Focusing on the very sensory experience of the moment would be S.
Being able to see offensive tactics for each possession is more N, right?

Then there are those who like to focus more on the overall flow of the game, not each possession.
Then some people go further, and see what the game means in that season, which is a bigger pattern.
On top of that, some would see the whole sports industry connected to it.
Some would even make connections to psychological and philosophical stuff involved with how everything works.
A few crazy ones would see the flow of universe that encompasses everything stated above (lol did I go too far "beyond?").

For those who see the bigger picture here, seeing an offensive tactic would seem very S-ish.

Idk if this is clear - just a quick example off the top of my head. Hope this helps at all.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

goamare said:


> Let's drop the sensing bias. Didn't really mean that, my bad.
> 
> 
> Cloud and rock are not such a good example IMO.
> ...


No that would be Thinking.



> Then there are those who like to focus more on the overall flow of the game, not each possession.
> Then some people go further, and see what the game means in that season, which is a bigger pattern.
> On top of that, some would see the whole sports industry connected to it.
> Some would even make connections to psychological and philosophical stuff involved with how everything works.
> A few crazy ones would see the flow of universe that encompasses everything stated above (lol did I go too far "beyond?").


These are all very vague and non-specific [what do you mean by ''what the game means in a season''? note that I know practically nothing about sport] but you seem to have Thinking and Feeling mixed up in there.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@goamare, @owlboy, I'm going to leave these quotes directly from Jung here because it pertains to your discussion, hopefully they will be of use to both of you and your discussion as a whole:



> . Among these we can distinguish four basic ones: sensation, thinking, feeling, intuition. Under sensation I include all perceptions by means of the sense organs; by thinking I mean the function of intellectual cognition and the forming of logical conclusions; feeling is a function of subjective valuation; intuition I take as perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious contents.





> . Thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation.





> . Thus there are many people who restrict themselves to the simple perception of concrete reality, without thinking about it or taking feeling values into account. They bother just as little about the possibilities hidden in a situation.* I describe such people as sensation types*. Others are exclusively oriented by what they think, and simply cannot adapt to a situation which they are unable to understand intellectually.* I call such people thinking types.* Others, again, are guided in everything entirely by feeling. They merely ask themselves whether a thing is pleasant or unpleasant, and orient themselves by their feeling impressions. *These are the feeling types*. Finally, *the intuitives concern themselves *neither with ideas nor with feeling reactions, nor yet with the reality of things, but surrender themselves wholly to the lure of possibilities, and abandon every situation in which no further possibilities can be scented.


*Sensation:*


> Primarily, therefore, sensation is sense perception— perception mediated by the sense organs and “body-senses” (kinaesthetic, vasomotor sensation, etc.). It is, on the one hand, an element of ideation, since it conveys to the mind the perceptual image of the external object; and on the other hand, it is an element of feeling, since through the perception of bodily changes it gives feeling the character of an affect (q.v.). Because sensation conveys bodily changes to consciousness, it is also a representative of physiological impulses. It is not identical with them, being merely a perceptive function.


*Thinking:*


> To my mind, a mere stringing together of ideas, such as is described by certain psychologists as associative thinking, 87 is not thinking at all, but mere ideation. The term “thinking” should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of ideas by means of a concept, in other words, to an act of judgment, no matter whether this act is intentional or not.


*Intuition:*


> 35. INTUITION (L. intueri, ‘to look at or into’). I regard intuition as a basic psychological function (q.v.). It is the function that mediates perceptions in an unconscious way. Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their relationships, can be the focus of this perception. The peculiarity of intuition is that it is neither sense perception, nor feeling, nor intellectual inference, although it may also appear in these forms. In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents.


*Feeling:*


> .Feeling, therefore, is an entirely subjective process, which may be in every respect independent of external stimuli, though it allies itself with every sensation. 48 Even an “indifferent” sensation possesses a feeling-tone, namely that of indifference, which again expresses some sort of valuation. Hence feeling is a kind of judgment, differing from intellectual judgment in that its aim is not to establish conceptual relations but to set up a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection. Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be. When the intensity of feeling increases, it turns into an affect (q.v.), i.e., a feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process.


These are the actual definitions of the functions, and describe exactly what they are, and why they are different from each other.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

owlboy said:


> No that would be Thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> These are all very vague and non-specific [what do you mean by ''what the game means in a season''? note that I know practically nothing about sport] but you seem to have Thinking and Feeling mixed up in there.



That's not the point. When connecting to real-life examples, T and F would get mixed up naturally, since natural brain process usually include both perceiving and judging in everyday practical setting. Let's talk about S and N here.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

goamare said:


> That's not the point. When connecting to real-life examples, T and F would get mixed up naturally, since natural brain process usually include both perceiving and judging in everyday practical setting. Let's talk about S and N here.


