[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Ni - What the hell is it?

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I don't think that is what Jung expressed in his writing about typology.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Why would SPs, who prefer Se, utilize Ni at all? They are diametrically opposed functions. Where do you get this?

You cannot avoid using your inferior until you realize how it controls your conscious, but after that point you don't really have that fear, or worry, you mold it to your psyche.

 

[Zarathustra]

I don't really care what Jung expressed in his writing about typology.

The ancient inventor of the wheel does not have an inherently better understanding of wheels than those who have studied them since.

 

[Poki]

The accurate one I've been making all along: that SPs tend not to understand the source of their Se's interpretations all that well; they just go with it (it being, whether they realize it or not [and, naturally, not usually being versed in Jungian psychology, they usually don't], what their subconscious Ni tells them it means), which is essentially the same thing you've said yourself.

Again that still comes across as Dominant Se. Holy crap we are gonna continue down this circle.This is like you argueing "THIS IS WHITE" and me saying no "THIS IS GREY"...well "essentially" grey has white in it.

 

[Poki]

Well, that, and its specific and proper application to your flawed assumption that I don't think Se and Ni can play nice together.

please see the bolded...

Yes, in the tertiary, your suppression of it isn't as high.

But it usually is still there, and you'll tend to naturally "use" Se more easily.

If you succumb to tertiary temptation/your dominant loop, then this will be less the case.

Even then, though, you'll often be one quick flip away from embracing Se and suppressing Ni.

ok...let me "rephrase" it...why does embracing Se mean that we have to supress Ni. To me when one has to supress another those 2 things dont play nice together, they operate in solitare from each other.


Most of the time for me my Ti balances between Se and Ni. Sometimes it chooses sides, sometimes it makes them work together, and sometimes it makes them face each other.

 

[wildcat]

There are many ways to see.
All subjective.

Ayn Rand thought reality is out there. It is in the shadows.
Si is group think. Under control. No fuse.

Point Counter Point.
Se and Ni = 50 per cent one thing. It is 50 per cent the other thing. Mutually exclusive.

Camera lense does not interpret.
You do.
When you take a picture is it upside down?
The negative is the positive?

The divider is the agent. The divided however is the subject.
Only the lense of the camera is the object.
It is blind.

 

[wildcat]

There are many ways to see.
All subjective.

Ayn Rand thought reality is out there. It is in the shadows.
Si is group think. Under control. No fuse.

Point Counter Point.
Se and Ni = 50 per cent one thing. It is 50 per cent the other thing. Mutually exclusive.

Camera lense does not interpret.
You do.
When you take a picture is it upside down?
The negative is the positive?

The divider is the agent. The divided however is the subject.
Only the lense of the camera is the object.
It is blind.

 

[Nicki]

Isn't it about little clues coming together to form a cohesive whole along with considering multiple viewpoints?

 

[Cellmold]

Have you ever tried to blend chicken guts with a mortar and pestle?

 

[Zarathustra]

Again that still comes across as Dominant Se. Holy crap we are gonna continue down this circle.This is like you argueing "THIS IS WHITE" and me saying no "THIS IS GREY"...well "essentially" grey has white in it.

Sorry, I almost responded this way to your earlier post, but decided not to:

Yes, I agree with this point. It's essentially implied by what I said in post #392. It is certainly more true of ESPs, as their "taking up of" Se and suppression of Ni is higher than ISPs, who "take up" Se and suppress Ni less, and will tend to reconcile the two earlier in life.

please see the bolded...

Even then, though, you'll often be one quick flip away from embracing Se and suppressing Ni.

ok...let me "rephrase" it...why does embracing Se mean that we have to supress Ni. To me when one has to supress another those 2 things dont play nice together, they operate in solitare from each other.

My point was: that's not the implication of my statement.

My statement implies that that is one relationship between Se and Ni; it does not imply that it's the exclusive one.

Each person has their particular manifestation for how these "functions" manifest, but, like most things, these unique manifestations often tend to share some qualities/characteristics, and end up being able to be grouped together, in some way.

