I have come to a bitter but profound realization on the discourse of typology and the previously established frame of discussion. For ages now I have attempted to brandish arms on a level field constructed by the regression of typology, which has been a process precipitated by chaos and absurdity of all persons. In some sense, I feel complicit in my past actions, but after today it is a deed no more, as I realized the problem slowly with my own education.
I realize that typology is a metalanguage, in which we use words of a pre-existing language to deconstruct or describe it. For instance, we may use the variable "A" (as an element of a metalanguage) to represent something else such as a number, fully knowing that "a" exists as an article of the English language (i.e. a person). In the same sense, we use the phrase 'introverted intuition' to represent Ni in the metalanguage of typology, not intending some kind of garbled literal interpretation. Clearly, we are speaking nothing but gibberish to those who cannot speak the metalanguage of typology.
Why would I establish something so basic, something that many could reply in annoyed affirmation and merely nod their heads in agreement? This fundamental construction is the framework to which we must address problems such as loops when considering discussion on typology as a holistic construct. The current method I have previously established in my previous article on loops seems to hold both an incomplete portion, and an incorrect portion. The incomplete portion is where I argue for the basis of the existence of loops, and the incorrect portion is where I try to logically defeat the notion of loops. The former needs refinement and elucidation of its importance, and the latter needs to be discarded completely, as it argues on grounds that are not justified to begin with.
When considering any metalanguage, there are specific principles that are shared between all subjects who choose to practice a metalanguage, just as there are principles in any base language. I cannot choose to rearrange the order of words in a sentence, just as I cannot invent a new word to describe any phenomena and expect a universal acceptance in response. When considering any dialectic on typology, we utilize a community 'soup' of terms that are shared between all, but every once in awhile we will stumble across terms that are not as stable in their definiteness in comparison to other terms. As anyone who practices typology would think, we do not cast doubt on the usage of the phrase "introverted intuition" or "Ni" when describing someone who is an INTJ or INFJ. However, the idea that we can doubt a phrase like 'loop' in its legitimacy makes us question where this particular term came from, just as Descartes doubted that his own thoughts were inserted by an evil demon rather than of his own senses. This in turn makes me look down from the ladder I have climbed, to see which rungs are improperly arranged. When looking from the angle of an observer at a high altitude, I can see what portion of the ladder caused many to fall in the past, and amuse myself at the many who will continue to fall. I conclude from a bitter reflection that the existence of loops is not based on logical falsifiability, but rather if it passes the test of what can be allowed into the metalanguage of typology.
To further elucidate this point, I ask for all to consider their own supernatural aspects of their thinking. For instance, let us say that every time I wear my lucky shoes, I tend to have a good day, or every time I try to walk to my friend's house, I see a blue bird flying over. In that same supernatural sense, loops can work subjectively for any person. The descriptions under the favored Tumblr or Reddit article seem to work wonders in characterizing one's own suffering and tragedy. However, that does not mean I can be rational in demanding that this is characterized as legitimate solely based on the subjective accuracy and usage of the term. Therefore, some method of universality is required in order to establish a common metalanguage to all, and that is the origin of any concept in typology having to trace back to the founders of the system (as no other way can we have a universal metalanguage that is typology). It is as easy as asking: Did Jung, Myers, Briggs, or the like create the term? If the answer is no, it has already been decided to be dismissed. There is nothing else to be done in attempting to dismantle the notion. After all, it violates the principle of non-contradiction to agree to both be using the metalanguage and not using the metalanguage concurrently (by using terms that do not exist in the metalanguage). Attacking this stubborn subjectivity directly in elenchus is futile, just as trying to argue secularism to a person who anecdotally has 'seen' God. It creates a grounds for discussion that is illegitimate a priori to anything actually being said.
With my thoughts more clearly established, it should be clear why my previous article on loops is invalidated. There is no use trying to logically attack something that which carries purely subjective and circumstantial value. Ergo, the only acceptable approach is to attack it on its invalidity within the metalanguage, and that fully completes the first portion of my original piece.