How do you experience Ne dominance?

[IZthe411]

^^Personally, my experiences in school and college opened my eyes to the world. Growing up in North Philly, I felt my reality set a standard for the rest of the world. High school and college changed all that. And then I went to work for a firm that encouraged us to think out the box, challenge the status quo, and had great experiences with some very smart, experienced people. So personally, using Ne is facilitated by my Si having multiple experiences towards any one particular issue to draw from.

Nowadays, it's the larger, unchartered waters where I'm reluctant to use Ne. Si doesn't have anything to supply it, making me less comfortable working with it. In those situations I have to remind myself how Ne type approaches has worked for me in the past (actually using a Si approach), so I should be okay working with the possibilities it brings, even if I'm not familiar with them all.

 

[skylights]

Nowadays, it's the larger, unchartered waters where I'm reluctant to use Ne. Si doesn't have anything to supply it, making me less comfortable working with it. In those situations I have to remind myself how Ne type approaches has worked for me in the past (actually using a Si approach), so I should be okay working with the possibilities it brings, even if I'm not familiar with them all.

we are opposites! when i am in large uncharted waters i fly by the seat of my pants totally on Ne... but it's when things are small-scale or familiar that i really engage Si the most...

 

[IZthe411]

we are opposites! when i am in large uncharted waters i fly by the seat of my pants totally on Ne... but it's when things are small-scale or familiar that i really engage Si the most...

I find it crazy how much different the functions are used in different orders!

 

[the state i am in]

i think there is a wonder and curiosity inherent to Ne that always drives us to new information. we are mystery seekers by nature. we want to overturn every stone, peek behind every waterfall, climb every tree. every single thing is so different and interesting and we want to experience them all. there is nothing needed to govern interest because everything is inherently interesting. it is only pared by what is most relevant - Fi and Te help me there; i imagine Ti and Fe help ENTPs.

the larger story is preexistant, so there is no need to build. my story already exists; i just have not fulfilled it yet. it is like the man looking down from the top of a skyscraper at a parade, compared to the man on the street. the skyscraper man can see the whole parade, while the man on the street can only see a small bit. i am on the street, but that does not mean the whole parade does not exist, nor does it mean that what will happen is completely random. so each new connection is just like revealing another piece of the puzzle, another float in the parade. i come to it with the assumption that there is a whole, and the motivation is to discover that whole and to rejoice in being a part of it. if i can discover everything, then i will understand everything, and i will become essentially omnipotent (terrifying thought, really, an omnipotent Ne dom). but more importantly, i will be able to become everything i am. that is the ultimate draw.

change does not need roots... it is the nature of change to be unrooted. change just is, static, a paradox. there is an "is" and change is that is. the pure sketch and the final product are one in the same. there is no real transposition because there are no real fixed states. we call something A# and differentiate it from A but really it is a long and sliding scale and the differences between A# and A are at some level completely insignificant, like reducing a geometric line into points, but actually points do not exist in 1-D space at all, even though a line is composed of points. all is paradox. the possibilities and the original are one in the same; there is no difference.

hmm. these questions are weird but to cross the gap is really difficult when Ni experience is so different.

where are you when you experience that interest? what does it mean to experience each new different possibility? like you see what it would be like to be that thing/that class of things/all the ways of understanding what thingness might be from that particular perspective and kind of historical trajectory and the kind of spatial awareness that you get from feeling out what ITS experience might be like or could be like? so you imagine experiences based on building up the context with the Ne flood of possible contexts that are relevant based on what you episodically have experienced before? how do you place yourself within a story and identify? how do you understand types of experience that are further and further aware from your default mode of experience?

maybe the whole thingness approach is wrong because it's always part of a wider scope of infinite possibility. so i get a bit how you tell yourself that story, but i'm struggling to truly share your assumption for a moment in a consubstantial way and really see your perceptual system in action. like all things are forms of information and they are endless and their bounds (Ji) given by the stories that can be constructed by recreating particular consequential moments are useful to help organize possibilities but ultimately can be told and unfold in an endless number of ways.

and it seems like the idea of the whole is different in a way for Ne-Fi vs Ne-Ti. tho we're probably talking about a developmental aspect that changes over time too much like onemoretime said, how Ti identifies more with falsity at first whereas Fi identifies more with truth. and the kind of relativism that grows as consciousness grows adjusts those accordingly to be a little more balanced between modes of thinking that are useful and the idea of the absolute.

It's much easier to think about it this way - Ne perceives something. It recognizes this something as a slice of a greater picture, or a piece of a greater puzzle. The brain can't handle this something without having a holistic understanding of it, however. So, Ne goes ahead and fills in the gaps with whatever the mind can come up with at the time. The introverted judging function serves as the internal check on the model that Ne creates, Ti judging whether that model is precise and internally consistent, and Fi judging whether the model rings true or rings hollow. As you note, this is the "context" that hems in any conclusions based on the model.

There is no choice involved. In the absence of contradictory evidence, the story that arises, seemingly from the ether, represents something that fundamentally exists within the universe. There's no "figuring out how to get there," because at that point, I've already made it. i.e. "I've figured it out! I know it works. (Why?) Because it has to work. (How do you know that?) Because there's no way it can't work."

Nothing becomes the larger whole. The larger whole is the universe, as it exists. I don't create connections, I hypothesize about them, test them, and recognize them.

No, because the whole is the universe, and its very existence is what anchors it to everything else.

The motivation is the mystery, seeing what comes next, solving the puzzle, and taking further steps toward "getting it." For me, I just like sharing my excitement and joy in this with other people.

Everything is connected because it is part of the same universe. Ti attempts to determine exactly what those rules of interconnection are.

