An example would be something like "how do I get to this address with nothing but a map and the address itself? If I'm familiar with the area, how do I do it without a map?" Incidentally, I hate using GPS navigators (lol). It takes away from the satisfaction of navigating.and this is probably me just being really experientially-deprived and difficult to communicate with (tho i don't want to be), but what are examples? are they situations where information is lacking so you have to figure out how to discover new information?
That's very kind, but at the same time, I will note that Ne-Ji can get caught up very easily on details that are not important to the story. Or, a better way of putting it, details that Ne-Ji believes are important, but only to that ineffable means of piecing together that one explains to others only with difficulty.i think of Ne-Ji as a perfect storyteller because it can envision and test so many possibilities emanating out from a center. i'm still trying to integrate these parts that i'm not sure what they are yet. a puzzle has a problem. or it i s just waiting for completion?
A puzzle has a problem, but a problem is nothing more than a relationship that has not yet been recognized and described. Thus, the unshakeable confidence that there is a solution.
Let's analyze what a story is. According to Jung, a story is nothing more than a set of archetypes that follows a set of generally consistent patterns. Once a person has a feel for what a good story is, it's not difficult to construct another one - you just plug in different variables into different slots, and twist those variables around depending on what is appropriate within that framework. When they "fit together in new ways," it really means nothing more than taking something that's old and familiar, and putting it somewhere that's different, and seeing how it functions.there are incompletions that need to be completed? parts that can fit together in new ways? and these new ways are rewarding because they are part of the larger puzzle? but they're stored as stories. an experience is in itself a puzzle? there is always more completion to be done, to be had, to be hypothesized and most of all playfully and experimentally explored?
Think about the ENTP inventor archetype - inventors hardly ever create something new out of the blue. Instead, they take known quantities and strap them together in subtly different ways. For example, take the wheel - all it took was for the right person to see a potter's wheel tipped over on the side to realize that something was going on there. Another way of viewing it is that even cultures that didn't create the working wheel generally still had wheeled toys - all it took was for the right person to understand that this design could be scaled up.
It's not that I see how many possibilities that are untested at all times. It's more that I've been proven wrong enough in the past (Ne's usually associated with positive experiences, Si with negative ones) to understand that even when something seems like "the answer," that often, I'm overlooking something important.i also want to feel the degree to which nothing is known to you. a focus on falsity creates a usable scale at a level of significance that is good for you, but must be seen humorously when it purports to do more than that. because you just see how many possibilites are untested, unexplored, currently unmeasurable, etc, and it just seems hubristic and close-minded to assume that our current modes of thinking and modeling existence/universe are ridiculous as a result?
For example, I hated statistics. No matter what, I could not shake the gnawing observation that we were just making these relationships up, and that unless someone explained to me why these supposedly represented valid relationships, instead of just saying that they did, I would never buy the whole thing.
Richard Feynman put it best here:this is a weird feeling for me because i feel more respectful/not quite reverential but inspired and proud of knowledge and understanding as it has been constructed. i feel like it always needs updating, and that we need to integrate new forms of information with old forms of information, and that these contexts pull taut and come into focus over time, but always sag as our technological capacities for generating information grow and when context evaporates and erodes from the meaning of our cultural documentation.
It doesn't matter how nice the model is, if it doesn't meet the data, the data aren't wrong, and the model is. Both Einsteinian and quantum physics as we currently understand them are almost certainly wrong at a fundamental level. However, they're also incredibly useful because they do get a whole lot of things right, or, a better way of putting it is that the data often matches up with what those models predict. For example, take the "wave-particle" duality of electromagnetic waves - every descriptive word mentioned in that phrase is an analogy to something disconnected from its essential nature. I'm trying to discuss the behavior of something that's not quite matter and not quite energy by comparing it to an ocean wave and a speck of sand, while comparing that to sparks created by pieces of amber (Ancient Greek: elektron) scraping against one another, and the tendency of rocks to attract to one another. We're talking about using analogies upon analogies, and of course, it eventually breaks down. Doesn't mean it's not useful, though.
The history of science is chock full of such stories - things like phlogiston and the luminiferous aether.i mean, i'm interested too i guess to see stories in which we were just flat out wrong, and to see what the significance of those stories is for us both coming from our different perspectives. to me the unity is ultimately what matters, but that unity is an aspect of our own construction. but that that construction is a fundamental aspect of the universe as well, is as real as the material and matter and substance of anything else. it is the mind of nature, it is the mirror of nature, it is just the consciousness that exists in information, a semiotic kind of emergence that circulates in meaningfully ordered, subjectively experienced, systematically intelligent (higher and higher scales of organizatinoal learning emerge), etc.
What's interesting is that the unity's not so interesting, not because it's not there, but because it's so damn obvious. I don't think so much about the interconnectedness of things, because things just are interconnected, and to appreciate that, I'm better off not thinking about that interconnection, but simply feeling it. If anything, that unity is my spiritual side, as blatantly true to me as the existence of God is to others. Who am I to think about how intelligent something is when I couldn't tell you exactly what intelligence is in the first place?
3w4s still think in much the same way, though they gravitate toward the optimal more than they prefer difference for difference's sake. I'd say most ENTPs show 3ish traits - it's what's arrogant or cocky about us.this thread is also a 7 (and strongly 7w6) lovefest. we still have 3w4 entps!
Instinctual longings are handled as puzzles to be solved.i am still looking to see how to account for motivation in multiple ways. how do puzzles distribute for enp 7s into the domains of their interest, sx, so, sp?
I think those are less about how things are, and more about how the lack thereof manifests.how does the 7 motivational core also relate to the experience and trajectory of Ne? the safety and comfort of exploring is in saturating dopamine (problem/puzzle), seratonin (connection! empathy! acceptance!), and norepinpephrine (possibilities! ideas! new contexts! meaning!)? just fuels all cylinders, i guess, and is pretty much the most fun way to be and is in fact always chasing fun (which is only the kind of peak efficiency/optimal conditions of mood system liveliness--> and what i'm deeply jealous and admiring of).