One of the ways that "opposite" functions (in the Ni/Se sense) tend to manifest is in conflict with one another. In fact, this is sort of their "default state", from which we can grow and change and move away from this relationship between the two, which is the process of differentiation, integration, and, ultimately, individuation. But, often times, even if we've learned to become aware/conscious of how we suppress our tertiary and/or inferior, and have learned that suppressing these functions actually often creates a certain weakness within us, and have learned to stop suppressing, and instead take up, to some degree, these less-differentiated functions, we still will often have some degree (even if very light) of a contentious relationship with them, as our first two functions are still our dominant mode of being in the world (granted, this can change a bit if one falls into tertiary temptation/one's dominant loop). If you wanted, you could quantify how "contentious" (this isn't a perfect word, but it gets the job done -- there are other ways that our suppression of these functions manifest other than contentiousness, but contentiousness is one of the highly common ones) of a relationship one has with one's tertiary and one's inferior on a scale of 0-100 -- with 0 meaning absolutely no contention and only completely healthy/cooperative interaction, and 100 meaning absolutely contentious/at battle with one another, with extreme suppression and spite for that other mode of consciousness -- and this number would probably fluctuate over time, with healthier, more developed individuals being closer to 0 for both their tertiary and inferior (not to mention their shadow functions), and less healthy, less developed individuals being closer to 100.

Most of the time for me my Ti balances between Se and Ni. Sometimes it chooses sides, sometimes it makes them work together, and sometimes it makes them face each other.

Yeah, I got the same thing going on with my Te and Fi, but, if I'm completely honest with myself, compared to an EFP, I naturally fall back on the Te usage (it's essentially automatic) way more than they do, and they call back on their Fi usage way more than I do. Their Fi usage is simply more developed than mine. And my Te usage is simply more developed than theirs. I use my Fi as an ITJ who's developed it pretty well would. But EFPs are still so much better at wielding that tool than I am. Just as I tend to be better at wielding Te than almost any one of them (although, admittedly, some of them can be quite impressive with it, as some INTJs can be quite impressive with their Fi).

 

[RaptorWizard]

My Ni sees that you just trusted whatever connections subconscious Ni came up with to explain the otherwise meaningless sensory data.

I wonder what separates meaningless Se gathered data from what you would seem to deem meaningfull Te gathered facts.

If you ask me (though I'm not too well versed in Jungian Typology, just started reading Nardi a few weeks back), the 2 seem rather similar as in they look for external validification.

But then again, I could just be another stupid ISP who is trusting initial gut instincts without further inquiry into their validity, which is the difference right, that Te is more skeptical?

 

[Zarathustra]

I wonder what separates meaningless Se gathered data from what you would seem to deem meaningfull Te gathered facts.

If you ask me (though I'm not too well versed in Jungian Typology, just started reading Nardi a few weeks back), the 2 seem rather similar as in they look for external validification.

But then again, I could just be another stupid ISP who is trusting initial gut instincts without further inquiry into their validity, which is the difference right, that Te is more skeptical?

Te and Se are sorta like one another, in the way you've described. They look to the external world. The problem is, the same can be said of any extroverted function. I do think there's some similarity between Te and Se that is greater than that between Te and Ne, or Te and Fe (although, Te and Fe have their own kind of similarity that Se is lacking; if I had to compare the extroverted functions, I'd say Te is more similar to Se and Fe, and least similar to Ne). If you look in my blog, you'll see that, based on a tripartite view of objectivity and subjectivity in Jungian typology, Te and Se are the most "objective" functions, each for their respective type of function (i.e., judgment vs perception; or rational vs irrational). But therein lies the difference: Te is a judgment function and Se is a perception function. While there is similarity in some ways (particularly, their focus on the facticity of that which is, re: the external world), they are different in that way.

Also, it should be noted that, as an NTJ, I will often use TeSe cognition, and thus might conflate the two a bit too much.

 

[Poki]

Sorry, I almost responded this way to your earlier post, but decided not to:

Yes, I agree with this point. It's essentially implied by what I said in post #392. It is certainly more true of ESPs, as their "taking up of" Se and suppression of Ni is higher than ISPs, who "take up" Se and suppress Ni less, and will tend to reconcile the two earlier in life.

So answer me this...why would I dumb down my thought back to white when I see grey...and why would I want to allow inaccurate generalities to become whats accepted.

My point was, that's not the implication of my statement.

My statement implies that that is one relationship between Se and Ni; it does not imply it's the exclusive one.

That was the implication from your statement in regard to SPs. How you view SPs is what I continue to argue. When you group things together in the manner that has been done you cannot have "definitive" rules, everything has to be based on a sliding scale. For example, you can group together ESTP/ISTP/INFJ/ENFJ and we are alot alike, YET the scales of how things work will continue to slide as you move from one type to another. ESTP is CLOSER to ENFJ in regard to reverting to there external world, ISTP is closer to INFJ in regard to reverting to our internal world. What that means is that when you create function usage generalities in regard to SP you are gonna be wrong most of the time. The closest you can come is that we have the same functions and what each function is individually. To go any further requires seperation of each group into sub groups. At that point you have Dom/Aux/Tert defined and only then can you start to group together by how each function reacts in regard to one another.

Yeah, I got the same thing going my Te and Fi, but, if I'm completely honest with myself, compared to an EFP, I naturally fall back on the Te usage (it's almost automatic -- just so default) way more than they do, and they call back on their Fi usage way more than I do. Their Fi usage is simply more-developed than mine. And my Te usage is simply more developed than theirs. I use my Fi as an ITJ who's developed it pretty well would. But EFPs are still so much better at wielding that tool than I am. Just as I tend to be better at wielding Te than almost any one of them (although, admittedly, some of them can be quite impressive with it, as some INTJs can be quite impressive with their Fi).

Honestly I see EFPs reverting to Te way more then ITJs. A healthy ITJ will fall back on Te more then an unhealthy version. But common nature is to fall back on our tertiary as its the most comfortable. Healthy in this regard is in reference to growing, instead of being stagnant. Look how much EFPs will raise up Te, move towards it and embrace it. We think that our auxilary is some god function because it protects our Auxilary, but just like an over protective mother, all it does is hold back our auxilary. None of this really matches your explanation of SPs very good and what I "attempted" to do was to show how your vision of SP was short sighted and incomplete, its like you are taking the most extroverted part and running with it as if it were all encompasing of SPs. If you prefer the innacuracy of your vision thats your call, I dont. Its like putting someone in a box they dont really fit in and then explaining that box as if was part of everyone in it. And you judge me based on "my" assumptions...LMAO The funny part is that you agree that its not accurate, yet you continue to argue as if it is. I understand GREY is not WHITE...but grey IS white.

 

[Zarathustra]

So answer me this...why would I dumb down my thought back to white when I see grey...and why would I want to allow inaccurate generalities to become whats accepted.

I'm not saying you want to.

I'm saying you don't recognize when what you think is grey is actually white.

I'm also not saying this is always the case, or must necessarily be the case -- it is the case in this case, tho.

That was the implication from your statement in regard to SPs.

No, actually, it was not.

I guess this is a clear-cut example of how you think you're seeing grey, but are actually seeing white.

You think you understand what was being said, but clearly you do not.

I would be weary of touting that amazing Ni of yours.

How you view SPs is what I continue to argue. When you group things together in the manner that has been done you cannot have "definitive" rules, everything has to be based on a sliding scale.

That's fine.

I haven't talked in definitive rules.

In fact, I more-or-less never do, and I constantly talk about sliding scales.

So, once again, as opposed to falsely thinking you understand what's going on, step back and question for a second.

Cuz, as of this conversation, and especially this most recent post, you're a walking, talking exemplar of exactly what I'm talking about.

(and jeez... here I was thinking based on your last post that we might, for once, actually be getting somewhere...)

For example, you can group together ESTP/ISTP/INFJ/ENFJ and we are alot alike, YET the scales of how things work will continue to slide as you move from one type to another. ESTP is CLOSER to ENFJ in regard to reverting to there external world, ISTP is closer to INFJ in regard to reverting to our internal world. What that means is that when you create function usage generalities in regard to SP you are gonna be wrong most of the time. The closest you can come is that we have the same functions and what each function is individually. To go any further requires seperation of each group into sub groups. At that point you have Dom/Aux/Tert defined and only then can you start to group together by how each function reacts in regard to one another.

I agree with all of this.

None of this contradicts anything that I've said, nor looks at things differently than I do.

Once again, stop believing that that immediate perception (i.e., Se) is realer than it is -- it has little to do with me.

Honestly I see EFPs reverting to Te way more then ITJs. A healthy ITJ will fall back on Te more then an unhealthy version. But common nature is to fall back on our tertiary as its the most comfortable. Healthy in this regard is in reference to growing, instead of being stagnant. Look how much EFPs will raise up Te, move towards it and embrace it.

