User Tag List

First 14222324252634 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 376

Thread: Ne/Ni Conflicts

  1. #231
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    While waiting on the VPN to get through to Youtube....

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    "Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting?" i think you should look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition
    So... that's a yes?

    Pffft, whatever. I'm assuming the cognitive function called sensing is different from the biological activity of using your senses. (If it isn't, Si is one weird, weird object.)
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  2. #232
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Meanwhile... Der Kollektif Unkoncious...

    iz not shared.

    We all have it, said Jung. But, said he further, not by virtue of it being one thing we are all plugged into, but by virtue of us all being remarkably similar in physical and (eventually therefore) mental construction. We all end up having very similar unconscious structures.

    Ergo, whether Ni is the collective unconscious, whether it is the closest approximation to the a priori, or whether it is the gateway to hell, in any given person it is still something they make for themselves. Ni is still rightly called a process. The people wielding it are still rightly called the originators of their own thought.

    Except that... aw crap, any amount of stuff could be preprogrammed. Genetics, evolution, built in responses... all of it can be archetyped and elevated to the status of a form, a freaking symbolic "truth".

    Nutz.




    Perhaps a cool thing about Ni is granted some seed of doubt about these "forms", whatever Ni is it's going to go looking for what's more real. More realer than real. And that's how you get the a priori, boppers.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  3. #233
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I'm assuming the cognitive function called sensing is different from the biological activity of using your senses. (If it isn't, Si is one weird, weird object.)
    ofc it is, when these jungian mental functions were invented, there wasnt real knownledge about physical cognitive functioning, since there werent any brain scanning techniques. Funny thing about the jungian functions and types is that same types seem to be using real cognitive functions in same ways. but its more like jungian functions are sets of real cognitive functions and some things added. naturally they dont cover the whole brain since there are like 30+(i dont remember but might be even 50+) areas in brain with different functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Meanwhile... Der Kollektif Unkoncious...

    iz not shared.

    We all have it, said Jung. But, said he further, not by virtue of it being one thing we are all plugged into, but by virtue of us all being remarkably similar in physical and (eventually therefore) mental construction. We all end up having very similar unconscious structures.

    Ergo, whether Ni is the collective unconscious, whether it is the closest approximation to the a priori, or whether it is the gateway to hell, in any given person it is still something they make for themselves. Ni is still rightly called a process. The people wielding it are still rightly called the originators of their own thought.

    Except that... aw crap, any amount of stuff could be preprogrammed. Genetics, evolution, built in responses... all of it can be archetyped and elevated to the status of a form, a freaking symbolic "truth".

    Nutz.




    Perhaps a cool thing about Ni is granted some seed of doubt about these "forms", whatever Ni is it's going to go looking for what's more real. More realer than real. And that's how you get the a priori, boppers.
    Ni is not the same as collective unconscious, it has nothing to do with it. collective unconscious is shared, its just a part of the unconscious mind, not the whole unconscious mind.

    shadow archetype is a good example of the collective unconscious. jung said that there is a personal shadow and an shadow archetype.

    personal shadow is about the persons own weaknesses and something that we can be conscious of if we are true to ourselves(but we most the times prefer not to, since it can be painful), greed for money, laziness etc. but in criminals(who are violent and greedy by nature) the shadow might be noble in the nature, the personal shadow is just your weak spots.

    now the personal shadow is the door to the archetype of the shadow, once you go too deep in your personal shadow, you are in the danger of slipping in the archetype of the shadow. one good example that some jungs close friend used in some interview was the nazism as a emergence of the archetype of the shadow in german people. first their personal shadow was brought in by greed of money because their shops were threatened if they would show some pro jew qualities, then they started slipping more into their personal shadow because of their greed for money and as the whole nation changed anti jew and the people were in their personal shadow, they were more ready to do even more horrifying things like killing the jews. now if they would have been true to themselves from the beginning and noticed that its wrong to discriminate jews for ones own greed for money, it would have stopped them from slipping in the archetypal shadow.

    while the personal shadow is the weak point of self, the shadow archetype is the shadow of archetype of god, in christianity it might be called satan. it has the same inhuman qualities to it as satan or some other pure form of evil.

    one of the most important things(imo) about jungs thoughts was that the unconscious mind talks with the conscious through symbolic language. that concept is the same for N(as it is perception through unconscious), dreams, archetypes, anything else thats coming from the unconscious(like repressed thoughts, memories etc) and the collective unconscious.

