Ti>Ni & Structured vs Aphoristic Ni

Home Forums Model 1 Discussions Ti>Ni & Structured vs Aphoristic Ni

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13279
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    @bera, @teatime, @auburn, I don't disagree with what you all are saying about Ni-Se, but I also find it kind of lacking in my personal experience of Ni in my psyche. Perhaps I am not as adept at picking out the intricacies of each function in my psyche and able to give a "technical" account of it that is uninfluenced by other functions and in that case, I apologize if I sound dumb lol, either way, it should help in having a contrasting viewpoint.
    Themes (recurring ideas?): I don't think I see general themes, what I mainly "see" is processes or trends, or connections over time that I don't conceptualize into themes, but rather am aware there is a "change/process" principle behind them. I'm aware of the principle but I don't understand it, it's like the I'm trying to find the principle of the principle, it's meaning (Ti).
    Also, I don't even know how these processes I'm aware of ( and the principle or essence behind them) belong solely to my experience of Se, since the trends I see are local, yes, and of my personal experience (and they stay as a narrative of my experience), but they are also over all of "time," which includes conceptualizations of time that I have "explored" in theories, and of my imagination reaching back through philosophies, facts, events that have been recorded by someone else's experience. Reading the "Apology" of Socrates by Plato, for example, brings me to space in my mind where I'm trying to fill in details and experiences of that time, and the perceptions of these reconstructed events/time places give me "glimpses" of which I try to connect to my current world experience, which in my mind is just as much a reconstructed event/s as the one I read about. I connect the reconstructions by perceiving the "change" in them, the process, the change principle. This eventually leads to me to be able to construct future events by whatever trend I see, not being to articulate how I know that this will happen and how I believe so much in the perception, but obviously, it refers to the "change" principle that I am aware of but don't understand.
    However, it's not like I'm connecting the ideas in them into themes, like a novel, where I state a concept that has been evolving through time and weave into a tapestry of essential (archetypal) concepts (though I can do that and that is why I don't disagree with all of your compounded descriptions, yet what I disagree with is that it makes it seem that these archetypes and themes are an essential part of Ni, but it can't be when they don't show up in my mind, unless I pay attention to them  and develop them, and yet still use Ni heavily).
    The word "tapestry" really doesn't capture what I perceive at all, rather I have the whole "universe/world" in my mind that I am able to construct and reconstruct (at times not at my will, but automatically) to perceive constructed events both past and future (not all the time as expansive as the universe, but the mental construction usually feels like I can zoom in to a general time and place in this constructed universe and have an "experience", a perceptual glimpse). The more I read, the more I live, the more I learn and see, the more the "resolution" and "accuracy" of these mental constructions increases and makes me feel confident in their "insights" that come from it.
    In a more mystical angle, with it also comes a force of responsibility to enact the insights, make future events I perceive "happen" or suffer the consequences of watching the events play out differently.
    I don't know how the "aphorisms" come into play here either, "what goes up must come down" sounds so simplistic and something I wouldn't take as some insightful idea, my minds just start connecting the themes, permutations of this idea and what it means, and it makes sense, but I'm not writing it down and saying it is an essential principle of the universe or that I need it to construct mental events in my mind (it seems/feels to" local" and "subjective").

    #13303
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @scientiam - I think you can call them processes too. I believe we are talking about the same thing but are using different words. So, going back to my wheel analogy above, when I say "theme" I mean the focal point of the wheel. And when you say "process" I think you mean the movement of the wheel.
    I don't really do what you say about reconstructing certain moments in history. Or I don't see it as a voluntary reconstruction, I see them as appearing again. So, I am just an observer, not a creator. But maybe developed Ni has a more active attitude. Hence the idea of making the tapestry world view. You say you don't see it like a tapestry but like a construction but to me tapestry and construction are pretty close in symbolism. Maybe this can look more like a construction process for Ti combined with Ni. From an Fi-Ni perspective the texture of reality might be seen as closer to natural processes and also has an ethical component. I will quote this time :

    Biotic reasoning treats itself as organic, with all organic aspirations and challenges, and sees the world as a theater through which the drama of life is conducted. Biotic reasoning differentiates the living from the non-living; applying a different judgment criteria to organisms by sourcing from the intelligence of the body. Via the body, it reasons from the premise of the life-principle, where right and wrong are legitimate categories that can be acutely defined by evaluating how actions/ideas/thoughts affect or destroy life with the use of the emotional register as an information source for determining what is pain-inducing and pain-reducing.
    Abiotic reasoning treats itself as non-organic and sees the world as an assortment of mechanical objects interacting without discriminating between the dynamics of a rock, a tree or a fish. I use the word “abiotic” to describe the T orientation because I believe it’s role in the human brain is to process information from an inorganic place

