Hi, I am importing this thread from the old forum, since it may be useful to newcomers. This was originally written by me on Apr 13, 2013 - and hasn't been proof-read. (Please replace "abstract" with associative, and "concrete" with literal, wherever mentioned)

Ne/Si & Ni/Se:

Ne is more similar to Se, and Ni more similar to Si.

• Ni and Si are mapping/anchoring functions.
• Ne and Se are exploration functions.

If we wanna use a metaphor: One holds the map, the other goes indiana jones style into new territory.
And they can't be described well without one another, so indeed they work in tandem.
NiSe holds an abstracted map, but does literal exploration.
SiNe holds a literal map, but does abstract exploration.

What that means, practically, is that Ni has a mental spider web of intangible patterns which govern the causality of the universe. Se uses this map to travel through the present tangibly, sensationally, and each literal experience undertaken is transformed into an abstraction and stored into the intangible paradigm - broadening the person's understanding. Si has a mental paradigm of tangible correlations which dictate the laws of the world. Specifics like what times things occur, in what sequence and due to what events. Ne uses this solid map to quest through the present, intangibly and imaginatively, using concretes as anchor points from which to begin a new exploration and expand the map.

A note about the difference of these maps:

The Ni map operates more like Fractal Art. It converts a pattern into a formula, and multiplies it at infinitum to fill in the gaps of unknown territory. The Si map operates more like a Matrix. It fills in it's map like a collection of independent experiences. The experiences are not connected via a formula like Ni's map. They are simply all catalogued into a matrix. It is Ne that does the connecting of Si's map. Ne takes that matrix of experiences and dabbles with the data to form cross-contextualizations. Those connections weave the paradigm together. For Se, it needs not do what Ne does because the connections are already made, it merely flows within those connections, those fractal-tangents, in the real world. And doing so allows Ni the opportunity to view reality to identify more governing formulas.

A note on the Why of the pairings:

The Ni map would be disturbed by Ne's process since it is non-synthesizing. Having Ne and Ni would make both useless. Ni needs the concrete exploration of Se in order to extract it's formulas. And Ne needs some concrete lego blocks to create new connections. Ne cannot use Ni's data because it's abstract like itself. A fire cannot burn from a fire, it has to burn from the coals. And vice versa: two coals are useless if they don't create fire. There would be no point in Se exploring Si's map because it is already known. Ne is the one who needs to hold the finite Si  map and identify, at infinitum, the places where more exploring is necessary.

To put it differently, a line cannot be made from one point. And an association (the basis for abstraction) cannot be made without two or more tactile points of data. This is why it's not possible to have both Ne and Ni, and no S functions.

Data Synthesis

I made a video to illustrate (or try to) the difference in how these two maps form a perception of reality. In the video, the woman represents Reality. The artistic paths/methods are how each of the two goes about painting their worldview from scratch; creating their own image of the woman.

(video slightly updated)

In the Ni drawing we can liken the cursor to Se, and the web that tails behind it is the Ni worldview being formed from Se's exploration. As you can see the Ni map is formulaic, as opposed to just a direct line, and it makes the painting using multiple curvatures which cover more area in less time. The timing and velocity of the cursor (Se) affects what kind of curves are created as well. In the Ne drawing, we can liken the dots to random data (Si) attained from the world. As more dots populate the screen we start to see a sort of outline form. Ne then enters in (as the lines) and "connects the dots" of data to form a more coherent picture. Of course, my artistic abilities are pretty crappy and this was done really fast but I hope it gets the main idea across. ^^ This is only a partial metaphor of what I mean. I think more accurate illustrations would be three dimensional. And ideally the contours of the Ni map could be bent and moved like chickenwire - by the calibration of discernment functions. And equally, the Si/Ne map could be illustrated better. Ideally the map would also be constantly cutting and repasting sections of itself in other locations (Ne moving the dots around) like a jigsaw puzzle and reorganized to fit more accurately.

I didn't go into fine detail with either of the two, but with more time, eventually the two images would begin to look incredibly similar - via two different approaches. It's not impossible for the two different methods to look almost identical.

But still, I think that no matter how similar they may come to be, the Ni/Se map will still be made from a single very very curved and overlapping fabric. Sorta like taking a blanket, soaking it in glue and making a human statue from it. Inversely, no matter how similar the Ne/Si map may seem to the Ni/Se map, it'll still be made by independently glued bits. Sorta like making a statue by gluing together small pieces of paper.

They may appear the same at a glance, but there are consequences to this difference which expresses itself when the time comes to adjust the shape/worldview. When the Ni worldview needs to be adjusted (say a piece that is on the elbow needs to go the head) the rest of the attached concepts (fabric) bend and go with it.

In contrast, if there was a piece in the Ne/Si statue that was on the elbow which fits better on the head, it could just be detached and pasted on the head without affecting the rest. This is why the bending of the Ni map can sometimes lead their users to mysterious or superstitious concepts as their worldview can take odd shapes. It is a result of a concept(s) being twisted out of shape, due to it naturally being attached to another concept that it was (rightly) trying to connect somewhere more appropriate -- but the others tagged along with it.

P.S. But it's important to keep in mind this is just a metaphor still. Not all things describe it perfectly, and it can't be taken too literally. But if it serves to offer a new way of looking at them, then I'm happy.

• This topic was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Juan E. Sandoval.
• This topic was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Juan E. Sandoval.
• This topic was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Juan E. Sandoval.
• This topic was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Juan E. Sandoval.