User Tag List

First 15232425262735 Last

Results 241 to 250 of 376

Thread: Ne/Ni Conflicts

  1. #241
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Ni analogizes present situations to archetypal scenarios to come to a determination of what truly is, and what is to come, about that situation.
    whats archetypal scenario?
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  2. #242
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Where onemoretime says "archetypal scenario," I would say, "functional model." The funny thing is I hadn't realized how many functional models I have in my head. They're derived from various understandings of physics and math and computers and life in general, but unlike Si, they aren't stuck to those understandings. E.g., one can understand any computer language (within reason and disregarding joke languages intended to confuse or be humorous) based on the simple principle that a computer can perform only one instruction at a time. Yes there are threads and multiple processes and multiple cores and so on, but still, it boils down to one thing at a time, and if one should desire to spawn a thread within the same code/process, then there's all sorts of extra juggling needed to make sure that doesn't break anything (with race conditions, etc.) precisely because the computer only does one thing at a time. All of these computer languages need to do essentially the same kinds of things, no matter whether object-oriented or procedural, no matter whether it's SQL or Pascal or Perl. The same functional model(s) apply. They aren't tied to the language.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  3. #243
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    I think I'm beginning to understand Ni a little better, and certainly it explains some of my experiences with INTJ's,(metaphor warning) especially that carpet being pulled out from under your feet feeling, when they have a "context shift". I have to mull a bit, as I do when I just absorbed a lot of information.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #244
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    ^ the dark side.

    that poverty stricken land of black shadows where INTJs are encouraged to understand their conceiverings as mere perspective.

    This, mortals, is what you're attempting to not understand.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #245
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    To expound...


    Ni doesn't work unless the archetypal is conceived of as better than the "real" world, more substantial. "Perspective" from an Ni point of view comes from extroverted sensing. As such the "real" world is entertaining in its own right but lacks lustre. It is the mere "present", not the "real".
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  6. #246
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    That too is perhaps why "shifting context" is unpalatable as a description of Ni operation. From the Ni "perspective" there is only ever one context, that of Ni itself.

    Likewise perhaps this is why mere metaphor is insufficient for describing reality. From an Ni "perspective" one isn't generally drawing some parallel between different real things. One is instead describing one real thing, an archetype.

    You crazy kids and your "real" worlds.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #247
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    You talking to yourself, in here, Kalach? ... a metaphor isn't about describing reality ... it's a way to attempt to put into words something far more evanescent, ephemeral than that. The very word metaphor implies it's not literal; it's something just out of one's grasp to put words to. Therefore how can you say a metaphor is insufficient ... isn't that a given?
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  8. #248
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Does no one read type descriptions anymore?

    To grasp the hidden, other worldly content objectively present in the thing or situation in front of you, use a metaphor. To describe a reality you perceive as more substantial than mere present circumstances, use something better.

    In the second task one is not comparing. One is directly describing. It is not to be considered metaphorical because the objective world is no more than a contingent part of the description.


    What do you want from subjectivity, that it be objective?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #249
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    To expound...


    Ni doesn't work unless the archetypal is conceived of as better than the "real" world, more substantial. "Perspective" from an Ni point of view comes from extroverted sensing. As such the "real" world is entertaining in its own right but lacks lustre. It is the mere "present", not the "real".
    Are you looking for this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Plato
    Plato's argument for premise 1: The world that we perceive with the senses often deceives us. This would not be so if the world and objects that we perceive with the senses were the real objects.

    It seems that all the objects we perceive with the senses are simply images or experiences in our mind. They are only subjective points of views on the real objects. For example, the world appears radically differently to a color blind person than it does to us. The objects that we perceive as colored, then, must not be the real objects, but just our experience of these objects that is determined by my particular subjective point of view and perceptual apparatus.

    Once one sees that the world that we perceive through the senses is not the real world but just an image of it, it becomes difficult to determine at what level of description we get in touch with the real objects that make up the world.

    In general, we assume that the more objective the concept or description, the more real the object it describes is. For example, when we see a person far away, we automatically follow our objective concept of humans as being about 6 feet tall and see the person as normal sized, even though the subjective image we have is of a very tiny person. In general, we form a more objective concept by combining different points of view into a more objective description that takes into account what all the other views had in common. This process is called dialectic: the back and forth discourse between different points of view that leads to their combination or synthesis into a more objective conception that takes into account both points of view.

    Plato's argument for the second premise: What then are the real objects? They cannot be the subjective images we perceive. These often deceive us.

    What about the everyday material objects, like chairs, tables, rocks, and trees, that we think our subjective perceptions of things refer to? The concepts we from of these are slightly more objective than subjective images. They combine and take into account all of the subjective images we can form of a single object, such as this particular asterisk * . Yet, there are reasons to avoid taking this as the real object as well:

    1. We only contact these objects through subjective images. We never perceive them directly.

    2. These objects contain a number of properties that are mixed together. Any description of the object that doesn't separate out these properties cannot explain what makes the object act the way it does. For example, If all you know about the asterisk above is that it is the particular thing it is, you will not know as much as if you know that it is black, star-shaped, made of ink on paper, etc.

    3. These objects are always changing, taking up different properties from moment to moment, and going in and out of existence.

    For these reasons, it seems that the only level at which things really exist must be the level of single properties separated from particular objects. These are the forms:

    1. Our concepts of these are more objective than our perceptions of material objects. For example, my concept of blackness takes into account all the points of view anyone can have on any black object, while my perception of the asterisk above only takes into account those views you can have of this object. The object that my concept refers to, the form, must be more real than a material object.

    2. The forms explain why an object is the way it is. It is the fact that an object has the properties that it does that makes it what it is, not that it is the particular thing it is.

    3. The forms never change.

    B. The argument from mathematics:

    The most certain knowledge we have, the knowledge of mathematics, could not have come from sense perception:

    1. In geometry we have access to perfect squares and circles, but no such objects exist in the material world.

    2. We can know truths such as 2+2=4 without having to check our experience of the material world.

    The objects that we think about in mathematics must be real, since they are most certain. Since they could not exist in the material world, there must be another realm in which they exist that is even more real, the realm of forms.
    I very much think this way myself... I've described as much with less precision, but I think Plato did an excellent job of describing this way of looking at the world.

  10. #250
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Where onemoretime says "archetypal scenario," I would say, "functional model." The funny thing is I hadn't realized how many functional models I have in my head. They're derived from various understandings of physics and math and computers and life in general, but unlike Si, they aren't stuck to those understandings. E.g., one can understand any computer language (within reason and disregarding joke languages intended to confuse or be humorous) based on the simple principle that a computer can perform only one instruction at a time. Yes there are threads and multiple processes and multiple cores and so on, but still, it boils down to one thing at a time, and if one should desire to spawn a thread within the same code/process, then there's all sorts of extra juggling needed to make sure that doesn't break anything (with race conditions, etc.) precisely because the computer only does one thing at a time. All of these computer languages need to do essentially the same kinds of things, no matter whether object-oriented or procedural, no matter whether it's SQL or Pascal or Perl. The same functional model(s) apply. They aren't tied to the language.
    Good way of putting it.

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