    So, basically Ni with Fi support should be more inclined to build a worldview of themes that also carry a moral meaning. Also, this world we perceive is closer to a tapestry, it's wavy and the fabric seems natural. The texture is biotic because Fi reasoning is biotic. So, someone weaving a tapestry is a very good representation of that. The threads come from nature and are weaved into a picture that not only has a symbolic meaning but also carries some ethical components. Hence simple aphorisms that can be applied in everyday life.
    With abiotic reasoning I think it makes sense to rather see a reconstruction you make from abiotic elements. Which is pretty lucky for you because Fi & Ni together can produce horror images. :))) Spiders, silk worms, etc. Thank God tea mentioned baskets, now I am thinking a lot about nests. 🙂 Their advantage is they are round and are made by birds that can represent Ni very well too. You take the little sticks from the environment and make a perfectly round nest. 🙂 Your world. And in this scenario, the ethical component is also there, the nest is not only made of natural materials but it also supports life. <3

    #13305
    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I wonder if other Ni-heavy users do that zooming thing @scientiam describes.

    The word “tapestry” really doesn’t capture what I perceive at all, rather I have the whole “universe/world” in my mind that I am able to construct and reconstruct (at times not at my will, but automatically) to perceive constructed events both past and future (not all the time as expansive as the universe, but the mental construction usually feels like I can zoom in to a general time and place in this constructed universe and have an “experience”, a perceptual glimpse). The more I read, the more I live, the more I learn and see, the more the “resolution” and “accuracy” of these mental constructions increases and makes me feel confident in their “insights” that come from it.

    I ask because several Si-heavy users have described something similar but with literal recollection: like a holographic projection they can read/see like a screen.

    As a child I used to have this special kind of memory recalling where I’d literally project images stored in my brain a few feet outside of me so that I can look at it properly and fetch the information from that (without having to consciously ‘know’ what’s on the image). Say a page from a book, if I could pull it out of my filing and put it in the projector/magnifier I can just fetch the details from it, it works like that. I’d see my notes, page wrinkles, highlighting, everything as visually was basically. I’d excel at written exams because I’d just pull up the info I needed, but verbal exams (which we have a lot too in Hungary) were another story.

    Perhaps this is a more general Pi ability that works differently between Ni and Si? It makes sense given Pi's r/ship with time: kinda like an ability to rewind/forward the time reel of the mind or something.

    #13338
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I re-read some posts and I realized @scientiam - do you mean you visualize scenes? When you said you construct them, I thought of something you do, having a clear purpose, but re-reading I saw you said  :

    (at times not at my will, but automatically)

    If you mean you close your eyes and you see (not imagine, see !) a certain scene that you have some control upon, but not complete, I can relate to this. This happens to me too. But the scenes are not memories - though some are loosely based on stuff I saw. They also mostly have freaking dark content. I mostly have to fight them and I put a lot of effort in tricks and counter moves to keep them in check. If you mean this, then I think indeed Ni is doing it ! It's in the Ni profile :

    The Ni user will be very graphic in their consciousness, thinking in visuals and representing the world through visual metaphors.

    Normally it works through metaphors but it can literally work through stuff you see. Now...you seem ok with this. Do you usually have acceptable control on these scenes? Maybe conscious Ni does that and Ni "in development" has the effect of being constantly bombarded with images you don't want to see...?
    About the projection @fae mentioned - this is like a real life superpower ! <3 It's awesome, I wish I could do something like it too. 🙂

    #13341
    marcus aurelius
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    Three points:
    1. What's the difference between repetitive Si sensory loops and repetitive Se indulgence loops? The Se user may have a favored stimulus in which they regularly immerse, with that Se tunnel focus that @animal spoke of. In general, I'm having a hard time grasping the difference between Se's strong sensory experience (ex: persistence effect) and Si's
    2. I also relate to @scientam's difficulties with the karmic interpretation of Ni. I think my experience of it is similar: it's like a little scale model of the world but the parts aren't especially concrete, at little cost to the overall utility of the model. Perhaps this model-building quality is the interaction of Ni + Ti (i think @bera brought up this possibility? Or someone else in this labyrinthine thread).
    3. I have an additional difficulty with the abstract nature of the Ni description. For example, when I see an instance of some overall theme, I often have concrete examples to back me up. Is this not anecdotal like Si? I suppose it's plausible that this anecdotal cherry-picking is antecedent to Ni's genuine modeling process while it's core to Si, or something