Information is another piece of the puzzle, another bit of evidence that clarifies the mystery. Change is just something that things do. Change itself is essential. Without change, the distinction between existence and nonexistence becomes meaningless.

They affect our interaction with things. However, our interaction with things is just one subjective model. Ultimately, objective essence is unknowable because of things such as the observer effect.

You just know, much like you just know if a piece of music is good, without any outside criteria. They change simply because that's what things do.

More like it might be one thing, and if so, that would imply this; but, it might also be another thing, and if so, it would imply that; but, it very well could be another thing altogether, and that would imply these; but, it could be nothing whatsoever, and then it's back to the drawing board. All of this continues until new information rules out the various possibilities.

The idea of an original is perhaps one where there may be a fundamental distinction. There is no such thing as an original. Ultimately, it represents nothing more than an abstract relationship between essences the nature of which are far beyond our own comprehension. Like, the most mind-blowing thing to me is that I have no fucking clue what my own existence actually is. Because of this, models that provide a means of understanding all have equal significance, and equal insignificance, because they absolutely cannot come anywhere near accurately describing, explaining, and making predictions about existence itself.

There is no Se "the image is the essence." All information does is to provide clues as to what we actually are, and what that means, and nothing more in isolation.

"Unknown realms" is a bit of a mischaracterization. What I've come to realize is that at their core, all realms are equally unknown to me. Therefore, I ask myself what this new piece of information tells me about the universe that I didn't realize or understand before.

I don't "test connections." I basically ask how this new piece of information fits together with everything else I know, and whether the means I am using to fit it together follows from how other things in the universe fit together. There is no distinction between wider space and narrower parameter, because they both represent aspects of the universal whole.

I actually see words as pictures. I can understand writing without sounding out the words in my head (though I usually do that, but only to personalize the words). I actually derive a lot of meaning in sentences from the visual structure of the sentence, though I can get in some trouble with comprehension when I'm relying on Ne a little too much to fill in meaning rather than actually read the words.

Another interesting way of looking at it is that those patterns and connections are our crutch, so to speak. Without those connections, our brains can't even comprehend the most basic bits of sensory info. It may seem like a magic trick at times, but really, it could just as easily be seen as compensation.

It's funny, I used to think that I wanted to complete the map. However, it's just as you say - the desire was rooted in a yearning for integration with the universe, which I often felt very isolated from. Now, I've come to realize that I just have to accept that the universe is far too big and complex for me to know even a miniscule fraction of what there is to know. Furthermore, the obsession with completing the map prevented me from enjoying the experience of life and fully embracing it. It prevented me from knowing what it meant to love things.

okay, i've read this again a few times over.

what is a puzzle to you? 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? 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? 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?

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?

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.

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.





this thread is also a 7 (and strongly 7w6) lovefest. we still have 3w4 entps! 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? 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).

 

[1487610420]

TLDR

 

[Lady_X]

whoa holy fucking ni speak...it hurts my brain. it's enjoyable really but i feel like i'd have to read it and dissect it several times before getting it.

 

[Resonance]

How is Ni different, then?

I've been trying to get a handle on this all over the place; might as well do it here, too.

 

[1487610420]

How is Ni different, then?

I've been trying to get a handle on this all over the place; might as well do it here, too.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/34852-ne-ni-jungian-cognitive-function-interaction.html

 

[Lady_X]

How is Ni different, then?

I've been trying to get a handle on this all over the place; might as well do it here, too.

for me it is like walking down a really long path and with each step you gain understanding but as a ne user i have people jumping out from the corners shouting other things and it's distracting me from hearing the ni users thoughts down the long path...with ne or how i experience the difference is that when we speak the truth is in the center and we're on a marry go round gaining understanding with each spin...ha...that was the feeling understanding of it...i suck with words...i guess i could just say it's their linear approach..

 

[Resonance]

for me it is like walking down a really long path and with each step you gain understanding but as a ne user i have people jumping out from the corners shouting other things and it's distracting me from hearing the ni users thoughts down the long path...with ne or how i experience the difference is that when we speak the truth is in the center and we're on a marry go round gaining understanding with each spin...ha...that was the feeling understanding of it...i suck with words...i guess i could just say it's their linear approach..

lol, that makes a lot of sense actually. It helps partly because it's unfiltered. Almost everything I put on the internet is heavy on the Ti so it's not always easy to see; you don't seem to have that problem

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/34852-ne-ni-jungian-cognitive-function-interaction.html

cool, will check it out, thanks

...hmm...yup... sounds about right. Doesn't really cover the experience of it but it does make a pretty clear demarcation.

 

[onemoretime]

okay, i've read this again a few times over.

what is a puzzle to you?

Anything where X leads to Y, but we don't know exactly how that happens. I'm better at this on the visual plane, so I'm not a math whiz by any stretch, but it's much of that process. In much the same way, continuing on the math discussion, I never appreciated the subject until I realize that it had only partially to do with calculation, but mostly to do with describing relationships between things.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Richard Feynman put it best here:

[YOUTUBE="EYPapE-3FRw"]Scientific method[/YOUTUBE]

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.

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.

The history of science is chock full of such stories - things like phlogiston and the luminiferous aether.

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?

this thread is also a 7 (and strongly 7w6) lovefest. we still have 3w4 entps!

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.

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?

Instinctual longings are handled as puzzles to be solved.

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).

I think those are less about how things are, and more about how the lack thereof manifests.

 

[entropie]

Everybody who likes to experience Ne dominance can come on Sunday 3 pm to my place. You'll need no clothing, I'll whip you naked, just bring towels to dry the blood later. ( guys will be turned back at the front door )