    "The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif - representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern ... They are indeed an instinctive trend"

    i wouldnt say that genetics or evolution can be archetyped, since its about psychology.

    archetypes would be something like tendency to have a god image, image of the ultimate evil, animus=male tendencies in woman, anima=female tendencies in man, persona=showing acceptable side of self to others and pleasing people, mother = generativity, fertility etc etc
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #234
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    I notice that some define Ni, or even sometimes iNtuition in general as dealing with the "unconscious", and I have just seen where Myers' Gifts Differing goes as far to link all introverted functions with "the unconscious".

    Basically, the way the concept of the unconscious works, is that you have the collective unconscious, which is where archetypes lie. Archetypes are models of people and situations. The collective unconscious is wherein lies many universal themes, such as our concepts of good and evil, love, etc. which shape archetypes. Abbot and Costello are a Senex and Puer, (serious grumpy man and a little boy figure) for instance.

    When we have experiences in which these archetypes come into play, they enter the personal unconscious, and then become complexes. So when we talk about the roles our third and sixth functions play, then we see a personal manifestation of the Puer and Senex.

    "The Shadow" was originally a single archetype, that was about the evil we project onto others, but ignore within ourselves. In eight-process theory, it has become divided into four archetypes (including the Senex).

    Nazi Germany, and other similar regimes, were obviously full of evil they ignored in themselves. They were the ones who wanted world-domination, but instead of owning this in themselves, they projected it onto the Jews. Hence, the stereotype of Jews being "greedy", and draining the money, and thus being to blame for their economic ills (we still have stuff like this here in the US, with many conservatives still blaming minorities on welfare for their high taxes as well as all the economic problems. The code word becomes "big govt spending"). And then somewhere in there came the Jewish "international" conspiracy theories.
    So once they have identified the "enemy"; with themselves as the "victims" (though they don't use the word), this then becomes the justification for the persecuted to become the persecutors--under the premise of honest self-defense. And there we have it.

    The shadow or evil within ignored and then projected out onto the other then erupts in a violent way.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  5. #235
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    While we're here and possibly thinking about these things...

    how do you tell the difference between metaphors and reality?

    I pose this question to Ne people. The whole "X is..." and then "blah blah blah metaphor" bugs me. It strikes me as opaque.


    I ask because those lengthy Youtube videos (ok, so I only made it through A Matter of The Heart--after an hour and a half of that, Face To Face was far too irritating to consider) make it plainly plain that (to be as mundane as possible about something so significant) Jung was INTP and to me it was sometimes very difficult to see the content of the claims made. Yeah, I got it about the collective unconscious. The description and presented implications were easy to follow. But...

    it strikes me that I may, if I'm not thinking about it, and maybe even if I am thinking about it, render extroverted intuiting invisible. I can follow the presentation. But something happens that makes it seem pointless. What's the something? I don't know. Probably I misrecognise the intuition as something else. In the case of Jung stuff, it becomes a rootless story. A story that's very informative. But rootless. Like a spectacularly good metaphor.


    At some point in the past I wrote:

    Ne and Ni are "shared N", right? Pfft, no. Especially not when they're in near-dominant positions. And it's because of the other end of your consciousness.