    #13371
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    @bera, There is a lot to respond to here, so let’s see if I can avoid rambling and be succinct.
    If the difference between us is that you see images and they contain themes and archetypical images and you are connecting that to your “biotic” Fi, doesn’t that mean that the archetypes and symbolism you see is due to the influence of that “Fi” imagery or “biotic” imagery, as opposed to solely Ni? While my “principles” of change is due to the “mechanistic” and “abiotic” Ti? Yet, that means that Ni has still not been defined undiluted from other functions.
    What I mean is that I don’t construct this symbolic or archetypal imagery at all when I reflect, yet I can understand your visual metaphor of the spinning wheel (of time, I assume), where the movement of the wheel is the “process” I see; and the “theme” is the focal point  of the wheel’s movement and where your “theme” can be considered my “principal,” the same focal point of the wheel’s movement. Nevertheless, I don’t construct any of these visual metaphors or aphorisms though (do you see the analogy of the wheel as an archetype/theme itself?). I’m amazed at how much our Ni differs in that respect since I definitely don’t see horrific things like spiders (or death as I once hear you mention had appeared in a dream).
    To be clear, everything is visual when I say I construct/reconstruct in the original post. Yet, the "visuals" are different. Visual from reading a book (imagination) and these "constructed" imagery/simulation of universe/ events are very different (how different they are? I would have to get back to you once I study their discrepancy).
    There are visuals that I define as mental construction/simulations (and they evolve over time, it’s not a single image or symbol) and they usually refer to a constructed world/universe and its “events.” By visuals, I also mean that while these visuals are playing in my mind, my eyes are disengaged from the outside world. My sight to “external reality” goes dark and I focus on the mental visual/imagery in my mind. I don’t get to choose most of the time when this happens, the force of the imagery and thought can compel me to drift off into this simulated/constructed world/universe. Yet, sometimes it does feel like I can control this impulse, by just starting to think about something (like A.I or the beginning of consciousness).
    Also, I feel no difference between external sight (reality) and the internal “sight” of the simulated world once I have drifted into this simulated world for some length of time, though I can tell once I come back to “reality.” And if I have been really deep, for a long time, in this simulation/construction without any interference, then the “real” world starts to look like a simulation itself (a gloss of vagueness and distance surrounds my sense perception, so much that I can start to doubt it).
    Now, at some points, I can get an actual, but rare, short “experiential” glimpse in this simulation in my mind (also visual, but more than just visual), as if I were really there and had a glimpse of someone’s experience (like a memory). I get a vague glimpse of carrying a stick with a pointed object, along with my partner, in the process of attacking an animal (for example). These moments feel so real when they happen, just like they feel real when I have an experiential "glimpse" of a future event, not just a simulated one.
    I hope this explains more of what I am talking about, and to answer @faerie question, no I don’t project imagery unto reality like a hologram, it’s all in the “stage” of my mind. The "zooming-in" from "universe" to "event" is the only way I can describe it, but most of these "movements" of my mind, between "universe" and "event" are seamless.

    #13376
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    Symbology/archetype:
    I wanted to add an addendum that if I wanted to symbolize my perception of the “principle” of change that I see, for example, I could. It would a way of “communicating” what I see/feel, while leaving it without any real understanding. Yet, I find this a very subjective, interpretive and creative action, not one that I am liable to automatically create in my mind. It is an action in which I am trying to actually communicate something, for people to look at and attempt to grasp. Perhaps this idea of symbolism is where it originates, in creative, communicative interpretation? (and perhaps it relates to Je development in NiTe and NiFe)?

    #13397
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I think aphoristic reasoning more generally belongs to Pi. I murmer them to myself all the time.
    @scientiam, I asked my husband to read your first post above to see if he relates, but it was too technical and abstract for him. He also embeds things in narrative (he's NiFi), and he said before he understands the Fx he needs concrete examples.  I am also shocked at how vivid your inner visuals are. This is why I claimed I think Se/Ni resurrects an episode (Je people do that too). It's like you guys see the whole scene.  All the details are embedded. I more have to narrow in on details, like my mental canvas isn't big enough.

    @bera
    , my husband is primarily a visual thinker. I think betas has an easier time with language because of the Fe/Ti gift of language.
    @fae, I think while NeSi users project certain landscapes, images,, and other psychical processes forward and back in time, SeNi follow a string of psychological implications. Perhaps some of this structured v. aphoristic Ni goes back to its relationship with the lead Fx.

    #13399
    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @scientiam, No I wasn't asking you if you do holographic projections.
    I was:
    1) Asking other Ni users if they relate to your description.
    2) Saying I think it's the parallel to Si's holographic projections.
    3) Saying they may both have to do with Pi's time component. Si retrieves data from the past in a near literal way whereas you zoom in on a specific point to see what Ni predicts. They both seem like the ability to move through the info not just laterally, like Pe, but through time as well (where things are related to each other in a before-after sense as well).

    #13402
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Hmm, could I propose that maybe the root similarity between the two Pi processes, where anecdotes and aphorisms converge, is in something we might call a "proverb"? I think Pi is proverbial, in that a proverb is a kind of mini senex wisdom, a sort of... encapsulated lesson. A proverb can be anything that teaches about continuity, relationship and consequence. From here we have proverbs that are anecdotal and specific to certain contextual anchors (i.e. "always check your tire pressure before going on a long trip"), and aphorisms which are context-independent, yet nonetheless visual, proverbs ("grey hair is a crown of glory").