I don't think you understand me. I was saying that you were mistakenly describing Thinking and Feeling and not Intuition.

Logistics, tactic, strategy, etc are Thinking, not Intuition.

''Making connections'' is so vague it could mean anything. All the functions ''make connections''. It's what they're focused on specifically that defines what function they are.


----------



## owlboy (Oct 28, 2010)

Shadow Logic said:


> @goamare, @owlboy, I'm going to leave these quotes directly from Jung here because it pertains to your discussion, hopefully they will be of use to both of you and your discussion as a whole:


Thx bro


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

goamare said:


> I kind of went through the same thing when I first got to know about MBTI and the function stack.
> 
> It seemed very arbitrary for me in the beginning too, until I started to see the patterns in it, and things started to make sense.
> 
> ...


So when I identify strongly (NOT just from testing) as *Fi-Ne-Ti* (I tested as Fi-Ti-Ne-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se), would you say that is my "mode" and not my actual stack? Would you say my actual stack is still Fi-Ne-Si-Te-Fe-Ni-Se-Ti? (Which doesn't resonate with my experience... I feel like it takes more effort for me to use Ti than to use Ne than to use Fi ...but not as much effort as it does to use Te.) Or is it possible that an individual INFP's *actual stack* can still have some functions flipped?

And if the actual function stack has some functions flipped, is that necessarily unhealthy? hno:



owlboy said:


> Ok, but I still don't think that's accurate. Sensing is not a ''lesser form'' of intuition. It's the precise opposite of intuition. Describing it as something akin to undeveloped intuition sounds like Sensor bias and I don't think it gives an accurate picture of what Sensing actually is.


Thank you for the needed clarification.



owlboy said:


> ''something that feels like a cloud for somebody might feel like a rock to someone else.''


I would argue that this is a valid statement. :tongue:



Shadow Logic said:


> [MENTION=79930]
> These are the actual definitions of the functions, and describe exactly what they are, and why they are different from each other.


Well, Jung himself qualifies this more than you seem to, but nevertheless this is helpful.



> Valuation by feeling extends to every content of consciousness, of whatever kind it may be. When the intensity of feeling increases, it turns into an affect (q.v.), i.e., a feeling-state accompanied by marked physical innervations. Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process.


So "feels overload" is an affect and not, in fact, part of the Fi (or Fe) cognitive function. Which is what people mean when they say "Fi is about values more than emotions." (?) So, is Jung saying the affect has nothing to do with the functions?



> Thinking:
> To my mind, a mere stringing together of ideas, such as is described by certain psychologists as associative thinking, 87 is not thinking at all, but mere ideation. The term “thinking” should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of ideas by means of a concept, in other words, to an act of judgment, no matter whether this act is intentional or not.
> 
> Intuition:
> 35. INTUITION (L. intueri, ‘to look at or into’). I regard intuition as a basic psychological function (q.v.). It is the function that mediates perceptions in an unconscious way. Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their relationships, can be the focus of this perception. The peculiarity of intuition is that it is neither sense perception, nor feeling, nor intellectual inference, although it may also appear in these forms. In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents.


So what is called "associative thinking" is actually Intuition. Also, Intution is seeing the big picture, and Thinking is explanation. So why do so many INTJs report relating to Ti so much?

(These questions are open to anyone.)


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> So when I identify strongly (NOT just from testing) as *Fi-Ne-Ti* (I tested as Fi-Ti-Ne-Si-Te-Ni-Fe-Se), would you say that is my "mode" and not my actual stack? Would you say my actual stack is still Fi-Ne-Si-Te-Fe-Ni-Se-Ti? (Which doesn't resonate with my experience... I feel like it takes more effort for me to use Ti than to use Ne than to use Fi ...but not as much effort as it does to use Te.) Or is it possible that an individual INFP's *actual stack* can still have some functions flipped?
> 
> And if the actual function stack has some functions flipped, is that necessarily unhealthy? hno:
> 
> ...


Maybe they aren't INTJs at all. People are so focused on the identity that they never question to the point that all functions are meaningless. If you have high Ti you're not an INTJ. INTJ represents Ni, Te, Fi, Se. Anything else is not INTJ. You can argue that this order is wrong but that since INTJ is just a letter code for that order you are also disagreeing with the idea of INTJ and therefore apply that to any and all type. You have denied the entire theory. Suggest there can be an JNTI I don't know what the heck that means but it's better than rejecting the types then saying we should still be called by the names of type codes. It makes zero sense to me whatsoever.
Also I'll excuse myself using mbti descriptions, "INTPs tend to act irrationally and argue tirelessly when their principles are violated". 
Simply put, the letter codes and the functions are just two masks for the same thing, you cannot deny one without rejecting or redefining the other.


----------