    An INTJ has at the other end of his consciousness, Se. It's "weak". By which everyone means something less than what "inferior" really means. An inferior function is barely conscious. It does not come under conscious control, yet without the ability to deploy that inferior function, you don't get to express your full self. Thus, anxiety. Fears and worries that center on not being able to fulfil all requirements. In the case of INTJ, that would be unreasonable distress associated with perhaps even small indications that physical demonstration in the moment will be challenged. Volume of voice, presence of foreign bodies, strangers at arms... people who stand in the way by taking up available physical resources, be it paper to write on, radio waves to command, meeting speaking time, or just plain intellectual garbage mounted and remounted. The interesting and alarming observation to make here is the anxiety is both baseless and real.

    It's baseless in that the person is reacting to a perception. To them, the exercise of that inferior function requires a great deal more stability and certainty of condition than is real. If the situation is regularised by outside force or just is stable and untrammeled, then the person will feel better, or perhaps we can just say, they'll more easily be able to contemplate taking that inferior step.

    But it's real in that if a person functions at all, they function through functions. To contemplate approaching the world or themselves via some method unrelated to their cognitive preferences is hard enough, well nigh impossible enough, from the perspective of a dominant function. Add in the thoroughgoing lack of control one has over the inferior, and you've got a situation were people will squeal.

    (Or have you? Any retards want to suggest that brains don't take positions on how information can come in and how judgments can be made? I'll just answer that now with "Yes", there are lots of such retards. That's the timebomb. More anon.)

    Consider now a person leading with Ne. Their inferior is Si.

    Si as an inferior for an Ne person is some kind of stamp of validity or authenticity or substance. Extroverted intuitions goes, as we so often hear, wild. Random tangents. Crazy, endless speculation. The ideas fly free and, well, wild. And it's all for shit if there isn't some final tag that signs it all as connected to reality. Inferior anxiety in an Ne dom runs somewhere along the line of: this may never come back to earth and be real. (I guess.)


    And that's why Ni and Ne don't share. The crazy, wild, tangential extrapolation of Ne is noise. It takes up space. In physical terms, can you get an Ne dom to shut up once they're on a jag? This feeds straight into INTJ inferior anxiety. Most especially if the intuitions are competing. But it's worse than that. The jag the Ne user is on is to the Ni user fundamentally weak. Whatever key concrete datum that started it, and whatever Si "deliverable" will end it, aren't valuable. They can't and won't resonate. They're mere factoids, useful for describing yesterday, not today. Today is automatically different and what you recorded of the past is formally irrelevant. So sez the INTJ.

    And consider too what Ni in future gazing prophecy mode sounds like. In physical terms, that is when the INTJ actually announces the prophecy, what gets heard? In terms of available record, it's just some bizarre speculation, not in the least bit clearly related to actual conditions. How can it possibly be considered anything more than just some other tangent, and a baseless one at that? Why won't the tiresome Ni user just explain what led them to that wild speculation, huh, huh, why? Then we could believe it, maybe.

    So, through no force of truth or falsity, both brands of N user will find the other brand ultimately untrustworthy no matter how immediately easily interacted with. They undermine each other just as soon as they begin work they are attached to.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  6. #236
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    In the case of Jung stuff, it becomes a rootless story. A story that's very informative. But rootless. Like a spectacularly good metaphor.
    this whole psychology stuff is just a metaphor about something that is impossible to fully grasp, so its pretty much impossible for it to have concrete roots.

    but then there are some biological measures(eeg, different brain scanning techniques, reaction time, hormonal levels etc) that you can use and get more rooted vision for human psychology. but they have their shortcomings also. with those, you can see the roots, but what you see about the plant, is next to nothing. you can see what brains areas activate, in what situation the person is nervous, how fast the person reacts to certain stimuli etc, but they wont tell you much about the thoughts of the person or where they originate. for that you will need speculation, metaphors and snap shots from all over the psyche.

    you said that you get what jung is saying when you listen to his metaphors and all that, but are you sure that you really really get it? one thing that i have noticed about my INTJ friend is that many times he thinks that he understands something, when in fact he just knows it. its like knowing that there is a bike in front of you, but not having a slightest idea what a bike is and what its used for. lets say that some Ne person is trying to explain you something and uses a bike as a metaphor, for you to understand the metaphor fully, you have to know what bike is and what the bike is used for and all the little nuances that make a bike what it is. if you just compare a bike with Te objectivity with what ever the Ne user used it as a metaphor for, you wont understand what the Ne user really meant, you just understand that its like a bike..

    have you thought about looking at this whole psychology thing from a cognitive scientists point of view?
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  7. #237
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Trains in the ocean, bro. Ships on a rail. O, untimely ....