I don't know that I agree with this. I understand your interpretation, and I absolutely believe this is one of the ways ITJ and EFP cognition can work; I just don't think the claim that, of the following forms of cognition...

I. Dom+Aux
II. Dom+Tert
III. Aux+Inf
IV. Tert+Inf

...that we tend to use II more than I, is necessarily true at all. EFPs use PeFi (mode I) like crazy. As do ITJs with PiTe. You really don't find many EFPs with underdeveloped Fi, imo; nor do you find many ITJs with underdeveloped Te. Once again, I agree that both types do often start engaging in mode II cognition, but, unless they slip into tertiary temptation/the dominant loop (whether unhealthily [more common] or healthily [less common]) to some excessive degree, their dominant mode of cognition is still mode I.

We think that our auxilary is some god function because it protects our Auxilary, but just like an over protective mother, all it does is hold back our auxilary.

Too many "auxiliaries".

Not sure what you were actually trying to say.

None of this really matches your explanation of SPs very good and what I "attempted" to do was to show how your vision of SP was short sighted and incomplete, its like you are taking the most extroverted part and running with it as if it were all encompasing of SPs. If you prefer the innacuracy of your vision thats your call, I dont. Its like putting someone in a box they dont really fit in and then explaining that box as if was part of everyone in it.

Sorry, snowflake.

What exactly more do you want?

I already admitted that what I said applies more to ESPs.

At this point, you're just behaving as if what you read in one part of one post I wrote that had to do with SPs is my full, definitive account of the entirety of what I think about SPs, and strictly delimits how every single SP is, must be, and can only be; and, well, all I can say is: this is a seriously absurd distortion. I don't know if I should even be blaming this on unconscious Ni anymore. Whatever's causing it, tho, it's a hot mess, and a big ol' whoppin fallacy. Pro-tip: if I qualify something I previously said, ex post facto, the original thing I said probably is not my 100% complete and definitive account of that matter (and, frankly, nothing I write here probably ever is), and probably should not be interpreted as such. Calling out how what I originally said does not apply to ISPs as much as/the same as ESPs is completely understandable and justifiable; continuing to bitch about that same point, after I've already said, "oh, yeah, that's true", is not.

And you judge me based on "my" assumptions...LMAO The funny part is that you agree that its not accurate, yet you continue to argue as if it is. I understand GREY is not WHITE...but grey IS white.

Yeah, it looks like there's some Ti dumb mixed in there, too.

 

[Eric B]

Also, Eric, part of me just thinks you're Ti'ing the shit out of this stuff. You're looking for a logically complete system to explain God, and, the fact of the matter is, it doesn't exist. Your wife and counselor, on the other hand, don't demand the same level of logical coherence.

Part of what you're missing, here, is that you're trying to build a "system" out of worldviews that are essentially "archetypes." It's as if you're trying to disprove thermodynamics by following the implications of heat beyond the point at which matter becomes plasma, and plasma physics works rather differently than thermodynamics at more normal temperatures. An engineer would say that you're jumping the gun, and being too literal or "black and white", to insist that his car engine take plasma physics into account. That is to say, your logic may be entirely correct, but also entirely inapplicable to the case at hand.

Yeah, that's known as the problem of evil, or "theodicy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy). Everyone has a problem with it, and it's a central issue of the Christian religion particularly because it espouses a single, all-powerful God that is inherently good, but if there's evil in the world, then He can't be that powerful or He cannot be that good, can he? It's self-contradictory. But it is not ignored by the Bible, and is a central theme of one of the most controversial books of the Bible, the Book of Job.

That said, it's not an easy question of religion, and it's a bit unfair to treat laymen as expert theologians to be debated. I'm not going to bother trying to answer the issue myself, since I believe you brought it up as an example; I'm just trying to point out that you have a lot of company when you ask these questions. They are not easy questions, and how you end up answering them ends up saying a lot about you and what you believe (and doesn't say that much about God and why He lets evil things happen).