    Spoiler

    A man walks into a forest with his four sons and they spend the day fishing at the lake, roasting their catch by the fire and eating them. When they finish, they hike back out of the forest and the father asks his four sons: "So what did you learn today?"
    Merlin: "That a fishing line can also be used as a guitar, but it only plays one note."
    Oliver: "That roasted fish tastes so much better when it's fresh, but fish guts smell really gross."
    Armin: "That if you don't hold on hard enough, the fish will pull you away."
    Alvin: "That fish drown in air like we drown in water."

    [collapse]
    #13406
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    @teatime, yes the imagery/visual landscape is a lot, though I feel watching movies and reading, and playing video games (and not going outside) has made the visuals more visceral in my mind. Maybe drugs, like weed, have also compounded it. Though I stay away from weed, because though it increases my visual capacity and connections, it decreases my motivation to do "what I'm supposed to" based on the perceptions.
    Hmm, I think get confused now about what is abstract what is concrete now. Everything seems abstract lol too much Ni.

    @faerie
    , Oops, I apologize for only giving a cursory glance at your post. I hope other Ni users respond, both Ni-doms and with Ni under J development. @marcus-aurelius said that he perceives the world inside his mind in a similar way, a small scale model. Though he didn't mention anything about time. I would like to know if he predicts things too, in a visual way inside the model.

    #13408
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    Pe perceives change, while Pi perceives sameness

    #13409
    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @faerie, Oops, I apologize for only giving a cursory glance at your post. I hope other Ni users respond, both Ni-doms and with Ni under J development. @marcus-aurelius said that he perceives the world inside his mind in a similar way, a small scale model. Though he didn’t mention anything about time. I would like to know if he predicts things too, in a visual way inside the model.

    Ha ha, no problem, @scientiam. I actually understood your description the first time. I saw in my mind what you meant, and was SUPER intrigued! It's not something I do. Just before I saw your post, I had been similarly geeking out over the descriptions of Si-heavy users of their holographic projections of data or of 'highly detailed/life-like scenes' from the past and reading them like a 3D movie! All this seems Sci/Fi-esque to me. My mind doesn't do such things.
    I have had a sense of the kind of prediction you describe be4, sometime in Jan; but it struck me as very woo/mystical/magical when it happened; not at all an "every-day" thing, which is why your post jumped out to me. Additionally, the occasions in which I've retrieved past detailed scenes ala the Si holographs are also few and far between: the ones I can remember happened during a time of unusual sinking into a certain subject, long ago.
    Here's the thing: I think we all have a 3-D, life-like model of reality, but we move through it unawares, like fish in water. Perhaps Ni (Pi?) gives you the ability to view the model itself as such? Kinda like hovering above/outside it, hence the ability to move around or zoom in at specific points in time in the model?
    Regarding my woo experience in Jan, this "visual prediction" was a part (not all) of what I meant when I described discovering an inner "wizard" on Dischord; one who was kind of planning my life and book without my input? I would see myself in vague scenes with a strong sense of movement--the feeling that I was "moving" towards that scene or that it was coming forward to me. I won't say the feeling was a sense of 'inevitability' bur rather of 'reality', like I was glimpsing what had already happened 'tomorrow' but no sense that it was the only way it could've happened. Those scenes all came true, and very soon after the scenes popped into my mind.
    Like I said, I experienced them as very woo/miraculous. Now, seeing them again from the perspective of descriptions such as yours, I wonder if it's just a very ordinary skill that simply looks woo to me because I'm Pe and Ji heavy, not Pi-heavy? Maybe Pe puts you smack inside the movie, where you are just experiencing it in real-time like normal life, and not seeing the movie itself, like we are fish in water, while Pi gives you this ability to see the movie/model itself?

    #13420
    Tea
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Fae I think that’s correct. I thought the small scale model thing may have been Si, but I guess not.

    #13422
    marcus aurelius
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    @scientiam I don't remember the last time I predicted anything very noteworthy, so I'm strained to give any concrete example of my predictive process... but for me it's not that visual. It's more like an epiphany, a sudden realization that something will happen and then it does. My process about these things usually takes a more logical or verbal form than a visual one per se, if that makes sense: a scale model built from propositions and conceptual gears. The visual components of my thinking usually do explanatory work, not predictive work.
    I appreciate @auburn's framing of this as two different approaches to proverb; I think it helps us avoid "Si users remember things, Ni users can't lol" territory that ignores general human psychology. I live by quite a few context-independent proverbs (ex: "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"), but I also live by many context-dependent ones too (ex: "brush your teeth after you wake up and before you go to sleep"). The context-dependent ones seem pretty basic to being alive as an adult human being, so I'm still confused why those are attributed more to Si than Ni. Is it that Si more naturally gravitates to the context-dependent and Ni the context-independent (before accounting for the influence from other functions and life circumstances)?
     