    I imagine it's rootless because I don't have experiences to pin it to. It's like the PPT function porn said, in the absence of some suitable experience the overarching narrative is unlinked. And unlinked is a bad thing. But why?

    Jung himself had years and years of actual contact with his theory working out in practice, so *he* had a basis for knowing what he was talking about. But then it has to come out as metaphor?

    Understanding ends. It gets grasped. We move on. Ni ideology says that the concept can be put together and fully understood. Grasped. Effed.


    Sure, that might not be true, but it is.



    Ah, I know. Understanding is the basis for action. Thus, adequate understanding must exist. Se, like Ne, attends to the moment, and so actions, hopes, dreams have an all-or-nothing quality to them. If Se and Ni are joined processes, then Ni (or the Fi that judges it) must be complete. Ideological requirement. Possibly also the true character of the functions.



    Ne and Si will, one presumes, have a similar relationship. Ne in the moment positively requires some Si constancy, or the person will be uncertain, hesitant, fail.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  8. #238
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I imagine it's rootless because I don't have experiences to pin it to. It's like the PPT function porn said, in the absence of some suitable experience the overarching narrative is unlinked. And unlinked is a bad thing. But why?

    Jung himself had years and years of actual contact with his theory working out in practice, so *he* had a basis for knowing what he was talking about. But then it has to come out as metaphor?
    its rootless because its impossible to map out the whole human mind, so you can only explain it by making up words that work as a metaphor for something that you are trying to explain. the roots for this kind of things can only be seen through scientific data, but the science fails to explain the human mind, so you cant have any rooted information about pretty much anything related to psychology. the whole concept of personality as we know it is a metaphor for something that we dont understand fully. it seems that you are trying to view personality psychology as if it was some sort of science, well its not science and first step to understanding personality psychology is that you cant treat it as a science and you need to treat it as something that just is, and try to understand the metaphors that people use to describe it.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  9. #239
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    I sense a conflict in the force.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  10. #240
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    how do you tell the difference between metaphors and reality?
    There is no meaningful distinction. Our perception of reality is a metaphor for things that, in reality, did not happen contemporaneously. So, it is possible to simultaneously look at a blade of grass that existed as it was a fraction of a millisecond ago, a moon as it existed approximately a second ago, and a star as it existed millions of years ago. Our brains did not develop to determine what is real; they evolved to handle the threats of reality in a functional manner (even in predators... what is a greater threat than starvation?). That is why it works best to look at functions in terms of the needs they satisfy. Ultimately, our functions exist to assure ourselves that we are safe and secure, so we can comfortably pursue the other aspects of life.

    And as far as Ni and archetypes? Ni analogizes present situations to archetypal scenarios to come to a determination of what truly is, and what is to come, about that situation.

Similar Threads

  1. What's the difference between Ne/Ni doms and Ne/Ni auxiliaries?
    By Esoteric Wench in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-16-2012, 02:10 PM
  2. Pictorial Guide to the Ne/Ni Distinction (the pics in no particular order this time)
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 05:02 PM
  3. Se, Si, Ne, Ni ( HOBBIES)
    By liYA in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 09:15 AM
  4. Ne/Ni Jungian Cognitive Function Interaction
    By InvisibleJim in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 09-28-2010, 02:56 AM
  5. Explanation for SJs dislike of change [Si vs Ne/Ni/Se]
    By Snow Turtle in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 06:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO