Reply To: Sub-Primary Functions and IN

[Lapis Lazuli]

Since I've been soft-typed SiTe by @Auburn and others on Discord, I thought I'd throw in my $0.02.

When reading about how IN fills in gaps in its worldview tapestry, my very first thought was, "what gaps?"  My worldview doesn't feel gappy, and it seems that by definition, it shouldn't be, if a worldview is supposed to be a comprehensive view of everything.  What I'd say there are instead of gaps are, as with eyesight, blurry areas on the periphery that contrast with more focused areas of interest.  In fact, the blurry areas probably account for the vast majority of the total view.  It could be that IN is an accurate description of how my mind "fills in" the blurry areas, but it's not something I consciously concern myself with--it just happens.

"Tapestry" is also not a metaphor I'd use for a worldview, though having said that, it's an extremely interesting one.  Tennyson's poem "The Lady of Shalott" is a staple of high school English literature curricula (or at least it was when I was kid--you never know what's been cancelled), so I'd imagine that many here have read it.  If you haven't, or want to refresh your memory, then I recommend Loreena McKennitt's rendition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80-kp6RDl94  There are of course countless compelling interpretations of the poem, but when I was in high school, I wrote an essay from a Jungian typological perspective (as was my habit in almost all of my classes, much to the annoyance of many teachers) arguing that it's a tragic allegory of Introverted Perception and its associated fear of living life directly, as symbolized by the lady in the tower viewing the outside world from a mirror and weaving images of what she sees.  I also argued that Tennyson himself was Si dominant (SiFe, to be exact).  This interpretation still makes a lot of sense to me (as does the typing, going by his photos--he looks very Si!), especially now in light of Auburn's characterizing of Pi leads as weaving worldview tapestries.

Maybe tapestry really is a good metaphor for the nature of my worldview and I'm just not aware of it, but to me it's more like a synthesis among the worldviews of others.  In principle, the most accurate worldview would take into account all worldviews without prejudice, recognizing that each one is a valid perspective on at least some aspect of reality, including both areas of focus and "gaps", or as I would prefer to say, blurry areas in the peripheries.  But again, I'm not conscious of the worldview synthesizing--I just see the effects of other worldviews that I've absorbed into my own.

I suppose if I'm describing my own worldview as a synthesis of other worldviews, then that begs the question of what those other worldviews consist of--logically, they can't all be defined like mine!

Perhaps the kind of "datasets" from which one's worldview emerges is relevant in determining whether it evolves through gap-filling or the "synthesis" I've tried to describe (or maybe I'm just splitting hairs).  I seem to recall that @Hrafn is an anthropologist or historian, and maybe gap-filling makes more sense with worldviews derived directly from history.  While history does interest me, I think the greatest influences on my worldview are fiction.

Also, in practice, there are probably some worldviews that I would reject from any synthesis.  Nazism comes to mind.  But rejected ones would probably be those that have not proven to be timeless in their influence with diverse groups of people or lacking in any aesthetic appeal.  A worldview doesn't have to be old though if it's obvious that it will be timeless, such as one conveyed through an exceptionally great work of new art.

However, I do appreciate understanding and synthesizing worldviews that are radically different than mine.  This would seem to go against the view that a Pi type's worldview is pretty much established early in life and undergoes little more than minor tweaks and gap-filling for the remainder of life.  So maybe what I'm describing as my worldview isn't one (e.g., it might be more of an Fi "palate"), or maybe I'm not even a Pi-lead.  I'm not attached to the idea of being one, and Auburn is certainly welcome to change his mind if subsequent evidence suggests another type for me.

• This reply was modified 5 years ago by Lapis Lazuli.
• This reply was modified 5 years ago by Lapis Lazuli.
• This reply was modified 5 years ago by Lapis Lazuli.
• This reply was modified 5 years ago by Lapis Lazuli.