I think what both of you are picking up as this "system" I'm trying to "build" is me just spitting back at them the "systems" they "officially" hold, as expounded by evangelical leaders or "historic Christianity" in general.
But it's true, the everyday people I deal with face to face don't demand the level of logical coherence. But I do expect that when certain demands are placed on me by the system (like how we're supposed to react to things in life). The article in the link is really good, and it shows we all have doubts for our beliefs in our "shadow", and the harder you try to repress those doubts, then the more fervent you must become in putting down other beliefs. Most Christians can't admit this, because of the need to justify such harsh punishment for unbelievers (eternal hell) by saying "the truth" is so clear and absolute; so all doubt HAS to be suppressed. I guess my wife and counselor aren't like that, but then I tailor my argument for the more fervent apologists, and basically, I have to suppress my own doubts as well.

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] you with that terribly detailed, precise, logical, categorical, and well defined explanation have definitively proven to me once and for all what an INTP really is and how their systems of reasonings contrast greatly with that of Ni types like ISTP and INTJ meaning I as well as the poster above me are not the same type as you for sure!

Thanks!

Now how do we tell the difference between ISTP and INTJ which are both introverted thinking types that specialize in the use of Ni?

I take it you mean "introverted, [COMMA] thinking". INTJ is not "introverted Thinking [Ti].

They will seem similar, because of the Ni/Se axis, and share the same Interaction Style (IST/INJ; reserved, directive).
Ni for the ISTP will be less mature, though as the ever-"inflating" Puer might be very visible, but in a more light sense, I imagine. I'm not sure who I've know in person might be ISTP, to be able to compare them to the INTJ's (who are not awfully common either, and really stand out, like I do). Also, of course, the ISTP will have Se as the visible "parent", where it will be inferior and likely much less visible for the INTJ.
So the ISTP will be likely look like a mix of S/N, while the INTJ will likely be more solidly and deeply N.

 

[the state i am in]

I have had many Ni-ers trying to explain to me what Ni is. I sort of feel like it is a bit of a paradox in that to understand Ni you almost have to BE Ni. I keep trying to come at it with a relatable understanding that only touches a tiny fraction of what Ni is.

It's like I am a flat lander and my friend is a cube trying to explain to me how he may look like a square but in reality he is actually a cube. And I'm all, but you're a square!!

/feels inadequate.

gonna try to skip the talk about fractals, autopoiesis, multi-level computational networks, biosemiotics, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF5QGl6JoKg

this is the introduction to dr. who. haha (laugh with me, i feel very geeky). Pi is the map of the space-time fabric. Pe is the vessel that travels through it. looking at the map vs being in the maze. these are different because the space-time fabric can be experienced from the ground level or from above. this above perspective, topological in orientation, is a top-down way of thinking. this means that we are more hiearchically organized, hence why we are so arche-typal in our thinking. we are programmed to embody ideas of wholes. these wholes get coordinated into bigger wholes. this helps us see at different scopes of picture depth (this scaling process = fractalization, where the map of the map helps the multiverse self-referentially predict itself as universe; this is called "self-consciousness," and as an infj it's part of why i always fucking feel i'm watching myself on a jumbotron/ x itself, ad finitum, as it always bears repeating). Pe is different. seeing in different scopes means not from above, not from another "level," but from seeing from a distance that must have a beginning, a four-dimensional placeness. Pe is more in time, more phenomenological, as a result. time feels linear, whereas for Pi we step outside of time to think. this is called diachronic (linear) vs synchronic (circular). why this is circular for us is that the momentum, the metronome of time comes from within us, from our own system of enclosures, our own self-organization, the privileged shapes of our guess systems that have been potentiated from trying to mirror/meaningfully translate, rendering the world outside in a way that helps us respond to it inside to out. these shapes are wholes that we experience as wholes rather than from paths, saccades of experience that we trace out and explore at a finer degree of presence. so the timing is our own process that we do not monitor in terms of moving through it but in terms of closing the idea by either embedding it within another one or bounding it at a different order.

