Background context: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/si-inner-sensory-experiences/#post-13237
@bera - So much of what you say is so insightful and is why in the Metabolic sections, we see the dichotomous comparisons:
I wanna focus on karmic vs consequential here, as it relates to this discussion and there hasn't been much occasion as of yet to elaborate on this dichotomy.
What you say relates very much to this section:
For the Se/Ni user, information starts with Se. After Se’s cycles have decayed, what is left over is woven into a thematic tapestry that aim to describe all occurrences of that particular nature, in all contexts. This essentially makes the Ni/Se axes an archive of timeless literalities. The themes that are extracted out of life will be felt as imminent truths... Thus Ni is not experienced as a hypotheses generator, but as a library of what will actually happen or does happen.
Ni as a library of what will actually happen, seems to be tied to what you said about the missing puzzle piece of the aphoristic "image"; a sense of its lacking thematic completion.
Now both the words "karmic" and "consequential" have in them an implication of continuity and outcome. But in karmic, the outcome is timeless (what goes up must come down) and an expression of a universal aphorism. And in Si the continuity is consequential, which is to say an event begetting another, and another in a chronology.
Ni's karmic thinking isn't necessarily chronological, hence the synchronous tendencies --- where there isn't always a sense of how the events are tied one-consequence-at-a-time, but the sense that the outcome was to be manifested from the start, is there.
...because of this [Ni] lack of concrete or chronological dependence, the extrapolated aphorism is treated as a whole and identified in situations whenever any element of the narrative is seen to be in motion. Which aspect of the episode one is presently within is irrelevant to Ni’s capacity to understand what kind of episode is being run, leading it to be karmic in its registration of time and causality. The start and end are happening at once, causing Ni to be somewhat fatalistic in its understanding of situations once it has registered the universal theme at play.
So I don't yet know if it makes sense to call Ni "time" any more than it makes sense to call Si time. I think both are time-based functions, but one is timeless-continuity (Ni) and one is chronological-continuity (Si), I think.
Still mulling this over, but great insights Bera! I wonder what other Ni/Se users feel about it?
Oh, @auburn - our posts crossed, I ll read what you said and come back. 🙂
I agree re Pi and Time. I think it applies to both Ni and Si, being about continuity, in contrast to Pe's succession of static episodes.
I've also shared often that I have routines too, but for me, they're about not wanting the hustle of doing things again and again that might be cumbersome. If I already know I like this meal at this restaurant, I'll order it until I don't want to eat it any more.
@celeste - I am glad it helped you understand it better.
@auburn - yes, this is spot on ! I completely agree with these passages ! This is exactly what is happening. I actually wanted to quote from the site but then I decided to try to describe the process with my words (more or less). I actually have to say I had in mind the dichotomies - aphoristic vs. anecdotal and karmic vs. consequential. I didn't consciously think about the thematic vs. indexical dichotomy though. I completely forgot about it and still kept talking about themes. 🙂
Now both the words “karmic” and “consequential” have in them an implication of continuity and outcome. But in karmic, the outcome is timeless (what goes up must come down) and an expression of a universal aphorism. And in Si the continuity is consequential, which is to say an event begetting another, and another in a chronology.
Ni’s karmic thinking isn’t necessarily chronological, hence the synchronous tendencies — where there isn’t always a sense of how the events are tied one-consequence-at-a-time, but the sense that the outcome was to be manifested from the start, is there.
Yes, exactly !!! I didn't think about it but "what goes up must go down" is a karmic idea. :)) Actually the image I associate with it is the Wheel of Fortune ! OMG, how do I explain this very important thing!? So, on the Wheel of Fortune in tarot, but also in its depictions in Medieval art, you see 4 people on the wheel. One on top with the label regno (I reign), one on the right side, falling, having the label regnavi (I have reigned), one on the bottom of the wheel - saying sum sine regno (I am without a kingdom) and one on the left side, going up - saying regnabo (I shall reign). And the wheel keeps turning, so they always change positions. This is the wheel of karma. It shows how everything rises and falls in cyclical patterns. What is really fascinating about it is that it shows cyclical movement but its middle point is immovable. Basically it looks pretty much like the image tea posted above if you consider the Ni focal point as the center of the wheel and the lines to it as the spokes of the wheel ! 🙂 Also the outcome has to be manifested from the start because the start and the end are the same point. Time is not seen like a line but more like a circle.
I actually prefer the idea of a spiral, so I think the wheel should just be representative of the circular movement, of a curve in motion (?) and not of a full circle.
But it is not consequential thinking at all. You don't start from point A to get to point B. You start from point A and get back to point A or - with a bit of Pe optimism - to point A1 - which is point A at a higher stage.
Oh, actually I think Si is more inclined to see the evolution (or decay happening in time) and Ni to see the circular motion. And both have to make an effort to see that time is actually both. I'm curious what you guys think about this, I love this topic.
@animal - I completely agree with what you said. I don't know how much of it is about Se and how much is about Ni though. I think in CT theory the whole meaning building process is rather attributed to Ni. But the thing is from the very beginning you select the objects necessary to form this pattern. This might actually be the reason why Se has tunnel vision. 🙂 It ignores everything else and only holds in focus the particular points that can be used for the purpose of building or discovering meaning.