    #13427
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    @faerie, I think the Ne profile says something about "rare" flash visions, so I'm thinking that perhaps your "flash vision" is what I call my "perceptual" glimpse (Se/Pe?), where I see it as a real experience that is different from the "simulation, model, reconstruction" of the universe/world/event that I see in my mind (Pi). I feel the reality of the "perceptual glimpse" or "flash vision" and (as I said before) a mystical responsibility to have them happen in reality (maybe similar to your conception of your "inner wizard" who plans your life?. I think you are touching on something by saying we all have this model that belongs to Pi, but we all approach it differently (external/internal projection) and some are unaware of it and your function stack plays a big role (Pi under Ji vs Pi way under Pe).
    This 3D-holographic movie that Si users perceive does sound very Sci-Fi-esque: if I started seeing visual projection unto reality, I think I would go nuts lol. I actually "relate" more to some aspect of Si than of Ni in the behavioral profile, that is what I was questioning in this post because my Ni world does feel structured and dynamic, not like the archetypal, aphoristic, metaphorical/symbolic image/visuals that according to the behavioral profile is supposed to be in the terrain of my mind (I relate to the aspects of history, narrative and backstory context, and skepticism/caution).
    My experience contradicts @bera experience where her predictions of the future come from a missing image, like a puzzle, in her world tapestry based on thematic images. I read that and I'm confused, like I can't even conceive that process lol though it sounds pretty cool and mystical to me, looking at an image of a rotating wheel and coming up with a prediction of future time as some cyclical pattern.

    @faeruss
    , if what you say is true, then we have to allow then that my dynamic construction/model/simulation of the world/universe is my Pe looking into my Pi, and my Pi molding itself based on that Pe exploration, both perceiving the change and sameness in the model and both molding it in the process. Can Pe be internalized to explore a Pi model as if it were real and affect the Pi model by this process? It could also be that it's a Ti-Pi model, not just solely Pi. I can explore (Pe) my Pi model and mold it based on Ti structure?

    @marcus-aurelius
    , I see, your process is more logical, deductive prediction and the visuals give it "concreteness"? I think my process is more inductive, based on mental construction/visualization, manipulation, and pattern-seeking connections (and my brain imaging results that you can see here shows that I use these regions, look at regions F7, T6, Fz and 01 and their descriptions).It seems the main takeaway, so far, unless others chime-in, is that Ni under T development is structured/deductive/inductive patterned-based predictive, while Ni under F development is symbolical, metaphorical, "karmic" and scary (lol bera's horrific images)?
     

    #13428
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    Yes, @scientiam, luckily cognitive functions don't have the biases of some philosophers and Pe does not make a distinction between the "real" (read material/physical) world and that of the mind. Pe can navigate your inner map just as well as it can navigate the great oceans.

    #13429
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    @faeruss, I like this idea, I had a similar conception of Pe and Pi inspired by Heidegger's deconstruction of the subject-object distinction in the history of Western philosophy. Though I feel it lacks explanatory power since most people still work under the subject-object distinction paradigm. A "frame of reference" I think is needed here so that we are able to understand that Pe explores external objects, and Pi can be considered an external object from the point-of-view of an inner observer (mind's eyes). It's relativistic and so needs qualification by a frame of reference.

    #13435
    marcus aurelius
    Participant
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    @scientiam yeah I think that's a good way to summarize my feeble attempts at explaining my thought process, though it's not exactly always logical deduction in the formal sense. I get into induction territory by doing the same thing but with less secure / more experimental ideas

    #13446
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @scientiam

    I’m amazed at how much our Ni differs in that respect since I definitely don’t see horrific things like spiders (or death as I once hear you mention had appeared in a dream).

    I know this is a bit off-topic but I must clarify it, so no one gets the idea that my experience is Ni happily doing its job.
    This is happening to me frequently since less than 2 months. I have some theories about the possible reasons and I really don't think it is the healthy way Ni- together or without Fi- should be functioning. I developed Fi recently and I tried to actively "reach" for Ni. It is possible that my newly acquired Fi development is still a bit unstable, and this could cause a seelie -unseelie oscillation. And I say this because of the unseelie Fi - Morbidity and Macabre section. Maybe some Fi users depict these images because they see them. Probably being emotionally close to nature, we also have a feeling of its devouring, "evil" side.
    Another theory is that I have triggered Ni and it is trying to come out to the light, but maybe because it's my last function or for some other reason it is buried a bit deeper than it should be and these effects are simply consequences of a deeper buried function rising. Probably combined with the Fi seelie - unseelie oscillation.