Ni is different than Si in that we invest way more in simulating the conditions of our own internal context machines, our own minds, so that we can compare through feedback loops, ourselves to idea of ourselves, our ideas of our ideas, endlessly in recursive fashion. these iterations allow for novel analogies to emerge that are no longer tied firmly in place to specific concrete details outside of us just a moment ago/in coherent timelines. the essence of the essence of the essence allows us to work better in higher order cognitive space, conceptual space/virtual space, but at the expense of our hot air balloons with their upward pressure not being tied to the ground.

finally, the wholes are given not from strictly an internal system ordering itself but from the circulations that pass through us, our internal contexts, as but mere gateways. the currencies are not ours to own/define entirely. we can tweak the meaning or send a message to a group to try to change how they relate to the currency. but they are just meanings that emerge as languages that organize how understanding, how cognition is shared and divided up and labor is specialized. we think of these as circularities, as circuits, rather than as linear stories because they are an emergent order that we cannot say when they began. they are just patterns that have presented themselves to us since the beginning of us, and we cannot say what or that there was a beginning of time, an original place. they are just the recursive stacking of how a bunch of conditions at different orders took shape, mutated, danced, made music, became an aspect of an intelligent system. they are like the orbits that shape other orbits, from particle physics to biology to social organization to everything. they have a timing to them, but they also have a cyclical nature, a pattern of oscillation that makes changes predictable and meaningful, that means that other perspectives can interpret the intent of what is meant. this interpretation of intent is another central aspect of the split between Pi and Pe. Pi imagines what the gesture means by understanding how it fits into systems, languages, representations (the social grammar that makes communication possible, the adhesion that helps us guess well and share a sense of intentionality, of mirror neurons helping us perform the gesture with them in part as it were our own (Je)). Pe imagines what the gesture means by imagining coming from that place, in that particular situation, with that particular history, and with that particular viewpoint, and with that particular decision based on the actual possibilities and alternative choices that the deciderer could envision.

last thing. so i started by trying to explain the orientation. then i tried to explain how that privileges different types of information. then i tried to explain how Ni is different than Si because of the analogical process and extra simulation resources that provide conceptual lift, the pelvic floor of society, and provide needed postural corrections for the shared cultural operating system (balancing the coordination of orders rather than the details in a single domain). i then, i tried to explain how meaning circulates, using analogies of language that show how we organize communication/interpretation so that patterns become more perceptible to us, so that we can grasp information at different orders and see the patterns that unify those into meaningful wholes. language is about this process of making wholes, because the wholes help us realize what is outside of that, and that is how representation, reference, works to organize identity, difference, and context/reconciliation. so j types see representations, and p types see differences that are changes resulting from staying with time rather than trying to step outside of it, the specific information of traveling down the path of experience. reference/representation is what you call tautological. it is circular. it is simply creating rough equivalencies, isomorphisms, equations that allow us to define something differently by using different orders of description. this helps us recognize the roles and the functions of something across a variety of levels of description. it helps us explain by bringing disparate contexts together. it is only bad if it replaces linear time, which is equally important as a perspective for rendering reality because otherwise we don't realize that the coherency of time, the process, the path, breaks down, is unpredictable, and is full of possibilities that we cannot see from the perspective of the map/whole. yet the predictions are necessary to bind together communities of interactive participants, so that they can share meaning despite the inherent uniquenesses of the path of experience.

 

[Geonat]

Hello!
Old thread but...
I associate Ni with something analogous to being able to fit pieces of a puzzle together only from feeling their shape and not having to look at the motif.
Its also like solving equations without having to know what the unknown x stands for.
It helps me immensely, because my Ti is quite weak but with Ni I can "cheat" my way through with the help of the Ni-crutch
Or so I believe. Please let me know if you recognize this as something else.
Pretty envious of them INTPs and ISTPs that don't have to struggle that much with Ti anyways

 

[Nicodemus]

Ni is like rain, no, like ashes on a field of green, the secret flow of water in a winter night to fingers tapping on polished wood, it is like breathing and like suffocating a young bird; to use it is to hang naked between two sentient suns, shedding three tears into the blaze. It is all, it is nothing; it is god itself.

 

[WALMART]

it is god itself.

explains the crazies

 

[Geonat]

Superunknown, god might be interpreted as something like an inner voice and not that crazy even for an atheist like myself: (words supposedly from Socrates, Apologia 31c-32a)
"Perhaps someone may think it strange that I wander around the city and do so many things giving advice to each one of you, but that I do not have the courage to appear publicly and give advice to the city. The reason for this is something that you have heard me say often, that I feel inside me something divine and supernatural, something that Melitus referred to derisively in his charges. And this, ehich started in my childhood, is a voice which, when its heard, urges me not to do something that I want to do, but it never urges me to do something."
I can relate this to Ni putting vetos to my Fe (and Se) - "knowing" what's appropriate and not in a given context.