    Now, at some points, I can get an actual, but rare, short “experiential” glimpse in this simulation in my mind (also visual, but more than just visual), as if I were really there and had a glimpse of someone’s experience (like a memory).

    Yes ! I suddenly see myself in the scene as a witness of what is happening or being directly involved in it. I think this might be why some people believe they have memories from their past lives. But what we actually see is the stuff of dreams. And nightmares. 🙂
    Because this is the stuff of dreams, I try to break these scenes down and understand why I saw what I saw. They have a meaning or at least I can find a meaning for them. And then I try to discover the general theme and sometimes I find some mythical / archetypal characters that could be included in it in a constructive way. Like Grandma Spider : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_Grandmother I was really glad I found her because she is this benevolent wise old spider lady. <3
    Or I look for a symbolic event or place that could be similar to what I am experiencing. For example this phase in which I keep seeing disturbing images popping up without any clear reason is a passage through the underworld, of course. 🙂
    The thing is - if you don't connect these inner scenes to metaphors/archetypes, it doesn't mean they are not there. Maybe they are there but you didn't look for them? This is just an idea, so you could try to analyze them more and see if I am right or not. I don't want to delve too much into woo-woo but for me usually there are synchronistic events happening in the outer world that help me understand my inner scenes or that inspire me to do something to advance in this inner journey (or whatever you want to call it).
    But I really don't think what I experience now is completely healthy Ni doing its job as it should. Also me making the best of it is not an indicator of Ni functioning in a balanced way, it's an indicator of Se opportunism. :))
    About the Wheel of Fortune - for me it is a symbol of recurrence. Which appears as one way to perceive time. As cyclical patterns. The seasons, the phases of the Moon, the succession of day and night, the movement of the hands of a clock, the rise and fall of empires followed by the rise of other empires. I think probability is connected to it - if you keep rolling dice, there is a recurrence pattern of certain numbers, which permits the estimation of probability. This is probably why Fortune was described as fickle, blind etc.
    Of course, events happen as a consequence of other events, but there are also certain general rules of succession not dependent on specific facts. And the Wheel of Fortune represents this pattern of cyclical succession and probability/chance. I think the whole Se & Ni way of thinking is converging in this direction - Ni keeps looking for general patterns (that at least in this case happen to be cyclical) and Se attempts to use any chance detected in the general scheme. You can't gamble without a certain capacity to estimate risks.
    I think Si-Ne users tend to focus more on consequences and on historical unfolding. One event leading to another. So, time as a stream, not as a wheel. I can see time as a stream too, of course, I think these are just general tendencies/preferences.

    #13451
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive
    Spoiler

    this is all fascinating to watch/read. this isn't really a discussion i can enter but i just wanted to make a brief note (which probably doesn't need saying, but i will anyhow.. ), that its conversations like this that i've been hoping for-- with regards to measuring how functions manifest differently in different hierarchies.
    when ct is "complete" (so-to-speak, and it's hard to see it now...) there will be subtle, but important, alternations to the profiles in each hierarchy position and development. there isn't just "one" Ni. there are at least eight phenomenological iterations of Ni, one for each type that has it. The Ni of the TiSe is different than that of the NiFe or SeFi. And the 8 behavioral profiles i've written were made by attempting to suck out (like a concentrated extract) the essence of Ni from all the types and paint it into a profile that might not represent any type perfectly, but which can function as an ever-refining middle ground through which all 8 Ni users can find commonality.
    it would be an error for any type to seek to lay claim to the entirety of the profile of any function. even assuming perfect articulation on the part of a theorist/practitioner, there would not be perfect harmony between a general (insert-function) profile and the type. such specificity is best left to the type-specific (and dev specific) profiles that are yet to come.
    but, to that end, discerning these subtle differences --such as what u guys are doing here-- is precisely what would get us to that outcome, and to the most accurate collection of profiles ever. but to that end, i think this mission is better served when keeping in mind that the goal is not to alter the Ni profile towards one's type, but to craft these separate expressions perfectly at a higher/more-specific level of resolution given the compounding of other type factors.
    carry on! ^^;

    [collapse]
    #13471
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    This is happening to me frequently since less than 2 months. I have some theories about the possible reasons and I really don’t think it is the healthy way Ni- together or without Fi- should be functioning..Another theory is that I have triggered Ni and it is trying to come out to the light, but maybe because it’s my last function or for some other reason it is buried a bit deeper than it should be and these effects are simply consequences of a deeper buried function rising.

    Wow @bera, what an interesting time it must be in your psyche. Do these images/themes scare you though? Or are they giving you insight? Your images sound like Jung's definition of Ni, of the person studying an evolving inner image:

    It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds, and finally fades.

    And he also talks of Fi imagery:

    Its aim is not to adjust itself to the object, but to subordinate, it is an unconscious effort to realize the underlying images. It is continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but which it has seen in a kind of vision...The primordial images are, of course, just as much ideas as feelings. Fundamental ideas, ideas like God, freedom, and immortality, are just as much feeling-values as they are significant ideas.
    Yes ! I suddenly see myself in the scene as a witness of what is happening or being directly involved in it. I think this might be why some people believe they have memories from their past lives. But what we actually see is the stuff of dreams. And nightmares.

    Are you saying that "what we actually see" is a dream/nightmare experience? That the experience is a memory of a past dream/nightmare that is brought up to consciousness in the moment?

    Because this is the stuff of dreams, I try to break these scenes down and understand why I saw what I saw. They have a meaning or at least I can find a meaning for them. And then I try to discover the general theme and sometimes I find some mythical / archetypal characters that could be included in it in a constructive way. Like Grandma Spider : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_Grandmother I was really glad I found her because she is this benevolent wise old spider lady. <3
    Or I look for a symbolic event or place that could be similar to what I am experiencing. For example this phase in which I keep seeing disturbing images popping up without any clear reason is a passage through the underworld, of course

    I think I mentioned that I could do this too wherein an act of creative interpretation, you can symbolize meaning from what you see. However, I don't know many of the archetypes, I haven't studied the archetypes, so it seems like this is just an act of creative interpretation from an image/vision (not to devalue your experience, but I really want to know why these images don't show up in me and why I don't feel the compulsion to see the "archetypical" meaning). It seems that if I took the paradigm of archetypical images and their meanings, and studied them, my mind would be able to "connect the pieces" in an act of intuitive imagination and they would show up in my dreams and influence my unconscious, and then I would be able to see them? But then isn't that because the images already exist, and they have influenced my mind, and I am merely using their interpretive framework?

    The thing is – if you don’t connect these inner scenes to metaphors/archetypes, it doesn’t mean they are not there. Maybe they are there but you didn’t look for them? This is just an idea, so you could try to analyze them more and see if I am right or not.

    You are right about this, just because I don't see them, doesn't mean they are not there. My dreams are most of the time consistent with things that exist in material reality, so perhaps you can help me with the archetypal significance of this dream I had today that I remembered when I woke up. I was in a movie theater, and it seems the movie wasn't playing yet, I had gotten there early. Therefore, the theater had the lights on, and people are slowly coming in and finding their seats, but it's pretty bare. There are maybe like 10-15 people there. I'm sitting in the back-upper row. There are three girls in front of me, like two rows ahead. I look around and try to pay no attention, though it seems like they keep looking at me. I already feel a kind of dread, since I feel like I'm going to have to interact with them, and sure enough, the three of them come by to me, and one of them wants to give me a kiss. I refuse, because I think of my wife, and feel embarrassed since I feel like I ruined their nice time together; you know they were expecting to go out and have fun, and they saw me alone. They walk away disgusted at me back to their seats, and the dream ends.
    Another dream from the same night, one that is weirder, I guess, is where I'm running in the rain in an upper-class neighborhood in Los Angeles. I feel like I look pretty good (in my rain jacket) and feel good (I like running/walking while rain is pouring down). At some point I enter a house from the back, maybe I think it's my house ( I don't know why I went there). The people who live in the house are white, and I am Mexican, and I feel like they think I'm there to rob them or something because they are racist, so I just curse at them for being so racist and run away, but I only see a white lady. As I am running away, I feel like they are trying to catch me in the house, so I have to duck and be sly to get out of there. I manage to get out of the house, but I slip in their backyard face first. I feel a dog licking me and I look up, and I like the dog, since it's so cute. It's sunny now, and it's not raining. There is a white grandma that seems to be the owner of the dog (and maybe lives in the house I just escaped from), and she also has perched on her arm a black bird. I feel like I have to choose between the dog and the bird. The bird intrigues me, and it looks at me, with its black eyes, but the grandma says that I would have to pay a million dollars per year more than the dog in order to have it. I choose the bird, and the bird also licks me when I take it, and I can feel its beak. The dream ends.
    So perhaps there are archetypal things that I'm just not seeing,  I know I can make these two dreams have significance If I tried to derive their meaning, Even just typing it, it seemed perhaps that there are latent images here I could analyze.
    My "intuitive" theoretical idea of time, to contrast to yours, is one that I constructed as a possibility (a what if? imagination, not saying that I believe it lol I just like thinking about it) is that the experience of time that we have is a product only of our minds to understand reality, it is a reaction to a universe/universes with infinite probabilistic finitude. Time is neither cyclical nor linear, it is a set of all possible events/configurations converging into a linear experience of time in our consciousness. That is, all possible configurations of the universe "already" exist out of our experience of time, but our minds cannot comprehend such configurations so that the only way we can experience it in our dimensional constraints is by linearity and measurement and as a "stream" of each "present". Yet a "higher" consciousness would be able to see the finite "infinitude" of all it's configurations.
     

    #13515
    Faex
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    I wonder if it would be correct to say that Si and Ni are two ways of tracking events: One (Si) follows a literal chain of causation ala 'This specific event A directly caused/created that specific event B which caused C' while another follows patterns of occurrences over time (the cycles/themes y'all talking about), i.e  'Type of event A always happens after Type of event B which always happens after C'. One sees reality as unfolding as a causal chain and another sees it as unfolding as a looping pattern.
    So Pe would see the same thing but from the other end: The results of the causal chain or the manifestations of the archetypal loop in real time. Se might say, 'Specific events 1,2, and 3 are happening in this context X: What repeating loop are they manifesting?' Whereas Ne might say, 'Type of thing/event X is happening here and there and waaay over there too (i.e. in separate contexts 1, 2, and 3)! What causal chain is producing this pattern?'
    Whereas Si/Ni would track the chain/loop themselves, seeking to uncover their results/manifestations in a singular time frame, present or future.
    So we might go even further and say, 'S' isn't about 'sensoriness' even though strong S types tend to have a rich relationship with 'sensoriness': it would only be a by-product of what S really is vis-a-vis N, which is: Reality. S looks directly at real events, with the understanding that they are either manifesting a hidden pattern (Se/Ni) or causing a manifest pattern (Si/Ne). On the other hand, N does not look at real events but their types/abstractions, with the understanding that they produce real events (Ni/Se) or are themselves produced by real events (Ne/Si). The two pairs of Pi/Pe would  be mirror opposites.

    #13532
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Type:
    • Development:
    • Attitude:

    I wonder if it would be correct to say that Si and Ni are two ways of tracking events.


    @faerie
    , I'm trying to synthesize all that we have been talking about. Yes, Si and Ni "track" events, but "tracking" is also in the domain of Ne and Se.
    First, it has been concluded that perhaps everyone has a little model of the world in their mind that refers to (Pi). This model is constructed out of our experience with external reality, as we explore, develop, learn (Pe).
    Both perception processes, therefore, track events, but in different ways. @faeruss said, insightfully, Pe perceives change and Pi perceives sameness. So in this way, since they are perception pairs, Se and Ne perceive change by how Ni and Si perceive sameness. And Ni and Si perceive sameness by how Se and Ne perceive change. They are necessary for each other, but perhaps we can tease them apart.
    I think you are right when you say that Si and Ne, in totality, track events (A→B→C-→D) by seeing the links of causality as they have unfolded in the past and can see the next possible causal links in the chain that can unfold. Preference of one perception function over the other, Si over Ne or Ne over Si, prefers to see either the strong links that have gotten us to this present day (Si), the "sameness" of links that will continue to preserve that link, or it will either see many possible causal links from the present link that can branch forth into other causal links (Ne). Si perceives, therefore, those strong causal links that "persist" in time, rather than the causal links Ne perceives which are many but short-lived because they "change" often and branch off to other links.
    In the same way, Ni and Se, in totality, track events by related layered events (A+C+F+J=O) and can see the pattern which emerges, whether thematic or recurrent. Preference of one perception function over the other, Ni over Se or Se over Ni, leads to preference to see the same, large patterns (Ni) that have governed similar events over time or preference for the local, evanescent pattern of "change" in the unfolding of each moment of the "present" (Se). Therefore, Ni perceives the patterns that "persist" in time by their eternal recurrence, while Se sees the short-lived, moment to moment, ebb and flow "changing" patterns of present experience.

    So we might go even further and say, ‘S’ isn’t about ‘sensoriness’ even though strong S types tend to have a rich relationship with ‘sensoriness’: it would only be a by-product of what S really is vis-a-vis N, which is: Reality. S looks directly at real events, with the understanding that they are either manifesting a hidden pattern (Se/Ni) or causing a manifest pattern (Si/Ne). On the other hand, N does not look at real events but their types/abstractions, with the understanding that they produce real events (Ni/Se) or are themselves produced by real events (Ne/Si)

    Yes, this is why each perception axis can't be extricated from their link. One perceives change, in reality, concretely, while perceiving sameness abstractly, intuitively. And the other perceives sameness in reality, concretely, while perceiving change intuitively, abstractly. Why is one primarily about causal links and the other primarily about patterns? I don't know.
     
     
     
     

    #13534
    Faeruss
    Participant
    • Type: FeNi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Directive

    Beautifully put, @scientiam. As for the last question, I would put my money on this difference coming from Pi being abstract vs concrete. Si-Ne has concrete and discrete chunks to operate on, so the stories it weaves end up looking like those of consequence and causality. Inversely, Ni-Se has abstract and continuous chunks to operate on, so the stories here end up looking like fractal aphorisms of increasing universality.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 27 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2021 Juan E. Sandoval - Use Policy
searchhomecommentsenvelope